2010-12-01
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 1384 petitioners praying that intrastate travel entitlements be included in the Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme senior card holders. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, most members would be aware of the motion I gave notice of yesterday; however, I will read it again.
Madam Speaker, I move - That -
The Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act empowers the Remuneration Tribunal to inquire into and determine the range of entitlements for members of the Assembly. As part of its functions, the tribunal annually determines additional salary for MLA office holders such as ministers, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, committee chair persons and government and opposition Whips. One who was omitted there is Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who I understand also gets an additional salary.
The tribunal’s 2010 Determination of Entitlements of Assembly Members was tabled in the Assembly on 19 October 2010 and is scheduled to take effect as from 1 January 2011, subject to any disallowance motion. In its determination, the tribunal determined the rate of additional salary for office holders be increased by 3.1% based on Consumer Price Index movements over the past year. As part of the Northern Territory Public Service General 2010-13 Enterprise Agreement, public sector employees have been offered an annual salary increase of 3% over the life of the agreement. This has been endorsed and the enterprise agreement is now awaiting approval under the Commonwealth’s Fair Work Act.
The government does not believe it is appropriate for members of this Assembly to accept any increase in additional salary of office that is more than the increase being offered to the Northern Territory Public Service employees. Accordingly, this motion proposes the disallowance of those parts of the 2010 Remuneration Tribunal determination that deal with additional salary of office and which sets additional salary of office rates for the coming year.
To take the place of the disallowed parts of the tribunal’s determination, the Chief Minister will today introduce an amendment to the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act. This bill will provide that future increases in additional salary of office for MLAs be set by legislation and, specifically, that future increases in additional salary of office for MLAs be linked directly to general Northern Territory Public Service wage movements.
The disallowance of the additional salary of office provisions in the 2010 determination would mean MLA office holders are not entitled to any office holder salary income between 1 January 2011 and the time that proposed legislation is put in place. To maintain the current arrangements over this period of time, the disallowance motion includes a motion that the existing 2010 rates of additional salary of office for MLAs remain in place beyond 1 January 2011, until such time as the new legislation is operational.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I believe this proposal to disallow the Remuneration Tribunal’s determination in respect of the increase for additional salary of office for MLAs and the intention to link future increases in MLA’s salary of office to Northern Territory public sector wage movements is an appropriate measure, not only in the current financial climate, but also going forward. I look forward to the support of all members in relation to this motion and the bill being introduced today. I commend the motion to honourable members.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I had a brief dinner time briefing with the Leader of Government Business on this issue yesterday. I understand the intent of the motion, and I accept the briefing was given in good faith and was in no way intended to be deceptive or tricky. I understand the intent of the motion and, as a consequence of that, the opposition will not be opposing the motion.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I welcome the support by the opposition. In many ways, our salaries are subject of public scrutiny and debate, particularly in the media. I place on the record in this House that I am glad the opposition has supported this bill.
As members of parliament, we often go beyond the call of duty. Despite what some media people might say, we are entitled to remuneration that is commensurate with what we do as parliamentarians. To that end, we always need to be looking at the remuneration that is involved in being a parliamentarian, because we want to attract the very best people into this parliament. I know all members of this parliament are not in this parliament for financial ends. Each of us has entered into this place with altruism, with the desire to do our best for the Northern Territory. By the same token, for future parliamentarians we always have to be looking at the level of entitlements, the level of salary, so we can attract the best, and it is not a disincentive for people to enter into parliamentary life. I believe we need to continue that discussion, particularly in the current climate.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the support of the opposition and I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs. It is for today, the entire sitting day, for the members for Arafura and Sanderson. It is signed by the government and opposition Whips. I table that document.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House wish the very best for the member for Arafura.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, member for Port Darwin.
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 Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act, which I shall refer to as the Remuneration Act, empowers the Remuneration Tribunal to inquire into and determine a range of entitlements for members of the Assembly.
An exception to this is basic salary for MLAs, which is set by statute and not by the tribunal. The Remuneration Act provides that any increase in MLA basic salary cannot exceed annual increases in general Northern Territory public sector wages. In addition, basic salary cannot exceed the salary of members of the House of Representatives, less $3000. The tribunal does, however, determine additional salary of office for MLA office holders such as ministers, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and committee chairs.
In the tribunal’s 2010 determination, scheduled to take effect from 1 January 2011, the tribunal determined that the rate of additional salary for office holders be increased by 3.1%. As part of the NTPS General 2010-2013 Enterprise Agreement, public sector employees have been offered annual salary increases of 3% over the life of the agreement. This offer has been accepted and is awaiting ratification.
The government does not believe it is appropriate for members of this Assembly to accept any increase in additional salary of office that is more than the increase being offered to NTPS employees. Members will be aware it is for this reason the Assembly earlier today resolved to disallow that part of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2010 for MLAs that set out the new additional salary of office rates for the coming year.
As foreshadowed in the disallowance motion, the bill proposes that all future increases in additional salary of office for members of the Assembly be linked directly to general NTPS wage movements through the Remuneration Act, and that the Remuneration Tribunal no longer have the power to determine additional salary of office. Specifically, it is proposed that any annual increase in NTPS wages will, on 1 January after that wage increase, be applied to the additional salary of office rate for members of the Assembly. By way of an example, public sector wages will increase by 3% as from August 2010, subject to ratification of the enterprise agreement. This bill proposes the same increase of 3% will apply to the additional salary of office for members of the Assembly effective from 1 January 2011.
On its own, the disallowance of additional salary of office rates would mean that MLA office holders would not be entitled to any office holder salary income between 1 January 2011 and the time this proposed amendment to the act comes into effect. Members will be conscious that this bill will not be debated until the February 2011 sittings and, if passed, will be submitted to the Administrator for assent. Accordingly, this legislation is not expected to become operational until early March 2011. To avoid any potential for financial hardship over that period of time, the Assembly has resolved that the existing 2010 rates of additional salary of office remain in place beyond 1 January 2011 until such time as the legislation is operational and the 3% increase for the 2011 calendar year is able to be applied. At that time, the salary increase will be backdated to 1 January 2011, consistent with the policy behind the new remuneration framework.
The bill also includes a provision carried over from the tribunal’s 2010 determination which makes it clear that if an MLA holds or occupies two or more offices, they are entitled to the additional salary of office for only one of those offices, being the greatest of the relevant rates.
The bill adopts the list of office holders from the tribunal’s 2010 determination and these are listed in the schedule to the bill. The opportunity has been taken to remove from the list two positions which no longer exist. These are the Chair of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse and the Chair of the sport and youth committee.
I also mention the list of office holders includes members of the Council of Territory Cooperation as included for the first time by the Remuneration Tribunal in its 2010 determination. I note the office holder salary rates, for the purpose of the bill, are drawn from the tribunal’s 2009 determination, and the 2009 determination naturally contains no salary rate for members of the Council of Territory Cooperation. For this reason, it has been necessary to include a transitional provision in the bill which provides the starting point salary for a member of the Council of Territory Cooperation shall be 50% of the amount to which the Chair of the Council of Territory Cooperation is entitled in 2010.
It is expected there will be a need to make changes to the list of office holders from time to time by either removing defunct offices or functions, or adding new ones which may come into being over time. The bill permits the Administrator to make regulations to amend the schedule to the act to add a new office holder to the list, and to determine the additional salary of office for that function. Members will note this is a robust and transparent procedure in that any regulation is required to be notified in the Gazette and will be subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly’s Subordinate Legislation committee. Because regulations can be put in place in a timely manner whenever required, it will be possible to respond to the requirement to remunerate a new office holder with a process which is both robust and efficient.
Removal of an office holder from the list could, potentially, be seen as a decision with even more significant implications than adding a new office holder. For this reason, the bill contains no mechanism for removing an office holder from the list, which means the Assembly must amend the act to do this. I believe members will agree this is an appropriate safeguard in legislation of this nature.
Madam Speaker, I believe the bill establishes a transparent and certain mechanism for achieving parity between increases in NTPS employee salary and increases in MLA additional salary of office entitlements into the future. I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to redraft and modernize Part VII, Division 6 of the Criminal Code, bringing the criminal damage offences contained in that division into line with Chapter 4 of the model Criminal Code. The bill progresses the government’s policy to introduce gradually the model Criminal Code as prepared by the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in 2001, and to revise offences in the Criminal Code so they comply with criminal responsibility provisions in Part IIAA of the Criminal Code.
The process began in the Northern Territory with the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005. That act enacted new general principles upon which persons may be held criminally responsible for their conduct in what is now Part IIAA of the Criminal Code. It set the foundation for reform of the criminal law, and for Part IIAA to be applied to all criminal offences. Since that act, this government has made reforms to the Criminal Code including:
the law of Homicide, Concealment of Birth and Abortion in Part VI, Division 3 and Division 8;
In addition, numerous new offences in legislation other than the Criminal Code have been redrafted so they comply with Part IIAA of the Criminal Code, both within my Justice portfolio and legislation falling within other ministerial portfolios. There is still some way to go in reforming the Criminal Code; this is a difficult and complex task which needs to be undertaken with careful consideration. This bill represents the next stage in that reform. It repeals most of the old, discrete criminal damage offences in Part VII Division 6, such as the offences of casting away ships or damaging signals, and replaces them with a general criminal damage offence where the definition of property is broad to cover many types of property.
The bill will revise and modernise those offences which will be retained under Part VII Division 6 of the Criminal Code, including arson, endangering aircraft, obstructing runways, and leaving explosives at a place. The bill also introduces a new offence of sabotage to fill the gap in the law between the offences of criminal damage and terrorism.
I will now set out the key features of this bill. To achieve the stated objectives, the bill repeals the current criminal damage offence in section 251, the penalty for which depends on the value or type of property involved in the offending. In addition, a number of discrete property damage type offences that are defined by the nature or type of property will be repealed. These offences will be replaced with a single causing damage to property offence. A person will be guilty of a crime if it is proved the person intentionally or recklessly caused damage to the property of another. The crime also incorporates the principle of transferred malice: it matters not whether the person intended to cause or was reckless as to causing damage to the property of one person or the property of another person. Designed to ensure it covers all existing property damage type offences, the new causing damage to property offence simplifies the pre-existing law by removing distinctions based on the type of property, the nature of property damage, or the circumstances in which the destruction or damage took place.
Currently, the criminal damage general offence carries penalties of 14, seven, or two years imprisonment, depending on the type or value of property. There are also a number of other specific criminal damage offences with varying penalties. The new offence will now have a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment which is not graded according to the value or type of property. The result is, in some cases, the maximum penalties will increase and, in others, they will stay the same.
Although there will only be one maximum penalty for the new offence, it is not intended that a court infer all criminal damage, no matter how minor, should be considered more serious than they are presently under the Criminal Code. The offence can also be dealt with summarily under section 121A of the Justices Act and, if so, section 122 of the Sentencing Act would limit the maximum penalty the Court of Summary Jurisdiction could impose is five years imprisonment or 250 penalty units.
The bill also introduces a new offence of threatening to cause property damage, with graduated maximum penalties of seven or two years imprisonment depending on whether the defendant intended the victim to fear the property damage would involve death or serious harm to another person. In addition, the bill introduces a preparatory offence of possessing an implement intending to use it to cause property damage or intending another to so use it. This will be a punishable by a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
The new criminal damage offences are supplemented by new definitions of property, person to whom property belongs, and damage to property, which will only apply to this division of the Criminal Code. For the purposes of this division, ‘property’ will include tangible property, but not intangible property, including wild animals that are tamed or reduced into possession, and parts of the human body. Property ‘belongs’ to anyone who has possession of it, any proprietary interest in it other than an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest in it, or a constructive trust. The bill also makes it clear that the crime of causing damage to property can be made out even where the offender is one of the owners of the property that is owned by more than one person.
In addition, an extended definition of ‘damage’ will be introduced by the bill and will now capture a broader range of acts, including interference with property so there is loss or use of function of the property, rather than simply causing physical damage or destruction to property.
The bill also provides for a range of more specific offences to supplement the general offence of causing damage to property; namely, the existing offences of arson and causing bushfires in a new offence of sabotage.
Arson remains a crime under the Criminal Code; however, it has now been brought in line with the Model Criminal Code arson offence and covers damage caused to buildings and conveyances by fire or explosives. The Model Criminal Code Officers Committee considered the scope of the offence when preparing the Model Criminal Code, and considered that arson should apply to specific forms of property including, at the core of the offence, the setting fire to another person’s house or a workplace. The scope was also extended to motor vehicles, aircraft, and motorised vessels. The government, however, decided to extend the scope also to non-motorised vessels such as yachts, given their prevalence in the NT lifestyle, and some people call their yacht or other non-motorised vessel their home. Equally, the definition of ‘building’ is defined to include a structure, whether or not movable, which is adapted or designed for residential purposes which includes, for example, a caravan.
Clearly, the offence of arson acknowledges the intrinsic value of the property to people’s everyday life and the propensity for catastrophic damage or loss of life as may be; for example, it may be the case of damaging an aircraft by fire. It recognises that destruction by fire or explosives is unpredictable and, potentially, devastating. The revised crime of arson is now more consistent with community expectations and understanding about the nature of the offence.
Members will recall this offence was the subject of the Criminal Code Amendment (Arson) Bill 2010, which was introduced to the Legislative Assembly by the Leader of the Opposition on 18 August 2010. The opposition bill sought to amend the offence of arson under section 239 of the Criminal Code so it would include setting fire to a motor vehicle and the trailer attached to it, which is currently not considered to be the subject of arson. The government agrees with the policy behind the expansion of this definition to motor vehicles and trailers attached to them; however, with this bill the government goes further by reforming the entire Part VII, Division 6 rather than making ad hoc or piecemeal amendments.
The bill retains the existing bushfires offence as inserted into the Criminal Code by the Criminal Code Amendment (Bushfires) Bill of 2009. Members will recall those changes arose from a decision of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Canberra in April 2009 in response to the tragedy of the Victorian bushfires. Those devastating bushfires in February 2009 brought to the forefront of the minds of all Australians the catastrophic damage to life, property, and environment which can result from bushfires. The offence continues to apply to people who intentionally or recklessly cause a fire, and who then create the risk of the spread of fire. The emphasis of the offence is on the recklessness as to the spread of the fire to vegetation.
By introducing a new offence of sabotage, the bill also fills a gap identified in Australian domestic law in relation to acts of terrorism. In most jurisdictions, property damage offences only capture relatively minor offences of this type, and are unsuitable for use against terrorists, primarily because many of the offences are not punishable with penalties of appropriate severity. With this bill, the government proposes the offence of sabotage covers these situations. The offences of sabotage and threatened sabotage are directed at terrorists and others who attempt or threaten to destroy public facilities, infrastructure, government offices, or services. The bill before the Assembly seeks to emphasise the gravity of the danger that sabotage represents by creating such an offence. Like arson, sabotage offences are punishable by penalties substantially exceeding the 14-year maximum for causing damage to property.
The new offence of sabotage is designed to apply where there is a very serious threat to public facilities. Sabotage requires proof of conduct which was intended to cause major economic loss, major disruption to government functions, or a major disruption to the use of services by the public. Threatened sabotage extends to conduct which is intended to induce fear of major economic loss, major disruption to government functions, or a major disruption to the use of services by the public.
The bill includes a definition of ‘public facility’ for the purposes of the sabotage offences, which includes both privately- and publicly-owned facilities. ‘Public facility’ will include a government facility, public infrastructure for the provision of water, sewerage, energy, fuel, communication or other services, public information systems, public transport facilities, or a public place including any premises, land, or water open to the public.
The definition of damage that applies to this provision is wide enough to capture circumstances where, for example, the damage or disruption caused or threatened is the result of a crude, physical attack or an attack by electronic means. This new offence will ensure those who attack the Northern Territory’s critical infrastructure will face severe consequences, as the maximum penalty for this offence is on par with arson, at life imprisonment.
The bill retains the current offences of endangering aircraft, obstructing runways and leaving explosives at a place because it was recognised that the revised criminal damage, arson, and the new sabotage offence may not cover these existing offences.
With respect to the existing offence of obstructing railways, the new Rail Safety Act and its regulations adequately cover the criminality as well as the offences of criminal damage or sabotage, depending on the circumstances.
With respect to the existing offence of taking dangerous goods onto an aircraft in current section 248, section 23 of the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Act covers the field.
The application of the criminal damage provisions, including arson, sabotage, and bushfires, continue to be extended by the general doctrines of attempt, complicity and conspiracy, found in Part IIAA Division 4 of the code. The bill also includes a new subdivision 3, which comprises the new exceptions to criminal responsibility of consent and claim of right. These exceptions apply to all offences in Part VII, Division 6, except sabotage. They are included to ensure that persons who lawfully engage in conduct which would otherwise be regarded as criminal damage or arson, on or over property in which they have authority or have been given authority, will be excused from criminal responsibility.
During the drafting of this bill, the Department of Justice engaged in targeted consultation with stakeholders from both government and non-government organisations, including the Department of the Chief Minister, Security and Emergency Recovery; the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services; the Department of Resources; the Department of Lands and Planning; North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency; NT Legal Aid Commission; the Law Society of the Northern Territory; the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory; and the Northern Territory Bar Association. I thank those who were involved in the consultation for their very useful input.
This bill provides a comprehensive reform of the law of criminal damage representing a holistic approach to the law in this area. It modernises and brings into the 21st century the crimes of arson and criminal damage and, especially by introducing the new offence of sabotage, responding to the modern trends in criminal threats and activity.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Control of Roads Act, to provide flexibility and consistency when temporarily closing or restricting access on roads and increases the maximum court-imposed penalty for people who drive on temporarily closed or restricted access roads, potentially putting themselves and others at risk and causing significant road pavement damage, and to ensure there are legal procedures in place for the resolution of compensation payable by government for the acquisition of property on just terms for the purpose of opening a public road.
The bill before the House today is a two-part package that seeks to amend some outdated provisions of the Control of Roads Act. Dealing with the road closure amendments, the Territory road network covers approximately 36 000 km and is regularly affected by adverse weather conditions. There have been ongoing problems where some road users continue to use roads which have been temporarily closed, placing themselves at risk and, in some cases, also placing their rescuers at risk.
I recall an incident in my electorate early last year when we had unprecedented rainfall which resulted in an 80 m section of the Barkly Highway collapsing and washing out, closing the highway for a number of weeks. Despite road closure signs and barriers on the Barkly Highway near Avon Downs, a pair of tourists travelling from Queensland chose to ignore the signs and continued to drive their vehicle onto Rankin Road heading towards the Tablelands Highway. They ended up bogged about 50 km from Avon Downs and, if it was not for the great work of the NT Police who rescued them, they may well still be there. Fortunately, on this occasion everyone made it back safely. The police at the time described the people as ‘plain stupid’ and reiterated to the public the importance of taking these warnings and closures seriously. Common sense should prevail; however, we all know that is not always the case.
Secondary to the issue of public safety is the potential for pavement damage by choosing to ignore road closures or restrictions, and incurring significant repair costs for the government. The current maximum penalty for driving on a closed road is $50, which can only be imposed by a court, and has not been amended since the 1950s. It is, clearly, not a sufficient penalty as the costs of prosecuting a driver for a breach far outweigh the penalty which can be imposed. The penalty for someone who drives on a closed road requires amendment to reflect the nature and seriousness of the conduct.
Following consultation with the Department of Justice to identify a more appropriate and contemporary level of penalty, the recommendation was to increase the maximum court-imposed penalty for this offence to 100 penalty units which equates to $13 300. Whilst this is a significant increase, there is a need for a significant monetary deterrent, and the penalty amount is comparable with penalties in other jurisdictions; for example, Queensland has a maximum penalty of $20 000.
The court-imposed maximum penalty is for serious breaches only. It is intended that an infringement notice regime will be developed within the regulations to provide means for roadside enforcement for less serious offences.
While making this change, some other minor amendments have been made in relation to the road closure provisions to improve the operation of the act. These include consolidation of sections 11 and 11A into one simple requirement; consolidation of redundant provisions; expanding temporary closure and restriction provisions to include signage; and making it clear it is also an offence to ignore road restrictions, including weight limits. The amendments also provide a defence for those who have a genuine, reasonable excuse for being on a road which is temporarily closed or restricted.
I turn to the amendments to Part 4 of the act regarding compensation for acquisition of land required for road purposes. Under the current legislation, when the Territory requires land to open a road, section 31 of Part 4 of the Control of Roads Act provides that a person not being a party to an agreement for exchange, who has an estate or interest in the land or part of the land taken, may, within 12 months, serve a notice in writing on me, claiming compensation for the land. However, it does not provide for a right to have compensation determined in accordance with a judicial process which would apply to the acquisition of property on just terms.
It currently does not provide for who or what body is to determine the amount of compensation payable for such actions. It does not provide for any avenue authorising a judicial body to determine such compensation as necessary to ensure the acquisition is on just terms.
The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 provides that acquisition of property is to be on just terms. As honourable members would be aware, the term ‘acquisition’ implies the extinguishment of a proprietary right or interest in one party and the vesting of a corresponding right or benefit in another. There is little doubt that in its relevant operation, Part 4 of the Control of Roads Act operates to acquire property, and it is a law with respect to the acquisition of property. Accordingly, the constitutional guarantee will have application.
I am, therefore, amending Part 4 of the Control of Roads Act to ensure the requirements of the constitutional guarantee are satisfied to create a duty or an obligation on me, as the responsible minister, to pay just terms compensation in relation to any acquisition of property under the Control of Roads Act.
On advice from the Solicitor-General, it is considered desirable to regularise the section to specifically enshrine the right to just terms compensation and to make it clear. I note this matter only arises where persons who have or had an estate or interest in land, or a part of land required for a road, are unwilling to accept offers of compensation considered appropriate by government. However, if a matter of compensation is agreed between me, as Minister for Lands and Planning, and affected parties, the issue does not arise.
The proposed amendments specifically seek to: vest an entitlement to just terms compensation in a person who has or had an estate or interest in land or part of land taken, which would include a native title holder if any; confer jurisdiction on the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal; and adopt mechanisms for determining value and forms of compensation as is necessary to ensure the acquisition is on just terms. The proposed amendment will enshrine the requirements of the constitutional guarantee in the Control of Roads Act and formalise judicial avenues for compensation on just terms.
The proposed amendment is also sought on a retrospective basis, as there are a number of persons awaiting resolution of compensation issues which have arisen from previous actions. This will give a person who has or had an estate or interest in land, or part of land taken, an avenue to apply to the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal to hear and determine an application in respect of a claim for compensation for land taken under the Control of Roads Act.
The opportunity has also been taken to make other minor changes in numbers and terms, particularly for those sections that are not amended in the body of the bill. These changes are on the advice of Parliamentary Counsel. The proposed amendments have no impact on the future review of the Control of Roads Act in its entirety, which is being progressed by the Department of Lands and Planning.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 129)
Continued from 27 October 2010.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, in considering this bill, I understand the context in which it is presented, and the amendments brought forward. It tells us the Northern Territory is developing and growing and, with that growth, there is a required response. In this specific instance, it is the response around safety of residents through the developments we see around us. How do we respond to that? We have to change. I accept that is the premise and the response, and it is the nature of that change that is being outlined in this bill which, essentially, is agreed to because the context in which this applies is understood.
No one happily accepts increased costs and charges. However, when I see in this the argument that the increased revenue is required to fund the increased safety response to development, we have to balance one against the other. So, there is a reason.
I ask for a response or commendation from government for some aspects of the model. The Chief Minister would note the amendment which has been circulated. It is not a significant amendment, but it provides the internal flexibility to cut some slack to those agencies, particularly NGOs which, through no fault of their own, would be required, in the structure of this act and regulations, to cop a fee of $700. The amendment is to provide the discretion to a director to waive such fees in the event it is no fault of the person concerned - particularly for the NGOs, as I have already stated - because it can be a considerable impost, particularly when it is power outages by a tree, or whatever the commissioner may consider as a cause.
I assume the Chief Minister and the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services has adequately consulted the industry, the construction sector in particular, so they understand and are supportive of the measures that are being outlined and detailed in this bill. Having said that, I understand the context in which it is applied.
It is recognised the increased safety, which will come about by the increasing resources and expertise through the 10 additional positions, will require increased revenue, and that will come in two forms. One is in increased fees for call-outs from $345 to $700. At that point, the amendment is arguing for a discretionary capacity in the imposition of those call-out fees. Alongside that would be the question, if it is currently $345 for a call-out for a false alarm, is it always applied now? If it is not always applied now, will it be applied? What changes will there be in the future? If there is a new regime and it will be applied unilaterally, I only hope there is that capacity established for discretion.
There is the assertion that it is no impediment to development. I trust the Chief Minister, in closing debate, will describe the feedback from the industry in regard to that particular point. I look forward to discussing my particular amendment. I understand the Chief Minister also has an amendment, which I look forward to him outlining to the Chamber.
Madam Speaker, with that, I am essentially supportive. I trust there will be the accommodation for the amendment of clause 11 which is that the director may, on behalf of the Territory, waive fees or charges otherwise payable under this section in particular circumstances, as the director considers reasonable. That provides the means whereby common sense can prevail, particularly when it applies to an NGO. That is what I had in mind.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. I thank the department for giving me a detailed briefing of the reasons why this bill is being introduced. Having had a look at the PowerPoint presentation which gives the main causes for smoke alarms going off, I am now a bit concerned about cooking toast in the bathroom in my office. It could cost me $767.80, and that is a lot of bread and vegemite ...
Mr Henderson: Member for Nelson, having a toaster in your bathroom is probably pretty dangerous, I would have thought – electrical appliances. I urge you not to do that.
Mr WOOD: No, no, I am not having a shower at the same time, Chief Minister ...
Mr Henderson: I was really worried there for a moment.
Mr WOOD: I am sorry. However, it brings to light there are a few issues in relation to smoke alarms. I can relay another story. Some years ago, people will recall that I invited the relations of Captain Strauss to the Anzac Day cricket match. They arrived about midnight on a flight from the United States and I dropped them off at the Atrium Hotel. Anyway, they went to bed; they knew they had to get up pretty early in the morning for the celebrations we were having. The word is that, in their part of the world, the water is always a little cold and it takes a while to warm up the shower hot water system, so one of the family decided just to turn the hot water on and, of course, the steam rose up, turned on the fire alarm system at 6.30 am, and the whole of the Atrium Hotel was evacuated. What makes it worse is that the next night they did exactly the same thing.
I am not sure whether that would cause - well, I suppose it would, under the law – the company to be charged a fee of $767.80. It is good to notice that the department is concerned if a guest caused that problem, through no fault of their own, they hope the owner of the hotel would not, therefore, try to put that charge on to the people who were staying at the hotel. That is an important matter. It is not the people. It was not their fault, it was simply that the smoke alarm system, basically, was too sensitive in this case, and caused a lot of embarrassment, not only for the people who were there, but for all the guests in the hotel. I note the department, in its PowerPoint presentation, is saying to owners of hotels that they should not pass that charge on to guests, but look at whether their smoke alarm systems need adjusting.
I have had a look through the bill and there are a couple of little issues I would like to raise. You do not get it necessarily through the bill, but you get it through the Chief Minister’s second reading speech. The issue is that we already have a call-out charge worth $345. The question is: what will $776.80 - which I do hope you change to $780 or $790 - make if the existing deterrent of $345 is not actually changing the way people think. For the owner of a large building, it is not a lot of money. If you really want to send a message to the owner of the building that we are sick of going to their building because the alarms go off, will a fee of $767.80 really make a difference? I wonder whether we should have an increasing fee, so the first call-out is $780, the second call-out is $1800, and it goes up until the person does something about their alarms. That fee, I do not believe, is a deterrent unless you have a good owner who says: ‘Oh sorry, I will do something about it’. In other words, they have a bit more of a conscience about their equipment causing the fire service to come out on a false alarm which, as we know, could be at a time when the fire service needs to be at a major accident where it really is needed.
I wonder - and this could be something that the government will consider – if you could have an increasing level of charges so you really do make an effort to reduce the figures. They are quite remarkable figures. I am not sure whether people have seen these figures. I have the figures from July 2009 through to June 2010. The number of false alarms as a percentage ranges from 32% in July up to as high as 66% in January. Of course, some of those may be due to lightning, and the figures show there is a spike in false alarms during December and January, which may also be due to heavy rain, leaking roofs, etcetera. We have a high percentage of call-outs which are false alarms. The proof is in the pudding. This may need to be reviewed every two years to see whether the $767.80 reduces the figures of false alarm call-outs such as the 62% in December, 66% in January, 49% in February and 60% in March.
Like many things we do in parliament, we introduce bills, we say this is the reason and, then, we forget about them. The main reason a fee is being applied is to reduce the number of false alarms. I know there is also a revenue side to this because of some new staff the government wants to employ, especially in relation to planning and building requirements. If this fee is really going to be a deterrent; the proof is in the pudding if these percentages drop off in a couple of years’ time.
The other area is government buildings. The government owns many buildings, and I hope we can break these statistics up into private buildings and government buildings. How many of the false alarms in November and December 2009, and January, February and March 2010 came from government-owned buildings? The government is going to have to pay the bill and, if the government is saying false alarms are unacceptable, the government should be leading the way. I am interested to see what number of buildings is affected by this legislation and how government buildings compare with privately-owned buildings in relation to the number of false alarm call-outs. Who will pay for that? Is it a government department which will be paying the bill? Or will they be exempt because it is a government department? I hope not, otherwise they would not fix it. I hope the government departments will be paying the bill, but I hope they will also be fixing the problem.
The other interesting statistic I noticed - and I thank the fire service for giving us this information – on a map of Darwin and the Holtze area for, I presume, a year, it shows 241 call-outs to the Robertson Barracks. Except for the Royal Darwin Hospital, that is by far the area with the most call-outs. It is Commonwealth land. The Commonwealth has its own fire service yet, I gather because of an MOU, our Palmerston Fire Service has to choof off there 241 times a year. I do not have a breakdown of that but I have not heard of any major fires, except for a couple of bushfires on the outskirts, and I do not know if they would be included in that figure. If they are all false alarms and we have an MOU to head off to the Robertson Barracks to find out what is going on, then the MOU may need an adjustment.
It is no good if the Commonwealth government does not partake in this change to the legislation, because it is just as responsible as anyone else. If the argument is that false call-outs could endanger people’s lives because fire services are responding to a false alarm instead of attending serious fire or accident, then the Commonwealth must take some responsibility for its facilities and ensure they are up to standard, just as everyone else is asked to. I do not believe the Commonwealth should be exempt. The MOU may say it should be exempt but, if that is the case, then the MOU needs to be reviewed because that is a great many call-outs.
The other call-outs are to Royal Darwin Hospital. To some extent, it is a relatively old building with a large amount of safety and electronic equipment. Whether some of that is outdated I do not know. It would be hoped that the number of call-outs to Royal Darwin Hospital can be reduced. I am interested to know, as that is a government building, what the government is doing to reduce that number from 187 call-outs in a year.
The next main area is the Darwin central business district. There are many call-outs in that area which may be due to some of the buildings being relatively old. It is a concern.
Minister, there is a section in relation to inspection fees. I understand why we need inspection fees, and why the government wants to charge for examining plans of buildings. That is good. One of the issues mentioned by the member for Blain is regarding allaying people’s fears they will end up with more costs. There is an impost on business - maybe not that large. It would be good for the government to have a good relationship with developers so there is no need for repeat meetings because, once you see the fees for repeat meetings, the costs go up and up.
As part of a two-way process which encourages developers to ensure they get their plans right the first time around - or at least no more than the second time around - there needs to be a good relationship between developers and the fire department so there is no need for continual revisiting of the plans of a particular building. The key to this would be, up-front, if the government is going to employ a fire engineer, that fire engineer needs to be involved from day one when the plans are being established. It is better to have the plans written up in accordance with the Northern Territory Fire Service requirements under the Fire and Emergency Act than having to go back again and again, which is going to be an impost on the developer and does not help the relationship between the developer and the fire service. If those relationships can be kept at a good level, it reduces arguments, debates, and costs later on.
The other thing about inspection fees - and I was told we are dealing with certain types of public buildings in relation to inspection fees - in the Chief Minister’s second reading speech, he said installing firebreaks is a safety requirement under the Fire and Emergency Act and it may be the responsibility of the owner to ensure the safety requirement is met. You went on to say: ‘I also flag similar amendments being made to regulations in the future’. My ears pricked up a bit and I wondered if you are going to have inspection fees for buildings to ensure, for instance, a nightclub does not have boxes and chairs in front of the exits, and ensure systems are working properly in places where the public gathers.
In the second reading you mentioned the possibility that installing firebreaks is a safety requirement and is the responsibility of the owner, and you are going to flag similar amendments. I am asking whether the government is thinking inspection fees will be applied to rural blocks. Is that what you meant in your second reading?
Last, I just saw these amendments. I knew about the government’s amendment yesterday and, obviously, that is a drafting change. I also noticed the amendment from the member for Blain. On the surface, it is a good amendment; it allows the director some ability to waiver fees. The only reason I cannot support it at the moment is because I do not know whether, in the existing act - and I have been looking through it - there is the ability for that to already occur. I am not saying it is not a good idea. I am just unsure whether the director of the fire service has the ability to already do that. As you know, fees of $345 applied for false alarms already exist. We have not introduced a new concept; we have just increased the value of the call-outs.
Under the existing act, say I owned a large building and I received a bill from the fire service saying: ‘We are charging you $345 under the existing act because your fire alarm is not working’. Can I object to that and ask for a waiver because I believe that was an incorrect ruling? It was a lightning strike, not a cat or a possum that went down the wall that caused a short in the electrical system which would be my fault because I have not made the wall vermin proof. Is there, under the existing act, already the ability to waiver charges, as is being proposed by the member for Blain?
I support the bill. As much as I do not like imposts on businesses - because I am always worried these costs can cause a burden – it is okay if these costs are for a good reason; and the call-out fee is for a good reason. One of the reasons I did not think about it too much is that every time there is a false alarm in the TIO building, everyone from the TIO stops working. So, there is a cost to business simply in downtime. There is also, as we know, a cost to the fire service because it has to get ready and head off. That, in itself, is not such a bad thing, but the real issue is they could, at the same time, be called out to a serious fire or accident. That is the biggest problem with false alarms.
In relation to the fees required for planning applications or building applications, that is reasonable enough, especially if the government now has to employ specialist people in that area. As I said before, if we can get a good working relationship between developers and the fire service, some of those inspection fees - which rise according to how many meetings people need to have to sort out these particular issues - can be well established at the beginning. I notice – I am using a PowerPoint presentation here - it is obvious the fire service is looking at doing that. As well as that, I notice the changes will not be introduced for 12 months, so there is plenty of time to talk to industry to get them used to what is happening.
Madam Speaker, overall, I believe the bill is a good bill. It will be good, not only for the fire service but for the community as well.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition and the member for Nelson for their support of the bill. I will do the best I can in my second reading wrap to answer the questions that were raised.
This bill is another indication of the Territory growing up. The fact that we are seeing significant new types of development, particularly in the CBD with the towers for apartment dwellings going up 30-odd storeys, and new industries coming to the Northern Territory, means our services have to change in reflecting the economic growth and what is happening in the Territory. It was good that the Leader of the Opposition recognised that was really the driving force behind the changes to the legislation. The good old days when the firies were all things to all people and no one paid a cent are changing. The fire service is moving forward in being able to respond to a different climate.
Member for Nelson, it will actually be six months before this bill is enacted, not 12 months, but we still believe that is adequate time to talk to everyone in regard to the changes that are about to occur. I can also say absolutely that, in communicating these changes - and if we start first with the changes in fees being applied for the first time for development applications - there have been conversations. People are aware that this is coming but, until the legislation was introduced, people were not aware of the fees. There will be proactive engagement with organisations like the UDIA, the Property Council, Engineers Australia, Northern Territory Architects, and the major developers around town. Six months is a significant amount of time to have those conversations.
In regard to the member for Nelson’s comments around relationships, I believe the firies are committed to establishing good relationships. That is why we have the Community Fire Safety Division. That is actually the division that will receive the extra funding that will employ the extra people. Right across the Territory, even though we are growing, it is still a pretty small place and it is about relationships with people. We do not want to gouge fees out of developers. I am pretty confident we will establish good relationships with people to understand why this legislation has been introduced and passed today, where the funding is going, and how to minimise their costs by working with the Community Fire Safety Division.
I go to the Leader of the Opposition and his amendment. Absolutely, the intent is still - and I will explain this is just a drafting issue in Parliamentary Counsel and how they are working now. The issue of being able to provide an exemption for waiver or the refund of fees that exists in the existing legislation will be picked up under the current Interpretation Act. This allows and provides for the ability to waive a fee if the fee is prescribed in regulation. So, what we have is the fee is prescribed in the current legislation. We are moving that to regulations. Under the Interpretation Act, the ability to waive fees under certain circumstances already exists. I do not actually have a copy of the Interpretation Act here, Leader of the Opposition, but the policy intent of what you are trying to achieve through your amendment is going to be picked up in the new bill. If you do not pursue your amendment, I give you an absolute assurance that capacity is still there.
In regard to the waiver of the fees, the Leader of the Opposition is speaking about non-government organisations. We certainly do not want to slug the Salvos and St Vinnies and others for fees unless we can possibly avoid it. Most of the non-government organisations would be leasing office space, and the fee will actually go to the owner of the building. In most cases, it will not be the NGO that will be the entity that has to pay a fee for a false fire alarm; it will be the owner of the building. In regard to the concerns, waivers are still allowed for under the discretion of the Chief Fire Officer. NGOs really should not be impacted. I believe we have dealt with the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition.
The member for Nelson talked about the two policy thrusts of the change in the legislation. It is, obviously, a user pays system, and application of fees actually provides for better services. It is also to drive down the number of false alarms. There are very significant numbers of false alarms from both government and non-government buildings. That is the policy intent, therefore I am happy to take on board having a review of this, or a report back mechanism, in a couple of years’ time to ascertain whether that has actually happened as a result of these changes. I commit that we will do it. I am not in a position to amend the legislation from the floor, but I commit to report back in two years’ time to the parliament about whether this policy change has been effected or not.
The member for Nelson also talked about increasing the level of charges so there is a scale. If you are a recalcitrant offender the fees keep going up until you fix your alarm system. I suggest we see how we go with the $700 fee. It is not in the current legislation. I can say, member for Nelson, about the existing fee of $340 to $350 - this legislation has not been looked at for many years and I was a bit surprised to find, in consideration of this bill, that that fee is not currently being applied. It has never really been applied because the firies have never had the administrative capacity or the systems to determine, conclusively, occupiers and owners of buildings. So, although that fee has been available to be charged, it has never been used. The $700 is going to come as a bit of a shock to property owners.
Because this legislation is not going to be enacted for a period of six months, the department will - there is now a very solid profile for each and every property owner who had false alarms at their properties – send a letter to all of those property owners indicating in a bar graph format, month on month over the last 12 months, how many false alarms have emanated from that particular building, what the cause was, and the fees they would be charged if false alarms were to continue at that rate for another 12 months. Some of these properties, including Northern Territory government properties, are in excess of $100 000. Within that correspondence there will also be a brochure about managing unwanted fire alarms. The department will also provide an opportunity for people to work with those property owners to advise them on what they need to do to install a system which is more robust and less prone to false alarms. It is not a case of going from $350 to $700 and what effect that will have. It is going to go from $0 to $700. In reality, that is going to change some behaviour.
In regard to the communication of all of this, I anticipate there will be some push back from property owners. However, there will be a six-month period for people to really understand and revisit their fire alarm systems. If their systems have not been upgraded, replaced, or maintained, there is a six-month period in which people will have notice that if they do not spend the money now they will be spending it on call-out fees which they were not paying previously.
I assure the member for Nelson that there are no plans to have inspection fees for rural lots. The sentence the member picked from my second reading speech about flagging similar amendments being made to regulations in the future is connected to the issue of, at the moment, people who fail to maintain firebreaks and allow hazards to exist on their property. The current act provides for any application of a fine to go to the occupier of that property and, in many cases, it is very hard for the department to establish who the occupier is. So, the legislation is being changed to permit the director, for example, to serve a notice on either the owner or the occupier. Amendments will need to be made to regulations to allow the director to serve a notice on either the owner or the occupier if people fail to maintain a firebreak. That is what that sentence is about.
Regarding the waivers, Leader of the Opposition and member for Nelson, there will be the capacity to appeal to the director; however, we estimate there will be minimal grounds for appeal - acts of God, if there had been lightning strikes, or trees falling on property. There will be a judgment decision on a case-by-case basis and acts of God would not see the application of a fine. This is an exercise we are going to have to work through and, when we look back in a few years’ time, it will be interesting to see how many waivers have been issued and on what grounds and under what circumstances.
Regarding how this policy is achieving the aim, which is to reduce the number of false call-outs, maybe we can report on that in the agency’s annual report as one of the indicators. That might be another way of achieving some transparency about whether these changes are having the policy effect.
In conclusion, I believe I have touched on all the issues. I am very glad the member for Nelson is not cooking toast whilst he is having a shower; that could have been quite a dangerous thing to do. The Territory is growing up; Darwin is expanding rapidly as an industrial city; also in new housing and developments. We want people to be safe. The best way to ensure people are safe is to ensure new developments, new residential properties, new commercial precincts, meet national standards and are all ticked off before certificates of occupancy are issued, and we reduce significantly the number of false call-outs which detract from the firies being able to respond to real events.
Regarding the issues around liabilities, which is the other part of the act, in relation to who is liable to pay the fine, that is being cleared up and the act will not commence for six months. There will be a consultation with all property owners currently connected to the Northern Territory FAST system. There will be discussions with developers, engineers, and architects about the changes to the act. I hope we see a significant reduction in false alarms and also see buildings designed to Australian Standards which reduce fire hazards.
Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support of the bill. In relation to the committee stage amendments and the comments I have provided in the second reading, I suggest the Leader of the Opposition might withdraw his amendment because I believe it is provided for by way of the Interpretation Act. I can assure him it is. My amendments are minor and we can debate them in committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Fire and Emergency Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 129) together with schedule of amendments No 53 circulated by the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Mr Henderson.
Is it the wish of the committee that clauses 1 to 10 be taken together?
Mr WOOD: No. I need the opportunity to ask a question the Chief Minister may have missed; that is, in relation to the arrangement with Robertson Barracks. I note that, in the Palmerston and rural areas, just doing a quick adding up, in the year this map I have in front of me relates to, there might be something like 60 call-outs for the local Palmerston and rural area, but there are 241 call-outs for Robertson Barracks. There is a considerable impost on the Palmerston fire service. I am interested to know what the arrangements are with Robertson Barracks.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, member for Nelson, I am sorry I did omit that. I made a note and sought advice. At Robertson Barracks there is a significant issue and we will be discussing that with Robertson Barracks. At the moment, my advice is there is a Commonwealth agency called Comcover that is, essentially, responsible for the asset management of all Defence building infrastructure assets in the Northern Territory. That agency has an MOU with the department for the provision of fire services, not only to Robertson Barracks but also to all Defence facilities in the Northern Territory. That MOU is under review at the moment.
Regarding the principles of this legislation, which is to ensure full cost recovery and a reduction in false alarms, I give an assurance it will be picked up in regard to the MOU. At the moment, the Commonwealth agency Comcover provides a fee to the Northern Territory government which includes the provision of fire services in response to their assets. Whether that fee is adequate and covers these false alarms, if it is not now, it will be into the future. I will be requiring, in regard to the renegotiation of this MOU, that there is a significant commitment by Comcover which manages these assets on behalf of Defence to rectify their alarm systems to ensure there is a reduction in alarms, and there is a capacity within the new agreement we have to charge for false alarms. I give a commitment to that effect.
However, it is not as simple as us sending them a bill as we would do to anyone else, because we have this agreement. Certainly, 241 instances is just not acceptable. They obviously have significant issues at Robertson Barracks in the same way there are some fairly significant issues at Royal Darwin Hospital, which the authorities which manage the hospital are going to have to pick up. I can give an absolute assurance in regard to Royal Darwin Hospital and other NTG assets that the application of these fees will be a real driver to those agencies to lift their game and fix their systems.
That is the answer in regard to Robertson Barracks. There is not a fix right here right now, but the MOU is being renegotiated. The principles of charging for false alarms will be in that new MOU. We will ensure they fix and lift their game, because I do not want to be reporting in 12 months’ time to the member for Nelson that there have been 250 false call-outs at Robertson Barracks. It is not a good use of time for the Palmerston fire service. It is an issue that needs to be rectified, but there is not an immediate fix in this bill.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, my concern would be that, for the Commonwealth government, if the MOU continues as is and they say: ‘Here is a few thousand dollars to cover that’, then the effect of that may not necessarily be the effect you want. You want to actually punish them, you might say, for having false alarms which could endanger the lives of people who are in a real fire. I hope within that MOU there is the ability to charge for each individual call-out, rather than just collect a lump sum. The whole idea is not just to fine people but to tell the Commonwealth government that lives and property could be at risk and, with 241 call-outs, they could be highly responsible for that to happen. I hope within the MOU there is not just the lump sum; it is some way of saying they will get hit every time they have a call-out.
Mr HENDERSON: We are on the same page, member for Nelson. The policy intent is to reduce the number of false alarms. Advice from the box just now is there are over 500 building assets at Robertson Barracks, so it is not a simple exercise in how that system works. What I have just instructed is that, outside of the review of the MOU, the correspondence should go to the Australian government agency, Comcover, saying the Northern Territory parliament has just enacted this bill and the policy intent of what we are trying to achieve, in part, is to reduce the number of false alarms on a cost recovery basis, noting that in the past year over 240 false alarms for Robertson Barracks meant extensive call-outs for the Palmerston fire service. It is significant and has to be reduced, and we need to engage very quickly to work out a plan about how they are going to do that, and how that then feeds into a new agreement via an MOU.
I will give you an assurance, member for Nelson, we do not have the fix right here, right now, but this Commonwealth agency has to understand, either through agreement or penalty, that 240 false alarms is just not acceptable. From that premise, we will try to do it through agreement and get them to look at their systems, and why there are so many false alarms from Robertson Barracks, and what they are going to do about it. If nothing changes, then we will ensure the principle of this legislation, through the MOU - which is full cost recovery - does exist. I hope, when we come back in 12 months after this bill has commenced, we see a significant reduction in false call-outs from Robertson Barracks.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, before I give you the call, I acknowledge our visitors. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Years 4, 5 and 6 Alawa Primary School students, accompanied by Mrs Irene Haywood and Ms Ana Bernardino. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors, looking very smart as you are, and very Christmassy in your red shirts.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, thank you for that. I mentioned also in my response that Defence, especially Robertson Barracks, has its own fire brigade. Do you know if it is actually capable of doing some of that work that Palmerston fire service is already doing for the Defence department?
Mr HENDERSON: My advice in regard to the fire brigade at Robertson Barracks is, essentially, it is staffed part-time, and on many occasions those staff are away on exercises, either intrastate or overseas. Even though there are facilities and people there, they are not there on a 24/7 basis. They cannot be guaranteed. That is why there is the call-out arrangement with the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service. That is the advice I have in regard to that; it is not a service which is available 24/7 and that is the reason there is an agreement with the NT Fire and Rescue Service.
Mr WOOD: There are people on roster, I gather, at the base. In the negotiations about the MOU, would it be worth raising that with them as well? If they have a fire brigade there and it is becoming an impost on the local fire service, perhaps they need to look at whether they change their internal arrangements to assist?
Mr HENDERSON: I suppose these things are always iterative. As the minister, I look at the distance between the Palmerston Fire Station and Robertson Barracks and think, in a utopian world, they would be able to look after their own facility with their own resources which, obviously, they do not have at the moment. I am happy to raise that.
Our fees and charges are set on a cost recovery basis, so, I assume if they ran a business case over the revised negotiations and found it is more cost-effective for them to have a response capability on base and do it themselves, then that is what they would do.
We will have a cost recovery policy, and 241 false alarms is not good enough and needs to be driven down. I cannot hold a gun to their head, and that is not the way we operate, anyway. Our government and government agencies have a good working relationship with the Defence department. Historically, we have provided this service but we are starting to get serious about fire alarm systems being maintained and being to standard, and not providing for false alarms to the detriment of the Palmerston fire service. We will have a robust negotiation with regard to the establishment of the new MOU, and I want to see the number of false alarms reduce significantly.
In an ideal world, it would be great if they could provide the response capability to the barracks from within the barracks, because that would mean the Palmerston brigade would not need to be called out; but that is not the case at the moment.
Clauses 1 to 10, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 11 read:
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I accept the assurance provided by the Chief Minister and the minister for Fire and Emergency Services. I accept there is the provision for discretion to be afforded and I look forward to the provision of the material on that matter. Consequently, I withdraw the amendment.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. I give you my absolute assurance that discretion in terms of waivers will be provided for by the Interpretation Act.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 15 read:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 53.1. Clause 15(3) of the bill contains a typographical error. The bill seeks to insert a regulation-making power for the addition of further offences under the regulations; however, the proposed provision provided for an offence against the act and not the regulations. The proposed provision will be amended in the existing bill which says:
It is a typographical error. The intent of the bill is to be able to insert a regulation making the power for the additional further offences under regulations. The rewording of that clause will ensure the intent is accommodated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 53.2. The regulations are currently under review as part of a requirement for the prescribing of Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services’ fees and charges.
Parliamentary Counsel noticed a reference to ‘an Australian Standard’ in the regulations means a reference to ‘the Australian Standard’ as at the date the regulations commenced operation; namely, 1 May 1996. Parliamentary Counsel advises currently the reference to ‘an Australian Standard’ means to a standard as of the date the regulations commenced, 1 May 1996.
This amendment will permit an amendment to Regulation 22 which will clarify a reference to ‘an Australian Standard’ means ‘an Australian Standard, as amended from time to time’. We all know the Building Code of Australia and other standards are amended from time to time. This provision will provide, as those standards are amended, this legislation automatically accommodates those new standards without having to change specific regulations to accommodate that. The policy intent is quite clear; we are applying Australian Standards and this will mean, when those standards are amended, by agreement at a national level, this legislation will pick up those amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Police. Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 24 November 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is closing debate and has 17 minutes.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, these reforms turn the problem drinkers off tap to stop violence and antisocial behaviour. Alcohol misuse continues to be a scourge on our community, families, and Territorians. We know 60% of all assaults are alcohol related. We know 67% of all domestic violence incidents are alcohol related. Last year, we estimate there were 55 000 incidents of police taking people into protective custody or sobering-up shelters, and 72% of Territory prisoners state their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. Territorians drink at 1.5 times the national average. Alcohol contributes to more deaths and hospitalisations in the Territory than anywhere else in Australia. Northern Territory police report 59% of their workload is attributed to responding to alcohol-related incidents.
The cost of alcohol misuse was estimated by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies at $642m per year in the Territory. This equates to $4197 for every adult Territorian compared to $944 nationally. Turning this around will reduce the burden on our hospitals and emergency departments which, too often, are dealing with injuries and chronic illness directly attributed to alcohol-fuelled violence and chronic alcoholism. Turning this around will reduce the burden on police who are dealing with alcohol-fuelled violence across our community. The costs are too high. This reform is targeted at the chronic alcoholic who is causing harm to themselves and others and our community. We have said enough is enough. We are fair dinkum about the reforms proposed.
Regarding the Alcohol Court, we disagree with the CLP; it has not been a failure. It was designed to get criminal offenders with an alcohol problem into treatment. Since it commenced in July 2006, there have been 599 referrals to the Alcohol Court, with 379 treatment orders issued, and a total of 186 clients who have successfully completed the program - 186 clients who have been into treatment as a result of the Alcohol Court.
Like the Alcohol Court, people who will go to the new SMART Court will undertake clinical assessments. The SMART Court, the Substance Misuse and Referral for Treatment Court, will replace the Alcohol Court, but we are building and expanding upon it to include drug-related offences. We will be repealing the Alcohol Court Act to create the SMART Court. It will be a specialist court with a wide range of powers to order individuals, including youths, who have committed alcohol or other drug-related offences into treatment. It is proposed that more people will be eligible to appear before the SMART Court than under the existing Alcohol Court. The new SMART Court will deal with offending related to both alcohol and other drugs. In addition, a new administrative system to complement the SMART Court to manage orders against problem drinkers outside the criminal justice system will be introduced.
The proposed Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal ensures alcoholism is not criminalised. Police will have new powers to issue notices that ban a person from purchasing and consuming alcohol, and to refer people to treatment options. People are encouraged to attend treatment and can reduce the length of their ban by undertaking successful treatment. The police can only issue these notices in certain circumstances, but it is not limited to antisocial behaviour. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal will be established to hear appeals against the police notices.
Police, health workers, doctors, and family members will also be able to apply directly to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal for orders to be made against a person who is a problem drinker. This means that problem drinkers can end up in the tribunal regardless of where they are drinking or where they are causing harm, be it in the public domain or at home. Also, if a person has received three police notices, the next time they will be referred to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal, rather than continue to receive police notices. The tribunal will ensure people undertake a clinical assessment. The tribunal will be able to make orders for mandatory treatment and longer bans on purchasing and consuming alcohol.
The police have been closely involved in the development of this legislation. They will develop the administrative processes around the issuing of bans, similar to the issuing of DV orders and the new precinct bans. Any bans on consuming or purchasing alcohol, whether issued by the police, the tribunal, or the court, or any other court, will be enforced by the banned drinker register.
There is this argument that banned people will be able to buy home brew kits or either make alcohol via any number of different recipes - not legally, of course, because of prohibition on buy and consume. If they are found intoxicated then they automatically jump up one level or go before the tribunal. Internet sales are pretty straightforward. A seller is required to not deliver alcohol illegally. For example, it is not okay to deliver to a minor. Coles have solved these problems in the Top End for their online store, and the register can be made available over the Internet so they can check. This simply means the registered purchaser needs to accept the liquor.
Madam Speaker, these reforms have also considered the issue of secondary supply. We will amend the Liquor Act to make secondary supply illegal. This means people who knowingly supply alcohol to someone on the banned drinker register will themselves be banned from purchasing and consuming takeaway alcohol for a period of time. We have learnt from the successes at Groote Eylandt in the permit system in regard to the secondary supply of alcohol. On Groote Eylandt, permit holders who have supplied alcohol to non-permit holders have lost their permit - have lost their right to purchase alcohol. After a few people lost their permits, word quickly got around and that dramatically reduced secondary supply.
We have undertaken significant consultation in regard to these extensive reforms. We have undertaken extensive public advertising to raise awareness. We have undertaken mail-outs to households in Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs. We have a website with an online survey to submit comments. We have undertaken direct consultation with key stakeholders and public forums across our regional centres where we have seen more than 100 people attend.
The feedback to these reforms: significant broad support. Some of the comments we are receiving:
Another comment:
This is a serious issue the Territory is confronting. We have taken a bold step in the policy arena to tackle alcohol and the scourge alcohol is on our community. We are saying enough is enough. I do not think there is a Territorian out there who would argue that we are fed up with the harm we are seeing perpetrated in our community as a result of alcohol. We are seeing harm to individuals, to their families, and to the broader community.
These measures are bold in that they are untested and have been constructed out of evidence-based research around the alcohol management plans we have throughout the Territory. One consistent feedback I get is Territorians are pleased to see these are proposed to be Territory-wide measures; it does not matter who you are, or where you live, or your circumstances, it is the same measure for everyone. It is not about saying to the majority of Territorians who do not have a problem with drinking that we are going to turn you off tap. It is about saying to those individuals who have a significant problem, you will be turned off tap and you need health interventions to turn your life around.
The breadth of support for these reforms has been absolutely overwhelming. We have had the Australian Hotels Association, the Liquor Association, the Aboriginal medical services, the AMA, the Law Society and the Aboriginal Justice Agency of NAAJA, all come out in support of these reforms. The Northern Territory Council of Social Services, Amity and FORWAARD have spoken out boldly in favour of these reforms in the Top End. Across the spectrum, from service providers, health lobby groups, and the liquor industry - normally not people you would expect to find on the same page – there is strong, solid, and consistent support for the reforms we are proposing.
The only ones saying these reforms will not work, shouting these reforms down, opposing the tool of the ID system, is the CLP. We have strong support and leadership from the Mayor of Palmerston and the Lord Mayor of Darwin. We have seen strong support from the Mayor of Alice Springs. I will be focusing further consultations in Katherine, directly targeting that community which has borne the brunt of significant alcohol issues.
Anyone who lives in the Northern Territory knows we have unique circumstances. I am not proposing what we are attempting to do in the Territory would work for major urban centres across Australia. What I do know is even the Liberal government of Western Australia is watching our reforms intently. It has gone to Alice Springs and is importing the sorts of measures we have introduced into regional areas of Western Australia. So, this crosses the partisanship which has been a hallmark of our debates in the past. The Liberal government of Western Australia recognises the measures we have been putting in place and is following suit. I will continue to have an open dialogue with anyone on these reforms.
I call on the CLP to put aside the politics on this crucial debate in the Territory and come to a bipartisan approach. It is time for a bipartisan approach on alcohol. There are minor points of difference in policy now - although critical - between the parties. A critical point of difference is the issue of criminalisation. Our policy does not criminalise habitual drunks. We put in place tough enforcement measures banning them from consuming alcohol and putting them in mandatory treatment. We do not criminalise unless they have undertaken a criminal activity. That is one policy point of difference.
The other policy point of difference is in regard to the ID system. I continue to ask the CLP how they would enforce any ban if not with an ID system. Tell us how you would enforce bans if you do not have an ID system. They have buried their heads in the sand; they are not listening to what the AHA, the Liquor Association, all the healthy lobby groups and the lawyers are saying on this subject. Step out of the bunker on this one. If there is something the Territory can deliver in a bipartisan way then, surely, it is these alcohol reforms.
The CLP is running the rhetoric that we are trying to introduce reforms which hurt everyone because of the problems of a few. That is completely contrary to what these reforms are doing. These reforms target the problem drinker, not the broader community. The only inconvenience in these reforms for the broader community is a less than 15-second swipe of an ID card as you purchase your alcohol from a takeaway outlet. We are not going to be keeping details about people on a register - another furphy the CLP is running.
It is a small community, we hear what you are saying; we have heard the furphies on radio run by the members for Sanderson and Port Darwin. It is to their eternal shame that they choose to ignore the opportunity for a bipartisan approach on alcohol reforms when all the major stakeholders in the Northern Territory support these reforms. We hope these are life-changing reforms. We hope they will change the lives of the dysfunctional individuals who are chronic alcoholics, who are destroying their health and lives. We hope these reforms change the lives of their children.
In consultations, people have said to me: ‘We are supportive of these reforms. They mean kids will have a chance of getting to school. Thank you’. We hope they will change the lives of people in all communities across the Territory, from our suburban areas where we see public drunkenness and the humbug at the shops, and when we hear domestic violence going on in the home - bearing in mind 70% of grog is consumed off-licence and those horrendous domestic violence statistics: 67% of assaults are domestic violence.
I say ‘we hope’ because we have consistently recognised these reforms, due to their scale and breadth, are untested. I have also said we have based this on the evidence and evaluations coming from the alcohol management plans and the tools of enforcement we have seen work throughout the Territory. We are a government that is tough enough and bold enough to step up and take action on grog.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from 23 November 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the honourable minister’s comments and wish to highlight the considerable contribution the Resource portfolio is currently contributing to the Territory’s jobs growth.
I remember the dreadful days of 2000-01 when there were no jobs in the Territory and people were leaving in droves - not 700 people in a month, probably 2000 or 3000. People were selling their units to go down south to get a job. There were no cranes in the sky - not five, not four, not three, not even one. That was the time of the CLP, when the CLP had no vision, no decision-making capability, and they let this place go to the dogs.
I recall they did not have enough money to do some of the work they had promised the year before. I also recall that as minister for Roads and Infrastructure I did not have enough money to maintain mowing the verges on the Stuart Highway – enough money until October but, after October, nothing happened.
I remember when I first came to Darwin the tallest building was NT House - 14 storeys. Look around Darwin today; Evolution is about 30. Quite a few others have sprung up - beautiful buildings and opportunities for Territorians. I remember driving into Darwin seeing the sign, ‘Palmerston, population 7000’. Today Palmerston is the second biggest city in the Territory: Darwin, Palmerston, then Alice Springs.
This did not happen by accident; this happened because of this government’s efforts. This happened because we worked very hard to provide a future for Territorians, jobs for Territorians, jobs for young Territorians - not only in the urban environment but also in the bush.
The Department of Resources has led the way in creating jobs. Primary production, fisheries, minerals and energy industries continue to grow and contribute to our economic growth and jobs in the Territory.
In relation to minerals and energy, as I outlined to the House yesterday, the mining industry contributes 26% of our gross state product and employs 4000 people directly. The outcomes being enjoyed by the minerals sector from our targeted China and Japan strategy that focuses on attracting investors to the Territory minerals sector is significant. We invested $14.4m and have yielded more than $140m investment from China and $40m from Japan.
For the last financial year, our mineral exploration is booming and has boomed; it expanded to $149.4m, up by 2% from the previous record of $146.2m. As I said yesterday, we are ahead of New South Wales, which only had an expansion of $130m, and just behind South Australia, which had $166.6m. Bear in mind, only two years ago, the expenditure for exploration in South Australia was three times that of the Territory. But, we have turned it around.
Throughout the global financial crisis, we grew our exploration industry expenditure at a time when other states and territories were in decline. In the last financial year, a range of activities has been undertaken by the Department of Resources to promote investment and jobs in the mining and energy sector. We undertook promotional activities in five Australian and two international events to over 30 000 people. We undertook successful promotion campaigns for geophysics and drilling collaborations. We signed four business agreements between Territory explorers and Chinese investors. The latest memorandum for understanding was with the East China Exploration Company we signed in Tianjing during my November visit. Six Chinese companies have been granted exploration licences and commenced exploration programs. One of the geophysical bureaus in China, the Anhui Geological Bureau, has decided to make their Palmerston office the headquarters of their company in Australia.
The Northern Territory Uranium Opportunity Seminar, run in partnership with Japan Oil, Gas Metal International Corporation as part of the Australian Uranium Conference, was attended by 21 Japanese executives.
We continued to provide information and advice to a range of energy industry clients at the Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association and South East Asian Offshore Oil Conference. We received 26 onshore applications which shows renewed interest in the Territory’s petroleum resources, with industry utilising new and unconventional exploration methods for oil and gas, such as coal seam gas.
A key achievement in 2009-10 was the record attendance at the AGES Conference. There was a 32% increase in the attendance of Chinese executives. At the event, Minister Councillor Qiu of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China wrote to me stating:
We are the only jurisdiction in Australia that has a dedicated China/Japan investment attraction strategy. Given our considerable success, other states are starting to copy us - not only copy us, but seek our cooperation. I am telling this House, the next target for us will be Korea. This is the next Asian giant, and we have to be there early and be a step ahead of all other jurisdictions in Australia.
Regarding the mining sector, it is not only that we have this investment from China, it is the jobs provided to Territorians, especially Indigenous Territorians. When we signed the expansion of the McArthur River Mine, one of the conditions for signing the expansion was that they provide a training and employment program. I am very pleased to say more than 50 young, Indigenous men from Borroloola have learned to drive the big trucks - not the lawn mowers as in the past, not the wheelbarrows, but the big trucks. I am very pleased to say I saw the same thing when I recently visited Groote Eylandt. There were Indigenous people who were driving the big hauling trucks carrying manganese and other minerals. This will be part of the amendments we will put in place for the mine management plans; it has to be a job plan, a training plan, and a community benefit plan.
Turning to primary industry, the industry in 2009-10 had an estimated production value of $425m, a rise of 7.6% over the previous year. The livestock industry is a major contributor, improved by 6.4% over the last financial year. The livestock export trade continues to grow and contribute to jobs in the face of recent difficult world economic conditions. The export trade is vital to the growth of local cattle production which remains a key element in our local primary industry sector. The Northern Territory is the largest supplier of live cattle and buffalo to Southeast Asia from Australia, with around 305 000 head of Territory cattle going to Southeast Asia in 2009. Of this, over 90% went to Indonesia.
This trade is making a major contribution to both the Northern Territory and Australian economies. Due to this present reliance on the Indonesian market, the Territory government has been keen for industry to pursue further opportunities and diversify into other potential neighbouring Asian markets. We have been working closely with industry to, firstly, maintain the current market in Indonesia and, secondly, to take a systematic approach to establishing additional markets in Southeast Asia.
The government recognises we also need to diversify. As a government, we are very supportive of establishing an abattoir in the Northern Territory. The Department of Resources, with the inter-departmental working group, is working with companies which are interested in establishing an abattoir. I am very pleased to say AAco announced the other day the board of directors support the development of an abattoir in the Northern Territory. It will be great for our economy, for skills, and to open new markets such as China.
The Department of Resources has been undertaking a range of activities to promote our primary industries to investors and to find new markets. In 2009-10, we finalised a memorandum of understanding on collaboration principles between northern Australian primary industry agencies. We are close to releasing the Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy following extensive consultation with industry this year. We have also provided a range of information to potential investors such as: the development of whole-of-government for potential agricultural investment; best practice manuals for cattle production and a sustainable range and utilisation; and contributed to the inter-departmental working group to assist potential investors in abattoirs.
Fishing is an integral part of the social, cultural and economic wellbeing for all Territorians. Subsistence fishing is an important part of Aboriginal agriculture in the Northern Territory, as it is a traditional source of protein and economic benefits. Many of the freshwater marine species found in billabongs, rivers, and coastal waters of Northern Australia are totemic to Aboriginal people and, therefore, of great cultural significance.
Fishing tourism and recreational fishing are proportionally higher in the Northern Territory per capita than anywhere else in Australia. The number of visitors to the Northern Territory who engage in guided fishing tours has also increased consistently since 1994.
In 2009-10, the Territory’s commercial fishing and agricultural industries estimated total production was $122m. Our key commercial fisheries include mud crab, barramundi, offshore snappers such as gold band snapper and red snapper, shark and Spanish mackerel.
The Territory government had the vision to take action - sometimes tough action, as seen by the fishers. For example, we increased the size of mud crabs that you are allowed to take, which met with significant resistance from the mud crabbing industry. Today, the mud crab industry says: ‘Thank God you did that at the time you did it, otherwise our industry would go downhill’.
We are the only jurisdiction in Australia to label fish as locally caught or imported. We are the only ones in Australia; the others have been trying for three years now to do it, and they have found resistance from the importers and, sometimes, from their own government. They are looking to us and the recent survey where we talked to the industries of Darwin to get support to have their own fish to be labelled either as locally caught, Australian, or imported. The difference is it is not only as a consumer I want to know what I pay for, but it is a way to support our local industry. It is very easy to import fish from Asia, to bring it in at the cheaper price, but that means the disappearance of our fishing industry in Australia, and we are not allowed to do that. We will work with our Seafood Council to ensure this will remain in place - and as long as this government is in power, it will remain in place. I will work very hard to persuade my fellow counterparts to implement the same ruling all across Australia. We will win it one day, but we still have a long way to go.
In Aquaculture, we are ahead of any other jurisdiction in Australia. The aquaculture industry is an emerging industry which predominantly consists of pearling - valued at $18.9m in 2009-10 - barramundi and, very soon - and I hope the experiment will go well in Groote Eylandt - sea cucumber. There are potential opportunities for giant clams and edible oysters. In 2009-10, significant activity occurred to promote our industry: we produced over one million barramundi fingerlings for sale to commercial barramundi farms; small-scale trials commenced for growing juvenile sea cucumbers in a pond-based environment; we developed two pilot-scale sea cucumber ranching projects in association with the Indigenous communities at Goulburn Island and Groote Eylandt; there was a successful pilot-scale production of juvenile giant clams for the aquarium industry; we investigated the feasibility of an edible oyster culture; we secured Fisheries Research Development Corporation funding for the development of a framework for Indigenous participation in aquaculture; we collaborated on a national research and development project into the propagation of yellowtail kingfish and southern blue fin tuna; and we continued research into the protection and management of aquatic animal disease.
The Indigenous Community Coastal Marine Ranger Program, coordinated by my department, is nationally recognised. This government provides funding to eight marine ranger groups around the Northern Territory coastline to assist in the monitoring and surveillance of Territory fisheries. In 2010, my department facilitated the successful training of an additional 24 Indigenous marine rangers in Certificate II in Fisheries Compliance and Enforcement. It was these marine rangers who were patrolling our sea when we had a massive invasion of illegal fishermen on the Northern Territory coast of Australia. They were the ones who notified the Navy and Customs of where these people were hiding, storing nets, fuel and, sometimes, food, in order for them to be apprehended. They did a terrific job which has to be recognised. I sincerely thank them on behalf of the Territory, Territorians, and the whole of Australia for the fantastic job they have done.
I am lucky to have a portfolio which has the opportunity to provide jobs to Territorians, not only in the city but also where there are no other opportunities, in remote places such as Borroloola and Ngukurr. It is not only the mining sector or agriculture, but bringing Indigenous land back into production; having agreements with Indigenous people to bring their vast expanses of land back into cattle production. We have the knowledge, we have the capability and, after all, in the 1950s and 1960s the best stockmen were the Indigenous people. Let us bring them back into production. Let us bring them back to doing what they knew best how to do. Let us bring some pride to the communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend my colleague’s contribution to the House. My department has a unique opportunity to provide more and more jobs for Territorians.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the ministerial statement, Jobs in the Territory. I echo the Chief Minister’s opening remark that for a Labor government the most important of all economic indicators is jobs. This is a critical issue, and one which is a significant policy difference between the government and the opposition. This government sees jobs as a key indicator; a litmus test of the health of our community. Jobs create self-confidence and self-esteem. This must never be undervalued in good government policy. Jobs empower people to create their future and the future for their family.
The opposition has argued, and will continue to argue, the health of the economy should be judged by the gross domestic product, or the amount of money flowing into the community. This is fundamentally flawed, and I ask the Liberal members opposite to think about it. Think about the strength of a community with high employment and high business confidence and, in my words, high self-esteem. Think about family lives and futures being driven by employment opportunities. Think about the social outcomes achieved from individuals being able to be active participants in the community. Contrast that with the impact of unemployment - not just on an individual family, but on the whole community - and removing the opportunity for the individual to determine their future and the future of their family; in removing the opportunity for an investment back into the community. In light of the debate and rhetoric we have heard so far from the opposition on this statement, let us remove the politics and consider the issue at hand.
The Labor government’s vision is for all Territorians to have the opportunity and capacity to participate in the workforce and invest in the economic and social future of the Northern Territory - clear and loud. It is about keeping Territorians in jobs and creating education and training opportunities through employment. The opposition’s constant default position - the knocking, the talking down of the Territory - would have taken a hit last month. I am willing to wager those opposite were rather embarrassed when Access Economics predicted the Territory will continue to have the strongest jobs growth in the country over the next five years. This government understands that jobs growth will not just happen because Access Economics forecasts it. We understand it will happen through good government and strategic investment in the Territory’s future.
Before I continue with my contribution to the debate, I want to comment on the member for Sanderson’s contribution to the statement. It was the same negative diatribe we hear every time. If the Territory is so bad, then pack the bags, saddle the horses and head on out. If the Territory is so bad, which is what we hear continually from those on the other side - talk about everyone leaving, business struggling, no housing; there was not one positive comment in a 20-minute contribution from the member for Sanderson. I know he can do better!
You must listen carefully to the statement from the Chief Minister, and you must read it carefully because, if you do not, your arguments will be fundamentally wrong from the start. It is hard to say business is struggling when we have the highest business confidence. It is hard to say everyone is leaving and there is no housing. It is a self-defeating argument. Palmerston is our fastest growing city, and population growth over the past five years has been very strong. We are releasing land five times faster than ever before in the Territory’s history. Housing construction approvals are at record levels. Member for Sanderson, you have an important role in this Assembly. As a member, you need to be working for a better future, so give up talking the Territory down and read the Chief Minister’s statement carefully.
I also touch on the contribution by the member for Blain, who missed the point. The statement is about jobs. I reiterate the comment from the Treasurer: the member for Blain needs to get out of this building, take a look around Palmerston, at the land release and work under way, and at the new housing construction. See it with your own eyes, talk to the people involved and, then, assess over a 12-month period the incredible accelerated land release program taking place before our very eyes.
Two weeks ago, I issued a media release which provided an update of land release in Palmerston. There was silence from those on the other side; however, the member for Brennan commented. For the benefit of those opposite, let me share, once again, some of the extracts from that release: work is set to begin on the $3.145m project to provide electricity to the new Palmerston East suburbs of Johnston and Zuccoli. I have looked at where that infrastructure will take shape. The electrical headworks will help provide power to more than 2000 residential lots in the two new suburbs. Palmerston is becoming a city of choice for Territory families, with new schools almost complete and work starting soon on new sport and recreation facilities. We heard about that today. We heard ministers sharing those good news stories with Territorians about what this government is doing. The construction of new suburbs such as Johnston and Zuccoli means more Territorians will call Palmerston home, which is why Budget 2010-11 invests $20m towards headworks in these suburbs.
I met with the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory recently. They complimented this government on its insight, good planning, and good management around delivering headworks infrastructure with capacity to support further land release. I congratulate local company, Wolpers Grahl Pty Ltd, for being awarded the subdivision electrical headworks tender that will directly support 20 jobs, including five trade apprentices. Work will begin early next month and be completed by the end of the next Dry Season.
While inspecting work under way in Palmerston East earlier, I also named the three short-listed companies in the running to develop Johnston Stage 2. Johnston Stage 2 will deliver 284 residential lots to provide up to 583 new homes for Territorians, and includes a seniors village, and a commercial area for potential mixed use development containing retail, commercial, and residential opportunities. This is media that I released to tell the Territorians of the good story and what the government is delivering. I urge Hannon’s Pty Ltd, Gratis Pty Ltd, and Urbex to submit their tenders to develop Johnston Stage 2 before the deadline closes in two months. What wonderful opportunities for local Territory companies and jobs!
A total of 116 titles have already been issued for the new suburb of Bellamack, with titles to be issued for another 82 lots before the end of 2010. It is great to see more than 30 homes being constructed in Bellamack, and I look forward to the first lot of Territorians moving into their new homes when they are built. I have watched the subdivision take shape. I am now going out and seeing homes being constructed. I look forward to the day when I see kids playing cricket on the front lawn.
It is important to note, as well, our government’s policy. The first 12 lots allocated for affordable house and land packages in Bellamack were sold by ballot last December, and a further 21 affordable house and land package ballot will be held on 5 December 2010 – land opportunities, housing opportunities for all Territorians. Land is being released, homes are being built, and we are delivering new housing to support the jobs that have been created. Let us not forget, 15% of new lots are being set aside to deliver affordable homes and social housing for Territorians.
The member for Blain also asked what is happening at the port. Well, frankly, he should know. How about the member for Blain have a look at the port master plan I recently released which details how our port investment is driving the future capability of the port? The marine supply base is creating international interest, and I thank the Resources minister and minister for Business in driving interest in investing in our port from overseas.
Private investment is welcome in the Territory. I welcomed the meeting with the Chinese Development Bank delegation when they were in Darwin last week. I thank the minister for Resources for inviting me to that meeting. It was wonderful to meet representatives from the China Development Bank with a map of the Northern Territory laid out on the boardroom table. We walked all over that map. We talked about the opportunities in the Territory, the opportunities for all Territorians, the jobs that can be created, and the resources we have available to support that. They were wonderful people, and I took the liberty of inviting them to Tennant Creek in the Barkly on a possible next visit. I was pleased to say there was great interest shown. Mr Di, who led the delegation, advised me as a child he spent time in inner Mongolia and worked on farms and learnt to ride a horse. He is very keen to meet some of my sons and take up that opportunity of saddling up and having a look at the Barkly from horseback. So, the power of positive thinking.
In relation to the economy, there is no doubt the Territory economy is strong. You just have to go outside and have a look around to ensure you understand that. To keep it strong, we need to continue to invest in education and training, to ensure our workforce is ready to take full advantage of the opportunities ahead in northern Australia.
As the Chief Minister noted, 26 600 new Territory jobs have been created since Labor came to office in the Northern Territory. What a record to be proud of! It is an amazing achievement and it is getting better. In 2010, we have enjoyed unemployment rates at record lows - rates that are well below national figures. Our track record of both job creation and unemployment at low levels is in stark contrast to those of the opposition years. The Country Liberals will try to recreate their own history and argue that employment has little to do with government but, frankly, they are wrong. The Country Liberal Party failed to invest in the Territory and the self-claimed party for business drove the Territory economy into the ground. When I get challenged about trying to rewrite history, I will remind those opposite that I lived that, I was here. I lived through that era and I was part of the Territory movement that changed that government. In contrast, the Territory’s current record levels of unemployment at 3.1% compare well with the national figure of 5.2%. We should not forget that this result has been forged in a time of global economic uncertainty - unprecedented global economic uncertainty.
As members may be aware, I grew up in New South Wales. I noted with interest the Chief Minister’s comment about the rate of youth unemployment in Western Sydney, which is about 25%. That brings back memories of the 1970s, and it is in stark contrast to the opportunities in the Territory. I will throw out a couple of anecdotes, because I have also been personally involved in job creation. I will boast that, at one stage, we had five McCarthys working in the Barkly region. I am very proud of that. I continue to recruit people to the Territory to take advantage of the incredible opportunities on offer. My most recent targets are a couple of young carpenters I happen to know from the south coast of New South Wales, who are really struggling with the economic downturn, who have not been building houses for some time. So the message was clear: ‘Pack up the ute, gents, roll a swag and get yourself to the Northern Territory, because it is truly the land of opportunity’.
I am proud to be part of this Labor government that is focused on building a bright future for young Territorians. However, it comes with challenges, and I will talk about the challenges of Indigenous employment. As the member for Barkly, it is important I address the issue of Indigenous employment. We have heard members of the opposition talk down our strategies for increasing Indigenous workforce participation. Bluntly put, they need to open their eyes. This government is committed to the bush, to growing our regions to benefit all Territorians. This government is making inroads. In the past few years, the number of Indigenous Territorians in employment has grown by 6%. This happened due to deliberate employment strategies and investment in the regions.
We are setting the framework for real improvement in the bush and in the lives of Indigenous Territorians through our A Working Future agenda. A Working Future is the framework for enterprise development, new opportunities, and new jobs. It is about creating access to employment and relevant training opportunities. It is about driving business growth and services. Indigenous Territorians must be empowered to create their own future, to participate in the economy.
Employment is fundamental. I have my own ideas and my own lobby, and I take great advice from my parliamentary colleagues. I took particular note when the Minister for Central Australia was commenting on the wonderful opportunities for Indigenous employment but, also, highlighting from personal acknowledgement as an Indigenous man, the challenges that relate to Indigenous Australians in moving to that next stage in challenging some of the important cultural protocols in a positive way and taking advantage of the opportunities on offer. From very small companies in Tennant Creek and the Barkly, to the pastoral community, to the Cattlemen’s Association, and to the big mining companies of the Northern Territory, I have spoken about opportunities and being inclusive of Indigenous Territorians.
There are wonderful opportunities. I continue to lobby kids at home to take that step, to go out there on a limb and look at the new industries in construction, transport, mining, and pastoral, where it is a new shift change, a new way of doing business. They are well-paid jobs and they provide wonderful opportunities, but you have to take that step. You need the support of your family and your community.
The member for Central Australia drilled down into some really important levels that we need to factor in. That is about young Indigenous Territorians dealing with big money in a pay packet, with homesickness, with travelling away …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the minister, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you Madam Speaker. I thank members for their indulgence, because this is a really good story and I love telling good stories.
Let us talk about not only working with kids in the bush, but about the big end of town. My advice has come from meeting with industry, and industry being nervous about taking these steps. I like to challenge industry as well, especially when the member for Nhulunbuy introduced me to some major players at Rio Tinto Alcan in Nhulunbuy which presents incredible opportunities for training to employment and to a future. They were interested to discuss how we can engage Territorians, Indigenous Territorians, and Correctional Services’ clients coming home from a Correctional Services’ institution.
I challenged them with: if we have opportunities at Nhulunbuy and we have people to match, then let us not use Nhulunbuy, let us send them to Weipa. That was quite challenging for some of the members in that meeting, but they acknowledged my reasoning for that was to continue to develop a world vision - to continue to develop education and awareness in new lands, with new people. The message to the kids on the other side of that story is: you can always come home. Home is not going to change, home is still there. When you come home after experiencing a couple of weeks of very meaningful, hard employment, then you can relax, in a Barkly context, in some of the best waterholes in the world, or back home on a lease in cattle country or back in town in Tennant Creek. Try it, you might like it.
This is the way we are moving forward. This is part of the A Working Future policy. This is about growing the Territory’s potential workforce. This is about our government focus on ensuring individuals in these communities are job ready so they can take advantage of the opportunities on offer in their region, in the Territory and further afield.
Under this government, Indigenous Territorians in remote communities are attending and graduating from high school at home for the first time. Government agencies are working in partnership with industry to identify and support opportunities for Indigenous enterprise. We are also targeting our programs specifically at job opportunities. I highlight just one example found within my portfolio of Correctional Services: the new Barkly work camp and Katherine prison farm and work camp - important elements of the new era in Corrections which will both have education and training programs at the heart of their service delivery. The focus on education and training is about turning around the lives of prisoners, 82% of whom are Indigenous in the Northern Territory.
Taking that commitment even further both facilitates the need and the opportunity to enhance training skills and target shortages of labour in the respective regions. This is a practical way forward. This is the way we are doing business in the remote areas. This is the way we will get results for Indigenous Territorians who otherwise fall through the gaps.
To return to the broader issue of job creation for Territorians, as the Minister for Construction, I am pleased to be driving the delivery of a record $1.8bn infrastructure program. That is a lot of work which is going on in the Territory over a number of years. This is a record budget commitment made in the face of a global economic downturn. It is a courageous decision by this government to invest in the future to support and sustain Territory jobs. The $1.8bn capital works program marks a 12% increase on 2009-10 and is more than double that of 2008-09 - three years of strong investment for the benefit of the Territory and Territory jobs.
This government’s strategic infrastructure program will secure 3600 Territory jobs, delivering important infrastructure and a future for the Northern Territory. To highlight some projects: $30m to support our record residential land release program delivering power, water, sewerage and roads for the new suburbs of Zuccoli, and Kilgariff in Alice Springs; $900 000 which supported 54 residential lots in Tennant Creek, 28 already sold, the rest to go in 2011; $49m for public housing; $20m to upgrade schools across the Territory; completion of the $54.5m Rosebery Primary and Middle Schools project; $19.6m to upgrade the Alice Springs Hospital emergency department; $18.8m to build police stations and officer accommodation; and upgrades to key bush roads, including $20m to seal the Umbakumba Road and $14m to upgrade the Central Arnhem Road.
We could go on and on because there is much to add to the list. These key infrastructure projects are benefiting Territorians now and into the future. These key projects are securing those 3600 jobs for Territorians - record infrastructure spending. We heard from the Chief Minister and the Treasurer about eight budget surpluses in a row delivered by Labor. We need to remind Territorians we made the decision to enter into a deficit when required to protect Territory jobs - a tough political decision, but necessary.
As the Master Builders and industry leaders told us, the construction industry in the Northern Territory faced irreparable damage without a stimulus program. The alternative view argued by the opposition, with its typical conservative view, is surpluses should be maintained regardless of the impact on the community. This alternative policy position would have cost Territorians jobs. It was advocated by those opposite who presided over successive budget black holes when in government. This year, we will deliver $1.8bn on jobs-creating infrastructure. One of those important stimulus packages in a fiscal stimulus strategy was the Building the Education Revolution program, in providing vital infrastructure building programs at every school in the Northern Territory.
In Tennant Creek alone - I will not go into what is happening at the Barkly College/Tennant Creek High School campus with the science learning centre and the new gymnasium, I will go to some recently advertised. Tender No T101768, construction Tennant Creek/Barkly region: Ali Curung School, design and construct new classroom, covered outdoor learning area and ablutions, Building the Education Revolution, Primary Schools for the 21st Century, tendering period six weeks, advertised in the Centralian Advocate, Katherine Times, NT News, Tennant Creek & District Times. That certainly will create jobs! Tennant Creek Primary School, upgrade and extend the existing open multipurpose hall, Building the Education Revolution, tendering period six weeks, advertised in the same papers. This is jobs and infrastructure in the region.
Touring the electorate, I can comment on the fiscal strategy and the legacy it is leaving in the most incredible infrastructure we have seen in the region for a long time. Borroloola, Robinson River, Rockhampton Downs, Epenarra, Canteen Creek, Murray Downs, Minyerri, Jilkminggan – I have seen these projects in these places. I have seen the jobs and have witnessed and shared the community excitement. This highlights a very broad policy difference between us and those opposite, and the Territory community is very pleased the stimulus package and the Building the Education Revolution occurred, and the legacy will be real educational opportunities, training opportunities, and employment for generations to come.
When we talk about the delivery of programs, I must talk also about the new Department of Construction and Infrastructure. Last financial year, the Department of Construction and Infrastructure managed a record 3000 projects with a program value of $1.168bn - an amazing achievement. I again thank the hard-working members of the Department of Construction and Infrastructure for the effort they put into delivering the government’s programs. Well done, guys, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, because you have a hell of a lot of work in front of you in 2011.
We have achieved records, we have a clear focus on training, and we have a clear plan for the future to move beyond the current labour challenges so the Territory is well positioned during a national recovery.
Madam Speaker, from 2001 to 2009, the NT economy has grown at an average rate of 3.7%; business confidence is the highest in the nation. This Labor government has a record infrastructure investment. It is an achievement all Territorians should be proud of. These achievements will be built on. I commend the Chief Minister for this statement in the House.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement. He expressed a clear policy passion for jobs. His No 1 economic indicator in the Territory is jobs. That is because it is the economic statistic that is most directly related to a person. It is sometimes easy to forget that behind every statistic there are people. When it comes to jobs, that is the economic statistic that is most easily related to an individual. We believe in the dignity of work, the importance of having a job, the importance of being able to bring money home to look after yourself, your family, to pay for the roof over your head, and so on.
It is a really important point of difference between us and the opposition, particularly in how the federal Labor government responded to the global financial crisis when they said we needed to have a targeted, timely, and temporary approach - a stimulus package investment into Australia to ensure we do not go into recession, that we can keep people in a job. The federal opposition said: ‘No, we do not need the stimulus’. I believe the member for Fong Lim often refers to New Zealand where, if there is a loss in taxation revenue, essentially, we should make savings cuts to the federal budget - in many respects a double negative, a double impact on what was happening around the country. What we saw, instead, was a targeted, timely, and temporary response from the federal government through its stimulus package to save jobs and, sometimes, create jobs – but, essentially, to save jobs to ensure people still had that dignity of work, that they were still able to bring home money, to have pride.
Most people I know have pride in their job, in what they do – pride, in fact, that they have a job. Almost anywhere, in any sort of conversation, at some stage it comes up: what do you do for a living? You have a chat: ‘How do you like it; what is going on?’ People like having employment for many reasons. The most important is the pay cheque at the end of the day to pay for all the bills we have. People want to work.
The economic stimulus package, as a response to the global financial crisis, was critical for many reasons; one of the most important being it kept people in employment. It kept them earning, and that was critical. Obviously, in the Territory the biggest example of that was the Building the Education Revolution that was actively opposed by the federal opposition and members opposite have people in the federal House and in the Senate who were opposed to the economic stimulus package.
We saw the outcome of the Building the Education Revolution in the Territory - not just for the impact that it has on schools, such as my schools of Parap Primary and Stuart Park Primary, where it has had an amazing impact. The schools are 100% better for the investment. They are fantastic outcomes. The hall at Parap is huge; it could be a high school hall. It is amazing, compared to the old hall that was there. Stuart Park Primary also has a new hall. They have gone for a slightly different approach. They have more classroom space and a music room built in there as well. They have been good outcomes for the schools.
Importantly, they gave employment to people. The contractors I have spoken to saw the Building the Education Revolution coming along at the perfect time for them. They had jobs, then they had the Building the Education Revolution. Now, they have jobs after that. So, they were able to secure their workforce. Contractors who work under them have businesses which have workers who rely on them for their income, and they were able, thanks to the Building the Education Revolution, see that security of employment for their workforce. That was a really important outcome of the Building the Education Revolution investment. It was critical to have that security of employment, the dignity of work, to go home and say: ‘I worked today, I have money, I can put bread on the table, I can pay the bills, I can pay for the roof over my head. I do not have to go on to the dole, do not have to be an extra impost on the taxpayers of this country. I can work’.
That was the critical outcome of how federal Labor responded to the global financial crisis. It all came down, at the end of the day, to the individuals and families. That really is, and should be, the outcome of policies we talk about in this House. It is easy to get lost in statistics, but the most important outcome of what we did - and the example I am using at the moment is Building the Education Revolution - was to keep people in a job. To have a tradie, his tools in one hand and a pay cheque in the other, was a really positive outcome. We saw massive benefits in Australia and in the Territory from that investment.
We echoed it as a Territory government. I want to talk to some of the matters the minister for Infrastructure referred to in his statement; that is, as a Territory government, we had a record infrastructure spend in this budget of $1.8bn. It was a huge investment from government because, at the moment as we know, the investment which is happening in the Territory is largely public. There has been difficulty in securing private funds, or to spend private funds, because of what is happening globally and the constriction of private cash.
It is critical at this time that government is spending money on infrastructure projects. It is a targeted, timely, and temporary response, which is the best thing about infrastructure projects - you build them once, you pay for them once and that money has gone out of the budget; it is not a recurrent spend. You are making a very positive impact, creating a job in the private sector and keeping people in work. In time, the public sector will come back and spend that money. But, in the interim, it is important the government steps up and does what it can. That is what we are doing at the moment. We have a fantastic result out of the Building the Education Revolution at the moment. The Territory government is putting in $1.8bn - a record spend from Budget 2010-11 - into our construction program; that is, a 399% increase and a $7.7bn injection into the Territory economy since we were elected. When we first came to government in 2001, it was a $364m construction spend. Where we are now, with $1.8bn, is a 399% increase and a total $7.7bn injection. We do believe in the importance of creating work in the private sector, keeping people in employment, making sure people have a job – essentially, what the Chief Minister was speaking about in his statement.
Targeted government investment delivers projects which will have a lasting benefit for the people in the Territory. Strategic government investment in infrastructure creates jobs and drives the economy; it gives the private sector certainty and confidence to invest in the Northern Territory. We can see that confidence and investment by the private sector in my electorate. There are still projects going on. There is a confidence in the Territory at the moment, and there is certainly a confidence in Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park. There are a few projects on the go at the moment in and around my patch.
In the Parap Shopping Village, Arafura Catering Equipment’s new store has opened to the public. Anyone who has been to Parap in the last couple of months would have seen the building works going on, and the empty block between Toppy’s and the chemist being filled in. That was done by Arafura Catering Equipment, which had an office across the road. They saw and were confident about the future of the Territory, and they wanted to invest in the future of the Territory, so they have built themselves a brand new office space. They own it, they run it. They were hiring before; they have now made their own investment in the Territory, in Parap. They have stayed in Parap because they see that area as also growing local, homegrown business. Roger and Sharon are a great example of how hard work breeds success.
Customers may think it is a small move from one side of Parap Shopping Village to the other, but it represents a huge growth for a business that, over the last 11 years, has grown from four employees to 23. The area they cover is three million square kilometres – businesses in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, Papua New Guinea and Timor. The Arafura Catering Equipment looks after an area that size – there are kitchens everywhere. They do an amazing job of supporting many businesses, not just the Territory, but in other states and overseas as well, often in mining areas and professional restaurants. If you want to do a household kitchen, they will help out, but they are very much into professional kitchens; it is a massive business.
The fact that Arafura Catering Equipment is still calling Parap home is a fantastic sign of confidence in Parap and its regeneration. For those who do not know, Arafura Catering Equipment specialises in hospitality and catering sales and service, and design and installation of commercial kitchens. If you go into the Parap-based business, there is also an extensive range of catering equipment, tools and accessories for the professional and the home chef. You have to be careful when you go into Arafura Catering Equipment, because you see so much good stuff you want to buy; it is a very good shopfront. That is not their main business. Their main business is installing and servicing kitchens around the Territory, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, Papua New Guinea, Timor - all over the place. It is a massive business. They have done very well. It is a great success story for a local business, and their decision to reinvest in Parap is a sign of confidence in our local community.
Across the road from the Parap shops - I do not know how many people have been to Parap lately - is the Kingston Green development going up on the old Ross Smith site. There are the new Norbuilt offices on the old Fred’s fuel site, and a new retail centre on the old Britz site in Stuart Park, which is also moving ahead rapidly. The Norbuilt offices will be three storeys. Over 50% of the 13 or 14 offices - depending on how they configure the development - are already sold. That is a great result and a clear indication of a keen interest by business to establish itself in the Parap/Fannie Bay area. It is an area where people want to work.
There is a growing interest in people working outside the CBD. From Parap/Fannie Bay where my office is, it is a five minute drive into town, an easy cruise down the highway. It is not far away. People are saying they do not mind working in Parap and Fannie Bay and being slightly outside the CBD. There is a growing interest in that, and we have seen the investment by Norbuilt in their new offices, of which half are already leased. If you drive past now it looks like it is just about to be officially opened. They are doing the finishing touches at the moment. It is fantastic to see them invest in that area. Norbuilt is very busy. They have also been working on the old Waratah Oval site where Southern Cross is going. With the fit-out they have to do internally to the Norbuilt offices on the corner, on the old Fred’s fuel site, it will probably be around March/April next year when they will be ready to open.
The local community will welcome the extra office workers during the day. The Parap Shopping Village is already a busy place but the extra people in the area, the extra demand for a morning coffee, a bite to eat at lunch, will see the Parap Shopping Village become even better as local businesses embrace the demand.
Across the road from those Norbuilt offices there is Arnhemica which, I understand, is also on the verge of being leased. So, there will be even more office workers in the area, and local business will respond to that and the Parap shops are going to become even better. It is a fantastic place to live and I know the traders are very keen to respond to that extra demand. There are going to be more people moving in at night as well.
The Kingston Green site is across the road from the Parap Primary School on the old Ross Smith guest house site. The Quest Apartments at the front look like they are almost finished. There is a great deal of work going on at that site and some work going on at the back at the moment. It is going to be built in several stages, but there is some work going on at the back as well for residential developments. There are going to be a few more people living in the area. It is a short walk to the Parap shops from where they are, across the road from the school. It is a huge site. There will be 48 two-bedroom units and 72 three-bedroom units and, good news for the tourist industry, 42 two-bedroom serviced apartments at the Quest site.
Next door are the Parap Village Serviced Apartments which are already popular for visitors - especially for visitors who have family and friends in the area. It is always good when you visit town to stay somewhere close to your family and friends. The Parap Village Serviced Apartments have provided that for a long time now. They are very busy and popular, and the Quest Serviced Apartments next door will provide similar service. There is going to be a very strong demand for those serviced apartments; there is a shortage at the moment. People I know who come to town who want to stay for a little while often find that serviced apartments are hard to find; they are often booked out. They are very popular, so it is good to have more serviced apartments going up, especially in our area. If you are going to get a serviced apartment, somewhere beautiful like Parap or Fannie Bay is a very good spot.
At Kingston Green, construction of Stage 1 is nearly complete. Stage 1 consists of 30 two- and three-bedroom apartments in one building. Three-bedroom apartments in Stage 1 are available at prices between $585 000 and $635 000. I believe all the two-bedroom units in Stage 1 are already sold, which is a very good sign of confidence in the area. They have a display demountable set up now with finishes, so if you are interested check it out. Once Stage 1 is finished, they will have a display unit which people can look through.
Stages 2 and 3 have just started. Kingston Green Stage 2 consists of 30 two- and three-bedroom apartments in one building. Two-bedroom apartments in Stage 2 are available for $525 000, and three-bedroom apartments in Stage 2 are available from $610 000. Stage 4 will start in eight months. The serviced apartments will be built in Stages 3 and 4. The total project will finish in about 18 months. There are a lot of numbers there. I will give that all to Hansard later to ensure they get it right.
This is another important project in the regeneration of Parap. Parap and Fannie Bay are great places to live. One of the reasons our move to become an alternative to the CBD is happening for people who want to have a coffee, a meal or a drink is because of the extra people moving in, whether it is during the day as office workers or after hours on a weekend as local residents. We have strong local communities in Parap and Fannie Bay. The projects which are happening reflect our local community. They have been developed through consultation with locals. We have a local community which participates in the comment stage of development approvals, and the new projects are going to strengthen our local community.
One of those projects is the new development on the old Wirrina site at Parap. I was there last week with the minister and the new affordable housing rental company which is going to be established in the Territory. The village at Parap is going to be a fantastic development. They are moving quickly. There is a massive hole on the site at the moment. They have done that in a matter of weeks. This is the first mixed public/private unit development in the Northern Territory. I have had the opportunity to speak about this often in parliament; I am quite proud of what they are doing on that site. It is a new housing model because we recognise the old housing model does not work. We have seen, over many years now, the old housing model does not work. Wirrina is our first opportunity to look at a new housing model; one we have seen work down south. There are also examples overseas where it has worked. I had the opportunity to visit places in Brisbane and Sydney where it has worked.
Mixed housing makes sense as part of that development - social housing, affordable housing and private housing. It makes sense to develop affordable housing for rent in the inner city close to public transport, shops, schools, and sports facilities. The Australian government has recognised that; it has invested $13.5m in the village at Parap under its Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan.
The development will include 10 seniors units and 35 units to be managed by the company I mentioned. The remainder will be sold on the private market by Sitzler. This will be an attractive inner urban living option for social housing tenants, first homebuyers and young professionals. Work has commenced and will continue next year. The units must be completed by 2012 in order to meet the Territory obligations to the Australian government stimulus plan, which will certainly happen. The complex will aim to meet 6-star energy ratings, with tropical design which draws on thermal insulation, cross-ventilation, and shade to provide cool, energy-efficient living. The buildings will be one apartment deep to encourage breezes and reduce density. With a front balcony and a back balcony, winds will breeze through. You will not have a unit at the back abutting onto yours to restrict the breeze; the breeze will flow through.
The units will be a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units. There has also been interest in the size and cost of the units. I believe they are a good size unit for a good price. We are not aiming for prestige units; the market already caters for that. We are aiming for an area the market has not catered for. There is social housing, affordable housing for rent, and units for the private market. The units for the private market at the village at Parap will be sold by Knight Frank and LJ Hooker. A display home will open up nearby later this year, and there are established site offices at Parap shops in the old Arafura Catering Equipment offices near the new Parap Police Beat.
It is important we have an alternative to the CBD when it comes to having a coffee or dinner. It is a sign of growth and maturity to have an inner city area which provides that lifestyle. The Parap and Fannie Bay Shopping Villages capture the lifestyle of Darwin with the local clubs - the Trailer Boat Club, the Sailing Club, the Ski Club, the bowls club, the Railway Club and so on. We have a great lifestyle in our area with fantastic community groups, and there is a very strong sense of community. I have discussed this with local traders at Parap Shopping Village. We have an active traders association. I have talked to them about new and exciting ways they can use the Parap Shopping Village plaza and footpaths, especially in the evening, and they are very excited about it. There is going to be a growing demand and it is just a matter of time before someone embraces that opportunity to use the plaza in the middle that is used on market day. I have had several functions there and believe it is ripe for a business to run a restaurant in the evening similar to those in Europe; it is a fantastic spot.
There is some interest in utilising the footpaths through that area outside restaurants for tables and chairs. I believe Saffrron has looked at that. We have several restaurants there and it is only a matter of time before more businesses in the area embrace the opportunity for outside dining, especially if more people live and work in the area. It is a fantastic spot, not just for the people who live and work in the area, but for those who live outside Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park who come for a drink at Bogarts, the Parap Tavern, the Railway Club, the Ski Club, the Sailing Club or the Trailer Boat Club. There are many businesses, clubs and restaurants in the area that people like to frequent. It is only a matter of time before they embrace the opportunity to go outside, which would be fantastic.
It is fair to say there probably has been a bit of reluctance in the past to invest in outdoor dining and other opportunities in the village because of antisocial behaviour. We recognise that. We have responded to that with the investment in the Parap Police Beat, our approach to public housing through the area, a broader policy on alcohol reform, and a whole series of things we are doing. We always believe that, as good as things are or as good as things may seem to be, you can always do better. It is always important to keep working and recognise that people will always have concerns that need to be addressed. That is something we need to …
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Fannie Bay to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GUNNER: Thank you, member for Daly.
Obviously, we need to respond to that. In my area we have put together a plan around how to deal with some of those concerns. They are not necessarily going to be silver bullets. I do not think there is any such thing as a silver bullet. Essentially, you have to work hard. That is the best way to address many of the problems every local member gets in any way, through hard work. There are usually no silver bullets.
The new Police Beat is based at the Parap shops. It will go a long way towards addressing concerns of traders and local residents. There are two police officers and an auxiliary officer based at the Police Beat; they have a patrol car. They are doing foot and bike patrols through Fannie Bay and Stuart Park shops as well as along the escarpment at East Point, then Vesteys, and back in. They are part of our plan to make Parap, Fannie Bay, and Stuart Park places to live to help people feel safer.
We have a climate that provides amazing opportunities, and I am determined the forward-thinking business people of my electorate have the chance to make the most of those opportunities.
Around the corner from Kingston Green is the Southern Cross seniors village on the old Waratah Oval. I had the pleasure the other day, with the Chief Minister, to attend the launch of the village. They did it at the convention centre, which was attended by 100 to 200 people. I actually did not do a head count, but there were many people there who were invited who expressed an interest in the village, and they came to see a presentation on what is going to be on-site. I did a site inspection with Vin Keneally from Manuel Liveris, the architects, to see the progress to date. They started on a Stage 1, which is the 65 aged-care beds. They have approval for 85 on that spot, and they are building 65 to start. Construction is currently under way. Though they are still working on it, you can see the quality and the clear thought that has gone into what they are doing on that site. Again, a great opportunity of recognising a policy need in the Territory of keeping grandparents in the Northern Territory. If you keep grandparents, you keep young families who will want to be with their grandparents. This is providing that need and, at the same time, being a construction project, also creating jobs and employment in the area.
There is much work going on in my area at the moment putting people in employment. That village is going to be a very important part of the population retention policy we have, as a government, in keeping grandparents in town, which usually keeps young families in town because young families want to be with their grandparents.
We are on track at Waratah Oval with Southern Cross. Stage 1 is looking good. External walls are complete, the roof is going on, the site structure is complete, the internal works have commenced, and the staff units are ready to be painted, which means they can soon get people in there and start training. They have moved that part of the development ahead, because they wanted to ensure they could house staff so they could do their training with them all in one spot, which is very sensible and good thinking. The main building will be done by Christmas, which is only a month away - two pays away; a very frightening thought in many ways, with Christmas just around the corner. The main building will be done by Christmas, with the finishing works in January and February, and the place will be ready to open in March, which is good news.
Stage 2 is the first of the retirement village units, with work on nine villas starting in a couple of months’ time. Each of those nine units will be a different design so people can get a chance to look through all of them, see what they like. The generation of people who want to move into the village like to see, touch, feel what they are going to buy. They do not like buying off a plan. They like physically seeing what is available. So, they are going to build nine different villas and let people have a look at them, let people choose what they want so, when they build the rest of the village, they can do it based on people’s preferences. Essentially, there will be nine display units.
It is going to be quite interesting when they open up. I believe there are going to be many people wanting to walk through and see what they are doing, the quality of the work. As most members would know who have visited seniors villages, the work you do in a senior unit is quite different to the work you do in an ordinary house, with the thought that goes into different things such as the width of hallways, where you put the power points and the benches. There is very specific designing you do for seniors units, and they are doing it on that site and it is going to be a very exciting development.
There is also a 3500m retail development happening in Stuart Park on the old Britz site on the Stuart Highway. The project is happening because of good community consultation between the developer and the local community that saw the site rezoned for commercial space. The consultations were initially managed by the former local members Clare Martin and Kerry Sacilotto last term. That area was shared by Port Darwin and Fannie Bay. The boundaries have since changed and it now sits squarely in my patch. They did some good early consultation work with the local community, which I picked up on when I was elected.
The front of the block was zoned Commercial, and the back of the block was zoned Residential. The initial community feedback was: ‘We do not want to lose that residential area, we want it to stay residential’. The developer said: ‘Let us have a talk about what you actually want on that site’. When they expressed their concerns about parking and so on, it became clear the developer could actually respond to that and put in place plans that guaranteed what the local residents wanted. We were able to get that site rezoned so the developer could build in that area and accommodate what the community wanted around access to the site, ensuring there was none for Coronation Drive. Parking was taken care of, and the alignment of the building suited the landscaping. The wall they were going to put in was similar to the Parap Grove wall along the Stuart Highway.
They responded very clearly and directly to the community concerns. As a result, we can get the investment of a 3500 m retail development happening, which is fantastic work for the local developer and the residents. It is a very good outcome. The project is a $6m job. Most of the site is committed to Officeworks to open on 18 February 2011. It will be an Officeworks superstore. Development is on track; Sitzler is their building partner and is doing a great job.
That is two projects I have in my electorate at the moment, the old Britz site and at Wirrina. Norbuilt is there as well, doing the offices at the old Fred’s fuel site and working with Southern Cross at the old Waratah Oval site. The site is 66% occupied already, so that is great certainty for them. A great sign of confidence is people investing in that building before it is even finished. They are saying: ‘Yes, we definitely want to be in Darwin; we definitely want to sell things; we definitely want to be there’. It is great news for Stuart Park as part of what I believe is a growing regeneration of that Stuart Park highway corridor.
There is a growing population in and around Stuart Park. Tipperary Waters and Bayview border my area. I believe there is a growing demand for services to those residential areas. That is why we have gone out for comment to rezone lot 6645, part of lot 5629, and lot 5409. We are looking to rezone that Commercial. That is the corner of Woolner Road and Tiger Brennan Drive. That went out for comment. The lots are currently zoned MD, Multiple Dwelling, which allows for the construction of blocks of units such as those across the road at Tipperary Waters. As a commercial zone, it would be possible for those lots to provide services to the increasing population in the area.
That is what most people are saying now; they want more services in that area. There are many people moving here, living here; we want to have more services. We have recognised that and we have gone out to rezone that site. I wrote to everyone in my local area about that, and the feedback I received was 100% for ‘we want services’. That was a fantastic sign of confidence in the area, what people need in that area, and we are responding to that. While I have that feedback, there was actually a formal comment period, and that is with the minister.
I am very happy to support the Chief Minister in his statement. As I said, and the minister for Infrastructure said before me, we have seen investment in infrastructure in the Territory go from $364m in 2001 to $1.8bn this year - a record $1.8bn in this budget, a 399% increase and a $7.7bn injection into the Territory economy. What the Chief Minister spoke about was, at the same time as we have made that investment in infrastructure, we have cut the unemployment rate from 7.4% in 2001 to 3.1% today, and seen the creation of around 26 000 new jobs, which is an extraordinary statistic - 26 000 new jobs, with 26 000 people in employment - that is the population of Palmerston or Alice Springs in work. That is many jobs, and many people earning money in the Territory who were not earning money in 2001. That is a great outcome for people who want to go to work, come home, pay for the bills which is, essentially, what we are here to talk about.
The Chief Minister has passion and a clear policy about jobs. That is because, as I said at the beginning, it is the statistic most directly related to a person, to what someone can do - the dignity of work, the importance of having a job, of being able to go home, pay for the roof over your head, pay for the food that goes on your table, and look after your family.
Madam Speaker, it is a fantastic statement from the Chief Minister. I am happy to commend it to the House and thank him for bringing it forward.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement about jobs in the Territory which provides a very comprehensive overview of the considerable achievements of the Labor government in job creation since 2001, and how these achievements have underpinned strong economic growth in the Territory, and will continue to do so. I listened with a great deal of interest to the contributions of colleagues on this side of the House who have applauded those many achievements in the Territory, particularly the member for Fannie Bay in his electorate.
It is not just talking about the achievements; it is also about how this government recognises some of the challenges we face - unique challenges - in continuing to drive the creation of jobs for all Territorians and how we are rising to meet those challenges for the future. That is about planning and executing those plans for all Territorians for future growth.
It was a job which brought me to the Territory 23 years ago, and I am sure that is true for many of us in this Chamber. It was a teaching job, my first as a graduate teacher, which brought me here. At the time - and I know my story is not unique - I thought I had come for just a couple of years but I stayed and have made the Territory my home. It is where my children were born and have gone to school, and it is where I hope to be for many years. I find it very hard to imagine where else I would live beyond the Territory. That is what we need to do in the Northern Territory, have people who come for a job and then choose to make it their home because it is the best place to live, work and raise a family.
With my background in education, but also with nearly 12 years in the mining industry, I welcomed the opportunity a few weeks ago to take on a new role as Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Training to support the minister with a busy agenda and reforms under way in his very crucial portfolio. My focus is on pathways through school which link to a job and, with it, a future on completion of schooling. As a government, we do not shy away from the fact we need to work hard, and we are working hard. This government is working very hard to support families and children to get to school. When we get children into school we need them there every school day, and we need to ensure what they are getting out of school is meaningful, valuable and worthwhile, and it becomes part of lifelong learning. There are many things which we want young people to get out of education but, ultimately, we want people to complete school so they can get a job.
It goes without saying that, in order to complete school, they need to be literate in English and numerate. However, we know schools do many things to nurture and grow young people. There is no escaping the fact that to be literate and numerate is the passport necessary to get young people on to that pathway. They need to see and recognise that education in school is a critical step on the all-important pathway to a job and a future. We need their families to see this and, as a community, we need to see and value this.
As I have heard the member for Arnhem say on many occasions, it is having a job and that economic independence which gives an individual choice in life. My colleague, the member for Barkly, who has spoken passionately this afternoon, has been an educator for many years - many years more than me - and a very passionate one at that. He hit the nail on the head when I heard him address a conference recently. He said we need to make school the most exciting part of a young person’s life and I could not agree more. Shortly, I will talk a little more about the exciting things which are happening in the schools in my electorate - things which are aligning growing skills, growing young people and student interest with training and job pathways.
We know education sits front and centre. It is the cornerstone of any community to develop, grow and prosper. That is why it sits as the No 1 priority in the Northern Territory’s Territory 2030 strategic plan. As the strategy states:
We know that for individuals, for our kids, education is the most important thing they need, because it is their passport to a job and a future and, with it, economic independence, self-determination and self-worth. This is especially true for young Indigenous people in some of the most remote parts of the Northern Territory.
This government supports that fundamental cornerstone with an agenda of delivering quality education, which also means delivering quality infrastructure. We have seen an enormous boost through the millions of dollars pouring into our schools through the federal government’s Building the Education Revolution program. To their eternal shame, it is a program members opposite did not support. With the quality infrastructure, the Department of Education and Training in the Northern Territory seeks to attract, retain and grow quality teachers whose skills, professionalism and dedication we value highly.
This Labor government, in 2001, came in with a massive reform agenda for education led by the former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, as mentioned by the Minister for Education and Training in his contribution to this debate. Of course, as we know, at the top of Syd Stirling’s reform agenda was establishing secondary education in the bush because, astonishingly, the CLP government, for all the years it was the government in the Northern Territory, did not support secondary education in the bush. If you do not support secondary education how does any government expect to get people on that pathway into further training and to jobs? As we know, since the Territory has had a Labor government, 150 or so Indigenous students have graduated through to Year 12. It is not enough, it needs to be more, and it is something we are working very hard to improve upon.
A crucial part of the pathways this government is growing is in the area of apprenticeships and traineeships to see us not only meet the very ambitious target of reaching 10 000 new apprentices by 2012, but to meet the demand for skills in the Territory and see Territorians meeting that demand. We welcome people who want to move to the Territory from other jurisdictions, but it is also critically important we grow and retain those young Territorians who are here.
The Minister for Business and Employment announced last week, with the Chief Minister, we are well on our way to meeting that ambitious target with 5099 taking up apprenticeships and traineeships as of October this year. This achievement is quite significant, given the impact of the global financial crisis which saw crippling downturns in overseas economies. Thankfully, this was not the case for the Territory where jobs were not only protected but created thanks to our record spend on infrastructure supported by the federal Labor government’s stimulus package which, again, surprisingly, astonishingly, was not supported by the Liberals at a federal or Territory level. At the end of the day, it is what kept people in jobs, kept people from dole queues and kept people off welfare where we could manage it.
This government is meeting the demand for skills and, what is more, punching above its weight when it comes to the quality of our apprentices and commitment of employers in the different industry sectors to support trainees and apprentices in the workplace.
This was abundantly clear at the Australian Training Awards, which I had the great honour of attending in Sydney on 19 November. It was a huge gala event with close to 1000 people, and a strong and justifiably proud contingent of finalists from the Northern Territory including – and I single out a young woman by the name of Yazmin Brown from Casuarina Senior College who was named as the Australian School-based Apprentice of the Year in recognition of her outstanding success in the automotive trade training area. It is partnerships with our schools - and in Yazmin’s case, Charles Darwin University as the training provider and Kerry’s Automotive Group in Stuart Park as the workplace host – that government will continue to nurture those relationships to deliver training and jobs for young people like Yazmin. Hats off to Yazmin for moving into a non-traditional area for women. I take my hat off to her and the world is her oyster once she has completed her qualifications.
Also taking out line honours on the national stage was the Northern Territory Department of Health and Families, one of seven finalists in the category of Government Industry Awards which seek to recognise the commitment by employers to training within their industry sector. In this instance it was health. I quote directly from the awards evening program which provided a synopsis of the nomination:
Recognition for the Department of Health and Families’ innovative use of e-learning is also applauded in grappling with the tyranny of distance which separates our very remote areas from major and regional centres. Thank goodness we have seen the passing of the National Broadband Network legislation in federal parliament so we can proceed with seeing our communications and IT infrastructure upgraded to deliver the benefits for the bush in a number of areas including, especially, training.
Whilst in Sydney on 19 November for the National Training Awards, I also attended a most productive industry forum along with ministers and their delegates at the Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment. The forum was chaired by Skills Australia and there was a speaker from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and a few others who spoke at this forum. It was valuable to hear firsthand from representative organisations like Skills Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry about how we can partner to address growing concerns about national skills shortages.
It was a representative from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry who said we need to look beyond training as something which happens in isolation but, rather, to look at it as a business investment. Nods around the table indicated we were all in agreement. In that same vein, this is exactly what our government is doing in not looking at education in isolation, but looking at it as an investment in our young people and their futures, and strengthening that connection of the pathways between education, training, and jobs.
What was also clear at this forum, not surprisingly, is the Territory has much in common with jurisdictions such as Queensland and Western Australia in the opportunities and challenges we face. In my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Training, I will be looking to explore what is happening in those jurisdictions to see what lessons we can learn, especially when it comes to Indigenous workforce development. Like the Northern Territory, both Queensland and Western Australia see a very large take-up of the vocational and education training programs.
We know creating employment out bush in our remote communities and for Indigenous people is a challenge for a whole host of reasons but, contrary to what the members opposite would have us believe with stories of doom and gloom, there are good things happening out there. There are houses being built under SIHIP, there are Indigenous people being trained and employed on that program, and we are making inroads into improving people’s lives, but recognising we have a long way to go.
It is not just about creating that one job, as the Minister for Business and Employment has made the point, it is recognising that each of those jobs has meant a new source of income for a Territory family. I can add that a graduation certificate on completion of a training course, on the way to a job, is also a source of enormous pride for an individual and their family.
We know that growing our workforce, especially in remote areas and our growth towns, is critical and there are many challenges along the way, and we certainly do not shy away from those challenges. As I said earlier, I would like to highlight some of the good things which are happening out there just to counter some of the doom and gloom of the opposition.
On 3 November, the Minister for Education and Training joined me for a visit to Shepherdson College at Galiwinku on Elcho Island, which is the government school there. Shepherdson College is a very vibrant place where student attendance still has its ups and downs but, overall, has really improved thanks to the development of strong relationships between key groups which include the school, traditional owners, police, sport and recreation, the shire, the childcare centre, the health centre, and others along the way. What also contributes to this is strong leadership and a great deal of goodwill. I acknowledge the enormous contribution the principal, Brian Hughes, has in that mix.
That school in that community is focused on getting kids into school and getting them on the right pathways by tailoring courses to link with community and what is on offer. There is a strong caring for land and sea country with the Gumurr Marthakal rangers on Elcho Island servicing not only the island, but Marthakal homelands. It is just one of the pathways many of the young ones are interested in.
To feed into that interest, the school has capitalised on their Building the Education Revolution funding, which will deliver to them - and we saw it under construction when we visited - a science centre. This is not any old science lab. This will be an aquaculture and horticulture centre. Students will build upon their traditional cultural knowledge about sea country and marine life, and have the opportunity to learn more about sustainable management, sea farming and harvesting practices. It will also be very hands-on, supported and complemented by a manual arts program. The manual arts area has just had a refurbishment thanks to Building the Education Revolution funding.
In the 2011 program at the school, students in that manual arts area will be engaged in boat building. They have a prototype blueprint ready to go. Students, traditional owners, and teachers are all very excited about this program. Let us not forget, with the Blue Mud Bay decision, commercial opportunities will arise for traditional owners along 85% of the Territory coastline. We need to look to developing those opportunities, which is exactly what is happening on Elcho Island at the moment.
The thinking there is quite visionary; it is very strategic. There is clear connectivity on a number of levels that one thing will, indeed, lead to another. What is really exciting about this process is that it draws on the skills, the interest, the aspirations and cultural knowledge capital of the people to embark on a pathway which will lead to a job within the community – if, indeed, that is what they choose to do, because there is nothing to prevent people from moving beyond Elcho Island, or from any remote community, to other centres to seek training and employment.
Another strong example from Elcho Island and Shepherdson College is the very strong creative arts program they have within the school. A few months ago, there was a group of Stage 1 and Stage 2 arts students who travelled to Sydney for an exhibition. That same teacher brought a group of students into Darwin in the previous year. The Chief Minister attended their art exhibition. I was unable to attend because I was away. This year, they travelled to Sydney for an exhibition, and that was thanks in part to some very generous philanthropic support which Michele Swanborough, their art teacher, had managed to attract. I should also add that Michele, not surprisingly, was a very worthy nominee for Teacher of the Year this year in the Teaching Excellence Awards.
What happened through that program is students, artists and traditional owners mentored students in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 art program, in the fine skills of traditional art, and also in the intrinsic links to their culture, their law, their land and their ancestors. So, this was more than just an art program, this was a life and culture program as well. These students were involved, not only as artists, but had roles to play in staging and organising the exhibition, which was held at Darling Harbour. Overcoming any shyness they may have had initially, the students talked with visitors and potential buyers to the exhibition. They told their stories, they talked about where they had come from, and they happily and confidently answered questions. According to their teacher, they were brilliant. Best of all, while the rewards were clear to see in personal growth and self-esteem, the monetary rewards came with commercial sales of their works, allowing these young artists to see that their work ...
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member to complete her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, member for Daly. I was just saying that what the commercial sales of these works allowed these young artists to see was that their knowledge, their work, their skills can translate into a job which, in turn, will see for them a financial return. That is a priceless lesson.
Apparently, there was quite a bit of shopping that went on in Sydney when the students had their last day, but there were a number of students who chose to keep some of their money aside wanting to save it for something else, and also wanting to take home, quite proudly, some of their earnings to family members.
On Elcho Island, artists, both established and blossoming, have an excellent outlet for their labours through Elcho Arts. It is an amazing gallery and should members ever have the opportunity to visit, I recommend you make your way to the art centre. If you do not, you can always keep an eye out for their exhibitions which do pop up from time to time in Darwin, and also overseas.
There are many more stories I could tell you about Shepherdson College and other remote areas, but time is upon me. I encourage members opposite to take the opportunity out bush to step into some of these schools and see what is happening. I know the Leader of the Opposition recently visited Yilpara in my electorate and the new Garrangali School where government has spent in excess of $3m in establishing new school buildings there, including a secondary education program and, with it, teacher housing to make it a small school as opposed to a homeland learning centre.
That invitation to visit goes to the new shadow for Education, the member for Brennan, who I know is passionate about education. I am sure he would love to learn more, see firsthand what is happening out in our remote schools in the bush. The invitation is there for the member for Brennan to join me on a visit into my electorate.
What I have just outlined in Indigenous employment opportunities out bush is just one sector of the job market in the bush, and it is that which allows people who live out there to find a pathway to work using the rich culture that Indigenous people naturally posses. But let us not forget also that ecoculture tourism is a growing part of the bush and, indeed, the Territory economy. There certainly are jobs out in the remote communities. As I mentioned earlier, right now there are many Indigenous Territorians working on SIHIP and doing extremely well. I saw that also just a couple of weeks ago when I visited, for the first time, with the members for Arafura and Nelson, SIHIP under way at Maningrida with many Indigenous people – there are far more people being employed and trained than they are contractually obliged to deliver and that is fantastic.
Let us not forget the mining sector. I come from an electorate with mining at the centre; it is out there in our remote areas. They are a big contributor to the Territory in export earnings, the supply chain they stimulate, and the employment and training they provide. I am really pleased to see some of the successful partnerships under way in these places. In my own electorate of Nhulunbuy, Rio Tinto Alcan has its own Indigenous training program, and has done for a few years. Indeed, one of the finalists at the Australian Training Awards for Indigenous Trainee of the Year was one of their trainees, Solomon Renata. Congratulations to Solomon; it was lovely that his wife, Frances, was able to travel to that awards ceremony as well.
To build on the opportunities and pathways into this sector that mining offers, I was pleased to announce on 5 November that this government welcomed the $8.5m investment of the federal government which will deliver trade training centres in west and east Arnhem Land at Gunbalanya, Jabiru and Groote Eylandt. I acknowledge the enormous efforts of officers from the Department of Education and Training who worked hard to prepare those submissions and secure the very best deal they could; indeed, well beyond expectations in securing funding from the federal government. I also acknowledge the efforts of the fairly newly-created unit within DET called the Pathways and Participation Unit which is looking at this very thing we are talking about.
These new trade training centres are coming in addition to facilities that have already been built at Tennant Creek High School, Kormilda College, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart at Wadeye and Marrara Christian College. I am advised that construction is also due to start fairly soon at Darwin High School, Ngukurr School, and construction is also under way at Xavier Community Education Centre in Nguiu.
The skills people stand to gain from participating in certificate courses and gaining recognised qualifications may well lead to a job in the mining centre; however, it is not limited to that. In the remote areas we have shires, homeland resource agencies, health clinics, and schools. With our emerging growth towns and our vision to build the private sector and attract private investment, that will bring with it a whole raft of other employment and training opportunities.
I also acknowledge the importance of the training sector in the Northern Territory. We know about Charles Darwin University, Batchelor which do great work, and Group Training Northern Territory is quite a well-known organisation. They have a big presence in my electorate. I had the great pleasure to attend the Dovaston Training Awards on Monday evening, held at SKYCITY casino. There were some 200 people at that dinner and, amongst them, were 70 people graduating, having completed their certificate courses in a whole host of areas - community services, aged and disability services, financial services, and frontline management to name but a few. Clearly, Shirley Dovaston, who runs the organisation, is very passionate about what she does. It was quite obvious she knows just about all her students, which included a group of women who had travelled from Borroloola for this graduation. I acknowledge and thank Shirley Dovaston for the contribution she makes to the training sector.
The higher education sector is also critical in the Northern Territory in growing our own. Thanks to a successful partnership CDU has with Flinders University we will see the establishment of our first medical school to grow our own doctors, with the first intake in 2011.
The Territory, under a Labor government, has come a long way since 2001 in driving the economy through that critical area of job creation. We have come a long way; we still have plenty to do. The CLP, by contrast, as I heard our Prime Minister say in the federal parliament last week, is long on complaints and short on ideas. It never supported the bush, so if we find we have challenges out in the bush it is because we have only had secondary education there for not quite 10 years. We have real challenges in focusing on education; however, we are getting there and are opening up those pathways.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement before the House and I commend it to members.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to a very important debate regarding the creation of jobs in the Northern Territory. As I said at the outset, there is nothing more important for a Labor government than the creation of jobs. The creation of jobs allows people to build productive and happy lives. Without jobs, there is misery in the community and misery for family. It is very important.
We are proud to be a government which has grown our workforce by around 26 600 new jobs since coming to government. That is an increase of around 27% of the labour force and is a fantastic achievement - unemployment at 3.1%, and 5000 new jobs created last year at a time, with the global financial crisis, when many other economies around the world were seeing jobs shed in their tens of thousands. That is why one of the most important policy objectives of any Labor government is to support the creation of jobs.
If we look at some of the comments from members opposite, the member for Nhulunbuy aptly pointed out they are very quick on pointing out problems and portraying the Territory as some basket case where everything is going wrong. As I said today, it has been a pretty exciting year in the Territory, given everything that is happening around the world.
The CLP talks the Territory down at every opportunity. The member for Braitling’s opening remarks were quite intrusive. This really is quite an extraordinary comment from the member for Braitling …
Dr Burns: Even for him.
Mr HENDERSON: Even for him. He said:
Well, heaven forbid! That is not the economy I see of the Northern Territory. I really do not know where the member for Braitling was going with comments like that. If you look at any of the Sensis Small Business Indexes, and listen to business people talking about the economy, they certainly do not see the Territory in that light. That is talking the Territory down to a whole new level.
We also had policy confusion on the opposition benches, where the member for Brennan was saying it was the government’s fault that property prices were dropping, and the Leader of the Opposition was saying it was the government’s fault for property prices increasing. They cannot even hold a consistent line. We know they are not talking to each other at the moment. We know they are about as divided as any group of people can possibly be. They can barely stand the sight of each other at the moment. For one of their members to be saying it is the government’s fault for property prices dropping and another one saying it is our fault for property prices increasing - jeepers creepers, what is going on over on the opposition benches?
We can see it was an opportunity for the opposition to talk about what their plans would be to grow the Northern Territory economy – where they would make strategic investments, what they would do in taxation regimes, where the opposition see there is an opportunity for private sector investment to grow in the Territory, and how to attract additional private sector investment in the Territory. It was a real opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to put out a strong vision for how he would work with the leaders of power to sustain economic growth in the Northern Territory into the future. We heard none of that - no vision, no plans, no hope for a bright future for the Northern Territory. A list of complains and whingeing, wining, moaning and groaning was the sum total of the contributions from those opposite.
I wait to hear from members opposite as we approach the election in 2012 what their economic plans will be, because there is certainly nothing on the table right now. I have not been to Terry’s website. What is that website called? Terry’s ideas or template or action plan or – what was the website called? Terry’sactionplan.com or something like that. Maybe someone can Google it. I am pretty sure there will not be an action plan for creating jobs in the economy ...
Dr Burns: Just keeping his own.
Mr HENDERSON: I suppose that is one job he is certainly focused on at the moment.
Mr Knight: He has been offering them up though.
Mr HENDERSON: That is true as well; that is true. However, I digress.
I thank my colleagues for their contributions, because I know all of us work really hard, whether we have urban electorates or bush electorates. Everyone is really focused on investment and jobs, and giving people opportunities in the economy. Members talked about record low unemployment, and it is just fantastic to see those figures in the Territory are a record for the Territory but, also, acknowledging those figures do not really do justice to the issues in the bush. We have seen creation of additional jobs in the bush in the last couple of years.
I go back to my initial speech, and I think the number of Indigenous Territorians in employment increased by 6% between 2008-09. We have stretched targets to grow that further. It is difficult, but we are focused on that. We see the best way out for people in the Northern Territory who are still living in poverty, predominantly on welfare, is a full-time job and a job that pays well. It is good to see those numbers increasing, but we will continue to work and strive to see those increase further.
I caught the tail end of the member for Nhulunbuy’s contribution, and many others talked about the importance of education, training and apprenticeships in preparing people for a growing economy and jobs for the future. I appointed the member for Nhulunbuy as Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Training with a real focus on school-to-work transition. She has taken to this new opportunity like a duck to water, very enthusiastically, and really getting her head around what we can do to further invest and support training, apprenticeships, and school-based apprenticeships. It is really important to work with business and industry to ensure those kids in our remote communities who are graduating with a Year 12 leaving certificate do transition into training or employment or to university. It is important that each and every one of those kids succeeds, given their success at school.
We are on track for our 10 000 new trainee and apprenticeship commencements. I have had the opportunity to be out and about in businesses over the last week or so, meeting apprentices and trainees. It always makes me very happy to talk to young people who are getting their start in the workplace and just seeing what a bright future they have in an exciting Northern Territory, and the opportunities that the Territory will provide into the future.
Our side also talked about the massive investment we have made in infrastructure since we came to government, particularly over the last couple of years. Specifically in regard to the global financial crisis and what has happened in collapsing GST revenues to the states, this is a government that did take a decision to massively increase our infrastructure spend to support, not only people directly in the construction industry, but also indirectly all of those suppliers to the construction industry - the engineers and designers that support the construction industry, and all of those jobs in the construction industry that then lead on to additional consumption in our economy. It was a very deliberate and strategic decision to keep the level of infrastructure spending and keep our construction workforce here whilst we wait for a final investment decision by INPEX late next year.
That infrastructure spend has had a significant impact on government budgets, and will see us into deficit country for a number of years whilst the private sector picks up where the government has left off. However, this is a government that makes absolutely no apologies for going into deficit to support small business, and to support jobs and to keep jobs here in the Northern Territory. There was no other way to keep our economy going, to keep jobs in the Northern Territory.
Again, we have had criticism from the opposition of the budget position we have and the deficits that are being forecast. There was nothing in their contributions. Well, what would the opposition have done? Would the opposition have been happy not to go into deficit and to see thousands of people lose their jobs in the Territory as the construction sector was to lay off people because of lack of private sector investment and investment that the public sector did not pick up? But, no, there was no explanation, no vision, just criticism.
We have also managed to develop and maintain a low tax base for business in the Northern Territory. We are really proud. It is a small business economy. Over 90% of all businesses registered in the Northern Territory are small businesses that employ significantly less than 100 people. We are the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia for small business that employs fewer than 100 people. All of that additional revenue that would have flowed to government stays within business and allows people to reinvest and to grow their business. Again, there were no contributions from those opposite about that tax regime and what they may do in business taxes.
The infrastructure spend, the commitment to training, the support for small business generally, the taxation environment, has consistently seen the Territory small business community over the last couple of years being right up there amongst the most confident small businesses in the country - confident to invest in their business, and about growth in their business. It is a tussle between the Northern Territory and Western Australia every time these surveys come out as to who is the top dog. Small business is more confident here in the Territory than elsewhere in Australia.
Members on the government bench have also talked about the important policy framework of A Working Future. As I have said, that is probably the most progressive policy reform in the Northern Territory since self-government. It provides a strategic vision to grow 20 towns that were previously seen to be remote communities. To grow 20 towns and grow economies out in these regions of the Territory where previously there was just only welfare and government staff working is a bold, big policy vision and one that, 18 months into the implementation, all of us across government are working very hard to see succeed.
We have had strong financial management over the term of government that has seen eight successive surpluses deployed. Our debt to revenue ratios have improved significantly from when we came to office, which has allowed us to go into temporary deficits to keep jobs here in the Territory we otherwise would not be able to do.
We have also worked very hard on investment attraction. I, with the Business minister, the Resources minister, and the Tourism minister, spend time travelling interstate and overseas promoting investment and opportunities in the Northern Territory. We are seeing significant investment in the Territory as it appears on the national and international maps. It is exciting to be able to be overseas to promote opportunities in the Northern Territory and see the interest from people, and that interest being converted into investment decisions.
As a result of the work the minister for Resources has been doing, we actually saw investment in mineral exploration last year increase. We were the only jurisdiction during the GFC that saw increased investment in mineral exploration. Compare that to when we came to office, when the previous government was just playing politics over native title. There were over 700 mineral exploration applications that had piled up on the minister’s desk, never to be touched whilst the politics of native title were played through at the time, absolutely stifling and throttling investments in mineral exploration in the Northern Territory. We moved quickly to eliminate that backlog and we are now an exciting place to invest in mineral exploration.
I could not miss the opportunity, with the couple of minutes I have left, to condemn the opposition for their political opportunism in opposing the Commonwealth stimulus - voting against that and against every school in the Northern Territory receiving significant upgrades to school facilities that have supported thousands of jobs in the Northern Territory. This has not only supported thousands of jobs in the Territory but also contributed to lasting, wonderful infrastructure for our kids, teachers, and our community. For the life of me, I just cannot believe that a party that once used to call itself, proudly, a Territory party, would side in Canberra to actually vote against investment in the Northern Territory, particularly investment in our schools. It absolutely beggars belief they opposed the BER.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are significant challenges ahead. The challenges are always there for any government to continue economic growth. We will continue to work hard to attract investment to the Northern Territory, to ensure the policy settings are right, and to see the Territory continue to grow in an exciting way into the future. I have a great deal of excitement about the future of the Northern Territory. The Territory really is going to be the place to be over the next 10 to 20 years. I just wish the opposition could get out and see it, and stop walking around with a big black cloud over their heads.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from 25 November 2010.
Mr HAMPTON (Central Australia): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague, the Minister for Indigenous Development, on her statement and am more than happy to provide my response to the A Working Future ministerial statement she delivered recently.
I will go through my portfolios shortly. However, it is important in my role as a local member of a large bush electorate to understand what the statement means to my constituents in the electorate of Stuart. For me, as a local born and bred in Alice Springs, and as member for a large bush electorate, this A Working Future policy is critical to the future of people in Central Australia. We heard the Chief Minister talk briefly about A Working Future. There are other important government policies we have that link into A Working Future, such as Territory 2030, the Climate Change Policy I am leading the charge on as Minister for Climate Change, and environmental policies.
A Working Future is important because one of the things the minister talks about quite often, and has raised in our Caucus meetings with her bush colleagues, and with Cabinet, is the importance of gathering profiles of remote communities. It is something the minister has been leading the charge on in her portfolio, putting together the data, collecting the information from the regions for a picture of our remote communities. From the work the minister has done, we now have some very accurate and important data of the picture in remote and regional Northern Territory.
What is the picture? We know, through the work the minister has done, we have a relatively young and rapidly ageing Indigenous population. The Territory also has a large growing proportion of Indigenous people, which is highly dispersed. That is not new to us but it is really important we have that profile to direct and shape the policies we, as a government, move forward with in meeting some of those challenges.
We know we have a young and rapidly ageing population - both extremes – and there is a large growing proportion of Indigenous people who are highly dispersed. The official population of the Northern Territory was 210 000 persons, and the estimated Indigenous population in the Northern Territory was 64 000, or just 30% of all people in the Northern Territory. Many of those Indigenous people are living in highly dispersed regions of the Northern Territory.
I commend the minister for putting together the profile. It was something she pushed hard for very early after becoming minister, and I congratulate her on the work and the data we now have available. The work of the minister and her department looking at the growth towns is a very important part of our A Working Future.
During my time as a member of parliament I can recall when we began discussions in Caucus about A Working Future and growth towns. There was much debate and conversation about the growth towns. I am very pleased to have three growth towns of the 20 in my electorate of Stuart –Kalkarindji, Lajamanu and Yuendumu. Those three towns are growth towns; they are very vibrant, active communities. They are not only large in population but they offer many opportunities for the residents. I am very pleased to have those three growth towns in my electorate included in the 20, along with the other 17. What that means for them is now we can work with the community members, the residents of Kalkarindji, Lajamanu and Yuendumu; sit down and properly plan and design how their towns will look in the future: what types of services, what types of buildings and facilities they aspire to have, like any other country town in Australia. Also, there are opportunities for them to benefit from targeted investment in infrastructure, not only by government, but also the private sector.
During my time as a member, since 2006, I have had great opportunity, particularly as a minister, to visit many of the other growth towns. I believe it is very important ministers get around. Cabinet ministers in this government get around, particularly with our Community Cabinets, which provide a great opportunity for us, as a very close-knit Cabinet team, to go out together. I recall our Community Cabinet on Groote Eylandt. It was great to get to Milyakburra and other parts of Groote such as Alyangula. During our recent Community Cabinet at Wadeye, it was great to visit there as well as Palumpa. We are a government that gets out there. We have a great policy in A Working Future and the growth towns, and we are an active, inclusive, progressive government, members of which do not sit in the office and wait for things to come. Through our Community Cabinet process, there have been great opportunities and a great deal has come out of those Community Cabinet processes at Groote Eylandt and Wadeye. The whole of Cabinet was out there, on the ground, listening to the people. It is a very important process this government is undertaking and complements A Working Future and the Territory growth towns. I have received a great deal from it, as I said, through visiting Milyakburra, Alyangula and Wadeye. It has been a great opportunity to listen to the people there, particularly regarding my own portfolios, as a local Indigenous person, hearing the stories and listening to the ideas of other Indigenous people in other parts of the Northern Territory.
I also had the opportunity to go to Nhulunbuy, Yirrkala, and Maningrida with my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, and that has been a great learning experience. Many of the towns I have mentioned are also growth towns. It has been great to get out there through the Community Cabinet process, and through my portfolios, to listen to other Indigenous people and the challenges and ideas they have. That is really important when we talk about our Territory growth towns.
The minister talked about her experiences in her electorate, and about getting around the Territory listening to people on how they see their towns growing, being properly planned and designed, what services they have a vision for in their towns, what types of buildings and facilities they want in these growth towns, and how they can benefit from targeted investment in this type of infrastructure. It is a fantastic journey we are on. On this side of the House, there is a very close-knit Cabinet and Caucus. We are getting out there and listening to those people on the ground, which is really important.
As part of the Territory growth towns initiative, the minister talked about the local implementation plans. It was great for her to get Gunbalanya to sign off on the very first local implementation plan. Through my electorate of Stuart, in those three growth towns, people have been very active in being involved in developing their local implementation plans.
I thank the minister for involving her bush colleagues, as well as the process of consulting with the communities involved. It has been a really successful part of A Working Future. I know, through my involvement, my discussions with the minister and my bush colleagues, we have had a great deal of discussion around what should be in and what should be out of those plans, as well as listening to what the community is saying is important to them.
One of the issues I highlighted during my discussions with my colleagues and the minister has been law and order. It has been a fairly public issue in Yuendumu. I believe law and order is critical, and I am glad there are some strong parts built into the local implementation plans that cover law and order, because people out there want a safe community. They want to be able to grow their kids up, no matter where they are in the Northern Territory, and feel safe and feel that their kids have a really good environment to grow up in, not only at home, but in their town.
Through the old law and justice committees that operated through the Warlpiri communities, there are many people out there who have good experience and a lot of knowledge, both traditional and non-traditional, about law and order issues. I am looking forward to getting back out there, particularly to those Warlpiri communities, but all the other towns in my electorate that have local implementation plans, sitting down with them and looking at how we can best implement what is in those plans for the betterment of their communities. At the end of the day, those people, whether they are living at Lajamanu, Yuendumu, or Kalkarindji, want a safe and warm environment in which to grow their kids up, the same as we do in Darwin, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek or Katherine. I am pleased there are strong elements of law and order and community safety plans in the local implementation plans. It is important we continue to work on that so these towns prosper.
My office has had a lot of input into ICT. We have had good debates in here recently about the National Broadband Network. It is important that the growth towns, through the local implementation plans, have good ICT infrastructure. We all know the benefits of good ICT, through e-learning, e-Health, telemedicine, and these types of things. We know of the issues of chronic disease in many of these growth towns, and ICT is an important tool in addressing, not only the chronic health issues in our growth towns, but e-learning as well.
The member for Nhulunbuy knows the value of this type of infrastructure and the differences it could make to those communities in her electorate, with the fibre roll-out there now well and truly completed and being taken up in big numbers. I was very pleased that the minister and her department included ICT in some of the LIPs that we are talking about for those growth towns. It is such an important part of, not only the future digital economy, but service delivery in those critical areas of health and education.
I congratulate the minister on the path she has taken and the success I believe she has had in going out consulting with people, and talking to her colleagues on this side of the House about what should be in local implementation plans. That puts many of the growth towns in a good position for success into the future.
Homelands are a topic of great interest, particularly in my electorate. We have many homelands in my electorate. It is one that many people are interested in. This government is a progressive government. We are a government that gets out on country and talks to Indigenous people. I am sure the minister is fully aware of the issues with the homelands policy. Much work has been done consulting with communities, and I look forward to the minister’s work in the future on this particular policy. It is very important. Through places like Utopia, it is well documented …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I just ask the minister to step back from the mike so he does not drive the speakers away? It interferes, that is all.
Mr HAMPTON: Sorry, thank you. In places like Utopia, which was in my electorate before the last election, I spent a great deal of time out there and I have really listened and learned from people at Utopia about the importance of homelands to them and the benefits that homelands provide. There has been much research done, particularly in the Utopia region, by academics and researchers about the benefits of homelands, particularly health benefits. People living in smaller, decentralised communities are able to undertake more hunting and gathering and eating really nutritious bush food. They undertake more cultural obligations and ceremonies in country, and the spin-off is their health.
With regard to Utopia, there are many positives in homelands. There are also many challenges. There was a project through ATSIC which delivered some good systems in essential services. It was a single wire line system put out there - I think they called it Swirl. It was a power line put through the Utopia region. The main power station was at Alparra and a single wire line from the main power station at Alparra serviced all the homelands. That is another model we could look at for homelands which do not have access to that type of power system, keeping in mind climate change and renewable energy. There are many opportunities.
While there are many challenges with homelands, one of the opportunities is looking at renewable energy and how we can improve power supply to some of the homelands that may not have it. The system that Utopia has was implemented some time ago by ATSIC. There is no reason why we cannot learn from those examples and build on that. There are many challenges but I have full confidence in my colleague, the Minister for Indigenous Development, to bring together a really good homeland policy next year.
Going back to one of my other growth towns in my electorate, I go back to one of the Community Cabinets we had in Yuendumu not long ago. The issues people raised in relation to my Sport and Recreation portfolio, as well as because I am the local member - and I am glad it is in the local implementation plan - is addressing the issues of sports facilities, school attendance and the work that is being done on a feasibility study into the upgrade of the Yuendumu oval to AFLNT standards. That feasibility study has been completed and I look forward to that being delivered.
It is important that I have talked to many other stakeholders. How do we engage the community to address the issue of school attendance? That is the other challenge for many of our growth towns. We know, as a government, as members of this House, school attendance is as important as a safe community.
One of the incentives - the carrot-and-stick approach, I suppose you can call it - was we would look at a feasibility study into upgrading the Yuendumu oval to AFL standards and come back to the community for some discussion around an agreement that would link that upgrade to school attendance. It is a great initiative; the AFL in Melbourne supports it. They are on board and they are very keen to get some of the Indigenous players involved as ambassadors for these types of projects in the Territory. It is a great initiative and, as a local member, something I want to continue to work on next year. I believe we can roll out these types of initiatives across our other growth towns.
In Parks and Wildlife, there are many opportunities and I have talked to the minister about those. There are natural resources job opportunities, particularly in our growth towns, which is important to A Working Future ...
Ms McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time to allow the minister to finish his response, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: The Parks and Wildlife and Natural Resources area has enormous opportunity. We have the fantastic Alice Springs Desert Park which has developed an apprentice work-ready program for new apprentices commencing in the Northern Territory Public Sector. This is an eight-day program which will build on the success of the Desert Park, and this offer was extended to all NTPS agencies in Alice Springs last week. Our parks offer so many opportunities and work in well with the minister’s other portfolio of Tourism.
Tourism is an enormous industry in the Northern Territory which generates not only many dollars for small businesses and tourism operators, but also has an opportunity to create jobs for Indigenous people, particularly in the growth towns. One example is at Uluru and Kata-Tjuta. Throughout Kakadu, tourism also provides many opportunities. I will be talking to the minister and my colleagues shortly about the opportunities my agency of Parks and Wildlife, Natural Resources can play tapping into the tourism market with the wonderful parks we have in the Northern Territory. There are many job opportunities.
The West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project shows there are opportunities in the carbon economy - government working with developers, particularly within the framework of our draft offsets policy. Linking the parks area with tourism provides so many opportunities which can work in line with our A Working Future policy.
I believe they are the really important issues in my portfolios. As the Minister for Central Australia and the member for Stuart, I see A Working Future as a work in progress. I am proud to be part of the A Working Future policy. I have every confidence in the minister and my bush colleagues on this side of the House. We regularly talk about issues in our electorates. We know A Working Future is not the silver bullet, not the magic wand; however, it goes a long way in addressing some of those issues and providing many opportunities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement forward and offer my support.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I remind you that at 5.30 pm we will be going to General Business.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I add my support to the Minister for Indigenous Development’s statement on building A Working Future in the Territory’s remote communities. I have taken great interest in the debate on this incredible big, bold, and innovative policy from the Labor government in the Northern Territory.
I start with a comment made by the Chief Minister. When talking about A Working Future policy he referred to the Bob Dylan song, The Times They Are a-Changin’, and I started to think in that chronology. The Times They Are a-Changin’ was written by Bob Dylan in 1963. Another really important date comes to mind. The Aboriginal leader and land rights activist, Vincent Lingiari, led the Gurindji off Wave Hill Station in 1966. Another landmark date on my calendar is the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976. Quoting from the Central Land Council website:
There was another big date that jumped into the frame for me. That was 1980 when I arrived in the Northern Territory. I was reflecting on this chronology in relation to the member for Port Darwin’s contribution to the debate. I enjoy the member for Port Darwin’s reflection on history. We can go back to the Punic Wars when we are debating some issues in this House, but I like reflecting on the member for Port Darwin’s retelling of Northern Territory history. I found some of the comments in the member for Port Darwin’s debate and comments regarding Indigenous Territorians and the A Working Future policy reflected a regressive nature. The member for Port Darwin needs to get back out bush again. He tells some great stories of his time in the bush. He needs to get back out there from the wonderful electorate of Port Darwin - a jewel in the crown of the capital of the Northern Territory. Mind you, what I am saying here is times have changed - times have changed big time. Whilst there are comparisons for the achieving of a protein diet to A Working Future policy, there has been a massive change.
I welcome the member for Port Darwin to visit the Barkly, to start looking at the growth towns in 2010 and beyond, because there are some radical changes that have taken place. Now, under a very innovative and bold policy, A Working Future, there will be some very important changes to come.
In May 2009, this government announced its clear commitment to delivering change for Territorians living in the bush - a commitment to real jobs, real towns, and real opportunities. The A Working Future policy maps that commitment for change for Indigenous Territorians. It maps a commitment to the transformation of 20 of our larger remote communities into real towns through a targeted investment in infrastructure, services, jobs, and economic opportunities.
The Territory’s strong population growth is not confined to our main centres. As the minister noted, by 2030, our larger remote communities will have populations of around 4000 people. Taking action now to plan for, and invest in, the future will help ensure Territorians living in the bush will have access to the same strong working future enjoyed by Territorians in our urban centres.
In relation to infrastructure, as we well know, the Northern Territory’s population is spread over vast distances. As the population of the Northern Territory’s 20 growth towns continues to increase, transport and infrastructure links will become even more important in delivering working futures in these communities.
The Country Liberal governments of the past were happy to turn their backs on the bush and focus their spending in town. I can say that as the member for Barkly, but also as a resident of the Barkly region for just on three decades - most of that time in the bush. If I make a criticism of policy, I make it regarding me and my family’s lives and what we saw as shallow government policy that was missing the richness, diversity, and cultural opportunities of the bush. There were things happening in the bush; we do not doubt that - and we were a part of that. The communities that were there were a part of it. However, it had a limiting aspect to life in the bush 20 and 30 years ago. There was just something missing.
A Working Future and the policy this government has adopted - the first Northern Territory government to take this brave step - has captured that essence of what is necessary to move our regional and remote areas forward ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, it being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence of Government Business until 9 pm. You will have the opportunity to conclude your remarks when the debate resumes.
Debate suspended.
Continued from 23 November 2010.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
Since then, I have become a little confused as to what the real story is. I have had, right up to this time, discussions with quite a number of people from the department, two builders, one accredited residential thermal performance assessor, a number of architects and others - probably who live in houses. It is an area that is not that easy to understand, but I believe it is an area we should debate in parliament to see whether we are going in the right direction and, if we are not, whether we review what has happened and see if there can be some adjustments to the existing provisions.
I was informed that the design of a house in the Northern Territory tropics has to fit within the Deemed to Satisfy Provisions of the Building Code of Australia, the BCA, or the design software called AccuRate. AccuRate is a house energy rating software which uses an alternative verification path from the energy efficient requirements of the BCA. I am reliably informed that both the BCA and AccuRate assume that a house will be air-conditioned.
The architect I was speaking to said we should be following the Queensland example that uses both AccuRate and BERS software, another software package used for energy efficiency ratings. The House Energy Rating Industry Reference Group, with the acronym HER IRG, had concerns the software would not be suitable for the tropics, and recommended the second generation of AccuRate:
It is interesting to note that the architect who raised some of these matters said his solar village house which used natural cooling under the AccuRate program had been assessed as only having 1.5 stars. Since I wrote this, I have been informed by the department that if there had been another method used his house could have come up to 5 stars or more.
It was interesting to note in the HER IRG report that, under one of its recommendations, it said that:
It would be interesting to hear if the research and development of comfort ratings has gone ahead. The issue of comfort ratings was raised by another architect who said the comfort rating system had been completely ignored. I have another document here, amongst many, which I am not sure has a date on it. Some of the documents that have come out from various departments are not dated. There was an evaluation of AccuRate simulations of various design strategies to improve house thermal performance in Darwin and Alice Springs prepared by Tony Isaacs Consulting Pty Ltd for the Northern Territory Department of Planning and Infrastructure. I must admit, it does have, on page 2 or page 3, a section on human comforts. As this document has no date on it I am not sure whether the statement was made before the report came out by the person who had an issue with the government over the HER IRG recommendation that looked at comfort ratings.
There is a question of whether the computer software that is being used, AccuRate, should be used in the hot, humid tropical part of the Northern Territory and why we do not use the software used in Queensland, such as BERS. My understanding is that is a possibility. There is still some work to be done on it and then builders in the Northern Territory will have the ability to use both forms of software. As it stands at the moment, we are only using one form of software. I gather in Queensland they have the ability to use up to three software programs.
I will quote from an e-mail I received this week from an architect. I am not saying that all this is necessarily right, but it shows you how difficult it is to get a handle on what the 5-star efficiency guidelines are all about. It could be that there is misunderstanding; that the department has not quite got its message over to certain people. However, I had an e-mail which was in response to the department’s e-mail which said a number of things. It spoke about the Building Code and Australia’s 5-star introduction to the Territory. It has been in operation nationally for five years and here for six months. So, it has only been in for a short while in the Territory:
The department also put in some background information:
Originally, the reference group said AccuRate was not suitable for the Northern Territory, especially the hot tropical climate. Then, in September 2008, in its final report, it said it was:
I need to go on a little more. I know this is a long quote but it gives people some idea of what the government is saying, then I can compare what other people have said. This is in relation to the computer program:
I need to go on a little further. As I said before, there are three ways you can get a building assessed for 5-star efficiency in the Northern Territory: (1) is Deemed to Satisfy; (2) is this program we are talking about, AccuRate; and (3) is you can do it through a peer review structure. Part of my motion today is saying the peer review group should be made up of local experts, and we should also have a suitable computer program for the tropics.
What appears to have happened is there were some concerns about the AccuRate computer program which originally was designed to work under the assumption that the house would be built for an air-conditioner. I do not think that has gone away completely but, in discussions this afternoon with the department, they told me you can build a house with banks of louvres subject to some design changes. One would be if there is to be sun coming on to those windows, those windows would need to be tinted, they could be timber, or they could be of another material so you do not pass heat into the house. You could also have larger eaves so you keep the sun off the windows. The orientation of the building is important. If your house is running east/west, there is very little chance that the sun, this far north anyway, will actually shine on the windows.
It is interesting to see how the AccuRate tool, according to the department, is capable of allowing a house with banks of louvres because that is the old-style, free-flowing house many people are concerned would not be allowed to be developed.
I have asked about the Burnett houses. People know the Burnett houses on Myilly Point. Could you build a Burnett house today under the 5-star efficiency? I have been told by other people you could not. Today, I was told you can. It is simply by making sure those louvres, which make up the basis of those Burnett houses, are of material which does not allow the heat to be transferred into the house. Burnett houses used to be asbestos louvres, I think, in the old days; today you would use timber or another material. If you were to use glass, your glass would have to be tinted. If you were using the same design of the Burnett houses, I am not sure how far those eaves come out, so the only option there would be to tint the louvres or use a different material. It is reassuring, according to the department this afternoon, that you could build one of those houses. I am interested to see someone try that.
In relation to the peer group panel, the concern was - and I should mention I did get a response from an architect to the department’s paper that was sent to us explaining about the AccuRate, the DET, and the expert panel. This was the response they gave. The gentleman said:
That is where I got my advice from:
My understanding is, according to the senior advisor, that is not the case now, but this person is saying it still is the case.
Again, the advice I have just been given this afternoon is that you can build a house like the Burnett house.
Although the department has said you can build a house with louvres, I believe they accept the fact that AccuRate does design it - if you pass on or sell your house – so the house can be used with air-conditioning. One way around that so you do not pass the house on to someone who cannot use it efficiently with air-conditioning is there are new types of louvres today which are very tight sealing; they are basically waterproof, and they are tighter sealed than sliding windows. So, depending on the design, you can come up with some of these solutions that would satisfy the AccuRate tool. Also, if someone wanted to buy your house later and they wanted to use air-conditioning - this is not a debate about whether you can have air-conditioning or not; we are standing in it here - it is about allowing people to use as little energy as possible and still be comfortable if they require that.
In relation to the peer panel, the architect says:
I should say a few other things as well to give you the idea that some of the people out there who work on the ground have some concerns. One of our local builders in my electorate, who has an understanding of how the 5-star rating operates, when he sat down and designed a house that included solar power, solar hot water, and the use of grey water, ended up getting a rating of 4.5. What he was a bit concerned about was that a normal house, without those things, could get a 6.5-star energy rating, whereas when he added these things in, he got a lower rating.
My understanding, talking to the department, is that the 5-star rating is not based on how much energy you might use with a lower or more efficient toaster or refrigerator, or solar hot water, it is about the efficiency of the house to be cooled. That is where the confusion could come in. I believe we should be saying to people, this house is a 7- or 8-star house, based on the fact that it has some solar panels on the roof, it has solar hot water, it is reusing grey water, which is very good. However, as he said, he designed a house with all these extras and it does not get counted because it does not fit in with the guidelines of the 5-star efficiency requirements.
I will tell you a couple of other things this gentleman said. Many builders are building houses designed ‘not tropical’ - they are his words - and only have to make small changes to meet the star rating. The energy rating, he said, assumes air-conditioning. He said the software bases the rating on a temperature of 24o. My understanding is that it is actually 26o. The energy rating discourages passive designs. Louvres will drop the star rating. Large eaves will increase the star rating. Air-conditioning is a good example of the rating not being about energy efficiency. Standard air-conditioners use a lot of power, especially at start up to get the temperature down. Inverter air-conditioners minimise the grunt used at start up and do not use as much power as the standard unit. There is no difference in rating for them. The cost of modifications to the energy rating would be close to 4%. He also mentioned he believes that, in Queensland, you get an instant star for solar hot water and an external patio. They are some of the issues that were of concern to that gentleman.
There was another gentleman who made the effort to become an assessor. He mentioned that the Deemed to Satisfy system was like a sledge hammer to a walnut. It makes requirements more onerous and requires more money to be spent, and is only best on renovations. That was an interesting quotation as well.
I should also say, minister, I have this pretty good magazine, Resident. It is a flash magazine. I am sure the member for Goyder will be pleased to know that it actually headlines the best of rural living. I know things are booming in Coolalinga, Howard Springs and Virginia, and I have to admit that my house is not in here and the member for Goyder’s is probably not in here ...
Ms Purick: And mine is a Burnett house; it should be in there.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but when you see the houses in here, you are seeing some pretty flash houses. There is a house in here - it is a nice heading of ‘West Virginia’. It is a beautiful house on 10 acres, but it is louvred. Vantage Homes is the company that has built this one. They have an advertisement in there and this home is only worth about $1.2m, a little over that. It is a house with a large number of louvres. It has been designed for both sorts of living with natural flow and air-conditioning. It has large patio areas and is certainly much better than my house, I can tell you. There are builders building houses which allow natural ventilation. If you have the right architects and the right money you can design houses that are both suitable for air-conditioning and natural flows.
I would not say there is a lot of confusion out there, but there is certainly some confusion. The department said today the confusion could be with about 5% or 6% of the people who deal with the efficiency guidelines. However, if that 5% is prominent people like architects and they are having some concerns about it, that leads into people also having doubts about the system - people like me, because I certainly have had difficulty understanding why one would promote a house that is suitable for air-conditioning when the very basis of an air-conditioner, much as it is very nice, is to use up energy - far more energy than a couple of fans in a house. We have had a design since the days of Burnett which did not include air-conditioning, but were pleasant houses to live in.
There is no doubt that when the temperature outside is nearly the same as the temperature inside, it is more comfortable if you can cool that air down a little. Air-conditioning does have its uses; there is no doubt about that at all. But, when we start to talk about a 5-star efficiency, when we want to build a house for air-conditioning so they use as little air-conditioning as possible, that is fine. I was concerned we were not giving equal weight to people not wanting to build with the concept of air-conditioning. It simply said this house will be built like an old-fashioned house that will just be relying on natural breezes and fans. That is where some of this confusion has occurred. I might have been confused, and that could be based on ignorance, but when architects come to me and say: ‘We have some concerns as well,’ I say: ‘Is the message out there? Have there been a number of discussions with some parts of the industry?’ I gather other parts of the industry are quite happy. The fundamental principle of what I am trying to promote tonight is it would be good to have a review because there are some doubts and some confusion about what has happened.
I understand the government had a review, originally, in relation to the introduction of the 5-star efficiency rating. There is a possibility it will be reviewing the 6-star efficiency rating. In that review process, you could take up the matters I am looking at. I do not want to have arrears in reviews, but it may be that you could incorporate the issues I am talking about as part of that 6-star energy proficiency review.
On the last issue, I want to talk about the appropriateness of the mandatory requirement of a 5-star energy efficiency rating. I am a person who believes governments pass legislation for the benefit of the community. I understand we are looking at energy efficiency because we are trying to save the planet; we are trying to have houses that use less energy than the houses of old. On the other side, it is a little sad to see what you might call the inability by Territorians to have some individuality. Of course, you have to find that balance ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Barkly.
In the Territory, to some extent - maybe it is because I live in the rural area - people were able to live in a building they could put their tick on and say: ‘That is me’. The more regulations we bring in, whether its energy efficiency, cyclone coding, or whatever, we have lost the ability to do something that is like a signature: ‘That is my house, I designed it; I like it’.
Today, we tend to bring everything down to: you must do it this way, and you must do it that way. I am caught in the reality of the world today. We want to use less energy. It is not even a matter of whether it is energy; it is the old adage that you do not waste things. Whether you eat all your food and do not throw it away, or whether you use the least energy you need to, are good principles in life.
I am torn between the balance of saying allow people to have some flexibility in the design they want and do not regulate their lives to the nth degree. However, I understand in this day and age we have moved along over the 30 or 40 years I have been here. We were not talking about energy efficiency, especially when I lived in a Sidney Williams hut - no lining, no fans and they were hot houses without any insulation at all - for three years at Daly River. That was a very energy-efficient building because all we had was one yellow globe in it. I know what the other extreme is like; it is trying to find a balance.
One other point, in the discussion about 5-star efficiency we could look at the broader discussions in relation to what the builder said about the possibility of using - if you have solar hot water, solar panels - grey water as part of the 5-star process. Eventually, we have to look at the cost of building houses. Do you use recycled material? Concrete and aluminium are probably building materials which are the two highest energy users. When people say they are building an energy efficient house, it might be you do not need to have an air-conditioner; the amount of concrete and aluminium in the house might outweigh that by a mile. I am not saying we should not build houses from concrete and aluminium.
When we are looking at this whole concept of sustainable living we do not want to ignore some of the costs. Are we building houses that are far too big for our needs? Are we building houses which are a waste because the house is enormous? Some of the houses in some of the suburbs in Melbourne are double storey; they are enormous houses. You have to ask: ‘Do you need a house that big?’ There are some fundamental questions about how much money we are putting into living our lives in the form of materials which go into these houses.
Of course, you can look at recycling material; however, you have to be careful with recycling material because the cost of recycling might be higher than using the raw material. The materials you get may have to be adjusted or made differently to be suitable for the structure you are building. I was told today recycled timber can sometimes be a problem; it is not necessarily suitable for a house to come up to cyclone code.
We are talking about 5-star efficiency, the AccuRate program, the DST – the Deemed to Satisfy - and also about the expert panel. They are issues which could be reviewed. At the same time as looking at the bigger picture regarding energy efficiency, look at other options which could be added into the review such as solar panels, solar hot water, grey water, and whether a house has been built from materials which have required less energy to produce. I am simply asking the government to review what has happened. If they wish to include that in their review of the new 6-star energy proficient houses, that would be good.
I looked at the houses at Bellamack village the other day. I am told they have a rating of 6. I believe they are very well designed. They have quite a large gap between houses, which allows free flow. If you compare the gap between those houses at Bellamack village and some of the houses you see at - happy valley, I call it - on Tiger Brennan Drive, they are practically next to one another. They have a fence between them and they have banks of air-conditioners. The Bellamack houses are not air-conditioned; they have quite a number of louvres in them ...
Dr Burns: I tried to tell you how good they were.
Mr WOOD: I know; I can eat my own words. They are a relatively narrow house which does allow flow through. They even have room for a boat. They probably even have room for a garden shed, at which I am amazed. They have room for the barbecue on the back veranda. I thought they were very good.
I know SIHIP houses have come under a lot of criticism, but the block houses we saw at Umbakumba were 6-star rating. When I visited Umbakumba and went into the rooms there – insulation is very important; they have the cool room insulation in the ceiling which I recommend for anyone these days. That makes a heck of a lot of difference. They had a bank of louvres, larger eaves than many houses you see today, and those houses were quite cool.
They certainly can be built, but those houses are all being built to a design the government wants. Of course, that was the issue I had. Why do I have to build one to that design? Can I build one that I like as long as it is cyclone proof? Why can I not build it myself? If it is a bit too hot, well, that is my bad luck. If it is a bit too cold and blowy, well, that is my bad luck. All in all, that is going to be more a philosophical debate rather than a technical debate. I believe if people want to see some good houses - small, they are not huge; the Bellamack village houses are about 94 m2. I measured the bedroom. It was not a Velcro bedroom - it was 4 m x 3.6 m with cupboards. It gave the impression that you can build houses at a reasonable price and be energy efficient if you use the right technique.
Years ago, people built houses east-west. Nowadays, it has become the in thing for energy efficiency. Anyone who built a house in the tropics and had some knowledge of building always built the house east-west so only the ends of your house got hot. Cattle stations and homesteads were all built with large verandas. Why? To keep the heat off the walls. Now, we have wider eaves on houses. Why? To keep the sun off the walls. We have just re-invented the wheel and called it a 5-star efficiency program. I wonder whether common sense went out the door in the 1980s and 1990s. Now we are coming back and spending millions on committees, reviews, and COAG meetings to design something we have always had in the Territory. We just forgot it and, now, we have come back to it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope the government will support this motion.
Mr McCARTHY (Construction): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward, and I add my comments and respond to some of the issues raised by him. It is a pleasure to debate a bushman in this House. The member for Nelson has certainly shown his roots in the Territory in this debate tonight.
The essence of the debate the member has brought forward is what he perceives is a limit on house design in relation to 5-star requirements. This has been a very interesting learning curve for me as the minister as well. I thank the member for Nelson for making the time to meet with departmental officials and advisory staff; the same staff who advise me as the minister, the same gurus who provide me with that knowledge to go forward in making very important decisions in the context of the whole of the Territory, and the same people who have provided me with the enlightenment and also the story to tell in relation to the debate.
I would like to go out on a bit of a freestyle to start off with, and quote Dr David Suzuki. If we are talking about a concept like energy efficiency, and our society and our community, then we have to be in it together. If we are talking about issues like climate change and the future of our planet, then we have to be in it together. So, when you see COAG reforms, they are talking about a holistic approach in Australian society where we all can participate but, at the same time, we all share a level of responsibility. In relation to energy efficiency, this is very scientific but also pragmatic. I agree with the member for Nelson, it can be confusing until you start to deconstruct it. At the end of the day, it is important we value the concept, as a society and community, of doing the best for Mother Earth we all celebrate here.
I begin the contribution to this debate by thanking the industry professionals who worked with government in designing the implementation arrangements for the introduction of 5-star energy efficiency. We are proud to be the first Territory government that has mandated minimum standards of energy efficiency. We want new homes in the Territory to be built to our climatic conditions. With any new regulations, though, it is important that we get the rules right, that industry understands what is required, and they are achieving their purpose. In this case, it is energy efficiency. We think we got it right, and we think it is working fairly well, but we acknowledge it is not perfect - nothing is. In general, the feedback from industry and the peak bodies, such as the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders, has been supportive of the provisions.
An energy efficient home pays back its owners over time through reducing heating and cooling costs, and is an investment in protecting the environment. Even a saving of 5% of energy per year, every year over 50 or more years, is an amazing achievement. In a collective, that is a real achievement in protecting our planet.
As background, it is important to first understand what the building controls are and how they are administered. The Territory government adopts the Building Code of Australia, BCA, as its main building regulation in accordance with an inter-governmental agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories. The Council of Australian Governments, through the National Partnership Agreement on Energy Efficiency of June 2009, has decided the BCA will be the means of achieving its strategy for energy-efficient buildings. The Territory is a signatory to this agreement and has, accordingly, committed to improved energy efficiency provisions for buildings in the Northern Territory.
In broad terms, there are three ways in which houses can comply with the BCA: Deemed to Satisfy provisions, and two alternative solution approaches, being a software tool and an expert panel. Whilst the Deemed to Satisfy provisions were readily available in the BCA, they are generally prescriptive in nature and can limit design solutions to achieve 5-star ratings. Five star ratings for houses commenced in the BCA in 2005. The Territory did not apply these provisions until 1 May 2010 in response to concerns over the suitability of these measures for the Territory climate. We wanted to get it right and take industry along with us. That is also an interesting marker in my learning curve around energy efficiency.
At the time 5-star provisions were introduced in the BCA, the Northern Territory Building Advisory Committee advised government the measures did not adequately deal with natural ventilation for tropical designs as they generally assumed buildings would be air-conditioned and that the house energy rating software, AccuRate, was unsuitable. Naturally ventilated tropical designs are also referred to as free-flowing passive design houses. These are the homes we want to promote, not the reliance on air-conditioning. On this basis, it was important to put together a review committee much like the member for Nelson is proposing tonight.
A House Energy Rating Industry Reference Group was established to make recommendations to the BAC regarding the suitability of the energy rating software tool, AccuRate, for NT conditions following modifications to the software to improve the modelling of air flow and comfort. The House Energy Rating Industry Reference Group consisted of members from the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, the Master Builders Association, Building Designers Association, Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, and the Housing Industry Association - an impressive list of stakeholders.
The Department of Lands and Planning also commissioned various consultants to provide technical advice. That advice was provided to the House Energy Rating Industry Reference Group and also the BAC. In September 2008, the House Energy Rating Industry Reference Group, or HER IRG, gave its final report to the BAC advising that it considered AccuRate to be suitable for a tropical climate. At that time, the Australian Institute of Architects NT Chapter provided a dissenting report, not supporting AccuRate or any similar rating tool. These concerns were important and we acted to ensure they were addressed. Their issue was that, in the current tool models, the use of artificial cooling achieved occupant comfort for climatic conditions when a house design and natural ventilation cannot sustain that comfort, as often occurs in the Northern Territory. Furthermore, there were concerns that the assessment of free-flowing houses could not be adequately assessed using either the Deemed to Satisfy provisions in the BCA or the software tool.
Following further evaluation and modifications to the software tool to improve the modelling of air flow and comfort, the BAC advised government in January 2009 that it was satisfied the 5-star measures in the BCA were cost effective, would result in improved energy efficiency outcomes, and have sufficient flexibility to allow appropriate tropical designs. The Building Advisory Council also supported the use of AccuRate in the Northern Territory.
While the existing prescribed provisions and the rating tool, AccuRate, will, no doubt, be refined over time, the BAC was of the view that the balance in BCA 2009 was reasonable. The Queensland government, having not applied the same Building Code of Australia provisions as the Northern Territory to date for the same reasons, was also of the view and introduced the 5-star provisions in March 2009, with support from the architects in Queensland. Faced with a similar issue, Queensland has developed a peer review structure to support the alternative solution, performance-based method when used for architecturally designed free running buildings. The Australian Institute of Architects NT Chapter supported this concept.
The pool of experts and the volume of relevant work in the Territory were considered to be small. It was, therefore, agreed that the Territory, with the support of Building Codes Queensland, which administers the panel, could give recognition to experts on the Queensland peer review panel, and an expert could then be engaged by an architect or building designer through a normal contractual arrangement.
The Institute of Architects NT Chapter, in turn, advised that with the establishment of a peer review option, it withdrew its original objection and supported the Building Code of Australia’s provisions being applied in the Northern Territory.
The motion before the House calls for a local peer review panel being established in the Territory. Government does not believe this is necessary in the Territory as we have a small building design and architectural community and critical analysis of a peer is always difficult. Critiquing the work of a peer in a small and tight-knit sector could be a concern for industry. However, I have instructed the department to work with the Queensland government to ensure a local expert could be considered on the expert panel. It is also understood the Queensland review panel has not been accessed by any client in either the Territory or Queensland; that is, no building designer or architect has needed the review panel to consider a building which falls outside of the deemed to comply provisions or the AccuRate model since it was established.
Of hundreds of dwellings right across the Northern Territory that have been built under the 5-star provisions about 50% have been approved under AccuRate and 50% under the deemed to comply provisions. We even have 6-star dwellings. There are SIHIP dwellings that are 6-star, and the new units at Bellamack Gardens, which the member for Nelson commended, are also 6-star. All of these dwellings rely on passive cooling and do not have air-conditioning. On this basis, the Deemed to Satisfy provisions, or AccuRate software tool, are considered adequate for the needs of industry and application in the Northern Territory.
In relation to 6-star energy efficiency, we are moving towards a 6-star energy efficiency standard for residential housing construction across Australia. I am happy to put on the record tonight, if this motion is supported by parliament we will establish an industry reference group in 2011 to ensure the 6-star tools are suitable for the Territory. At this time, the review committee will be able to consider the performance of the current 5-star efficiency measures.
An important starting point for the group will be to understand where we are now with the assessment tools and provisions, and how they can be improved to meet a new higher standard. Our climate is highly variable across the Territory, and it is important the tools meet the requirements for tropical homes to the north, and also temperate homes closer to the outback of Central Australia. We will get it right and will take advice from industry to ensure those who build and design the homes provide knowledge into the mix.
The member for Nelson also talked about the use of appliances and their role in determining energy efficiencies for homes. The building code does not consider the use of appliances. I have been advised these have their own ratings and consumers should choose appropriately. They have much shorter lives then a home and are regularly replaced during the life of the structure.
In conclusion, I reiterate the existing tools are working in the Territory context. AccuRate is the only federally accredited assessment tool able to be utilised in the Territory. It provides certainty for the industry and a demonstrated benefit for consumers. There are other rating tools currently being accredited such as BERS, as mentioned by the member for Nelson and, when accredited, it will be able to be used by the Northern Territory. Our rating tools do not require the installation of air-conditioning, and tropical Territory homes can and are being built.
Madam Speaker, we have a good relationship with industry and no complaints are being recorded by the department at this stage. Hundreds of new homes have been built since the 5-star rating for homes and 3.5-star rating for apartments was introduced in May this year. The performance of homes needs to be considered in the context of their expected life of around 50 years. That does not mean the tools are perfect. They can be improved, and we are confident we have the appropriate feedback mechanisms in place to ensure industry is heard.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I might have to speak a little longer.
Madam SPEAKER: Not necessary, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I do have something to say. I thank the minister for his response to the motion. Several things came to mind when the minister was speaking, and maybe these areas, although not directly related to the physical nature of the 5-star efficiency requirements, would have an effect on the principles behind 5-star ratings.
For instance, part of the efficiency guidelines include the orientation of a house from east to west but, if a government is designing subdivisions where blocks may be narrow but pointing north–south, then the ability to build a house east–west is difficult. I have seen this in developments in Palmerston, where the streets travel east–west and, therefore, the blocks go north-south, and there is little opportunity for a house on the right orientation. Whilst it is good for government to say it supports 5-star efficiency, the government has to take some of those other steps to help that, by ensuring subdivision design allows for some of those stars to be achieved.
When we talked about blocks, one of the changes which has occurred over the last few years is that building envelopes have become larger on blocks on land, so you have smaller distances between neighbour’s blocks, which means you have less air movement. In some cases, that can even aggravate the situation, where there can be banks of air-conditioners which blow heat into the neighbour’s house, or you can have metal fences which could be 6’ high, which also not only just limit the air flow but, because they are metal, are producing heat which then, as the breeze blows, is being moved into the house and not helping cool the house down.
The issue of waivers on building envelopes is another area which needs to be looked at. It is part of planning, as is the orientation of blocks. Perhaps there needs to be some emphasis - if the government says 5-star efficiency is good for the Earth then its contribution would be to ensure the designs of subdivisions it approves are done in such a way as to make it easier for people to fit within the 5-star efficiency guidelines.
The other area which has always been a concern of mine - and I have never really been able to get to the bottom of it - is covenants. I do not know who controls covenants. Sometimes private developers say you cannot build a second-hand house, a house made out of metal - it has to be a block house; you cannot have a two-storey house - it has to be a single-storey house; and the roof has to be certain colours. I have said this before: if you go past suburbs in Palmerston you see black roofs. That would take about two stars off the 5-star efficiency. I hope the government inquires into what the role of covenants is - I am talking from a negative point of view - in making it more difficult for builders to achieve 5-star efficiency. If the covenants say every third house should have a black roof, every third house should have a dark green roof, and every third house should have a dark red roof, when we know if you want to reduce heat you should have a white roof, who is responsible to say: ‘Hey, that is not going to help the 5-star efficiency’?
For instance, if there is an inability in a suburb to build a Burnett-style house because the covenant says: ‘No, all houses will look the same. I will give you four different kinds of models for these houses and you will have your garage out the front and this is what they will look like. Pick a house and that is it’, it could be because the covenant says this suburb will look all the same and you will have a choice of one of these four designs. Yet, someone could build a Burnett-style house, or even an old Tiwi Housing Commission-style house which has a hallway with a bank of louvres running down one side and bedrooms running off that. Why could someone not build that? The answer I was given is the covenants do not allow it.
Who is responsible for the covenants? Does the government have some control over those covenants? Does someone say: ‘Those covenants are working against the principle which we are trying to promote in our society’? I would have liked to ask these questions when I made my opening statement so perhaps the minister could take them down as they are areas of concern. I go past Farrar and see these different coloured roofs. My little understanding of physics is that light coloured roofs reflect light more than dark coloured roofs. Yet, we have built these houses in the tropics with dark coloured roofs which tend to absorb more heat.
I thank the minister for his understanding and agreement that the 5-star system as we know it will be reviewed. I am not asking the panel to say whether that should be mandatory; that was really a philosophical matter which I added into debate today. Even though you have lived all your life in the bush you tend to do things the way you feel like doing them. If you are building a chook shed you do not want someone to tell you how to build it, especially if you are 150 km away from Darwin. I come from that background and I have come closer to Darwin. I do not really want to come too much closer. The closer you come to Darwin, the more regulations you have ...
Ms Purick: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: Yes, I know. Sometimes you say that is life. As much as I know the member for Goyder probably agrees with me, unfortunately, as those suburbs come closer and closer towards the highway at Palmerston - the reality is that populations grow and as you get bigger populations you need more controls.
I am grateful the minister has accepted that a review should occur and will take up some of the issues I have raised today. I will, after today’s debate, have a much better understanding of what makes up a 5-star efficiency program and what tools are used by builders, architects, and planners to come up with designs which fit within that criteria.
As I said before, I hope that whatever regulations we bring forward, as long as it comes up to cyclone code in this part of the world - even in other parts of the Territory - we can keep a little of what I call our own identity, in the sense of a Territory identity, in the style of architecture. That is important. In Tennant Creek there is a mixed bag of architecture; we know it is Tennant Creek. In Alice Springs it tends to be a little more like a northern suburb of Adelaide – the type of architecture for a slightly dryer and colder or hotter climate. In the tropics we are somewhere between some of the Queensland designs and our own designs. Burnett houses are one of those designs you can recognise as being a Territory design. The upstairs houses are so much part of the Northern Territory, especially Darwin.
When I first came to Darwin the NT Housing Commission houses were simple: three bedrooms, a hallway, shower and toilet down about the middle and a kitchen and lounge room at the end - a simple design. In some ways we have made mistakes by building houses which are too complicated. People wonder why they cost a lot; it is because we build complicated houses. To be fair, Bellamack Gardens has gone back to some of that original thinking: hallway, bedrooms, shower and toilet off that, and a dining room and kitchen combined.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his response. I am looking forward to the review sitting and am anxious to see the results.
Motion agreed to.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move - That –
The extractive resources I am referring to include: sand, gravel, quarry rock, clay, soils, road base rocks and decorative rocks which are used in the making of concrete, asphalt, road bases and a range of construction and landscaping activities. The four main types are fine sand, coarse sand, natural gravel, and crushed rock aggregate. Dimensional stones, soil and clay are produced locally across the Territory, but on a smaller scale.
You can see there is more to the extractive industry and its products than people think and there is a need to understand the nature of the industry. I have had discussions with the industry group, as I know the minister has and will continue to do. I can recall when the Extractive Industry Association was first formed and had its first meeting at the old Berrimah Hotel. There were issues facing the industry at the time and, hence, the drawing together of the operators. It was not an easy exercise as there was a high level of distrust amongst the operators and various pieces of equipment at remote, rural sites had been torched in some kind of pay-back campaign which was under way at the time. Suffice to say, the industry moved forward, banded together, and have worked hard with each other and also with government. The Mines department, at that time, assisted the extractive industry people to get together. They assisted them well and helped them to get to the position they are in today with a strong and responsive industry.
The main markets for extractive resource products are the urban communities around Darwin, Alice Springs and the other main town centres but, more so, the Top End and Alice Springs. Like all minerals, the location of extractive resources is determined by geological conditions and is finite. They need to be accessed where they occur naturally and also close to markets. Being close to markets is crucial as the price received from extracted materials is nowhere near what operators get for semi-precious or precious minerals such as gold, silver, zinc and lead. The materials are of comparatively low value and the need to keep costs under control is paramount to a successful business.
The source of the material needs to be close to the markets to keep costs down as transport expenses for longer hauls adds considerably to the final market price. The extracted materials need to be identified, managed, and protected for future use.
The tall buildings in the CBD area would not be possible without huge volumes of concrete which, as I said before, comprises crushed rock and coarse sand, and possibly other materials. In building such a structure the concrete and other building materials need to be under constant supply at a competitive price, otherwise the final product will be unaffordable for purchase.
Some facts and figures, for example, from the Tiger Brennan Drive Stage 2 works - and these are approximate: 74 tonnes of explosives to blast approximately 600 000 tonnes of material from cutaway areas behind the Berrimah Farm and Marjorie Street. This cut material was used as embankment fill along the road formation and at the Stuart Highway interchange. Each of the two bridges at the interchange used approximately 1750 m of concrete. Given the concrete truck carries 7 m of concrete, you can see how many truckloads of concrete were used in building those bridges.
I have been told approximately 60 000 m of fine, crushed rock road base material has been used, which equates to approximately 132 000 tonnes of quarried road base. To gauge the volume of this material, it was brought to the site by a continuous convoy of triple road trains at 25 tonnes per trailer. The convoy would have stretched over 132 km. That is a great deal of material and it was all sourced from the quarries in the rural area.
As I said at the beginning, I want - and I am sure the industry wants - the government to keep its eye on the extractive industry ball, so to speak. Previously, the Geological Survey Division of the Department of Resources undertook geological research on the extractive minerals in the Top End. This work was done in 2001 by Nigel Doyle, who was employed by the department, and is an excellent piece of work. There was work done prior to that in 2000, also by Nigel Doyle in association with Huyn Ngo and Maria Duchateau. That work was titled Extractive Minerals for the Darwin Region Demand and Supply Situation to 2020. Both these reports were commissioned as the Top End of the Territory faced a growth period with major projects planned which would require massive levels of extractive materials.
Ten years has elapsed and we need to review, research and determine what and where the future supply areas for extracted materials will be given the encroaching urban sprawl and competing land uses.
Since that report was done there have been large-scale projects such as the LNG plant; many accommodation blocks built in the central business district; extensions, repairs and developments of many roads; and railway work in and around Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area. There have been other developments across Darwin and Palmerston such as the building of boat ramps and sealing of tarmacs, the construction of the convention centre, the wave pool, and the waterfront areas. The rock for the construction of the walls to make the new port area, the wave pool and lagoon did not fall out of the sky. All of that material came from the rural area and Mt Bundy.
The reports I mentioned were very good; I have used them to help me with my comments today and have used them previously. However, there is an urgent need for a new level of work to take into consideration natural population growth and normal demand of the products, developments which have gone before us and what is planned into the future: the future needs for housing, road construction and maintenance, watercourse changes and bridges. There will be an above normal demand for materials for major, one-off developments. The material needed to build a new gaol, for example, raises an issue which I will come to later.
What happens when INPEX comes to town and needs massive amounts of material for its shore facilities, jetty and sea walls? Will there be enough material to supply such a project as well as supply material for the normal demand of the products?
Where is it planned that the extractive material will come from for the new city of Weddell? Is government going to rely on the existing operations at Howard East, Sunday Creek and Mt Bundy, or is something else planned?
Sunday Creek is southeast of Goode Road in Humpty Doo. Material from this area supplies civil construction works and building works. Fine sand is extracted and blended with companies’ core sand to make concrete. Sunday Creek has been supplying extractive materials for the Tiger Brennan Drive road works. Some of the land around Sunday Creek is freehold title and there is great concern, if and when more land is turned into freehold, it will limit, if not stop, extractive work in that area. The reason is the extractive operators must get permission from a freehold title owner before a title can be granted. This may seem a very reasonable action and I do not disagree with it; however, it is the role of government to facilitate the opening of land for the benefit of all Territorians and not let landowners warehouse land to the detriment of the Territory.
An operator for this area lodged an application for an Extractive Mineral Permit. The operator was given permission to peg out the area in question and the grant documents were ready for signing. However, I understand the department of Lands stepped in and told the department of Mines the subject of the extractive mineral permit was to be granted to freehold and, therefore, the Mines department should not allow extractive titles within the area. Who is in charge here? Why was the operator not told in the first place about the possibility of a change of title so he did not waste time and money pegging and applying? Why did the Mines department not stand up for the industry and tell the Lands department to go somewhere else?
The conversion to freehold title raises serious issues for the future of Sunday Creek. If the extractive industry is locked out it will cause a possible shortage of sand material for large-scale development in the general Darwin areas and operators will be pushed further south resulting in higher costs of transportation and, ultimately, higher costs of construction.
On Middle Arm there are some leases for extraction of materials and it is on the Weddell boundary. However, with the beginnings of the Weddell infrastructure, if this material runs short, it could be costly as there is no other supply nearby.
Mt Bundy supplies rock and, again, many of the leases are on pastoral land. There are access issues there and the future of this area and the quarry industry is not assured.
Howard West is an extractive area close to markets with good levels of materials but is soon to be dumped on by a proposed new gaol. This is a prominent area for the extractive industry with upwards of 10 operators working in the area. Rock and sands are extracted and supply most of the greater Darwin area and rural area for road construction and civil works. If the new gaol goes ahead in this area those tenements will not be renewed and a major source of materials for the future growth of Darwin will cease.
The extractive industry is in discussions with government regarding the area and there is talk of utilising the material from these areas in the construction of the new gaol. There may also be compensation due to some people. However, these points do not take away from the fact the government did not think of the long-term consequences of planting a new gaol smack bang in a prime extractive materials area. It was bad enough the government made a deal with Defence to shut down the 30 Mile quarries, which supplied upwards of 60% of crushed rock into Darwin, so the Army can play war games in the bush. Now the most important area for extractive materials is facing the same fate. That is not a good planning situation.
The Mining Board undertaking the review and research will enable the extractive resources of the Top End of regional significance to be identified, managed, and protected for future extraction to guarantee a competitive price commodity into the marketplace. New areas need to be identified such that there are no constraints or conflict from other land users. It may be required to do a two-stage report; that is, the Top End and Central Australia. While I have not provided any details as to Central Australia there are land access issues also and future supply issues which need to be addressed.
As with the Doyle report of 2001, planning in the Resource department and industry needs to work further to identify future supply regions, given the projected growth and available areas. As I stated previously, the material is where it is found and not where we would like it to be. To secure the future of the extractive industry and for the future development of the cities and towns at a competitive cost price, the extractive industries and their futures need to be reviewed and discussed by the Mining Board. I believe it is an appropriate authority and it is within its powers to undertake such a task so we have guarantee into the future of the Darwin region, in particular, given the major projects which are proposed – whether they be through government work programs or industry – so the product is supplied into the marketplace at a competitive price.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I ask the minister and the government to consider this motion and undertake some further research and work through the Mining Board with the assistance of the Geological Survey of the Resources Department so there are benefits for, not only the industry, but all Territorians.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we do not support this motion.
My Department of Resources has, for many years, actively worked to facilitate the extractive industry and continues to do so. This work includes regular meetings with the Extractive Industry Association and other agencies, provision of data, and assistance with title and operational matters.
Much of the information sought in the motion is already currently available. There is a detailed report prepared by my department which was published in 2001, titled Extractive minerals within the outer Darwin area. It is a very detailed report which quantifies soils and extractive commodities including sand, gravel, quarry materials and dimensional stone in the region. It discusses the geological contacts for the deposits, provides a background to the industry and production data on the amount of material extracted. It also includes many maps, diagrams, cross-sections and tables detailing the nature and extent of the extractive material.
There is no need to update this report; geology does not change in 10 years, 100 years or a million years. Sometimes, it does not change for a hundred million years. The report is freely available from my department in hard copy, on CD, and on the Internet. Also available on the departmental Internet is production data back to 1998-99. This data shows the quantity and value of a range of extractive material produced on an annual basis. I table a copy of this information for the benefit of the member.
In addition, my department has also carried out geological and site survey work in respect of specific projects. A case in point is the site for the proposed prison at Howard West. My department has been proactive in examining activities and resources in the area to assist in minimising the impact of the proposed prison on local operations. However, the definition of extractive resources is not simply the responsibility of the government, industry must be proactive too.
Undertaking the work to the level requested could reduce the incentive of companies to undertake their own exploration and provide commercial advantage or disadvantage, depending on what is identified. Further, carrying out more detailed surveys may not be effective as extractive resources are often project specific, particularly in materials specifications and proximity, for example, hauling distances. There is no one-size-fits-all. Government has provided the guidance in where to locate material through the report but it is more appropriate and up to the industry to identify the material at the micro level.
Government has also worked closely with the Extractive Industry Association and other agencies in respect of future activities which may impact on extractive operations. I have met with the Extractive Industry Association three times in the last six months. My department meets with the Extractive Industry Association on a quarterly basis to discuss matters generally relating to the industry and as required to discuss specific matters.
My department is working closely with the Extractive Industry Association and relevant government agencies to identify areas for future use for residential, horticultural industries, industrial and other purposes as part of a broader assessment of land allocation and management of the greater Darwin area, as well as identifying resources and producing production data around larger regional centres. My department is also involved in communicating to the wider public the important role the extractive industry plays in advancing the Territory.
My department puts a high priority on the administration of extractive tenements to ensure they are progressed to grant in a timely manner. One measure is the legislative changes through the recently passed Mineral Titles Act, which reduced the time taken to grant extractive minerals titles by reducing the notification period and extending the term of the extractive mineral permit, thereby reducing administration and providing for a new title specifically for the exploration of extractive minerals. The current extractive minerals policy was released in 1998. Much of this policy has been achieved although some aspects remain relevant.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting the motion.
Motion negatived.
INFORMATION AMENDMENT (FEES) BILL
(Serial 83)
Continued from 27 October 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, whilst we give the member for Drysdale credit for persistence, we indicate, yet again, we will not be supporting this legislation. The bill proposes to amend the Information Act in relation to fees payable by specified applicants and in specified circumstances, including for freedom of information applications by members of the Legislative Assembly, with no fees applying for applications amounting to less than $3000.
Section 156 of the act provides that a public sector organisation may charge an application or processing fee. It also provides that the Information Commissioner may charge a fee in respect of the making of a complaint. Section 156(6) provides that a fee may be waived or reduced if the public sector organisation or the commissioner considers it appropriate having regard to both the circumstances of the application or the complaint, including financial considerations, impecuniosity or indigence, and the objects of the act. This provides a broad discretion in determining a waiver or reduction in fees by the public sector organisation or the commissioner.
This bill proposes to insert a new subsection following section 156(6), namely section 156(6A), which would set out specified applicants and circumstances in which a fee payable may be waived or reduced. The specified applicants and circumstances in this proposed section 156(6A) are as follows:
This proposed section 156(6A) does not require that the public sector organisations or the commissioner must waive or reduce the fee for these applicants. The word ‘may’ is used; as such, it does not provide any further right or obligation to that currently available in section 156(6).
We can also look at some of these subsections in detail. The specified applicants in proposed sections 156(6A) and (B) are already covered by the current section 156(6); that is, a fee may be waived or reduced if considered appropriate having regard to both the circumstances of the application or complaint, including financial considerations and the objects of the act.
The specified circumstance in proposed section 156(6A)(d) is also covered by section 156(6), as the circumstances for fee waiver or reduction are not limited to financial considerations. Public interest considerations can be considered within the circumstances for fee waiver and reduction, especially in light of the objects of the act, which include creating a general right of access to information held by public sector organisations which is limited only where the disclosure of particular information would be contrary to the public interest as its disclosure would have a prejudicial effect on essential public interest.
The proposed specified circumstance in section 156(6A)(c) does not make sense on the scheme of the act. Fees are not charged on a cost recovery basis and are, therefore, never economical. Currently, the only applications which do not attract a fee are applications for access to personal information. All other applications attract a modest fee for access to government information unless a waiver or reduction of charges is made on a case-by-case basis where public interest considerations or circumstances of hardship exist. The fees do not reflect cost recovery for processing the applications.
The bill also proposes a new section 156A following section 156, which provides that MLAs do not have to pay fees unless the fee amounts to more than 3000 revenue units, currently $3000, and a new section 156(6B) which states that section 156(6A)(b) does not affect section 156(6)(b).
This proposed section 156(6B) does not make sense. As it currently stands, it provides that the proposed section 156(6A)(b) – that is, financial hardship - does not affect section 156(6B); that is, to have regard to the objects of the act. Presumably, it should provide that the proposed section 156(6A)(b) does not affect the current section 156(6)(a) to have regard to the circumstances including impecuniosities or indigence.
In regard to the proposed section 156A concerning MLAs, the Northern Territory government recently made regulations under the act to provide that the Northern Territory government reports available under freedom of information are available free of charge to MLAs. It was not intended that applications for access to other documents generally available under FOI be available free of charge for MLAs. FOI fees are intended to avoid fishing expeditions and unnecessary and potentially costly demands on public servants. The fees ensure that applicants turn their minds to the information they require and tailor an application so unnecessary information is not applied for, thereby reducing unnecessary burdens on the public service and taxpayer. All jurisdictions in Australia charge fees for accessing government information and all provide limited exemptions in some circumstances such as financial hardship.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, for very good reason, this government does not support this bill.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in closing, the purpose of this bill is to exempt a member of the Assembly from processing fees for documents requested under FOI. The exemption, as outlined previously, is to apply to processing fees under $3000 or 3000 revenue units. The bill amends the Information Act to not only insert that limited exemption to members of the Legislative Assembly, but also to expand the circumstances the department may consider when deciding whether to waive a fee under section 163.
The bill will expand the circumstances the department or commissioner may consider when considering an application to exempt or reduce FOI processing fees and are as follows:
if the applicant holds a pension and concession card or other entitlement card issued by the Commonwealth;
if the applicant is an individual or a not-for-profit community organisation and fees would cause financial hardship;
if the release of the requested information is in the best interest of the public or a substantial section of the public; and
if, after requests for review or a complaint to the commissioner, access is granted to request information which was originally denied by the department
This is an important expansion of powers to enable all members of society to access government information - information which, in most cases, should be publicly available in the first place.
A private members bill to reduce the amount of information able to be hidden under Cabinet-in-confidence provisions and waive FOI fees for MLAs was introduced on 24 April 2009. This bill was defeated, mostly due to the government’s dismissal of the amendments to Cabinet-in-confidence as a threat to frank and fearless advice from public sectors.
A second amendment to fees elicited the following response from the Attorney-General:
A motion was also put to the House on 29 October 2008 to remove fees for FOI applications submitted by MLAs. This motion was negatived with only one government member, minister Burns, speaking to the motion. He stated:
As identified by the 2008 Solomon report into the Queensland FOI process, an FOI process should resemble a push process where government is proactively pushing information into the public domain rather than pulling and hiding that information. A push model is favoured by the Territory Labor government - or purported to be favoured – however, a model where gaining access to the information is about as pleasant as having teeth pulled. In other words, in reality what we have is a pull intent and a pull motivation. It is less likely to want to push the information into the public sector. We have seen so many reports in this House which have been hidden but have been requested. We request them in Question Time, the member for Nelson requests them, we request them at other times, and consistently these reports are hidden.
This is the point we get to in this argument. It is about becoming more free, open, and accessible to the public. We expend a lot of public money on reports. Ministers ask for a report on this, a report on that. They cannot do anything without asking for a report, really. Then they hide that report. They have been given advice, at the cost of the public’s money, to tell them what they could do, should do, might do, may need to do. Sometimes it is needed. However, the public can never access it because the Labor Party is inclined to hide those reports and lock them away.
This is the point. The public want to see these reports. There are people - and not everyone; my door is not being kicked in by pensioners saying: ‘Geez, I wish I had those last 32 reports the Labor government did’. However, I do know some people who are interested in reading reports. They come to me and say: ‘Ross, we heard that you spoke on this matter. Can we have a copy?’ We send people copies of our adjournment speeches because people like to know what is happening in this House. They should know what is happening in this House and the halls that surround this House. It should not be a secret.
The same could be said for the original Bath report into childcare, the two Cornish reports into the aeromedical service, the review of St John Ambulance Service, the review into the Health and Community Services Complaints Act, and the countless other reports and reviews that, by all rights, should be pushed into the public domain. The public pays for the reports; they are about their society which we help to govern. The public should have the right to those reports.
Speaking of the reviews into the Health and Community Services Complaints Act - which is hiding somewhere on the fifth floor amongst filing cabinets, gathering dust, you are probably too scared to even read it - it is absurd that we continue to see these reports presented and we never see them come into the public domain. It is so true; many times we have asked: ‘Can we have that report?’ ‘No, cannot have it. No, cannot have that’. Then we go through this teeth-pulling exercise of freedom of information which is set to block the freedom of information, even though its initial ...
Ms Lawrie: How hypocritical. The Country Liberal Party never introduced it; it refused to.
Mr BOHLIN: The initial parenting intent was to put it out there for the public. I pick up on the interjection. Going back 10 years ago - and I love talking about 10 years ago because …
Ms Lawrie: You were not even here.
Mr BOHLIN: I was in the Northern Territory. I understand there were two sides of parliament. One side won an election and then started saying: ‘You guys did a bad job, you did a terrible job’. We move forward, two years past, and they still said: ‘You did a bad job’. Four years past - I do not even think we took four years to get to the next term: ‘You did another bad job. You are a terrible mob’. Whilst they continue to look backwards and say, four years ago, five years ago, six years ago - it is like a clock, it keeps counting - 10 years ago. Everything that goes wrong in the Northern Territory apparently is the fault of the former Country Liberal Party, 10 years ago.
When we see reports hit the table which we do get access to, or when we hear the stories of reports, it clearly outlines the reason they do not want to hand the reports over is because they demonstrate how bad they have been at governing the Northern Territory.
The former Attorney-General promised a review would be completed in 2009 with a discussion paper released for public comment. Where is that review? How are we going with it? We need to get moving. The federal government has done one; they have stuff happening about this whole freedom of information - that little demon which hangs around. Almost three years since the Department of Justice received the Information Commissioner’s recommendations, we still do not really have any further push with that.
Minister, when will you take action? It is in the agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson that you intend to do more. And do not pay lip service to the member for Nelson. We have seen the member for Nelson continually try to get information from this government. I have sat in front of the member for Nelson and many times turned to the member for Nelson mid-Question Time and said: ‘So that was a good answer’, knowing full well that even though the member for Nelson had pre-warned the Labor Party of the question he intended to ask so it could prepare itself, it still spin doctored the response. They continue to push him away and say: ‘That is all right, you do not really need to know about it. No, do not ask those questions’. The way you have treated the member for Nelson is disgusting.
The high fees and substantial delays experienced when an MLA, or anyone for that matter, submits an FOI request is contrary to the government’s claim of an open and accountable government. If opposition and the Independent members of this House are to effectively serve Territorians and are to be able to provide well-researched and fully informed contributions to key issues facing the Territory then access to government information must be made more available.
Madam Speaker, I thank you and move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 9 June 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale in continuation. I believe you have 25 minutes remaining.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I will put my running shoes on. Last time we spoke on this we had to run through some of this rather quickly. I will do my best to take off. Not everyone will follow it to start with, but here we go.
In the United States, Robert Wood Johnson devoted his life to building the renowned business, Johnson & Johnson. His foundation continues his mission to improve the health of all Americans. The foundation’s publication, Active Living Research, includes the following statements:
These findings are mirrored in the Be Active WA, the Western Australia website, promoted by the Western Australian Department of Sport and Recreation, which states:
And:
As this has:
The report went on to note:
I am proud to say my daughter does. Jasmine is an absolute legend at many of the sports she participates in. I am, as I am sure many other parents are of their children, very proud of her sporting achievements.
Indeed, I note a comment from the Rear Commodore Juniors and Training from the Darwin Sailing Club. I am sure many of you have seen the surprisingly young children sailing their Minnow dinghies in Fannie Bay on a Sunday morning. I am sure the member for Fannie Bay likes looking across and seeing all the little white sails floating around. The Rear Commodore said,
I have noted all the benefits but, sadly, there is a complete failure of this government to recognise the need for our kids to play sport. In the past two years, budgets of the Northern Territory government have reduced sport funding. Under this government there continues to be impediments such as the issues of insurance. Under this government there is no commitment to alleviate the problems faced by parents who try their hardest to encourage their children to play sport rather than veg out for countless hours in front of their computers.
The reality is that parents’ pockets are hit very hard when their children play sport. This is at a time when, under a Labor government, average household costs have increased by 180%. Parents pay for kit, time and time again, as their offspring shoot up and grow in height and size and muscular physique. Parents pay the annual cost for each child for their chosen sport or, indeed, sports.
Here are some indicative costs per child which vary depending on age, club, etcetera: soccer, the true football, $180 per year; cricket $50 to $100 a season; judo $30 for a 10-week term plus a registration fee of $30 plus, sometimes, a $5 per night fee; callisthenics $60 to $80 per term; hockey $50 to $115; and basketball, a $20 club fee, $55 registration fee and $5.50 per game. Just work it out: two children playing one sport each can cost around $400 per year. If, as is often the norm, they play more than one sport, the total can easily exceed $1000, and that is without fuel costs as there is limited public transport. Public transport is not the best yet in the Northern Territory. I know we have a new era, but we still do not have a new generation of public transport. I am told he is working on it. Unfortunately, and fortunately for the kids that have that support, parents have to take them to and from and the costs add up.
Not only are power costs going up but licensed clubs are suffering from limited funds compared to the pre-GFC days and commercial sponsorship is incredibly difficult to obtain. What is the minister’s response? The estimate in budget papers for sport expenditure in 2008-09 was $24.311m and this year it decreased to $22.963m. I note, to my dismay, there will be even less next year. Minister Hampton, on 18 June 2009 at last year’s estimates, stated:
That was on 18 June 2009 and this is nearly 18 months later. Let us stop here for a moment. This was the same day the Labor government released a media release ‘Delivering for Sport’ under the heading: ‘John Ah Kit, Minister for Sport and Recreation’. That was the same day. The current member for Stuart issued the media release under John Ah Kit’s name. The minister is lost in the wilderness. It was swiftly withdrawn and re-issued under your name, minister. This was enough to prompt me to look back and see how empty your words were once again. Last year in estimates, I asked the following question:
Minister Hampton’s response was:
That was June last year. Again, I queried:
More than five years ago the former minister for Sport said the same thing. Mr Ah Kit’s policy failed to ignite; it never got off the ground properly. Minister Hampton’s response was:
My question to the minister then was:
Minister Hampton then advised in the 2008-09 budget he committed $69 000, and in the 2009-10 budget he committed $31 000 towards the Sport and Active Recreation Policy. So, $100 000 is spent. One could say this money is well spent considering the problems outlined and the benefits to be gained. The next obvious question I asked one year ago was:
At last the minister committed and responded:
Last year! That was August 2009, not 2010. Surely, this should not be so hard. After all, cutting and pasting from Mr Ah Kit’s day is a straightforward process - click, drag, Ah Kit policy becomes Hampton policy. On 24 February 2004 - 2004, my gosh - Mr Ah Kit stated:
That was in 2004. It has been one long month since 2004. I really am tempted to say yeeha! This is pretty serious, minister. The former minister went on to say:
…
That was in 2004. Here we are, six years later. We will wind back even further to 14 May 2002 when the then Labor minister for Sport noted:
That was said eight years ago. I have already mentioned the outstanding Be Active Western Australian website. Their campaign has been up and running for years. Here we are, still consulting and issuing peacock feather-like media releases, under a different person’s name at times.
We note six years ago and, now again, the Country Liberals are committed to taking action. In 2008 we announced annual vouchers for $75 - one per child - for parents to use towards the registration costs for junior sport. There may now be a better method but our commitment is in place for such an important aspect of our children’s lives. The commitment is in place but we recognise there may be a better way to do it now. Is it appropriate for the federal government to take responsibility as well, hand in hand with a range of improved primary healthcare? Is it more appropriate to provide specific clubs with direct subsidies or to underwrite insurance costs?
Let me add some detail from the review of the Australian sports insurance prepared for the Sport and Recreation Ministers Council. This report was prepared in response to increased insurance premiums, particularly in public liability insurance, and notes that 53% of sports organisations which responded have changed insurance companies, including 35% who changed as a result of the HIA collapse; 80% indicated there were major issues facing their sport in relation to insurance; and 83% perceived an increase in the amount of litigation in sport. Shortage and turnover of volunteers was the most frequently cited barrier to implementation of risk management plans.
These were cited a long time ago. There may be better ways to do this nowadays than to support individual children, through their parents, with $75 per year. We see the clubs have cried out in the past. We see this government has already looked at the WA model which has been running for a very long time.
I noted the issues paper introduced by minister Hampton more than a year ago titled Towards a Sport and Active Recreation Policy. I have recently checked the department’s website. I will make a quick statement which amends my previously prepared speech; it was prepared on 9 June 2010 so it has been sitting for a while. At that time, on 9 June 2010:
That was what the government website said when I checked it on 9 June 2010; that it would be prepared for comment in September 2010. We do have a draft sports policy now and I commend the minister for preparing and releasing it. However, your website, in June this year, still talked about the policy hitting the table in September 2009. But the spot was vacant; it was empty, like most other promises.
So, on one hand, I say congratulations and extend my hand to say thank you but, on the other, I say, lazy to the point that – if you look at page 24 of the sports policy, the member for Braitling may recognise some of this - it looks like a bit of the Finke Desert race track. The photo of the motorbike and the motorcycle riding gear in your brand new document is in excess of 10 years old. This equipment, which they use in a different format now, is so old - either that, or you have the oldest rider. Maybe that is the minister’s personal equipment, I am not sure. The equipment and the motorbike are old. We have had many Finke Desert Races since. We have had many motocross events. You could have come to Catalina Road and seen the motorcycle guys there; there were plenty of opportunities to take photos. I am surprised you used such an old photo on such a new and, supposedly, exciting document.
I thought it might have been a month or so late, but let us read the policy outline anyway about the actions this Northern Territory government will take to encourage the vision of Territorians having a lifelong involvement in sport and active recreation. But, it is not only a website, no one has heard of it. Although many I spoke to remember taking the time to make their submissions, it has taken a long time. To confirm this, when we checked on the website for this in June this year, I had my office phone Sport to find out whether we could get the Sport and Active Recreation Policy, and the response was - no surprise here – ‘No, you cannot have a copy, a draft form is being developed’.
It was pretty shameful - the minister, who went to the effort of cutting and pasting a previous Sport minister’s media release, probably did a better job than the former minister, Mr Ah Kit, because he did get to the point where he released a policy, but it was a long time coming. With modern technology, as he is the minister for ICT, his department should have made sure his website was up to date to say: ‘Whoops, sorry, we are still another month away from releasing the policy’. Alas, that was not the case.
We outlined in the election campaign in 2008 that there was a stance that we would supply $75 per child, and it is just the start. Of course, if we go back 10 years we would have the current government telling the public that the sporting facilities we currently have at Marrara, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and all over the Territory, did not exist prior to them coming to government. Most of the sporting facilities which Territorians currently enjoy were built by the Country Liberals. We have a strong intent when it comes to looking after the sporting futures of our children.
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: You never know, member for Casuarina. Your nephew may become a Formula One driver one day. You raised that before. You never know, he may be good enough at it.
There has been no goal kicked by the minister for Sport. There has been no goal kicked at all. This government has had a lot of game time. It has had many years to practice and perfect its game but it has not scored a single goal.
A member: Oh, that is a bit tough!
Mr BOHLIN: That is a bit rough. It has not scored a single goal. But, in the good spirit of Christmas, we are seeing some movement at the station - be it late, it is good to see it.
The licensed sporting clubs in the Northern Territory are under a great deal of strain at the moment. Throughout the Territory mums and dads are under a great deal of strain when it comes to Power and Water costs. Those who have to rent a house for a family for over $600 a week are under strain. A so-called affordable house costs over $400 000 to buy.
A member: It will be hard to send your kids to sport.
Mr BOHLIN: It is going to be very hard to send your kids to sport. As outlined in this report, it is vitally important for our kids to be participating in sport every day, getting active, getting away from the computers and the television, and getting out from under mum and dad’s feet because they will become better citizens for the Northern Territory.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for this motion. He has been the opposition’s spokesperson for Sport for two-and-a-half years and I do not think he has asked one question about sport and recreation in that time. He has been gagged by the Leader of the Opposition. Maybe he supports some other member over there.
It has been a long time coming. I welcome this motion on Sport and Recreation. This government can stand proud on its record in sport and recreation since it came to government in 2001.
We do not support this motion because we are already strongly committed to assisting all Territorians with the opportunity to access and participate in affordable sport and active recreation across the Northern Territory.
This government continues to support sport and active recreation through significant funding and has invested over $48m this financial year alone to sport and active recreation throughout the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has the second highest expenditure on sport and recreation per capita in Australia. We understand the enormous social and wellbeing benefits which participation in sport and active recreation brings to Territorians through healthier lifestyles and better education outcomes, and that sports build stronger communities by connecting people to places. I can honestly say, through my own personal experiences with sport, this has well and truly been the case.
Sport is an intrinsic part of the Territory’s future and its unique outdoor lifestyle. The CLP, in its last budget, committed a measly $12.8m to sport and recreation. That is the level of their commitment to sport and recreation - $12.8m on the record. The member for Drysdale waltzes in here, after two-and-a-half years, and decides to bring on a motion about sport and recreation. He has not asked one question about sport and recreation in two-and-a-half years, and he points to this government’s performance. This government’s performance is $48m this financial year alone compared to their measly $12.8m. It speaks loud enough for me in comparing the two parties’ positions on sport and recreation and commitment. It is absolutely shameful.
There are indications that if we were to get a CLP government in 2012, the first budget item it would cut is Sport and Recreation. There was $48m from this government in the last financial year; if you get the opposition in power in 2012, it will go back down to $12.8m. That is its commitment to Sport and Recreation; that is its record.
The member for Drysdale did not even mention Sport and Recreation in his budget reply speech, only acknowledging the great work the government has done and his appreciation for the commitment to construct the Palmerston water park. This government has promised the Palmerston water park. What did the opposition promise the people of Palmerston in sport and recreation facilities? Nothing! It shows how serious the Country Liberal Party is about assisting Northern Territory families to access sport and recreation.
The Northern Territory government invests heavily in sport, enabling sporting bodies and organisations to own the sport and determine the cost to be charged to ensure a comprehensive and professional structure and competition is available to the public. We need to ensure we keep assisting the development of organisations which are capable, sustainable and have the infrastructure to cope with growing participation rates. We will not dictate how they run their sport or what they charge; they are the experts.
This government has numerous programs which support the development of participation pathways which reduce the costs to participants. Such programs include over $7m-worth of grant funding to assist sport and active recreation, including $3.7m in peak sporting and active recreation body grants. This allows peak Northern Territory sporting bodies to apply for funding to assist with increasing their capacity to develop and deliver sport. Peak recreation organisations can receive up to $130 000 to help introduce Territory-wide active recreation programs.
There is $2.28m in Active Remote Communities Grants. This provides assistance to remote communities to deliver sport and recreation activities. The grants are directly negotiated through the local government shires and provide funding to employ the 58 Community Sport and Recreation Officers in the 58 remote communities.
There is $190 000 in Grass Roots Grants. Grass Roots Grants allow organisations, including clubs, groups, service deliverers, shires, and municipal councils, to apply for up to $3000 to implement a new sport or recreation program or increase the capacity of their organisation to deliver sport and recreation ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Can I ask those members who are speaking at the back to leave the Chamber while you are having your conversation ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, member for Port Darwin, including you, thank you. Order! Minister, you have the call.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, there is $820 000 in Facilities Development Grants. Facility Development Grants allow sporting organisations and peak sporting bodies to apply for funding to help improve their capacity to provide affordable and accessible sport and recreation opportunities through development of their facilities. For example, this government provided $46 000 for an upgrade to new, blue tennis courts at the Gove Peninsula Tennis Club, something I know the member for Nhulunbuy is very proud of.
This government has invested, and continues to invest heavily, in sporting infrastructure with the magnificent TIO Stadium and the Marrara Sporting Complex and, of course, the jewel in the crown in Alice Springs, Traeger Park. The $33m investment to deliver first-class sporting facilities in Palmerston for tennis, netball, AFL, Rugby League and football is a fantastic announcement for the people of Palmerston. Of course, we know the members for Drysdale and Brennan oppose this. They think government is spending too much money on the people of Palmerston.
There is $13.57m committed to constructing the Palmerston water park, which will be a great recreational facility like Leanyer Recreation Park, for all Palmerston and rural families. There is $8m to the Alice Springs Town Council for the construction of new aquatic facilities, including a 25 m pool. Perhaps the member for Braitling will wear his budgie smugglers to the opening. There is $4.2m for upgrades to the athletics track at Arafura Stadium, to showcase the wonderful Arafura Games. Major works are continuing with the $4m election commitment to upgrade the wonderful and first-class facility of the Hidden Valley Motor Sports Complex. I have driven around that wonderful facility in a V8. There is $2m for Northern Territory Cricket to develop first-class training facilities at its own MCG, as well as office complexes which are part of Stage 1 and Stage 2. There is a recently opened $6.2m netball facility at Marrara.
Providing significant funding to sporting organisations allows the sport to offset the cost of membership and participation, insurance, and uniforms. The Australian government has committed funding of $72m over the next four years to national sporting organisations to deliver direct financial assistance to support community clubs to implement participation initiatives.
The Australian government has also adopted the Local Sporting Champions Program to provide financial support to 4000 more young Australians and their families to help our junior athletes attend competitions across Australia which would directly benefit Territory families. It was this Henderson Labor government which provided $100 000 to support more than 300 junior athletes to participate in the Pacific School Games, easing the cost to families. This government is also currently working with the Australian Sports Commission to approve priority funding levels to sports, with the aim to further increase participation in sport and reduce the cost of participation to families.
As the Minister for Sport and Recreation, I am committed to assisting, whenever possible, to reduce costs for individuals to participate in sport and further enhance the great Territory lifestyle. We have a record that is second to none.
Madam Speaker, this government will continue to work to deliver every opportunity for every Territorian to participate in sport and active recreation throughout the Northern Territory, and it does not support this motion.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 27 October 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, the bill is not supported. The Growing them strong, together report arising from the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory was presented to government on 18 October 2010. A total of 147 recommendations were put to government to implement and make far-reaching and necessary changes to our system of child protection. These recommendations are for a systematic and holistic approach to child protection reform in the Northern Territory. The government has accepted all these recommendations and is working to deliver them. These reforms are not proposed in isolation, yet this bill from the opposition is. It is on this basis that the opposition’s bill is not supported.
The government is committed to working collaboratively with a range of agencies and partners each step of the way as we implement historical reforms to the Northern Territory’s child protection system. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is one such agency which must be involved as reforms are implemented.
This opposition bill proposed to significantly expand the range of matters which may be investigated by the commissioner and impose new functions upon his office which have not been thoroughly thought through.
The Northern Territory government passed the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 which established the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. The first independent Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath, was subsequently appointed by the Administrator in June 2008. The current role of the commissioner includes: investigate, resolve, and report on complaints about service provided to protected children; provide advice to the Northern Territory government and respond to ministerial requests pertaining to child protection matters; and convene and chair the Child Deaths Prevention Review Committee.
The opposition bill proposes amendments to 11 sections of the act. There are five substantive changes proposed by these amendments:
1. expanding the scope of Part 5.1 of the act and, therefore, the role of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to include all children and any matter rather than protected children and matters brought to the attention of child protection agencies;
3. to enable the Children’s Commissioner to investigate a matter referred by the Child Deaths Prevention Review Committee;
4. to amend the basis upon which the independence of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner is assured;
5. to task the Children’s Commissioner with monitoring and reporting at six-monthly intervals on the implementation of government decisions arising from the Growing them strong, together report, and monitoring and reporting on government decisions relating to other inquiries or reviews which are related to children in the Northern Territory.
Given the scope of these proposed changes - and they are major changes - I imagine the Children’s Commissioner should be actively engaged in the drafting process of any legislation brought before the House. The Children’s Commissioner has not been consulted by the opposition in the drafting of a bill and I wonder if he had the opportunity to comment on these proposed amendments.
In relation to the bill before me, I will begin by addressing the issue of expanding the Children’s Commissioner’s role beyond protected children. The amendment is flawed. It modifies the commissioner’s current powers to investigate complaints. Under existing legislation, the Children's Commissioner can investigate complaints relating to the failure to provide services to a protected child, or failure to provide these services to a reasonable standard. A protected child is defined in the current legislation under section 260(2)(a) as:
A flaw in the opposition’s bill is the proposal to expand the Children's Commissioner’s power to launch an investigation into the wellbeing of any child, whether or not that child has previously had any contact with the child protection system. Currently, one of the main functions of the commissioner is investigation and monitoring of service provision in child protection. By expanding the commissioner’s functions as proposed in the bill, the commissioner’s functions would potentially mirror, or interfere with, the existing functions of the Northern Territory Families and Children and members of the police force. This has the potential to compromise the role of both the child protection agencies and the commissioner. Both these agencies have the skills, power and resources to conduct that role. The Office of the Children's Commissioner was established to oversee the exercise of these powers. If the commissioner has the power to conduct investigations then who will become the watchdog?
As minister, I have had a conversation with the Office of the Children's Commissioner and am aware that Dr Bath is supportive of the concept of own motion powers. The government will, therefore, consult closely with the Children's Commissioner and others over the coming months on legislative reform in this area.
The opposition bill also contemplates giving the commissioner the power to investigate an individual child death referred by the Child Deaths Prevention Review Committee. This proposed amendment is unnecessary. Reportable deaths, as such, are already dealt with by the Coroner.
The opposition bill considers the independence of the Office of the Children's Commissioner and removes a current reference to other laws of the Territory. Such a change requires careful consideration. This detailed analysis is not evident in the opposition’s submission.
Finally, the proposal to task the Children’s Commissioner with the monitoring and reporting of the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report is not supported. The Northern Territory government has already established an accountability mechanism for the establishment of the expert steering committee to report on the government’s progress to the parliament six-monthly by the Minister for Child Protection. I want the Children's Commissioner to focus on his role of investigating complaints pertaining to protected children.
While the proposed amendments are flawed, I have indicated aspects may be supported and require further collaborative and detailed analysis as part of a greater reform. We saw no reform of the Child Welfare Act for 20 years. The CLP, when in government, either turned a blind eye on child protection or never acknowledged the extent of the problem. Now, we see the member for Araluen, in her second sittings, attempting to rush to change legislation.
Madam Speaker, the government does not support this bill.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am not surprised at all that the government does not support this. Child protection in the Northern Territory has been an issue of extreme importance for a number of years but was highlighted through the Little Children are Sacred report in 2007, which was the start of the Northern Territory intervention.
I listened very carefully to the minister and what he was saying. He indicated there are elements of this bill he and his government would support. He indicated he has spoken to the commissioner, and the commissioner is supportive of own motion investigation. Yet, the minister indicated he will not be supporting this bill.
He has not come here in any conciliatory way to provide amendments to the bill as put forward by the shadow minister, the member for Araluen. He has not come here with any good faith intentions to say this is how we can work together in a partnership to reform this process so those own motion investigations can go forward. The Growing them strong, together report by Howard Bath et al said, in Recommendation 136:
a broader role in monitoring the implementation of the Northern Territory government decisions arising from any inquiries in relation to the child protection system or the wellbeing of children under the Inquiries Act.
This recommendation has an urgency rating of one, meaning it is to be implemented within six months of the tabling of the report. The Chief Minister said he would accept all of the recommendations of this report - a little blindly without having a good look at it, in my opinion. He said he would accept the recommendations as they are. The Minister for Child Protection accepted them, immediately announcing $131m - some magical figure - as part of these recommendations.
The good member for Araluen, the shadow minister for Child Protection, has presented this bill. It provides the opportunity for own motion investigations for vulnerable children in an effort to protect children and ensure processes are under way.
The current system, which can only investigate protected children, leaves so many children unprotected in the Northern Territory. Going on the past performance of this government, it is important we have further safety nets for the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory. Let us not forget the Sunday Territorian article of 14 November 2010 when Alyssa Betts wrote about the Ombudsman investigating whether NT Families and Children cooked the books in up to 500 child protection cases so it could say they were completed while leaving the files blank. In that article, Alyssa Betts said:
Being Northern Territory Families and Children:
Which is continuing at the moment. That article also quoted NTFC Executive Director, Clare Gardiner-Barnes,who said:
The report went on further to say:
When we are looking at child protection - particularly now with the handing down of the Growing them strong, together report - with the outstanding 870 cases, which has been brought down to 800 cases, why is your tick-and-flick exercise not being run for those children? Are those children not of the same calibre as the 500?
Minister, we know that under your guidance and delegated responsibility, you like to run a tick-and-flick process. All we have to do is look at Montara and how you performed in that area. The recommendation says this needs to be brought about within six months of the tabling of this report. We are now in December; the next time we sit will be in February so we are going to miss that six-month time frame to implement Recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report.
The minister had the opportunity to come in here today – and if you do not agree with all of the amendments that is fine. He could have come in with an amendment to say government will accept the amendment of the bill within these parameters but it will not take the other part. He could have spoken as to why he supports this part but not that part. Clearly, he believes he is a better expert than Howard Bath or Muriel Bamblett.
It is interesting when you look at the Stateline report of Friday, 22 October on ABC, particularly the comments from Judy Hansen from Foster Carers NT. I will quote from the report. Presenter Laetitia Lemke asked Judy Hansen if she had been encouraged by the report. Judy Hansen responded:
Well, she will be disappointed. This was to be implemented within six months. It will not be implemented this parliamentary term. The Chief Minister, the Minister for Child Protection, and all the people opposite who like to think they do things in the child protection portfolio have failed at this hurdle.
Here is an opportunity to put this recommendation straight into action. This is the recommendation in the report which said there is a ‘tsunami of need’. I do not know why the government does not want the commissioner to have own motion investigation powers and why they could not be done here. This is Labor we are talking about. These are the people who support a right-of-entry process. Here we are saying: ‘Let us have a right of entry to protect children in the Northern Territory’. No, no. They will do it for the unions but they will not do it for the children. That is where we are now. This is the paradigm we are in: ‘We will look after the unions, we will look after our Labor buddies, but we will not look after children. We will not care for and protect children’.
Let us not forget the failures of this government when it comes to the care and protection of children and the money it is supposed to spend, as advised by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, compared to the money it actually spends. We have spoken about this many times before; we have been over and over it, particularly at the Alice Springs sittings last year. I will not go through all the details of the hundreds of millions of dollars the Territory government has not spent which the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommended it should spend. These are recommendations which came down post-GST when the rivers of gold had been flowing to the Northern Territory. You would expect that the government would be very keen to invest in child protection in the Northern Territory. No, it is very keen to support unions, to feather its nest, but not keen to move forward and look after the best interests of children.
This bill addresses urgent recommendations within the child protection report: own motion powers for the commissioner; a broader role in monitoring the implementation of the Northern Territory government’s decisions arising from any inquiries in relation to the child protection system or the wellbeing of children under the Inquiries Act; and specific powers for the Children’s Commissioner to obtain documents, examine persons, or carry out public investigations as part of his/her monitoring focus. Would you not expect this would be an important change, amendment, and improvement to the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory: the extension of his or her advocacy and complaint management responsibilities to other identified groups of vulnerable children in the Northern Territory?
I know the member for Araluen. I have spoken at length with her about this and she makes no apologies for the actions she is trying to take in this field. I pay tribute to the new member for Araluen, who has taken to her portfolio with gusto in trying to protect children and put reforms through this process. Since the new member for Araluen was elected there has been much reference to the previous member for Araluen: ‘Oh, the previous member for Araluen, she was a go-getter! The previous member for Araluen stood up for children’. Everyone is talking about the previous member for Araluen and how she was the resident expert in child protection. Yet, here we have a report from Howard Bath titled Growing them strong, together, with 147 recommendations on how to make improvements and what does the government do - apart from say it will do everything and then not do everything – look at a number; it came up with $131m because it looks quite good.
On Wednesday, 27 October 2010, when the member for Fannie Bay asked the Minister for Child Protection a dorothy dixer about advising the House of updates relating to the child protection Board of Inquiry, the minister said:
Recommendation 136 will not be implemented in the six-month time frame. Today is the day you can make this happen. This was to test your convictions, to see how committed you are to protecting children of the Northern Territory. We have seen your failures through years and years - the Little Children are Sacred report, where you have not done the job. The minister for Housing is still sitting here with his failed SIHIP which built 88 houses for $500m in three years. That is how poor they are. What does it say in the rest of this answer? It says:
This is the government of committee. I remember old Kevin Rudd, Kevin ’07, when he was coming in. Perhaps the member for Fong Lim can interject and tell me how many hundreds of committees there were. I cannot remember now. There was committee, after committee, after committee.
Now they have the Child Protection Reform Steering Committee. Who is on the committee? Let me read them out: Professor Graham Vimpani as Chair of the steering committee. I do not have everyone’s names, I am sorry. I thought I did, but I do not. They announced the committee, with very honourable people on it - nothing against that committee at all. However, with all the accolades, the thanks, and acknowledgments of Jodeen Carney, the former member for Araluen, you would have thought one of the people on that side would have picked up the phone and said ‘JC - or as I call her, Jesus Christ; that is not a derogatory term, it is a term of endearment. ‘JC, would you join this committee and help us with the implementation of the recommendations from the Growing them strong, together report?’ You would have thought that JC, Jodeen Carney, was the first person you would call. ‘Oh, thank you, Jodeen. Thank you, former member for Araluen, you have done this fantastic job, but we are not even going to pick up the phone’.
They are not even going to pick up the phone to Jodeen - sitting there in Alice Springs probably listening to this tonight. Hello, Jodeen, how are you? You would have thought you would have picked up the phone and asked her to be a partner in implementing this. Take out the politics in a bipartisan approach on this. No consideration at all. This is part of the psyche and the thinking, or the ability of the thinking, of this Labor government to be able to make improvements and reforms in the Northern Territory. Jodeen Carney should have been part of the steering committee to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in the Growing them strong, together report into child protection in the Northern Territory.
The government has failed again at a task which is so simple - to take the politics out of it, to take out the guff, the administration, the rubbish that goes on, and protect the children. We hear Labor all the time, in particular around the portfolio of Indigenous Affairs: ‘We would like to have a bipartisan approach on this’. As soon as you say something in a positive way and try to work together in a collegiate fashion, our government is quick to attack.
Here is an opportunity to work together for child protection. This is a simple thing; it would not cost any more. It would have had someone committed to the process to make reforms. Yet, here we are, with Recommendation 136 and the bill put forward by the new member for Araluen in a very positive light - but nothing, nothing at all. I call on the minister to e-mail his people upstairs and say: ‘Is it possible the member for Braitling, who is talking amazing sense, can help implement this recommendation in the first six months, as we committed to in this Chamber, as the Chief Minister committed to?’ Is it possible to pull out the part your government will accept; the key component in that recommendation? Can we put more reforms in and implement own motion investigation powers in the interests of the care and protection of children? Can you do that?
I implore you, on this second last day before our Christmas break, to put forward some positive acknowledgement in a reform process for the care and protection of children. Is it possible? E-mail away! We have more speakers on our side of the Chamber. You have 20 minutes to come forward and say: ‘Yes, I did say before that we would accept some of this, and this is the component we will accept. This is what we will accept as part of a Christmas gift to the children of the Northern Territory’. Even ring up: ‘JC, Giles said to give you a call. How would you like to be on the committee to help us implement the recommendations of the Howard Bath report? How would you like that, Ms Carney, as a token gesture for all the hard work and effort you have put into the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory?’
Minister, you have about 20 minutes. I encourage my colleague, the good member for Fong Lim, to talk for 20 minutes to allow you the time to talk to your department to provide more powers for the Children’s Commissioner in the Northern Territory to work towards the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory so we do not come back here in three years and have an even greater escalation in the number of outstanding cases. All jokes aside, this is about children. It is all good and funny, the theatrics are there, but this is about children.
I am emotionally disturbed on a continual basis about how government has responded to this …
Mr Vatskalis: Wrong choice of words.
Mr GILES: No, it is a disturbing thing, and it affects the emotions of anyone who cares about these kids. To have 870 cases outstanding is a disgrace. The report about 500 recorded cases, with a tick-and-flick-Montara-oil process done on them, is an absolute disgrace. All jokes aside, it is an absolute disgrace.
Madam Speaker, there are ways to make these things move forward. This is one way to make it move forward and you have just flipped it out because it is on GBD.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Araluen for bringing on this bill. The member for Braitling spoke about the former member for Araluen. I have to say the current one has done a remarkable job of stepping into Jodeen Carney’s shoes and taking off exactly where she left off. She has picked it up incredibly well given that many people take years and years to come to grips with the job we do in this place. The member for Araluen is showing herself as a formidable member of this Chamber and I congratulate her.
I was a little taken aback by the minister’s comments about this bill. It would be good, minister, if you could slow down when you are reading things. You have been told your speech is very hard to decipher, and it is particularly so when you are reading a set piece because you tend to rush through it. At times, it comes across as gobbledegook.
What I did pick up from what you said is the government will not be supporting this bill. I find that very sad, member for Casuarina, because I recall when this report was tabled that you came in here, hand on heart, and said: ‘This issue of child protection is such an important issue. We in the government believe in this issue. We all have to strive to work together. It is not about government, it is about community, it is about everyone. Everyone has a responsibility to do something’. You pleaded with us not to play politics. ‘This is above politics’, you said. At the first opportunity you have to demonstrate you are true to your words and believe it is above politics, you come in here and do exactly that: play politics.
As the member for Braitling rightly pointed out, this is Recommendation 136 of this report. It would be interesting to know whether you have read this report in its entirety, minister, because it is a recommendation and it is rated as priority one. Priority one means it is urgent, it must be implemented or the process started within six months. As the member for Braitling pointed out, when we next come in here you will have broken your word that you are going to accept all the recommendations of the report. Tonight, you have broken your word.
You had the opportunity to come in here, in good faith, sit down with the member for Araluen, negotiate the problems, take the credit - if that is what you want - by putting up a list of amendments. That would be one recommendation you could get off the books, having dealt with it. But no, you insist on playing politics. Goodness knows why. I suppose we can read the Hansard tomorrow and find out. Hopefully, the lovely ladies upstairs will get a copy of your speech and they can print it as it is written because it was very difficult to understand. I am sure there was some technical reason in there as to why you cannot support this bill.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you could not come into this place tonight, negotiate - even in a committee stage - and say the government is not happy with this aspect of it, it wants to change that. ‘We want to fix up a few things here, change that word to this word’. Whatever! To reject it outright is foolish and shows you exactly for what you are; that is, a hypocrite, because you say you do not want to play politics, but that is exactly what you do.
You have to ask why the government would say it does not want to play politics. That is code for: ‘We do not want to get caught up in a debate on any of this stuff because we do not want to be found wanting’, although almost every page of the Growing them strong, together report finds the government wanting. It is absolutely appalling. That is why you do not want to play politics: you do not want to be questioned or to debate anything. You would rather come in here, and have the opposition go quietly, saying nothing, whilst you guys do a little window dressing and hope the problem goes away. That is an appalling attitude.
I imagine Recommendation 136 must particularly stick in the government’s craw. It must hurt the government to think it is setting up a child protection commissioner and the commissioner wants to be able to run his own motion investigations. This government has not had a particularly good record with commissioners who run own motion investigations. Would it not be good if we could get rid of the Coroner, Health Minister? It would be marvellous if we did not have a Coroner who has the ability to run his own motion investigations. It would be marvellous if we could hide the Coroner away. Would it not be marvellous if we could get rid of the Health Commissioner, minister? Would it not be marvellous if we could pack the Health Commissioner up in a box and send her off somewhere where she could not do her own inquiries? What about the Utilities Commissioner, member for Daly - the last one you packed up in a box and sent away somewhere because he started asking a few questions and directing a few investigations around the place. What about the Ombudsman? Could we not do something about the Ombudsman? We would not want the Ombudsman to have self-referencing powers. All of these people must send the fear of God into government because every one of them comes out with nasty things to say about this government. The last thing they want is another one.
A child protection commissioner, for goodness sake! We just had a few dodgy reports come out. The member for Braitling mentioned the Little Children are Sacred report. Now we have another dodgy little one. They do not really mean much do they, minister - Growing them strong, together? We run in here, we do not even have a chance to glance at the report. You must have had a bit of a heads up because you ran in here the very next day saying you were accepting all 147 recommendations. Two big bibles of information, no one gets a chance to read them, but the government is accepting them. It is accepting all 147 recommendations. What is more, it has $131m to chuck at it as a first start.
Goodness me, it is an ideas factory over there, is it not? Gee whiz, you think on your feet! What an imagination! Absolutely unbelievable! Goodness, gracious me: ‘147 recommendations. Oh yes, we accept them’. I do not think you have a clue about what you have accepted because now you find the member for Araluen has an urgent recommendation - something which has to be done within six months. I do not know if you are going to be able to do it tomorrow, minister. Maybe you can photocopy the member for Araluen’s bill, stick your name on it and put it on the Notice Paper. Then you can say: ‘We did it. Yes, yes, all right, we have done it’. You are running out of time, minister. You broke your own word on a range of things. No, you do not want to play politics with it. Hell no, let us not play politics, minister.
It would be daft on your side – wouldn’t it? - to negotiate in good faith with the new member for Araluen. You would not want to give her any credibility. You would not want to show the courage of your convictions and not play politics. No. Absolutely appalling!
It is obvious why you are so wary of this recommendation. The last thing you want is another self-referencing watchdog who might say things about you. You are on toast as far as Montara is concerned. This last week for you guys must have been like manna from heaven. You can breathe a sigh of relief because, in reality, you should be out the door. You should be kicked out the door because you are a dodgy minister when it comes to regulating the oil and gas industry. Now, you are showing you are a dodgy minister with the Growing them strong, together report.
Tell us about the evaluation you did on all 147 recommendations? Tell us when you found the time, with all your other responsibilities, to read the report. You cannot even walk in here and make a speech off your own hind legs; you have to read something some noggin upstairs wrote for you. You are not even across your own brief closely. How embarrassing must it be for a minister of the Crown not to be able to stand up on a General Business Day and respond to a bill proposed by a brand, spanking new member. How embarrassing is that? Absolutely appalling! And you say you do not want to play politics with child protection. What rot! What bunkum!
This whole debate has shown me the futility of trying to take these guys on their word. They do not want to play politics. The member for Araluen has done a fantastic job. She has gone through this stuff; she has taken up exactly where the previous member for Araluen left off, and has done a marvellous job. She should be supported by this parliament and given credit for doing her job.
Madam Speaker, we have a minister who cannot deal with his responsibilities in his department of Energy, he cannot deal with his responsibilities as Health Minister, and he clearly cannot deal with his responsibilities when it comes to child protection. It is absolutely appalling, minister. You should be ashamed. I am sorry that, after all your fine words about child protection being so important and we should not play politics, you now find it okay to play politics. That you are not across your brief enough to deliver a speech from the top of your head, in response to a brand new member who has not even spent 14 days in the parliament, is appalling. How many years have you been here, minister? The brand, spanking new member for Araluen has shown what a fool you are, and it is a shame. Congratulations, member for Araluen.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, well said by the member for Fong Lim. He summed up the minister’s ability very well. Every Health minister we have had in the Northern Territory under the Australian Labor Party has put in a pretty ordinary performance. The new member of parliament has walked in here and is able to implement a bill, an urgent recommendation as highlighted in the report, and the government will not accept it. It is a pretty poor performance. You have to ask yourself why you would accept this. Why would you accept a bill like this, minister, when the heart of this government and the core of your belief is cover-up? It is the culture of cover-up. It is not surprising you do not support this bill. It is disappointing, but not surprising.
I introduced a bill late last year. It came to the parliament early this year as the Health Complaints Commissioner Amendment Bill, giving the Health Complaints Commissioner exactly the same powers - own motion investigation power - so the Health Complaints Commissioner could investigate some of her own recommendations in case they were not implemented or taken up by the government. It was another bill you voted down. This is despite the recommendations of a review which was done in 1999 which is lost somewhere in the ether. It is at the bottom of someone’s filing cabinet somewhere. It recommends the Ombudsman has own motion investigation power. With one of the Health minister’s we have had - the plethora of Health ministers we have had under the Australian Labor Party - that recommendation is sitting in the bottom of someone’s drawer gathering dust.
Parts of the bill I introduced, which was defeated earlier this year, were very similar to the bill introduced by the member for Araluen.
The commissioner is quoted as saying - and this is not part of the Growing them strong, together report, this is a comment made in the wake of the serious situation which unfolded in the Children’s Ward of the Royal Darwin Hospital:
I will quote from some of that speech earlier this year. It says:
We had a situation where the government claimed that it was taking the situation very seriously and would immediately install cameras. At that time, the only cameras installed on that ward were in the staff canteen. There were no security measures at the Alice Springs Special Care Nursery either and it was very easy to walk through that ward, which I have done on quite a number of occasions. The measures introduced by the government to install those cameras took far too long. Only under intense public scrutiny and media pressure did it bother to do it. The Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner had no recourse to confirm whether that sort of thing had been done.
It makes a great deal of sense. Again, we are seeing this watchdog situation rear its head in the parliament. The government does not like to be scrutinised. It does not like openness and accountability. This is a recommendation of the author in the report that the commissioner has own motion investigation powers. I do not know what is wrong with that. What is wrong with that, minister? What is wrong with the commissioner having own motion investigation powers?
Mr Westra van Holthe: They might discover another failure.
Mr CONLAN: Indeed. It is a question he is unable to answer. Apart from playing politics and saying: ‘We are better than you’, it is a question you cannot answer. I would like to know, what is wrong with the commissioner having powers of own motion investigation, particularly when children’s welfare is at stake?
We have seen, in the light of that report - forget the recommendations for a second; what about the findings? The findings in the Little Children are Sacred report are absolutely appalling. We are three years on from that report and we are no better off. I doubt very much that the children of the Northern Territory are in a better situation, that their welfare is better than it was three years ago as a result of the Little Children Are Sacred report, and this one, the Growing them strong, together report.
That is a question which needs to be answered. What is wrong with the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner having own motion powers of investigation? We think there is nothing wrong with that. Clearly, the commissioner thinks there is nothing wrong with that. It is also worth pointing out that you were dragged kicking and screaming to this point in time. Here we are, 1 December 2010. Let us think back 12 months. It was the opposition which dragged you, kicking and screaming, to the point where you had to undertake a review and investigation into child protection in the Northern Territory. If it was not for the sterling work of the opposition, and a particular member of the opposition at the time, the children of the Northern Territory would not be any better off and their plight would not be highlighted as it has been once again in this report.
This goes to the heart of health across the Northern Territory and the state of our health system. Children’s welfare and the health of our children does not escape the minister. He is also the Minister for Health and the Minister for Child Protection. I believe his ability as Health Minister is reflected in his ability as the Minister for Child Protection. The only ones worse off are the children of the Northern Territory.
We highlighted today in Question Time the appalling state of our hospitals. The minister, basically, admitted his job is too hard to do. There are too many people, too many patients, not enough doctors and not enough nurses. ‘Throw my hands up in the air; it is too hard; it is too difficult. I cannot do it. It is not my fault. There are too many people coming through our hospitals. There are not enough doctors. We do not have enough nurses’. He said nothing about access block or flow through the hospital; nothing about bed block. You cannot have an efficient hospital when you are running at 110% occupancy. You cannot do it; you need flow; you need beds. He said nothing about that. Too many people was his answer - too hard.
There were 11 322 patients who left Territory hospitals without being treated. That is almost 40 patients a day who are leaving our hospitals without being seen. The minister could not give any guarantees today as to what harm was suffered by those people who had not been seen to in a timely manner. He could not give any guarantees whatsoever. The median wait time has blown out from 46 days in 2001, which is well above the national average of 36 days. People are waiting longer. They are waiting longer because the occupancy rate of our hospitals exceeds 100%.
The AMA is not one of the minister’s favourite organisations. He has gone on record before insulting the people of the AMA. He said something along the lines of: ‘It is just a rich doctors club’. Nevertheless, the AMA recommends an occupancy rate of 85% maximum. You have to have some space; you have to have some availability in the hospital to create flow. If you cannot, then you are going to suffer access block and bed block and see the waiting times we are experiencing in the Northern Territory, which are the worst in the country.
We are dragging the chain when it comes to our hospital waiting times. People are waiting much longer. They are waiting 10 days longer than they were nine years ago, although the minister claimed today he has recruited more doctors - some extra 100 or so in the last 10 years. I made the comment to my colleagues that I hope he has recruited more doctors in the last 10 years because that is his job! In the 1950s and 1960s there was only a handful of doctors here. I hope there are more doctors here in 2010 than there were in 2000. That is just doing your job. It is the same as me saying my 18-month-old has grown half a foot in the last six months because I fed him. I am just doing my job as a responsible parent and he is growing. You are doing your job as a government and you should be recruiting more doctors. It is nothing to crow about, and it is certainly nothing to paint the opposition into a corner for not recruiting doctors. We recruited plenty of doctors.
We have highlighted that people are waiting longer at our hospitals; they are not being seen to within recommended time frames. We have also highlighted today questions the minister could not answer about what has happened to those 40-odd people a day who are leaving hospital because they cannot be seen.
Have a look at the number of people through our hospitals. The minister has thrown his hands up in the air and said it is all too hard. He says he cannot do the job because there are too many people through our hospitals. Yet, he is quite happy to roll over and sign a national health agreement with the federal government, sign away some of our GST, and form one super board to be run from Darwin. He claims there are not enough people going through the southern part of the Territory to warrant another local hospital network. He is feeling the pressure. He is quite happy to say in parliament: ‘There are all these people going through our hospitals. I cannot do the job properly; I do not have enough doctors; I do not have enough nurses. Occupancy rates are well over 100%. I do not have enough staff; I have too many patients’. At the same time there are not enough patients, apparently, in the southern part of the Territory to warrant a local hospital network.
I highlight the Alice Springs Hospital Board report and the number of people who came through the Alice Springs Hospital in 2009-10. We have general separations at 39 975, so round that up to 40 000. Then, we have non-admitted specialist clinic occasions of service of 55 000. That is about 95 000 people. Emergency department attendances, 39 195, round that up to 40 000. That is about 135 000 people through the Alice Springs Hospital.
If we bring in the Tennant Creek Hospital, at the same time …
Mr Vatskalis: The Alice Springs Hospital had 30 000 people.
Mr CONLAN: Just a minute. I think you should hear this.
Mr Vatskalis: Where did you find the extra 10 000?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: These reports have been tabled and I suggest you look at them. Tennant Creek Hospital had 6700, so we are up to approximately 135 000, 140 000 rounded for your benefit. The non-admitted specialist clinic occasions of service was 2000, emergency department attendances was 12 155. We have around 150 000 people between the Alice Springs Hospital and Tennant Creek Hospital - 150 000 people a year through the hospitals.
In one breath the minister says: ‘There are too many people in the hospital, too many people coming through. We have some of the busiest hospitals in the country; I cannot do my job properly. I am sweltering under the pressure. I do not have enough doctors or nurses’. In the same breath - when he has rolled over and signed the national health agreement, the so-called health reform - he is not going to do anything to reform our health system except allow a centralist government to grab more of the state GST. At the same time he says we are not seeing enough people through the southern part of the Territory to warrant a local hospital network. You cannot have it both ways, minister. It is one way or the other. There are either too many people through the hospitals - you need all the help you can get.
You probably could do with an extra local hospital network if this is the way it is going to go. I hope it does not go down this path. This has nothing to do with health reform; it is just another grab by a centralist government to cream a bit more off the states. Nevertheless, if you are hell-bent on this then you could probably do with another local hospital network. You obviously need all the help you can get; you are struggling under the pressure. You do not have enough doctors or nurses. You have too many people through the hospitals. You have occupancy rates exceeding 100%. You have no flow. You cannot do it. You cannot manage it. You admitted that today when you said: ‘I cannot do it. That is the reason people are waiting longer. That is why we have enormous wait times at our hospitals because I cannot do the job properly. It is too much work for me’.
It sounds like you could do with a bit of help. If you are hell-bent on this local hospital network, this supposed whiz-bang health reform which is not reform at all – call it what you like - it sounds like you could do with a bit of help. It sounds like a local hospital network in the southern part of the Territory is just what you need. You need a little help; that might be just it.
Do not hold your breath because, if you look at the consultation paper in the Northern Territory local hospital network …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I remind you of Standing Order 67 in relation to digression and that this is a bill regarding the care and protection of children. Can you come back to the topic, please?
Mr CONLAN: Okay, Madam Speaker. As I say, I am developing my argument in the allotted time and this goes, basically, to the …
Madam SPEAKER: I remind you of the Standing Order 67, thank you. This is about the care and protection of children amendment.
Mr Vatskalis: He has no idea, Madam Speaker. That is why he does not say anything about it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, minister!
Mr CONLAN: About what? The care and protection of children?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Vatskalis: No, about health.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, if you could come to the point, please?
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Speaker. Sounds like I am touching on a few sore spots of someone who does not know what they are talking about.
Let us have a look at the current hospital board. I really believe this is about health service delivery in the Northern Territory. You cannot look after the children of the Northern Territory and implement recommendations for the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory if you have a malfunctioning health system. This is the point of this so-called digression.
I bring the minister back to the current hospital boards. We need functioning boards because many of the children who are identified as being at risk or have been exposed to risks will be utilising our health system and hospitals. It says here:
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have already cautioned the member about digression.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you can bring it around to child protection that would be helpful, please.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said …
Mr Vatskalis: Even the member for Araluen looks surprised, Madam Speaker.
Mr CONLAN: I know it is a sore point for the member for Johnston, because the member for Johnston …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it is simply a question of order. Bring it around to the topic!
Mr CONLAN: The member for Johnston’s whole career hung in the balance when it came to hospital boards. He was probably the pinnacle of failed Health ministers so it is a very sore point for the member for Johnston. I am not surprised he is getting to his feet and interjecting, apart from the fact that he clearly likes the sound of his own voice and likes to get to his feet as much as possible. He likes to try to match it with those on the other side.
However, it is important that I finish this paragraph from the Department of Health and Families hospitals. The function of our hospitals is the very heart of the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory because those children will end up in our hospitals …
D Burns: Why were you not child protection shadow minister? Didn’t get the gig, eh? Not up to it?
Mr CONLAN: What was that?
Dr Burns: You were not up to it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Up to what?
Mr Hampton: Child protection.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, you have the call. Please come to the point.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not sure where the interjection was leading but, apparently, I am not up to child protection.
Ms Walker: Oh, you did hear?
Mr CONLAN: I heard what he said but I am unsure what it means.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: But, anyway, that is okay ...
Dr Burns: You have been going backwards for years, mate.
Mr CONLAN: Come on, Bungles!
Dr Burns: The member for Lessorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader for Government Business, cease interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: That is probably one of the better ones you brought out all year, Bungles.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: That would be one of the better ones you have brought out all year. I know you have been sitting on that just like you practice that glare in the mirror each day. There is no doubt about it.
Nevertheless, we have a couple of ministers in this portfolio. We have the shadow Health minister and we have a shadow minister for Child Protection; that is the way it is done. I know this stuff stings and the member for Johnston, in particular, does not like it because he was exposed as a complete and utter failure and was demoted. He was sacked as Health minister. He pretty much has the record in this parliament as the member who has had just about every portfolio there is and has failed at every one of them. He is hopeless as a minister; he is hopeless as a local member …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, can you please …
Mr CONLAN: … and he is hopeless when it comes to some sort of debate on the radio ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I am speaking to you! Can you please speak about the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Additional Functions) Bill 2010?
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Speaker. I am just responding to these interjections.
Nevertheless, I will come back to the current hospital board situation which is crucial to the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory because these children will be utilising our hospitals and health system. If our hospitals and health system are not up to scratch, what hope do the children of the Northern Territory have when they have been exposed to some sort of risk, as highlighted in the Growing them strong, together report? One of the major, urgent recommendations, Recommendation 136, is that the commissioner has own motion investigation powers. It says:
Local hospital networks:
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If he wants to drag the time so someone can write another speech for another member that is fine, but we are talking about child protection and the powers of the commissioner.
The member for Araluen brought an amendment here, which we have the right to accept or not accept. It has nothing to do about hospital boards. If he wants to speak on the points of the amendments we are happy to listen to him, but to attack the member for Johnston about what he thinks is a failure and talk about hospital boards and the local hospital network has nothing to do with what we are debating.
Mr Giles: What standing order is this?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat! Standing Order 67, member for Greatorex, which is about digression. I remind you this is a bill regarding the care and protection of children.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The care and protection of children in the Northern Territory will rely heavily on the efficient functioning of our hospitals and health system. If we do not have efficiently functioning hospitals, which we clearly do not, what hope do the children of the Northern Territory have after being identified as being at risk? It is all in one. You need a functioning health system and functioning hospitals. You need an efficient health system and efficient hospitals if you are going to provide proper care and protection to the children of the Northern Territory. We have just highlighted how inefficient our hospitals are, and our health system as a whole, and what failures there have been on the other side of this Chamber with health ministers. I do not think anyone could be as bad as the member for Johnston. He was probably the worst - and probably the worst in the country, and the worst in history.
I am sure the member for Casuarina tries. However, today, he threw his hands up in the air. He said: ‘It is all too hard, I cannot do it’ ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Tell me if I am wrong! The member for Araluen brought an amendment to expand the powers of the commissioner; that is clearly what she proposed. I do not understand what the Children’s Commissioner has to do with the hospital board’s local network. I hope the member for Araluen, in her closing remarks, outlines what she brought to this House and what has been debated because what the member for Greatorex has been talking about is rubbish.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That was not even close to a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, that certainly was not.
Member for Greatorex, I remind you of Standing Order 67, which is to keep to the point. This is a bill about the care and protection of children. If I have to remind you again I will ask you to resume your seat.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, it is extraordinary that the member for Casuarina thinks that overcrowding in hospitals, the longest waiting list in the country and 11 000 people leaving every year without being seen is rubbish. He has just gone on the record saying everything I have said is rubbish, when all I have done is quote from a report released today and from the government’s annual reports.
The minister thinks that is rubbish. That is obviously why we have one of the worst health systems in the country. Some would say the worst health system in the country, run by the worst government in the country. The minister thinks it is rubbish. He has thrown his hands up in the air and said: ‘It is all too hard for me, I cannot do it. I do not like it. I am not sure what to do. I am at sea with this thing. I will just roll over and Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard will save us with their national health reform and somehow our …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you can resume your seat now. Are there other speakers in this debate?
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments to the Care and Protection of Children (Additional Functions) Bill. I commend the member for Araluen for bringing this bill forward. The member for Araluen is fully equipped to understand child protection and what is required in child protection because in her former life before she became a politician she was a social worker who worked at the Alice Springs Hospital. She saw Indigenous children being admitted to Alice Springs Hospital. She lives in the town of Alice Springs and has for several years. She hears and reads of the malfunction we have in our society of not protecting our children. That has a lot to do with our people drinking, not having appropriate houses to live in, and not having quality education.
We have to ensure governments provide 50% service delivery but the other 50% has to come from the community and the people themselves. I said this in supporting the hub towns statement last week. We do not have endless buckets of money, as government, to keep putting in the services. The other 50% has to be a commitment from families, communities and towns. The watchdog has to be the government.
We have seen what has happened in the past with policy development. Recommendation 136 is clear: that the Children’s Commissioner be given more powers to be the watchdog to ensure they hold governments accountable for protection of children. It is only appropriate we carry the voice and the vision of our children of the Northern Territory in this House. When the Minister for Health spoke about the report, he said: ‘Please do not bring any politics into this’. Tonight, we have seen politics. Our children are not footballs to be kicked around from one side of the Chamber to the other. It is very important we keep in our minds the importance of protecting our children in the Northern Territory. They are the next generation. They are the future of the Territory and it is about the safety of all Territory children.
The amendment the member for Araluen is asking for is appropriate. It is a recommendation which comes from the inquiry. Minister, you said last week in this House when this report was handed down that you would accept all the recommendations of the inquiry. Maybe it is only appropriate, as the Minister for Child Protection and for Health, that you talk with the member for Araluen about seeing where you could agree on having some of her amendments incorporated into what the government thinks is appropriate for protecting children.
We must remember that we are tasked with something very important; that is, making policy which has long-term effects for the people of the Northern Territory. The recommendations from this inquiry are vital to the next generation and future generations of the Northern Territory. We have seen from these recommendations …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, it is now 9 pm. The House is about to adjourn. You can have an extra 10 minutes if you wish or you can have your speech suspended till the next General Business day.
Ms ANDERSON: I will wait until next year, thank you, Madam Speaker.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: The Assembly is now adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, today in Question Time I tabled a screen shot of last night’s ABC television news clearly showing the minutes of the CLP management committee meeting and I tabled a transcript of the document shown in that screen shot. The document, provided by a CLP member, showed that the Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, offered a government job to the Country Liberals’ candidate for Lingiari, Leo Abbott, in the run-up to the federal election.
At the end of Question Time the member for Port Darwin could clearly be seen poring over documents and could clearly be heard stating the document I had tabled and the document he had were different, and I quote:
So, the member for Port Darwin has the original minutes of the CLP management committee in his possession. He was called on to table those original minutes, and failed to do so. The member for Port Darwin should table the original minutes, or is he hiding the truth like the Leader of the Opposition?
For eight days, the Leader of the Opposition has failed to answer the question: yes or no? Did he offer a job to Leo Abbott in return for him withdrawing from the CLP candidacy? It is now obvious the CLP Whip has a copy of the original minutes, which could clear up this issue, and is failing to table them. It is extraordinary that the member for Port Darwin has a copy of the minutes when his leader has, apparently, never seen them. I call on the member for Port Darwin to table the original minutes.
Another interesting leak today from CLP sources: advice there were other CLP elected members at that management committee meeting. Who were those members? What is their side of the story? Tony Abbott denied the allegations raised by the Alice Springs News on 18 November but there are other questions Tony Abbott should answer. Did he discuss with Terry Mills a job offer/deal for Leo Abbott? The minutes screened on television last night clearly stated:
We know Tony Abbott supported the position to disendorse Leo Abbott. Someone in the federal Liberal Party must have agreed to offer Leo Abbott a job to make that offer credible. Was Tony Abbott involved in the decision to offer a job to Leo Abbott? It is clear from media reports that Senator Scullion was also in the meeting. Was Senator Scullion aware of the decision to offer a job to Leo Abbott? Did Senator Scullion report to Tony Abbott on the job offer Terry Mills describes as ‘a private conversation’ that is minuted in CLP management committee minutes?
There are many questions still to be answered, still to be put on the record, whilst the Leader of the Opposition is still hiding the truth about what occurred and if he offered a job to Leo Abbott so he would step down as the CLP candidate for Lingiari. Did Tony Abbott endorse and condone this job offer? Did Senator Scullion know about the job offer? Was he the go-between for Tony Abbott and Terry Mills?
Many questions remain unanswered and there has been plenty of opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to provide an answer to this House, and to Territorians. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to come into adjournment debate today and tell us if he offered Leo Abbott a job. Did he do so, having had it confirmed by the federal Liberal Party that a job was on offer? If so, who in the federal Liberal Party - Senator Scullion, Tony Abbott - was involved?
I invite the member for Port Darwin, again, to table the original minutes of the CLP management committee.
Mr Elferink: I have them here; you are about to see them.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I recognise and pay tribute to Brett and Kathy Graham who have been involved in the tourism industry for more than 20 years. They run a tourism business called SEIT Outback Australia. Last weekend they were awarded the Northern Territory Small Business Export Award. That is a fantastic award and recognises the grit, determination and hard work of Brett and Kathy, especially as they have only been running the business for 12 to 18 months.
Tonight, Kathy is in Sydney at the Australian Export Awards as a nominee from winning the Northern Territory Small Business Export Award. They received a certificate last night as a finalist. I wished Kathy all the best of luck when I saw her at the Tourism Central Australia AGM at Charles Darwin University in Alice Springs last Friday night. Unfortunately, they did not win tonight but that a family tourism business from Alice Springs in Central Australia, operating for little more than a year, can be on the national stage with a possibility of winning an Australian export award is fantastic. They should be recognised for their hard work and should be congratulated. I congratulate them and wish them all the best in their business endeavours for the future.
I say a big thank you to Mr Dave Sanders and all the crew at A Class Airconditioning & Sheetmetal for the hard work they do at Arunga Park Speedway in Alice Springs. I particularly offer my thanks and gratitude to the committee of Arunga Park Speedway, all the volunteers and safety people, officials, ambulance, firies, the people in the water truck who water the track and all the people who make Arunga Park Speedway special.
Julie Thomsen is a passionate advocate of junior motor sport at Arunga Park Speedway and I have had many dealings with her. I sponsored a couple of juniors from the junior sedans at the speedway and I have now put in an amount of money to sponsor, I think eight, juniors to go to South Australia to be part of the national junior titles.
On Saturday night, I was talked into jumping into a bomber, which is a class of race car only allowed in the Northern Territory and only operated in Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Dave Sanders from A Class Airconditioning & Sheetmetal strapped in an extra seat and allowed me to get in his car. I have been a motorsport fan all my life – and I am sure the member for Barkly has watched the speedway at Tennant Creek on several occasions, which is a fantastic track built into the hill there – and I have seen rubbing, grinding, and bumping and so forth in racing, but I never realised exactly how much they rub and bump and grind until I was in the car on Saturday night. I was talked into it and given the opportunity.
I have had plenty of stacks and accidents on motor bikes, go-karts, buggies and all those types of things before but being in the bomber I was completely surprised as to how much they smash into each other at full pace. We had an accident, I think in the third race last Saturday night. We hit the concrete wall at about 80 km/h. It was quite a tough impact but the safety of the cars today with all the OH&S requirements means you go in with helmets and neck braces, the seat belt configuration, the roll bars, and all the officials there, it was really good, and we were not hurt. The driver, Dave, said it was the biggest accident he has ever been in, but we came away unscathed, which is testament to the technological advancements.
I also congratulate the Arunga Park Speedway officials. I know these practices take place across all sports, in particular motor sports for the purpose of this discussion tonight, but I was quite impressed with the way people take the safety element at the racetrack. I was surprised, to be honest. People were in the pits before the racing started, working on cars, people coming and going. Everyone had to register they were there and they all got a special tag on their arm. Before the racing started, every person had to leave the pits and they did a big sweep to make sure no one was in there and then they checked everyone off as they came back in. I thought that was a really positive move. It reassured me of the safety elements practised at that sport there. I know you can never be a 100% safe in some things but to see those safety aspects there was good.
After we hit the wall, there were people everywhere trying to help us, which is fantastic. I know the member for Stuart is a big AFL fan, and I am an AFL fan too, but I think motorsport is probably bigger, or the biggest, in terms of participation in sport in Central Australia with the drags, speedway, go-karts, the Formula 500, swingers and the Finke. I know it is massive in the Barkly too, albeit with less numbers, but highly popular.
I thank those people, the volunteers, the mums and dads, the families, who put in all that hard work and the safety elements. I hope motor sports in the Centre continues to grow in an adaptive sense to more environmentally-friendly models as we move into the future, such as solar car races and all those things. We will grow and prosper and become a green sport into the future. I hope that motorsport really grows and prospers into something much bigger than it is now in the Centre.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about some of the great and positive achievements which have been made in my home town of Alice Springs and will thank some of those people whose drive and commitment make it the wonderful town it is.
Too often Alice Springs is painted in a bad light by local members but it is a place where I love to live and raise my family. As a born and bred local lad, I am very proud to be the Minister for Central Australia. As minister, I am responsible for two main projects: the Alice Springs Transformation Plan and the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. Of course, I play a very hands-on role with many other projects in the Centre in areas of sport, environment, parks, climate change, ICT policy, and major events. I also get involved in the many issues which are brought to my attention by fellow residents of Alice Springs. I am co-chair, with our dynamic and committed Mayor, Damien Ryan, of the Planning for the Future Committee; and I spoke in Question Time about some of the major achievements taking place under the Alice Springs Transformation Plan.
I see this partnership between the Australian and Territory governments as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make big, lasting improvements in social and living conditions in the town camps in Alice Springs. On Tuesday, it will be 12 months since work began on the $150m Transformation Plan in Alice Springs. We have already seen considerable progress with new houses built and others rebuilt and refurbished. Under the plan, 85 new homes will be built, plus 101 rebuilds and 33 refurbishments. In the first 12 months of this plan, eight new homes have been completed, along with 19 rebuilds and three refurbishments. Ten new homes are under construction, and Indigenous employment currently stands at 52%. Short-term, managed accommodation facilities are also nearing completion with the Alice Springs Accommodation Park, Percy Court, The Lodge, and extra beds at the Salvation Army, and the former Mt Gillen Hostel up and running.
The Alice Springs Transformation Plan also has a focus on dealing with social issues which affect the whole community. To this end, over $14m so far has been committed to a range of programs which assist and support social services. These initiatives include a domestic violence and family outreach program; a Ready and Willing for School program; targeted family support; dog control; staying sober programs; early childhood facilities; life skills support; and, tenancy management.
In August 2010, a new public bus route began in Alice Springs which is improving access for town campers and other residents.
The Alice Springs Transformation Plan has achieved an enormous amount in just 12 months. I thank all those on the team in the Australian and Northern Territory governments who have worked tirelessly to make the plan a reality, including Rita Henry, the first Executive Director of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, together with Andrea Martin and Peter McDonald who helped keep the show on the road. I also acknowledge John Baskerville, who is well-known to many of us here, who made a brief return.
We are now fortunate to have Tracey Brand on board as the Executive Director and, on the Australian government side, I thank Mark Coffey and his team for their work; Samara Hanley, as well; and, of course, the Joint Steering Committee. I thank Tony Mayell, head of the Department of Chief Minister in Alice Springs, for his work not just on this plan, but on behalf of our town and our region in many different areas.
I thank our mayor, Damien Ryan, whom we know fondly as ‘Damien Everywhere’. I do not know how he does it or where he finds enough hours in the day.
I also thank Darryl Pearce and Brian Stirling from Lhere Artepe who have a passionate commitment to Central Australia and growing the town together with the rest of the community; and the former member, William Tilmouth, who has now retired from Tangentyere Council.
I am confident we will see many more achievements and improvements from the Alice Springs Transformation Plan over the next 12 months.
I will speak quickly about the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. Like many other towns we have some issues with young people but we should not be penalising all young people for the actions of a few. This is why I will continue to back the Youth Action Plan and the hard work put in to support it by Family and Children’s Services officers, the police, education and youth workers and non-government organisations.
The Alice Springs Youth Action Plan is about helping young people avoid getting into trouble and supporting families, as well as tackling youth-related antisocial behaviour. The plan has achieved a great deal and will continue to make an impact - the Police Beat in the Todd Mall, the Centralian Middle School running with more than 350 students, the No School No Service code, and more funding provided to the Gap Youth Centre.
Superintendent Michael White did a terrific job as our first Youth Services Coordinator and continues to support the Youth Action Plan. Unfortunately, the current coordinator, Penny Drysdale, has resigned for personal reasons but I am advised there will be a smooth transition with an experienced operator in the role while the recruitment process proceeds.
The Youth Hub will be fully operational at the ANZAC Hill campus in 2011 and will include an alternative education provider, government and non-government youth service providers, and a wraparound educational service.
A Youth Street Outreach Service operated by NT Families and Children staff runs on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. The Youth Street Outreach Service engages with young people on the streets to ensure they are safe and supported to return home or to a place of safety. Police report this resource has given them a valuable direct contact point for issues involving youth after hours.
No one has a magic wand but what this government has is a comprehensive approach - the Youth Action Plan, the $150m Alice Springs Transformation Plan, and we are turning down the tap on grog as well.
I have touched on just a few of the projects and people making a difference and making Alice Springs a better place to live.
There are many others I am very proud to support as minister: our first class sporting and recreation facilities such as Traeger Park and the Aquatic Centre; Alice again being able to take to the ice these holidays is going to be fantastic; work is being done on releasing land at the new suburb of Kilgariff and I am looking forward to working with my colleague, the member for Barkly, on that release; and the $5m committed to redevelop the central business district and Todd Mall area of Alice Springs.
I wish everyone in Central Australia a safe and Merry Christmas. I look forward to the challenges and achievements of 2011; and a special mention to the Office of Chief Minister’s staff in Alice Springs: Stephen, Chantelle and Mandy. They are a great team and work under enormous pressure, often having to deal with issues and communication, particularly between here and Alice Springs, and I thank them for their fierce advice and their very high level of commitment to me as the minister, and to the government.
I acknowledge the Alice Springs ALP branch, a small, but active branch. I thank them for the great work they did during the Araluen by-election, and the great work they did on the Alice Springs Show stall.
I wish everyone in Central Australia a safe and Merry Christmas and I look forward to 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am about to do what the Attorney-General has asked me to. The first law officer of the Northern Territory has again come into this House wildly throwing around allegations. She has asked me to table the management committee meeting document, which is the official document of the Country Liberal Party, and I will do that today. However, I will also take time to compare it with the document she tabled today. She said:
That is this document she tabled today.
I asked the CLP secretariat to forward the transcript, as she describes it, and it went to the staffers upstairs, has come to my e-mail and I have printed it out in an unadulterated and unchanged fashion.
The first and most apparent difference between the two documents is the one I am about to table and it is two pages. It is not an agenda because this was an extra special meeting; it did not have an agenda and there were no minutes taken at the meeting because they were dealing with one specific issue. It appears in a font which is substantially different to the font in the document which was tabled. We might say there is a bit of cut and pasting going on; it is a Word document, people can change the fonts. However, the content of even those two parts of the document which marry up to each other are markedly and substantially different.
This document tabled today, on the strength of what I have received from those minutes, is a fabrication. The document the ABC showed is presented to this House as a fuzzy, black and white photocopy. That is all we can take from it.
The document provided by the Attorney-General today is different in several ways. Full stops are different, locations of words are different, a different font is used and a different font size. Moreover, there are substantial differences. May I give you an example? The original minutes read, quote:
The Attorney-General’s document reads:
That is not a little different; that is completely different. How often have I heard the Leader of Government Business attack documents tabled in this House with minor differences as incomplete and utter fabrications and, essentially, lies to this House?
I go on with this document. It is fundamentally different in many areas. On the bottom of the original document the word ‘DECISION’ appears. On this document tabled by the Attorney-General no such word appears and, curiously, when I checked the ABC news story I gained the impression you could not see the bottom part of the first page; I would have to check it. Is it possible someone on the 5th floor of this House produced this document by looking at the transcripts of the news story run last night, when the document was flicked through by the ABC, and this is the product of something produced on the 5th floor? That is what concerns me.
Now I go to the issue of the tabled document.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Will the member for Port Darwin …
Mr ELFERINK: I seek leave to table it.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, we will get back to that in a second.
Then we get to the other major difference - two pages, four pages. On page 2 of the original document provided to me by the Country Liberal Secretariat a similar note appears - font is different - as on the CLP’s minutes as appears on the document tabled by the Attorney-General. However, the same note then appears on page 3 of the Attorney-General’s document. There is no page 3 in the original document. Why does that third note appear? Because someone has drawn a line and continued typing information on page 3, going over to page 4. This information is not on the Country Liberal Party’s records.
This is the information upon which the Attorney-General seeks to prosecute the Leader of the Opposition. It is this material which is not on the official records of the Country Liberal Party; so, these are, at very best, someone’s personal notes. To successfully accuse and prosecute based on someone’s personal notes - that person should come forward and identify themselves and aver that this is a correct record of the conversation. However, we see no such averment, no such determination or identification. Why? Because I do not know where this has come from. The Attorney-General, I suspect, does not know where this has come from.
Where did the e-mail come from which was used as such damning evidence against the Leader of the Opposition? Where did the information come from for the news article in the Alice Springs News which was used as such damning evidence? It is all based on rumour.
What the Attorney-General is relying on is not the original document which was provided to members of the management committee. Why do I not trust this Attorney-General when it comes to this issue? Because this is not anywhere like an accurate record of what this document does contain and it adds a whole lot more to what this document does not contain. Whoever is feeding this information to the Labor Party and the media is not representing this material honestly. This material is, at best, a personal or handwritten note which someone has taken; it is not an official document of the Country Liberal Party. It is different and, in my opinion, is a fabrication.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to table the document. It is on the top two pages. I ask the Attorney-General to do me and everyone a favour and start identifying the people who are accusing the Leader of the Opposition, initially, of a criminal offence which, for a whole bunch of reasons, we know he did not commit. They continue to run this line. They are accusers; they should stump up the evidence. That is the tradition in a fair system. I ask them to stump up the evidence.
If these are the personal notes of some person then who is that person? If they are nothing more than a fabricated document, then the Attorney-General should say so. The document tabled in this House today is not the document the Country Liberals had as their official document at the management committee meeting.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, listening carefully to what the member for Port Darwin had to say, we have this elaborate wall of words - almost like a professor going through the hieroglyphs of these pages trying to be the expert on typography. The question is simple and the question remains. The question has not been answered: did Terry Mills offer Leo Abbott a job in return for him stepping down as CLP candidate for Lingiari? All of this other stuff just falls away, because the man has not been able to answer the question.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: And by failing to answer the question, he fails your side of politics, each and every one of you, and he fails himself …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order1
Dr BURNS: … he fails the people of the Northern Territory, and he should come clean and tell the truth.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, particularly honourable members on the opposition side, the level of interruption is unacceptable. I ask you to be mindful of Standing Order 51, please.
Member for Johnston, have you completed your remarks?
Dr BURNS: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure tonight to speak about a free national community service program called Look Good … Feel Better, and the ladies who run this program here in the north. The Look Good … Feel Better program was founded in the United States in 1989, launched in Australia by the Australian Cosmetic Industry in May 1990, and is administered by the Cancer Patients Foundation Limited, which is a registered charitable organisation. The program is now available at over 165 locations across the globe and is expected to help 10 000 cancer patients in 2010.
Look Good … Feel Better is dedicated to teaching cancer patients, through hands-on activities, techniques designed to help restore their appearance and self-image during chemotherapy and radiation treatment. We all know what some of the physical side effects of some cancer treatments can be. In many cases these side effects can be devastating, not only to the physical appearance of some cancer patients, but also to their self-esteem.
General feelings of wellbeing have direct links to levels of self-esteem and self-worth. There are many documented cases where people who are critically injured, or who have serious, late-stage illnesses, or even what was thought to be terminal, have made recoveries which are often referred to as miracles. I have no doubt some of these miracles have been brought about by the strength and resolve of people with a strong sense of self-worth and a positive attitude towards life. Likewise, I have no doubt that the restoration of self-image and appearance, the very things that Look Good … Feel Better strives to achieve, can make a significant contribution to the self-worth and positive attitude which is so essential for recovery from a serious illness such as cancer.
It is in that context that I acknowledge the work of the people who run the Look Good … Feel Better program, and particularly those who bring this great program to Katherine. Just yesterday, Look Good … Feel Better came from Darwin to Katherine, meeting in my community room. The four ladies who came to Katherine were the NT Coordinator of Look Good … Feel Better, Mrs Marilyn Harvey; Mrs Julie Pickering, who ran the hair workshop; Mrs Monica Prosser, who ran the makeup workshop; and Ms Margaret Lavery, the Cancer Council NT’s breast cancer and women’s cancer nurse.
Eleven local Katherine ladies came to the meeting to talk about how things were going with their own issues and treatments, and to take part in the hairdressing and makeup activities. I also note that part of those activities included nibbles and a few glasses of sparkling wine.
It is quite apparent that the ladies from Look Good … Feel Better really go all out to create an environment where a good number of local Katherine cancer patients can relax, have a good time and improve their overall feeling of wellness. I acknowledge also my electorate officer, Pat Witte, who agreed to model the makeup for the evening. I know she does not necessarily like being put on the spot but it was a job well done, Pat, and thank you very much.
The cosmetics - ranging from cleansers to moisturisers through to mascara and lipstick - are donated through the cosmetics industry in this great country of ours, and they are not cheap or unknown brands either; they are all very well-known brands and, in some cases, quite expensive ones.
I pay my kindest regards to Marg, Marrilyn, Julie, and Monica and thank them for the great work they do with cancer patients in Katherine. And I send my best wishes for a speedy recovery to the 11 ladies who came along last night and to all those who are battling this insidious disease in the Territory and elsewhere.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with a touch of sadness that I make some comments about the passing of an elder statesman of Katherine and reflect a little on the life of Mr Lindsay John Phillips AM. Lindsay was also, and, I might add, mostly, known as and referred to by his nickname, Phlip. Phlip was born on 26 August 1925 and sadly passed away in Katherine on 6 November 2010 at the age of 85.
It was only seven months ago, almost to the day, when I stood here offering my congratulations to Phlip and his wife, Ingrid, on their 60th wedding anniversary. I commented at the time that a 60th anniversary was a heck of a milestone, but it was but one of the many milestones Phlip passed during his pioneering and very influential life.
Phlip was a real pioneer in the Territory, moving from the west, from the Wyndham region, to Katherine in May 1948. It is with that I would like to quickly correct the record. During my congratulatory speech made in this House on 30 April last year about the 60th wedding anniversary of Ingrid and Phlip, I said that Phlip moved here in the 1960s; it was, in fact, May 1948. I regret making that mistake because …
Mr Chandler: He would let you know.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Brennan, because he did let me know. It was quite remarkable that a gentleman aged 84, as he was at the time, picked up on a slip-up I made in the House, and I was given a bit of a hard time over it too. But, anyway, it is all good. That is the sort of bloke that Phlip was – a very honest, genuine, forthright and hardworking fellow, and not afraid to think outside the box.
Phlip was involved in farming around the Katherine region, was a key figure in the beginnings of the Katherine Show, and was highly respected as a man of excellent character. But in his professional sphere the thing he was most renowned for was his crop research with the then CSIRO as it existed in Katherine on the site which is currently the research station run by the department of Primary Industry. He was very well respected for his ability to germinate seeds and grow and harvest crops from a wide variety of plants. The list of his achievements in cropping included guar, hemp, peanuts, soybeans, millet, sorghum, maize, and many others.
I was delighted, as I stood at a very sombre funeral service, to see a number of Phlip’s journals presented which documented much of the work he did whilst he was at the CSIRO. These are now pieces of history just as Phlip is part of the history of the Katherine region.
Phlip was also a war veteran and we have seen him proudly riding in the back of a vintage car as the Anzac Day parade made its way down Katherine Terrace each year. Phlip’s involvement with Anzac Day was much deeper than that. Phlip was often a guest speaker at school assemblies, talking to students about Anzac Day and the broader involvement of Australian troops in overseas conflict. Phlip added a personal touch to Anzac Day for the schools, sharing stories about his experiences, and I can attest to the impact those visits had on the students. His sharing of anecdotes and his engagement of the students at school visits left a real impact on the children, so much so, that when I was at the assembly of the Casuarina Street Primary School on the morning of Phlip’s funeral service, not only were his praises sung but I was asked to pass on the best wishes of the school, with special thanks for all he had done in helping the students to gain a much better understanding of what it means to be a soldier serving in overseas conflicts.
Phlip was an old bushie, and it is sad that our old bushies are passing on. It is inevitable, I know, but so much is lost, so much knowledge, so much experience, and there will be some people who try to emulate some of Phlip’s work from his heyday. To those people who would emulate Phlip’s work: look at the history, look at the journals which document what Phlip has done in the agricultural industry in the Northern Territory, and you will find much of the work has already been done.
Phlip is survived by his wife, Ingrid; his children, Rob, Barry, Lyn, Kyra, Greg, Lindsay and Leith; and his many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Phlip’s passing is a loss to Katherine and the Northern Territory. May he rest in peace, and may his family take comfort from the fact his many legacies will remain with Territorians for many, many years to come.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will inform the House about the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit of the Department of Legislative Assembly Outreach Program visit to Tennant Creek and the Barkly in November 2010.
The Parliamentary Outreach Education Program is aimed towards school students in urban, regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory. Its program content includes an overview of the Northern Territory parliamentary system, followed by a mock parliament with the passage of a bill developed and debated by the students. The Parliamentary Outreach Education Program is an innovative program which teaches students about the basic principles of democracy and the parliamentary processes.
Students play the parts of government and opposition members, as well as parliamentary officers in a Chamber setting, deciding on an issue to debate, writing their own speeches and voting on the bill. Throughout the parliamentary session all members are required to conform to parliamentary etiquette which mirrors the real Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. All materials, costumes and props used are provided by the Parliamentary Outreach Education Program and the classroom is transformed into a Chamber reminiscent of our early Northern Territory administration sitting in the old Darwin Primary School after Cyclone Tracy.
I thank Caroline Cavanagh, Director of the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit in the Department of the Legislative Assembly, for delivering the program at Murray Downs School, Tennant Creek Primary campus of the Barkly College, and Epenarra School, supported in Darwin by Karen Parker, Community Engagement Coordinator, and Melissa McHours of the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit. Caroline hired a four-wheel drive and travelled through some of the southern Barkly’s most beautiful country to bring this exciting, extra-curricular program to our remote schools.
I urge members to contact the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit on Level 3 of the Northern Territory Parliament House to inform themselves of the opportunities on offer for the schools in their electorates and to promote this excellent program to their constituents.
I am also proud to inform the House that students from Epenarra School who participated in the Parliamentary Outreach Education Program during November will visit the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on Thursday, 2 December 2010 as part of their Darwin excursion itinerary. What a wonderful follow-up for the unit of study to conclude the educational program with a visit to Parliament House, the ministerial offices, and then Question Time. I often wonder what Territory kids think of their elected community representatives after a visit to Question Time. At long last, I will get to ask the students from Epenarra after they witness a live Question Time in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I table some photographs of the Parliamentary Education Program at Epenarra and Murray Downs in November 2010. They are all cleared with a talent release form held by the Legislative Assembly staff.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, in the words of Tony Abbott earlier in the week: the Labor Party has lost its way across the country and there is no more evidence of this than in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government has certainly lost its way over the last 10 years with appalling mismanagement, neglect and maladministration which has left us with some very serious problems, not to mention the 800 dead cows at Mataranka Station, Australia’s worst offshore oil spill at Montara and, of course, the damning report card on child protection which came down in October 2010.
The only time this government wants to talk about child protection is when it is dragged screaming and kicking. They do not offer us any information about what is going on and how they are addressing the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. It is a shocking state of affairs.
This evening, we heard the Minister for Child Protection reject giving the Children's Commissioner the required authority and powers to act as a watchdog in the implementation of the recommendations of this report. This government is running scared and it is to the detriment of the children of the Northern Territory.
We do not hear of any responsibility taken for any of these problems. No one in the government is ever responsible for any of the mistakes or the failings we see around us - it is always someone else.
The Chief Minister was on ABC radio this morning talking to Julia Christensen and a caller asked that interjections during Question Time be toned down. The Chief Minister said: ‘It is not our fault, it is the opposition’. Even Julia Christensen had a go at him about the fact he would not take some responsibility even for that scenario.
I want the Minister for Child Protection to give us regular reports on what is happening with child protection in the Northern Territory. I want the Minister for Child Protection to offer - not on demand, but to offer - the people of the Northern Territory a regular report card on how he is implementing the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. The 34 urgent recommendations of this report should be in the process of being implemented. We do not hear anything about what is happening unless, as I said, they are dragged screaming and kicking in front of a microphone or through a media release.
A couple of weeks ago, when the minister was in China for his other portfolio responsibilities, I asked him for a report card. The next day, he gave us one. Why is this so? Why do we have to keep demanding? What the heck is going on? The 34 recommendations of an urgent nature have to be addressed by 18 April 2011. Time is running out; we are already six weeks into that six-month period.
The steering committee the government has put together was not how the report couched this group of people. The Children's Commissioner, one of the authors of the report, called it a group of people who would plan and put together a strategic response to the recommendations. The government has put it together and called it a steering committee. Where are they up to? What are they doing? What is happening with that steering committee?
As the member for Braitling raised earlier, why wasn’t Jodeen Carney, one of the great advocates for child protection, asked to be on that steering committee to give her very insightful, professional and well-measured views on child protection? What is happening with that steering committee? How is the planning, coordination and implementation going regarding this report?
What is happening with the Aboriginal childcare agency, or agencies, as the case may be? Exactly what will they be doing? What will their functions be? What model will the government be using to set up the Aboriginal childcare agencies? Where exactly is the additional $70m allocated to child protection coming from? We heard it was new funding; we have since heard rumours that is not the case; we have had it confirmed it is not new money. We would like to know exactly where the money has come from; which other areas of government funding have been robbed to put together this $70m allocated to child protection.
What about the backlog of cases which was featured in the report - the 1000 cases in this backlog? What about the 500 cases which were closed without proper case management and assessment? What is happening with those families? What is happening with those children who have had notifications lodged about them because of fears they were being neglected or abused in some way?
The role of the Commissioner as a watchdog was one of the simplest recommendations to implement; assisted, once again, by Jodeen Carney, who put it on the table in February of this year. What will become of the role of Children’s Commissioner if this government is refusing to even look at the amendments we put forward earlier in October?
The government also has a responsibility to implement all the Little Children are Sacred report recommendations pertaining to child abuse and neglect in the Northern Territory. How is that going? We would like a report on where they are up to with the many recommendations in that report. And the support and the supervision of your staff - we have heard endlessly how overworked they are, how they are overburdened with too many cases and not being supervised correctly. We would like to know exactly what the Minister for Child Protection and his staff are doing to address those needs. We want a regular report.
I should not have to stand here on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory and demand information from this government when it has been given numerous reports saying they have failed when it comes to child protection. You should be offering these reports and demonstrating your duty of care to the children of the Northern Territory. You should be demonstrating to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are committed to protecting children who are at risk of abuse and neglect. It is not good enough that we have to demand this information from you.
In fact, I go one step further and say you should be publishing pieces in the paper on a weekly or fortnightly basis stating exactly where you are up to, because this community is alarmed, it is distressed and has been consistently let down by this government for the last 10 years when it comes to child protection.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak about the passing of a great Territorian, Charlie Cagnetti, who ran what became an iconic Darwin restaurant, known 40-plus years ago as the Olympic Restaurant, then shortly after that, and for the next four decades, as Charlie's.
Charlie was around before self-government and, in the early days when the CLP won government and self-government was declared, I think half of the Territory was built at meetings held in Charlie’s restaurant. It was a fine place to dine; a fine example of Italian hospitality: good Italian food and a warm and friendly place to go to discuss all types of issues over lunch.
Charlie was the type of person who could be trusted to keep secrets, as I am sure there were many issues debated and discussed at Charlie’s in those days and for many years after. I was not part of that in those days but I had the opportunity to dine at Charlie’s restaurant on numerous occasions over the last nearly 30 years. It is sad to see Territory icons pass; unfortunately, I suppose it comes to the very best of us.
I would like to relay the eulogy which was read by his son, Roberto, and put on the public record the story of a great Territory man. I quote from Roberto’s speech:
That was the eulogy read by Roberto in St Mary’s Cathedral recently. It reflects the life of an immigrant to this country and the multicultural nature of Darwin in those days, and today. It is as a result of people like Charlie Cagnetti who came here and worked hard – they were the fabric of the community that became known as the multicultural community of Darwin 2010.
Without people like Charlie, without his commitment, dedication and work ethic and without families like the Cagnetti family who have survived Charlie, we would not have a Darwin that looks like it does today; it makes Darwin one of the great places to live in Australia.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this story to the public record so his family and those who follow him can see what a contribution Charlie Cagnetti made to the Darwin community.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I take the opportunity, tonight being the second last parliamentary night of the 2010 calendar, to thank a few people and wish them all a very Merry Christmas.
To my colleagues, it has been a very interesting journey this year. And to my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber: we do not always agree on things, we often have a different philosophy on things and sometimes we lose sight that each and every one of us in this House is a human being. While our job in opposition is to criticise, where necessary, and hold the government to account, there are times when I have seen things in this House which disappointment me. Nonetheless, it is Christmas, and the Christmas spirit will be on us before too long.
To Madam Speaker and her very wonderful deputies, a Merry Christmas. To Ian McNeill, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and all the Legislative Assembly staff, I wish you a very Merry Christmas. To the Hansard staff listening upstairs on the fourth level, thank you very much for your intent listening over the last 12 months. I really do not know how you do it because a lot of dribble goes on here, as well as some very cultured words and some not so cultured words. Well done and a Merry Christmas.
To the department staff from NRETAS and the Education department who have helped out over the year with different briefings and the information you have provided to the Country Liberals.
To Sue Fraser-Adams and all the Country Liberal members of a great party, remember what we stand for, remember what we are trying to achieve, and I truly, sincerely hope we can remain as strong as the party has been in the past to ensure we have every opportunity to take government once again for the Country Liberals.
To the Calder branch, my branch, thank you very much for another supportive year. I wish you well also. Have a Merry Christmas. On 17 December we will have a few drinks in the office to celebrate Christmas and you are all welcome.
To June Wessels, Bakewell School Principal, who was nominated and received the award of Principal of the Year for the Northern Territory, I wish you, your school, your staff and, of course, your students, and parents, a very Merry Christmas.
To Marlise, my electorate officer who joined me around May or June this year - Marlise came on board and restored a sense of dignity, a sense of honour, and a customer service like no other to the office; her professionalism helps support me.
To Tasma and Donna, the other two electorate officers in Palmerston, they do an absolutely fantastic job and have supported Marlise as she has learnt the ropes of becoming a very effective electorate officer. I take my hat off to both Donna and Tas as well. Donna has to put up with the member for Drysdale - that must be a heck of a job! Tasma has what must be the horrible job of having to manage an electorate office held by the Leader of the Opposition, which means the leader cannot be there all the time. It must be a very difficult job and she does it wonderfully.
To the wider electorate of Brennan, to each and every one, I wish a very safe Christmas, and to the wider Palmerston community.
Lastly, to my own family: my beautiful wife, Robyn and my wonderful, adorable children - they are the ones we, in this job, pop into the same fishbowl we choose to take on and that fishbowl creates a very unique environment. It is like living on eggshells the whole time and without their support I could not do what I do. I do not think there are many in this House who could do what they do without the support of their families. The bottom line is, that is the main reason we are in a place like this - to make the Territory a better place. I know there is not a member in this House who does not have that same desire to have the Territory as good a place to live and raise our children, and to make it as strong as we possibly can. That crosses all levels of politics; everyone wants a good place to live in and that is what our aim is.
To everyone listening, and to the entire Northern Territory, I wish you a very Merry Christmas. Please stay safe. We do not want tragedies over this Christmas period. Be careful, take care of yourselves and God bless.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I talk about a character I know who enriches my life some weekends - or detracts – I am not sure. I am sure he will understand that comment. He is a gentleman by the name of Chris Dunphy. Chris and Dianne own the Hungry Dolphin, the Woodroffe fish and chip shop. They are down the road from me …
Mr Chandler: They cook most of your meals.
Mr BOHLIN: No, they do not. I make a habit of once a week, or once a fortnight, getting fish and chips from them because they sell local barramundi and snapper. This Sunday past I went to a different fish and chip shop to try something a bit different and see who else was out there. I guarantee Chris will not like me saying it, but we thought we would have a look around, spread the money around the community’s small businesses.
I walked into that other fish and chip shop, it did not have one piece of local fish on the board so I walked out and I went to Chris - to where I know I was going to get a good feed and support the local shop owners and the local industry.
What I want to talk about briefly is that Chris has had medical issues for a long time. He has been due for a new set of hips. He is interstate - I think he has already gone - to get new hips jammed in and I wish him the very best. Owning a shop cannot be the easiest of businesses to run. I know his lovely wife, Dianne, whom I often refer to as ‘mum’. I call out in the shop as I go in: ‘Where are you, old man?’, and he comes forward, and I say: ‘Where is mum?’ He says: ‘She is out the back, cooking’. I always try to say hello to both of them. Dianne has stayed behind to run the shop so it must be difficult for her whilst Chris is away having a very major operation.
I hope things go well for you, Chris. You are a character. You give me as much curry as I am willing to give back to you and I love the times we sit and chat - 10 minutes or 15 minutes. He passes on his philosophy of life and politics of the world, and of the Country Liberals, and what we should do here and what we should do there and ‘In my day …’ this and that. If I did not enjoy that banter, I would not come to your shop.
I love having chats with you and I am sure many of your customers wonder what is going on with these two mad nuts? This young fella having a decent go with this old fella, and this old fella packing it back just the same. It must be like a comedy show to most people who watch.
Thank you for being such a fantastic Territorian and Australian. As patriotic as you are, I wish you the very best, and from one mate to another, the best of luck and I hope to see you soon.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about what have been described as ‘the fantastic efforts of the Darwin Flotilla of the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard’. I have to declare an interest here because, in February 2010, members from the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard National Board visited Darwin and a development committee was formed and, after much hard work, there was an official launch or an official commissioning ceremony for the first NT rescue vessel, NTFO1, a 12 m Noosa Cat. The interest I have is that Tony Butler and his wife, Trisha, happen to be my brother-in-law and sister. They were very much part of the development committee which got the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Northern Territory under way.
One of the great things about this organisation is it is part of a family of Australian Volunteer Coast Guards and many representatives from other states came up for the commissioning. One of the things they were, I would say, jealous about, was this 12 m Noosa Cat. You have to remember the committee was formed in February and in November they were launching a 12 m - air-conditioned, by the way - Noosa Cat, which was gifted to them by Tony and Samantha Pearce. This was a tourist vessel which sailed the harbour. It is a beautiful boat. I was there at the commissioning and went for a little trip on it around the port. People who came from the south were quite amazed that the locals had been able to obtain a boat in such a short time whereas, in other states, getting enough money to purchase a boat takes quite a bit of time.
The Darwin Flotilla commenced in November, in fact, it was launched on 1 October 2010. The Arafura Guardian, as it is called, is used for recovery of stricken vessels and for searches along the Northern Territory and the Tiwi Island coasts and operates out of the Darwin Trailer Boat Club.
You may have heard recently there was a tragic loss of life off the Tiwi Island coast. A husband and wife returning from Indonesia and coming around the west coast of the Tiwi Islands ran into a storm. Unfortunately, the husband, in his attempts to sail the boat through that storm, was thrown overboard and lost at sea. The Darwin Australian Volunteer Coast Guard went out looking for him for a day and a half, I believe. That is part of the role of the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard.
Initially, the Darwin Coast Guard will operate weekend patrols and a VHF radio monitoring service which will enable boats to log themselves in and out with the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard. The Darwin Coast Guard is a voluntary organisation which aims to: (1) promote safety in boating; (2) assist in the preservation of life and property; (3) assist persons in danger on the waters of Darwin; (4) train flotilla members and the public in all aspects of seamanship and boating safety.
They currently have recruited and are training around 85 members and, since commencement, have assisted with four rescue activities. This is a volunteer organisation reliant on fundraising and corporate and public donations; they do not receive any government assistance. A dedicated, small group, led by none other than Tony Butler, has worked extremely hard to start the Darwin Coast Guard, and I thank them for their dedication to serving the community.
I know the Coast Guard would like to acknowledge the support of their very generous donors: ConocoPhillips, Boscato Pty Ltd, Shorelands, Darwin Trailer Boat Club, Bendigo Bank, Territory Technology Solutions, Rural Trading, and Fingers Aluminium.
I was going to say that if you are interested in joining the volunteer coast guard you can look up the website, however, the web page has not yet been completed. My advice would be to contact the Darwin Trailer Boat Club if you are interested. This is a very worthwhile group volunteering its services, taking some of the load off groups like the police when it comes to preserving life and property. As we know, that is one of their roles, but it also promotes safety in boating; that is a very worthwhile objective as so many in people in Darwin and other parts of the Territory use their boats for recreation or fishing.
I put it to people, even members of parliament may have an interest in volunteering, or if there are organisations out there, businesses which would like to help and donate to support this volunteer coast guard, I am sure they would appreciate hearing from you.
I know the member for Greatorex spoke last week about the aeromedical contract. Unfortunately, I was in Alice Springs for the Local Government AGM, but I understand he raised some concerns about the aeromedical contract and some of the arguments which have been put forward to say a single engine plane, specifically, I believe, the Pilatus plane, was not the best option for the aeromedical, and the government, according to this advisor, would do better to look at a twin engine plane.
I have a copy of the latest R M Williams Outback book and inside there is a picture of the single engine Pilatus. I do not have any shares in Pilatus but I was contacted recently by some representatives from the Pilatus company. They put forward their concerns that its plane, which is used by the Northern Territory police and, I believe, by the Royal Flying Doctor Service - I think something like 31 of their planes are single engine although they do have twin engine planes as well. They were a little concerned that information given to the government was not helpful in their bid to promote a single engine Pilatus plane.
I am not an aeroplane expert but if there is some concern - as the member for Greatorex thought - that some of the arguments against having a single engine plane may be questionable then I hope the government looks at getting a second opinion before it makes this important decision about the aeromedical service in the Top End.
I am not here to barrack for Pilatus or King Air; I hope this important contract is looked at very carefully because it is important for the Northern Territory and it is also a very expensive contract. Territorians would expect the government to check all options and ensure our money is being well spent so people of the Northern Territory can have the best aeromedical service possible.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITION
Intrastate Travel Entitlements for Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme Senior Card Holders
Intrastate Travel Entitlements for Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme Senior Card Holders
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 1384 petitioners praying that intrastate travel entitlements be included in the Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme senior card holders. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
Intrastate travel entitlements for NT Pension Concession and Carer Scheme senior card holders
We the undersigned respectfully call upon the Territory government to reverse its decision to exclude intrastate travel entitlements from the scheme.
Your petitioners respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory urgently take the necessary steps to allow the scheme to include intrastate destinations within the Northern Territory.
MOTION
Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Disallowance of Part of Determination of Entitlements of Assembly Members
Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Disallowance of Part of Determination of Entitlements of Assembly Members
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, most members would be aware of the motion I gave notice of yesterday; however, I will read it again.
Madam Speaker, I move - That -
- 1. clause 14 and Schedule 4 of the Determination of Entitlements of Assembly Members determined by the Remuneration Tribunal on 21 September 2010, (the 2010 Determination) are disallowed pursuant to section 21(3) of the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act (NT); and
2. notwithstanding the commencement of so much of the 2010 Determination is not disallowed, clause 14 and Schedule 2 of the Determination of Entitlements of Assembly Members determined by the Remuneration Tribunal on 30 October 2009 shall continue in effect pursuant to section 21(7) of the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act (NT).
The Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act empowers the Remuneration Tribunal to inquire into and determine the range of entitlements for members of the Assembly. As part of its functions, the tribunal annually determines additional salary for MLA office holders such as ministers, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, committee chair persons and government and opposition Whips. One who was omitted there is Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who I understand also gets an additional salary.
The tribunal’s 2010 Determination of Entitlements of Assembly Members was tabled in the Assembly on 19 October 2010 and is scheduled to take effect as from 1 January 2011, subject to any disallowance motion. In its determination, the tribunal determined the rate of additional salary for office holders be increased by 3.1% based on Consumer Price Index movements over the past year. As part of the Northern Territory Public Service General 2010-13 Enterprise Agreement, public sector employees have been offered an annual salary increase of 3% over the life of the agreement. This has been endorsed and the enterprise agreement is now awaiting approval under the Commonwealth’s Fair Work Act.
The government does not believe it is appropriate for members of this Assembly to accept any increase in additional salary of office that is more than the increase being offered to the Northern Territory Public Service employees. Accordingly, this motion proposes the disallowance of those parts of the 2010 Remuneration Tribunal determination that deal with additional salary of office and which sets additional salary of office rates for the coming year.
To take the place of the disallowed parts of the tribunal’s determination, the Chief Minister will today introduce an amendment to the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act. This bill will provide that future increases in additional salary of office for MLAs be set by legislation and, specifically, that future increases in additional salary of office for MLAs be linked directly to general Northern Territory Public Service wage movements.
The disallowance of the additional salary of office provisions in the 2010 determination would mean MLA office holders are not entitled to any office holder salary income between 1 January 2011 and the time that proposed legislation is put in place. To maintain the current arrangements over this period of time, the disallowance motion includes a motion that the existing 2010 rates of additional salary of office for MLAs remain in place beyond 1 January 2011, until such time as the new legislation is operational.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I believe this proposal to disallow the Remuneration Tribunal’s determination in respect of the increase for additional salary of office for MLAs and the intention to link future increases in MLA’s salary of office to Northern Territory public sector wage movements is an appropriate measure, not only in the current financial climate, but also going forward. I look forward to the support of all members in relation to this motion and the bill being introduced today. I commend the motion to honourable members.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I had a brief dinner time briefing with the Leader of Government Business on this issue yesterday. I understand the intent of the motion, and I accept the briefing was given in good faith and was in no way intended to be deceptive or tricky. I understand the intent of the motion and, as a consequence of that, the opposition will not be opposing the motion.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I welcome the support by the opposition. In many ways, our salaries are subject of public scrutiny and debate, particularly in the media. I place on the record in this House that I am glad the opposition has supported this bill.
As members of parliament, we often go beyond the call of duty. Despite what some media people might say, we are entitled to remuneration that is commensurate with what we do as parliamentarians. To that end, we always need to be looking at the remuneration that is involved in being a parliamentarian, because we want to attract the very best people into this parliament. I know all members of this parliament are not in this parliament for financial ends. Each of us has entered into this place with altruism, with the desire to do our best for the Northern Territory. By the same token, for future parliamentarians we always have to be looking at the level of entitlements, the level of salary, so we can attract the best, and it is not a disincentive for people to enter into parliamentary life. I believe we need to continue that discussion, particularly in the current climate.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the support of the opposition and I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arafura and Member for Sanderson
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arafura and Member for Sanderson
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs. It is for today, the entire sitting day, for the members for Arafura and Sanderson. It is signed by the government and opposition Whips. I table that document.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House wish the very best for the member for Arafura.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, member for Port Darwin.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND STATUTORY OFFICERS (REMUNERATION AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 144)
(Serial 144)
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 Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act, which I shall refer to as the Remuneration Act, empowers the Remuneration Tribunal to inquire into and determine a range of entitlements for members of the Assembly.
An exception to this is basic salary for MLAs, which is set by statute and not by the tribunal. The Remuneration Act provides that any increase in MLA basic salary cannot exceed annual increases in general Northern Territory public sector wages. In addition, basic salary cannot exceed the salary of members of the House of Representatives, less $3000. The tribunal does, however, determine additional salary of office for MLA office holders such as ministers, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and committee chairs.
In the tribunal’s 2010 determination, scheduled to take effect from 1 January 2011, the tribunal determined that the rate of additional salary for office holders be increased by 3.1%. As part of the NTPS General 2010-2013 Enterprise Agreement, public sector employees have been offered annual salary increases of 3% over the life of the agreement. This offer has been accepted and is awaiting ratification.
The government does not believe it is appropriate for members of this Assembly to accept any increase in additional salary of office that is more than the increase being offered to NTPS employees. Members will be aware it is for this reason the Assembly earlier today resolved to disallow that part of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2010 for MLAs that set out the new additional salary of office rates for the coming year.
As foreshadowed in the disallowance motion, the bill proposes that all future increases in additional salary of office for members of the Assembly be linked directly to general NTPS wage movements through the Remuneration Act, and that the Remuneration Tribunal no longer have the power to determine additional salary of office. Specifically, it is proposed that any annual increase in NTPS wages will, on 1 January after that wage increase, be applied to the additional salary of office rate for members of the Assembly. By way of an example, public sector wages will increase by 3% as from August 2010, subject to ratification of the enterprise agreement. This bill proposes the same increase of 3% will apply to the additional salary of office for members of the Assembly effective from 1 January 2011.
On its own, the disallowance of additional salary of office rates would mean that MLA office holders would not be entitled to any office holder salary income between 1 January 2011 and the time this proposed amendment to the act comes into effect. Members will be conscious that this bill will not be debated until the February 2011 sittings and, if passed, will be submitted to the Administrator for assent. Accordingly, this legislation is not expected to become operational until early March 2011. To avoid any potential for financial hardship over that period of time, the Assembly has resolved that the existing 2010 rates of additional salary of office remain in place beyond 1 January 2011 until such time as the legislation is operational and the 3% increase for the 2011 calendar year is able to be applied. At that time, the salary increase will be backdated to 1 January 2011, consistent with the policy behind the new remuneration framework.
The bill also includes a provision carried over from the tribunal’s 2010 determination which makes it clear that if an MLA holds or occupies two or more offices, they are entitled to the additional salary of office for only one of those offices, being the greatest of the relevant rates.
The bill adopts the list of office holders from the tribunal’s 2010 determination and these are listed in the schedule to the bill. The opportunity has been taken to remove from the list two positions which no longer exist. These are the Chair of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse and the Chair of the sport and youth committee.
I also mention the list of office holders includes members of the Council of Territory Cooperation as included for the first time by the Remuneration Tribunal in its 2010 determination. I note the office holder salary rates, for the purpose of the bill, are drawn from the tribunal’s 2009 determination, and the 2009 determination naturally contains no salary rate for members of the Council of Territory Cooperation. For this reason, it has been necessary to include a transitional provision in the bill which provides the starting point salary for a member of the Council of Territory Cooperation shall be 50% of the amount to which the Chair of the Council of Territory Cooperation is entitled in 2010.
It is expected there will be a need to make changes to the list of office holders from time to time by either removing defunct offices or functions, or adding new ones which may come into being over time. The bill permits the Administrator to make regulations to amend the schedule to the act to add a new office holder to the list, and to determine the additional salary of office for that function. Members will note this is a robust and transparent procedure in that any regulation is required to be notified in the Gazette and will be subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly’s Subordinate Legislation committee. Because regulations can be put in place in a timely manner whenever required, it will be possible to respond to the requirement to remunerate a new office holder with a process which is both robust and efficient.
Removal of an office holder from the list could, potentially, be seen as a decision with even more significant implications than adding a new office holder. For this reason, the bill contains no mechanism for removing an office holder from the list, which means the Assembly must amend the act to do this. I believe members will agree this is an appropriate safeguard in legislation of this nature.
Madam Speaker, I believe the bill establishes a transparent and certain mechanism for achieving parity between increases in NTPS employee salary and increases in MLA additional salary of office entitlements into the future. I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (CRIMINAL DAMAGE) BILL
(Serial 141)
(Serial 141)
Bill presented and read a first time
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to redraft and modernize Part VII, Division 6 of the Criminal Code, bringing the criminal damage offences contained in that division into line with Chapter 4 of the model Criminal Code. The bill progresses the government’s policy to introduce gradually the model Criminal Code as prepared by the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in 2001, and to revise offences in the Criminal Code so they comply with criminal responsibility provisions in Part IIAA of the Criminal Code.
The process began in the Northern Territory with the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005. That act enacted new general principles upon which persons may be held criminally responsible for their conduct in what is now Part IIAA of the Criminal Code. It set the foundation for reform of the criminal law, and for Part IIAA to be applied to all criminal offences. Since that act, this government has made reforms to the Criminal Code including:
the law of Homicide, Concealment of Birth and Abortion in Part VI, Division 3 and Division 8;
In addition, numerous new offences in legislation other than the Criminal Code have been redrafted so they comply with Part IIAA of the Criminal Code, both within my Justice portfolio and legislation falling within other ministerial portfolios. There is still some way to go in reforming the Criminal Code; this is a difficult and complex task which needs to be undertaken with careful consideration. This bill represents the next stage in that reform. It repeals most of the old, discrete criminal damage offences in Part VII Division 6, such as the offences of casting away ships or damaging signals, and replaces them with a general criminal damage offence where the definition of property is broad to cover many types of property.
The bill will revise and modernise those offences which will be retained under Part VII Division 6 of the Criminal Code, including arson, endangering aircraft, obstructing runways, and leaving explosives at a place. The bill also introduces a new offence of sabotage to fill the gap in the law between the offences of criminal damage and terrorism.
I will now set out the key features of this bill. To achieve the stated objectives, the bill repeals the current criminal damage offence in section 251, the penalty for which depends on the value or type of property involved in the offending. In addition, a number of discrete property damage type offences that are defined by the nature or type of property will be repealed. These offences will be replaced with a single causing damage to property offence. A person will be guilty of a crime if it is proved the person intentionally or recklessly caused damage to the property of another. The crime also incorporates the principle of transferred malice: it matters not whether the person intended to cause or was reckless as to causing damage to the property of one person or the property of another person. Designed to ensure it covers all existing property damage type offences, the new causing damage to property offence simplifies the pre-existing law by removing distinctions based on the type of property, the nature of property damage, or the circumstances in which the destruction or damage took place.
Currently, the criminal damage general offence carries penalties of 14, seven, or two years imprisonment, depending on the type or value of property. There are also a number of other specific criminal damage offences with varying penalties. The new offence will now have a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment which is not graded according to the value or type of property. The result is, in some cases, the maximum penalties will increase and, in others, they will stay the same.
Although there will only be one maximum penalty for the new offence, it is not intended that a court infer all criminal damage, no matter how minor, should be considered more serious than they are presently under the Criminal Code. The offence can also be dealt with summarily under section 121A of the Justices Act and, if so, section 122 of the Sentencing Act would limit the maximum penalty the Court of Summary Jurisdiction could impose is five years imprisonment or 250 penalty units.
The bill also introduces a new offence of threatening to cause property damage, with graduated maximum penalties of seven or two years imprisonment depending on whether the defendant intended the victim to fear the property damage would involve death or serious harm to another person. In addition, the bill introduces a preparatory offence of possessing an implement intending to use it to cause property damage or intending another to so use it. This will be a punishable by a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
The new criminal damage offences are supplemented by new definitions of property, person to whom property belongs, and damage to property, which will only apply to this division of the Criminal Code. For the purposes of this division, ‘property’ will include tangible property, but not intangible property, including wild animals that are tamed or reduced into possession, and parts of the human body. Property ‘belongs’ to anyone who has possession of it, any proprietary interest in it other than an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest in it, or a constructive trust. The bill also makes it clear that the crime of causing damage to property can be made out even where the offender is one of the owners of the property that is owned by more than one person.
In addition, an extended definition of ‘damage’ will be introduced by the bill and will now capture a broader range of acts, including interference with property so there is loss or use of function of the property, rather than simply causing physical damage or destruction to property.
The bill also provides for a range of more specific offences to supplement the general offence of causing damage to property; namely, the existing offences of arson and causing bushfires in a new offence of sabotage.
Arson remains a crime under the Criminal Code; however, it has now been brought in line with the Model Criminal Code arson offence and covers damage caused to buildings and conveyances by fire or explosives. The Model Criminal Code Officers Committee considered the scope of the offence when preparing the Model Criminal Code, and considered that arson should apply to specific forms of property including, at the core of the offence, the setting fire to another person’s house or a workplace. The scope was also extended to motor vehicles, aircraft, and motorised vessels. The government, however, decided to extend the scope also to non-motorised vessels such as yachts, given their prevalence in the NT lifestyle, and some people call their yacht or other non-motorised vessel their home. Equally, the definition of ‘building’ is defined to include a structure, whether or not movable, which is adapted or designed for residential purposes which includes, for example, a caravan.
Clearly, the offence of arson acknowledges the intrinsic value of the property to people’s everyday life and the propensity for catastrophic damage or loss of life as may be; for example, it may be the case of damaging an aircraft by fire. It recognises that destruction by fire or explosives is unpredictable and, potentially, devastating. The revised crime of arson is now more consistent with community expectations and understanding about the nature of the offence.
Members will recall this offence was the subject of the Criminal Code Amendment (Arson) Bill 2010, which was introduced to the Legislative Assembly by the Leader of the Opposition on 18 August 2010. The opposition bill sought to amend the offence of arson under section 239 of the Criminal Code so it would include setting fire to a motor vehicle and the trailer attached to it, which is currently not considered to be the subject of arson. The government agrees with the policy behind the expansion of this definition to motor vehicles and trailers attached to them; however, with this bill the government goes further by reforming the entire Part VII, Division 6 rather than making ad hoc or piecemeal amendments.
The bill retains the existing bushfires offence as inserted into the Criminal Code by the Criminal Code Amendment (Bushfires) Bill of 2009. Members will recall those changes arose from a decision of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Canberra in April 2009 in response to the tragedy of the Victorian bushfires. Those devastating bushfires in February 2009 brought to the forefront of the minds of all Australians the catastrophic damage to life, property, and environment which can result from bushfires. The offence continues to apply to people who intentionally or recklessly cause a fire, and who then create the risk of the spread of fire. The emphasis of the offence is on the recklessness as to the spread of the fire to vegetation.
By introducing a new offence of sabotage, the bill also fills a gap identified in Australian domestic law in relation to acts of terrorism. In most jurisdictions, property damage offences only capture relatively minor offences of this type, and are unsuitable for use against terrorists, primarily because many of the offences are not punishable with penalties of appropriate severity. With this bill, the government proposes the offence of sabotage covers these situations. The offences of sabotage and threatened sabotage are directed at terrorists and others who attempt or threaten to destroy public facilities, infrastructure, government offices, or services. The bill before the Assembly seeks to emphasise the gravity of the danger that sabotage represents by creating such an offence. Like arson, sabotage offences are punishable by penalties substantially exceeding the 14-year maximum for causing damage to property.
The new offence of sabotage is designed to apply where there is a very serious threat to public facilities. Sabotage requires proof of conduct which was intended to cause major economic loss, major disruption to government functions, or a major disruption to the use of services by the public. Threatened sabotage extends to conduct which is intended to induce fear of major economic loss, major disruption to government functions, or a major disruption to the use of services by the public.
The bill includes a definition of ‘public facility’ for the purposes of the sabotage offences, which includes both privately- and publicly-owned facilities. ‘Public facility’ will include a government facility, public infrastructure for the provision of water, sewerage, energy, fuel, communication or other services, public information systems, public transport facilities, or a public place including any premises, land, or water open to the public.
The definition of damage that applies to this provision is wide enough to capture circumstances where, for example, the damage or disruption caused or threatened is the result of a crude, physical attack or an attack by electronic means. This new offence will ensure those who attack the Northern Territory’s critical infrastructure will face severe consequences, as the maximum penalty for this offence is on par with arson, at life imprisonment.
The bill retains the current offences of endangering aircraft, obstructing runways and leaving explosives at a place because it was recognised that the revised criminal damage, arson, and the new sabotage offence may not cover these existing offences.
With respect to the existing offence of obstructing railways, the new Rail Safety Act and its regulations adequately cover the criminality as well as the offences of criminal damage or sabotage, depending on the circumstances.
With respect to the existing offence of taking dangerous goods onto an aircraft in current section 248, section 23 of the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Act covers the field.
The application of the criminal damage provisions, including arson, sabotage, and bushfires, continue to be extended by the general doctrines of attempt, complicity and conspiracy, found in Part IIAA Division 4 of the code. The bill also includes a new subdivision 3, which comprises the new exceptions to criminal responsibility of consent and claim of right. These exceptions apply to all offences in Part VII, Division 6, except sabotage. They are included to ensure that persons who lawfully engage in conduct which would otherwise be regarded as criminal damage or arson, on or over property in which they have authority or have been given authority, will be excused from criminal responsibility.
During the drafting of this bill, the Department of Justice engaged in targeted consultation with stakeholders from both government and non-government organisations, including the Department of the Chief Minister, Security and Emergency Recovery; the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services; the Department of Resources; the Department of Lands and Planning; North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency; NT Legal Aid Commission; the Law Society of the Northern Territory; the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory; and the Northern Territory Bar Association. I thank those who were involved in the consultation for their very useful input.
This bill provides a comprehensive reform of the law of criminal damage representing a holistic approach to the law in this area. It modernises and brings into the 21st century the crimes of arson and criminal damage and, especially by introducing the new offence of sabotage, responding to the modern trends in criminal threats and activity.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
CONTROL OF ROADS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 142)
(Serial 142)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Control of Roads Act, to provide flexibility and consistency when temporarily closing or restricting access on roads and increases the maximum court-imposed penalty for people who drive on temporarily closed or restricted access roads, potentially putting themselves and others at risk and causing significant road pavement damage, and to ensure there are legal procedures in place for the resolution of compensation payable by government for the acquisition of property on just terms for the purpose of opening a public road.
The bill before the House today is a two-part package that seeks to amend some outdated provisions of the Control of Roads Act. Dealing with the road closure amendments, the Territory road network covers approximately 36 000 km and is regularly affected by adverse weather conditions. There have been ongoing problems where some road users continue to use roads which have been temporarily closed, placing themselves at risk and, in some cases, also placing their rescuers at risk.
I recall an incident in my electorate early last year when we had unprecedented rainfall which resulted in an 80 m section of the Barkly Highway collapsing and washing out, closing the highway for a number of weeks. Despite road closure signs and barriers on the Barkly Highway near Avon Downs, a pair of tourists travelling from Queensland chose to ignore the signs and continued to drive their vehicle onto Rankin Road heading towards the Tablelands Highway. They ended up bogged about 50 km from Avon Downs and, if it was not for the great work of the NT Police who rescued them, they may well still be there. Fortunately, on this occasion everyone made it back safely. The police at the time described the people as ‘plain stupid’ and reiterated to the public the importance of taking these warnings and closures seriously. Common sense should prevail; however, we all know that is not always the case.
Secondary to the issue of public safety is the potential for pavement damage by choosing to ignore road closures or restrictions, and incurring significant repair costs for the government. The current maximum penalty for driving on a closed road is $50, which can only be imposed by a court, and has not been amended since the 1950s. It is, clearly, not a sufficient penalty as the costs of prosecuting a driver for a breach far outweigh the penalty which can be imposed. The penalty for someone who drives on a closed road requires amendment to reflect the nature and seriousness of the conduct.
Following consultation with the Department of Justice to identify a more appropriate and contemporary level of penalty, the recommendation was to increase the maximum court-imposed penalty for this offence to 100 penalty units which equates to $13 300. Whilst this is a significant increase, there is a need for a significant monetary deterrent, and the penalty amount is comparable with penalties in other jurisdictions; for example, Queensland has a maximum penalty of $20 000.
The court-imposed maximum penalty is for serious breaches only. It is intended that an infringement notice regime will be developed within the regulations to provide means for roadside enforcement for less serious offences.
While making this change, some other minor amendments have been made in relation to the road closure provisions to improve the operation of the act. These include consolidation of sections 11 and 11A into one simple requirement; consolidation of redundant provisions; expanding temporary closure and restriction provisions to include signage; and making it clear it is also an offence to ignore road restrictions, including weight limits. The amendments also provide a defence for those who have a genuine, reasonable excuse for being on a road which is temporarily closed or restricted.
I turn to the amendments to Part 4 of the act regarding compensation for acquisition of land required for road purposes. Under the current legislation, when the Territory requires land to open a road, section 31 of Part 4 of the Control of Roads Act provides that a person not being a party to an agreement for exchange, who has an estate or interest in the land or part of the land taken, may, within 12 months, serve a notice in writing on me, claiming compensation for the land. However, it does not provide for a right to have compensation determined in accordance with a judicial process which would apply to the acquisition of property on just terms.
It currently does not provide for who or what body is to determine the amount of compensation payable for such actions. It does not provide for any avenue authorising a judicial body to determine such compensation as necessary to ensure the acquisition is on just terms.
The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 provides that acquisition of property is to be on just terms. As honourable members would be aware, the term ‘acquisition’ implies the extinguishment of a proprietary right or interest in one party and the vesting of a corresponding right or benefit in another. There is little doubt that in its relevant operation, Part 4 of the Control of Roads Act operates to acquire property, and it is a law with respect to the acquisition of property. Accordingly, the constitutional guarantee will have application.
I am, therefore, amending Part 4 of the Control of Roads Act to ensure the requirements of the constitutional guarantee are satisfied to create a duty or an obligation on me, as the responsible minister, to pay just terms compensation in relation to any acquisition of property under the Control of Roads Act.
On advice from the Solicitor-General, it is considered desirable to regularise the section to specifically enshrine the right to just terms compensation and to make it clear. I note this matter only arises where persons who have or had an estate or interest in land, or a part of land required for a road, are unwilling to accept offers of compensation considered appropriate by government. However, if a matter of compensation is agreed between me, as Minister for Lands and Planning, and affected parties, the issue does not arise.
The proposed amendments specifically seek to: vest an entitlement to just terms compensation in a person who has or had an estate or interest in land or part of land taken, which would include a native title holder if any; confer jurisdiction on the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal; and adopt mechanisms for determining value and forms of compensation as is necessary to ensure the acquisition is on just terms. The proposed amendment will enshrine the requirements of the constitutional guarantee in the Control of Roads Act and formalise judicial avenues for compensation on just terms.
The proposed amendment is also sought on a retrospective basis, as there are a number of persons awaiting resolution of compensation issues which have arisen from previous actions. This will give a person who has or had an estate or interest in land, or part of land taken, an avenue to apply to the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal to hear and determine an application in respect of a claim for compensation for land taken under the Control of Roads Act.
The opportunity has also been taken to make other minor changes in numbers and terms, particularly for those sections that are not amended in the body of the bill. These changes are on the advice of Parliamentary Counsel. The proposed amendments have no impact on the future review of the Control of Roads Act in its entirety, which is being progressed by the Department of Lands and Planning.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 129)
Continued from 27 October 2010.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, in considering this bill, I understand the context in which it is presented, and the amendments brought forward. It tells us the Northern Territory is developing and growing and, with that growth, there is a required response. In this specific instance, it is the response around safety of residents through the developments we see around us. How do we respond to that? We have to change. I accept that is the premise and the response, and it is the nature of that change that is being outlined in this bill which, essentially, is agreed to because the context in which this applies is understood.
No one happily accepts increased costs and charges. However, when I see in this the argument that the increased revenue is required to fund the increased safety response to development, we have to balance one against the other. So, there is a reason.
I ask for a response or commendation from government for some aspects of the model. The Chief Minister would note the amendment which has been circulated. It is not a significant amendment, but it provides the internal flexibility to cut some slack to those agencies, particularly NGOs which, through no fault of their own, would be required, in the structure of this act and regulations, to cop a fee of $700. The amendment is to provide the discretion to a director to waive such fees in the event it is no fault of the person concerned - particularly for the NGOs, as I have already stated - because it can be a considerable impost, particularly when it is power outages by a tree, or whatever the commissioner may consider as a cause.
I assume the Chief Minister and the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services has adequately consulted the industry, the construction sector in particular, so they understand and are supportive of the measures that are being outlined and detailed in this bill. Having said that, I understand the context in which it is applied.
It is recognised the increased safety, which will come about by the increasing resources and expertise through the 10 additional positions, will require increased revenue, and that will come in two forms. One is in increased fees for call-outs from $345 to $700. At that point, the amendment is arguing for a discretionary capacity in the imposition of those call-out fees. Alongside that would be the question, if it is currently $345 for a call-out for a false alarm, is it always applied now? If it is not always applied now, will it be applied? What changes will there be in the future? If there is a new regime and it will be applied unilaterally, I only hope there is that capacity established for discretion.
There is the assertion that it is no impediment to development. I trust the Chief Minister, in closing debate, will describe the feedback from the industry in regard to that particular point. I look forward to discussing my particular amendment. I understand the Chief Minister also has an amendment, which I look forward to him outlining to the Chamber.
Madam Speaker, with that, I am essentially supportive. I trust there will be the accommodation for the amendment of clause 11 which is that the director may, on behalf of the Territory, waive fees or charges otherwise payable under this section in particular circumstances, as the director considers reasonable. That provides the means whereby common sense can prevail, particularly when it applies to an NGO. That is what I had in mind.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. I thank the department for giving me a detailed briefing of the reasons why this bill is being introduced. Having had a look at the PowerPoint presentation which gives the main causes for smoke alarms going off, I am now a bit concerned about cooking toast in the bathroom in my office. It could cost me $767.80, and that is a lot of bread and vegemite ...
Mr Henderson: Member for Nelson, having a toaster in your bathroom is probably pretty dangerous, I would have thought – electrical appliances. I urge you not to do that.
Mr WOOD: No, no, I am not having a shower at the same time, Chief Minister ...
Mr Henderson: I was really worried there for a moment.
Mr WOOD: I am sorry. However, it brings to light there are a few issues in relation to smoke alarms. I can relay another story. Some years ago, people will recall that I invited the relations of Captain Strauss to the Anzac Day cricket match. They arrived about midnight on a flight from the United States and I dropped them off at the Atrium Hotel. Anyway, they went to bed; they knew they had to get up pretty early in the morning for the celebrations we were having. The word is that, in their part of the world, the water is always a little cold and it takes a while to warm up the shower hot water system, so one of the family decided just to turn the hot water on and, of course, the steam rose up, turned on the fire alarm system at 6.30 am, and the whole of the Atrium Hotel was evacuated. What makes it worse is that the next night they did exactly the same thing.
I am not sure whether that would cause - well, I suppose it would, under the law – the company to be charged a fee of $767.80. It is good to notice that the department is concerned if a guest caused that problem, through no fault of their own, they hope the owner of the hotel would not, therefore, try to put that charge on to the people who were staying at the hotel. That is an important matter. It is not the people. It was not their fault, it was simply that the smoke alarm system, basically, was too sensitive in this case, and caused a lot of embarrassment, not only for the people who were there, but for all the guests in the hotel. I note the department, in its PowerPoint presentation, is saying to owners of hotels that they should not pass that charge on to guests, but look at whether their smoke alarm systems need adjusting.
I have had a look through the bill and there are a couple of little issues I would like to raise. You do not get it necessarily through the bill, but you get it through the Chief Minister’s second reading speech. The issue is that we already have a call-out charge worth $345. The question is: what will $776.80 - which I do hope you change to $780 or $790 - make if the existing deterrent of $345 is not actually changing the way people think. For the owner of a large building, it is not a lot of money. If you really want to send a message to the owner of the building that we are sick of going to their building because the alarms go off, will a fee of $767.80 really make a difference? I wonder whether we should have an increasing fee, so the first call-out is $780, the second call-out is $1800, and it goes up until the person does something about their alarms. That fee, I do not believe, is a deterrent unless you have a good owner who says: ‘Oh sorry, I will do something about it’. In other words, they have a bit more of a conscience about their equipment causing the fire service to come out on a false alarm which, as we know, could be at a time when the fire service needs to be at a major accident where it really is needed.
I wonder - and this could be something that the government will consider – if you could have an increasing level of charges so you really do make an effort to reduce the figures. They are quite remarkable figures. I am not sure whether people have seen these figures. I have the figures from July 2009 through to June 2010. The number of false alarms as a percentage ranges from 32% in July up to as high as 66% in January. Of course, some of those may be due to lightning, and the figures show there is a spike in false alarms during December and January, which may also be due to heavy rain, leaking roofs, etcetera. We have a high percentage of call-outs which are false alarms. The proof is in the pudding. This may need to be reviewed every two years to see whether the $767.80 reduces the figures of false alarm call-outs such as the 62% in December, 66% in January, 49% in February and 60% in March.
Like many things we do in parliament, we introduce bills, we say this is the reason and, then, we forget about them. The main reason a fee is being applied is to reduce the number of false alarms. I know there is also a revenue side to this because of some new staff the government wants to employ, especially in relation to planning and building requirements. If this fee is really going to be a deterrent; the proof is in the pudding if these percentages drop off in a couple of years’ time.
The other area is government buildings. The government owns many buildings, and I hope we can break these statistics up into private buildings and government buildings. How many of the false alarms in November and December 2009, and January, February and March 2010 came from government-owned buildings? The government is going to have to pay the bill and, if the government is saying false alarms are unacceptable, the government should be leading the way. I am interested to see what number of buildings is affected by this legislation and how government buildings compare with privately-owned buildings in relation to the number of false alarm call-outs. Who will pay for that? Is it a government department which will be paying the bill? Or will they be exempt because it is a government department? I hope not, otherwise they would not fix it. I hope the government departments will be paying the bill, but I hope they will also be fixing the problem.
The other interesting statistic I noticed - and I thank the fire service for giving us this information – on a map of Darwin and the Holtze area for, I presume, a year, it shows 241 call-outs to the Robertson Barracks. Except for the Royal Darwin Hospital, that is by far the area with the most call-outs. It is Commonwealth land. The Commonwealth has its own fire service yet, I gather because of an MOU, our Palmerston Fire Service has to choof off there 241 times a year. I do not have a breakdown of that but I have not heard of any major fires, except for a couple of bushfires on the outskirts, and I do not know if they would be included in that figure. If they are all false alarms and we have an MOU to head off to the Robertson Barracks to find out what is going on, then the MOU may need an adjustment.
It is no good if the Commonwealth government does not partake in this change to the legislation, because it is just as responsible as anyone else. If the argument is that false call-outs could endanger people’s lives because fire services are responding to a false alarm instead of attending serious fire or accident, then the Commonwealth must take some responsibility for its facilities and ensure they are up to standard, just as everyone else is asked to. I do not believe the Commonwealth should be exempt. The MOU may say it should be exempt but, if that is the case, then the MOU needs to be reviewed because that is a great many call-outs.
The other call-outs are to Royal Darwin Hospital. To some extent, it is a relatively old building with a large amount of safety and electronic equipment. Whether some of that is outdated I do not know. It would be hoped that the number of call-outs to Royal Darwin Hospital can be reduced. I am interested to know, as that is a government building, what the government is doing to reduce that number from 187 call-outs in a year.
The next main area is the Darwin central business district. There are many call-outs in that area which may be due to some of the buildings being relatively old. It is a concern.
Minister, there is a section in relation to inspection fees. I understand why we need inspection fees, and why the government wants to charge for examining plans of buildings. That is good. One of the issues mentioned by the member for Blain is regarding allaying people’s fears they will end up with more costs. There is an impost on business - maybe not that large. It would be good for the government to have a good relationship with developers so there is no need for repeat meetings because, once you see the fees for repeat meetings, the costs go up and up.
As part of a two-way process which encourages developers to ensure they get their plans right the first time around - or at least no more than the second time around - there needs to be a good relationship between developers and the fire department so there is no need for continual revisiting of the plans of a particular building. The key to this would be, up-front, if the government is going to employ a fire engineer, that fire engineer needs to be involved from day one when the plans are being established. It is better to have the plans written up in accordance with the Northern Territory Fire Service requirements under the Fire and Emergency Act than having to go back again and again, which is going to be an impost on the developer and does not help the relationship between the developer and the fire service. If those relationships can be kept at a good level, it reduces arguments, debates, and costs later on.
The other thing about inspection fees - and I was told we are dealing with certain types of public buildings in relation to inspection fees - in the Chief Minister’s second reading speech, he said installing firebreaks is a safety requirement under the Fire and Emergency Act and it may be the responsibility of the owner to ensure the safety requirement is met. You went on to say: ‘I also flag similar amendments being made to regulations in the future’. My ears pricked up a bit and I wondered if you are going to have inspection fees for buildings to ensure, for instance, a nightclub does not have boxes and chairs in front of the exits, and ensure systems are working properly in places where the public gathers.
In the second reading you mentioned the possibility that installing firebreaks is a safety requirement and is the responsibility of the owner, and you are going to flag similar amendments. I am asking whether the government is thinking inspection fees will be applied to rural blocks. Is that what you meant in your second reading?
Last, I just saw these amendments. I knew about the government’s amendment yesterday and, obviously, that is a drafting change. I also noticed the amendment from the member for Blain. On the surface, it is a good amendment; it allows the director some ability to waiver fees. The only reason I cannot support it at the moment is because I do not know whether, in the existing act - and I have been looking through it - there is the ability for that to already occur. I am not saying it is not a good idea. I am just unsure whether the director of the fire service has the ability to already do that. As you know, fees of $345 applied for false alarms already exist. We have not introduced a new concept; we have just increased the value of the call-outs.
Under the existing act, say I owned a large building and I received a bill from the fire service saying: ‘We are charging you $345 under the existing act because your fire alarm is not working’. Can I object to that and ask for a waiver because I believe that was an incorrect ruling? It was a lightning strike, not a cat or a possum that went down the wall that caused a short in the electrical system which would be my fault because I have not made the wall vermin proof. Is there, under the existing act, already the ability to waiver charges, as is being proposed by the member for Blain?
I support the bill. As much as I do not like imposts on businesses - because I am always worried these costs can cause a burden – it is okay if these costs are for a good reason; and the call-out fee is for a good reason. One of the reasons I did not think about it too much is that every time there is a false alarm in the TIO building, everyone from the TIO stops working. So, there is a cost to business simply in downtime. There is also, as we know, a cost to the fire service because it has to get ready and head off. That, in itself, is not such a bad thing, but the real issue is they could, at the same time, be called out to a serious fire or accident. That is the biggest problem with false alarms.
In relation to the fees required for planning applications or building applications, that is reasonable enough, especially if the government now has to employ specialist people in that area. As I said before, if we can get a good working relationship between developers and the fire service, some of those inspection fees - which rise according to how many meetings people need to have to sort out these particular issues - can be well established at the beginning. I notice – I am using a PowerPoint presentation here - it is obvious the fire service is looking at doing that. As well as that, I notice the changes will not be introduced for 12 months, so there is plenty of time to talk to industry to get them used to what is happening.
Madam Speaker, overall, I believe the bill is a good bill. It will be good, not only for the fire service but for the community as well.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition and the member for Nelson for their support of the bill. I will do the best I can in my second reading wrap to answer the questions that were raised.
This bill is another indication of the Territory growing up. The fact that we are seeing significant new types of development, particularly in the CBD with the towers for apartment dwellings going up 30-odd storeys, and new industries coming to the Northern Territory, means our services have to change in reflecting the economic growth and what is happening in the Territory. It was good that the Leader of the Opposition recognised that was really the driving force behind the changes to the legislation. The good old days when the firies were all things to all people and no one paid a cent are changing. The fire service is moving forward in being able to respond to a different climate.
Member for Nelson, it will actually be six months before this bill is enacted, not 12 months, but we still believe that is adequate time to talk to everyone in regard to the changes that are about to occur. I can also say absolutely that, in communicating these changes - and if we start first with the changes in fees being applied for the first time for development applications - there have been conversations. People are aware that this is coming but, until the legislation was introduced, people were not aware of the fees. There will be proactive engagement with organisations like the UDIA, the Property Council, Engineers Australia, Northern Territory Architects, and the major developers around town. Six months is a significant amount of time to have those conversations.
In regard to the member for Nelson’s comments around relationships, I believe the firies are committed to establishing good relationships. That is why we have the Community Fire Safety Division. That is actually the division that will receive the extra funding that will employ the extra people. Right across the Territory, even though we are growing, it is still a pretty small place and it is about relationships with people. We do not want to gouge fees out of developers. I am pretty confident we will establish good relationships with people to understand why this legislation has been introduced and passed today, where the funding is going, and how to minimise their costs by working with the Community Fire Safety Division.
I go to the Leader of the Opposition and his amendment. Absolutely, the intent is still - and I will explain this is just a drafting issue in Parliamentary Counsel and how they are working now. The issue of being able to provide an exemption for waiver or the refund of fees that exists in the existing legislation will be picked up under the current Interpretation Act. This allows and provides for the ability to waive a fee if the fee is prescribed in regulation. So, what we have is the fee is prescribed in the current legislation. We are moving that to regulations. Under the Interpretation Act, the ability to waive fees under certain circumstances already exists. I do not actually have a copy of the Interpretation Act here, Leader of the Opposition, but the policy intent of what you are trying to achieve through your amendment is going to be picked up in the new bill. If you do not pursue your amendment, I give you an absolute assurance that capacity is still there.
In regard to the waiver of the fees, the Leader of the Opposition is speaking about non-government organisations. We certainly do not want to slug the Salvos and St Vinnies and others for fees unless we can possibly avoid it. Most of the non-government organisations would be leasing office space, and the fee will actually go to the owner of the building. In most cases, it will not be the NGO that will be the entity that has to pay a fee for a false fire alarm; it will be the owner of the building. In regard to the concerns, waivers are still allowed for under the discretion of the Chief Fire Officer. NGOs really should not be impacted. I believe we have dealt with the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition.
The member for Nelson talked about the two policy thrusts of the change in the legislation. It is, obviously, a user pays system, and application of fees actually provides for better services. It is also to drive down the number of false alarms. There are very significant numbers of false alarms from both government and non-government buildings. That is the policy intent, therefore I am happy to take on board having a review of this, or a report back mechanism, in a couple of years’ time to ascertain whether that has actually happened as a result of these changes. I commit that we will do it. I am not in a position to amend the legislation from the floor, but I commit to report back in two years’ time to the parliament about whether this policy change has been effected or not.
The member for Nelson also talked about increasing the level of charges so there is a scale. If you are a recalcitrant offender the fees keep going up until you fix your alarm system. I suggest we see how we go with the $700 fee. It is not in the current legislation. I can say, member for Nelson, about the existing fee of $340 to $350 - this legislation has not been looked at for many years and I was a bit surprised to find, in consideration of this bill, that that fee is not currently being applied. It has never really been applied because the firies have never had the administrative capacity or the systems to determine, conclusively, occupiers and owners of buildings. So, although that fee has been available to be charged, it has never been used. The $700 is going to come as a bit of a shock to property owners.
Because this legislation is not going to be enacted for a period of six months, the department will - there is now a very solid profile for each and every property owner who had false alarms at their properties – send a letter to all of those property owners indicating in a bar graph format, month on month over the last 12 months, how many false alarms have emanated from that particular building, what the cause was, and the fees they would be charged if false alarms were to continue at that rate for another 12 months. Some of these properties, including Northern Territory government properties, are in excess of $100 000. Within that correspondence there will also be a brochure about managing unwanted fire alarms. The department will also provide an opportunity for people to work with those property owners to advise them on what they need to do to install a system which is more robust and less prone to false alarms. It is not a case of going from $350 to $700 and what effect that will have. It is going to go from $0 to $700. In reality, that is going to change some behaviour.
In regard to the communication of all of this, I anticipate there will be some push back from property owners. However, there will be a six-month period for people to really understand and revisit their fire alarm systems. If their systems have not been upgraded, replaced, or maintained, there is a six-month period in which people will have notice that if they do not spend the money now they will be spending it on call-out fees which they were not paying previously.
I assure the member for Nelson that there are no plans to have inspection fees for rural lots. The sentence the member picked from my second reading speech about flagging similar amendments being made to regulations in the future is connected to the issue of, at the moment, people who fail to maintain firebreaks and allow hazards to exist on their property. The current act provides for any application of a fine to go to the occupier of that property and, in many cases, it is very hard for the department to establish who the occupier is. So, the legislation is being changed to permit the director, for example, to serve a notice on either the owner or the occupier. Amendments will need to be made to regulations to allow the director to serve a notice on either the owner or the occupier if people fail to maintain a firebreak. That is what that sentence is about.
Regarding the waivers, Leader of the Opposition and member for Nelson, there will be the capacity to appeal to the director; however, we estimate there will be minimal grounds for appeal - acts of God, if there had been lightning strikes, or trees falling on property. There will be a judgment decision on a case-by-case basis and acts of God would not see the application of a fine. This is an exercise we are going to have to work through and, when we look back in a few years’ time, it will be interesting to see how many waivers have been issued and on what grounds and under what circumstances.
Regarding how this policy is achieving the aim, which is to reduce the number of false call-outs, maybe we can report on that in the agency’s annual report as one of the indicators. That might be another way of achieving some transparency about whether these changes are having the policy effect.
In conclusion, I believe I have touched on all the issues. I am very glad the member for Nelson is not cooking toast whilst he is having a shower; that could have been quite a dangerous thing to do. The Territory is growing up; Darwin is expanding rapidly as an industrial city; also in new housing and developments. We want people to be safe. The best way to ensure people are safe is to ensure new developments, new residential properties, new commercial precincts, meet national standards and are all ticked off before certificates of occupancy are issued, and we reduce significantly the number of false call-outs which detract from the firies being able to respond to real events.
Regarding the issues around liabilities, which is the other part of the act, in relation to who is liable to pay the fine, that is being cleared up and the act will not commence for six months. There will be a consultation with all property owners currently connected to the Northern Territory FAST system. There will be discussions with developers, engineers, and architects about the changes to the act. I hope we see a significant reduction in false alarms and also see buildings designed to Australian Standards which reduce fire hazards.
Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support of the bill. In relation to the committee stage amendments and the comments I have provided in the second reading, I suggest the Leader of the Opposition might withdraw his amendment because I believe it is provided for by way of the Interpretation Act. I can assure him it is. My amendments are minor and we can debate them in committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Fire and Emergency Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 129) together with schedule of amendments No 53 circulated by the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Mr Henderson.
Is it the wish of the committee that clauses 1 to 10 be taken together?
Mr WOOD: No. I need the opportunity to ask a question the Chief Minister may have missed; that is, in relation to the arrangement with Robertson Barracks. I note that, in the Palmerston and rural areas, just doing a quick adding up, in the year this map I have in front of me relates to, there might be something like 60 call-outs for the local Palmerston and rural area, but there are 241 call-outs for Robertson Barracks. There is a considerable impost on the Palmerston fire service. I am interested to know what the arrangements are with Robertson Barracks.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, member for Nelson, I am sorry I did omit that. I made a note and sought advice. At Robertson Barracks there is a significant issue and we will be discussing that with Robertson Barracks. At the moment, my advice is there is a Commonwealth agency called Comcover that is, essentially, responsible for the asset management of all Defence building infrastructure assets in the Northern Territory. That agency has an MOU with the department for the provision of fire services, not only to Robertson Barracks but also to all Defence facilities in the Northern Territory. That MOU is under review at the moment.
Regarding the principles of this legislation, which is to ensure full cost recovery and a reduction in false alarms, I give an assurance it will be picked up in regard to the MOU. At the moment, the Commonwealth agency Comcover provides a fee to the Northern Territory government which includes the provision of fire services in response to their assets. Whether that fee is adequate and covers these false alarms, if it is not now, it will be into the future. I will be requiring, in regard to the renegotiation of this MOU, that there is a significant commitment by Comcover which manages these assets on behalf of Defence to rectify their alarm systems to ensure there is a reduction in alarms, and there is a capacity within the new agreement we have to charge for false alarms. I give a commitment to that effect.
However, it is not as simple as us sending them a bill as we would do to anyone else, because we have this agreement. Certainly, 241 instances is just not acceptable. They obviously have significant issues at Robertson Barracks in the same way there are some fairly significant issues at Royal Darwin Hospital, which the authorities which manage the hospital are going to have to pick up. I can give an absolute assurance in regard to Royal Darwin Hospital and other NTG assets that the application of these fees will be a real driver to those agencies to lift their game and fix their systems.
That is the answer in regard to Robertson Barracks. There is not a fix right here right now, but the MOU is being renegotiated. The principles of charging for false alarms will be in that new MOU. We will ensure they fix and lift their game, because I do not want to be reporting in 12 months’ time to the member for Nelson that there have been 250 false call-outs at Robertson Barracks. It is not a good use of time for the Palmerston fire service. It is an issue that needs to be rectified, but there is not an immediate fix in this bill.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, my concern would be that, for the Commonwealth government, if the MOU continues as is and they say: ‘Here is a few thousand dollars to cover that’, then the effect of that may not necessarily be the effect you want. You want to actually punish them, you might say, for having false alarms which could endanger the lives of people who are in a real fire. I hope within that MOU there is the ability to charge for each individual call-out, rather than just collect a lump sum. The whole idea is not just to fine people but to tell the Commonwealth government that lives and property could be at risk and, with 241 call-outs, they could be highly responsible for that to happen. I hope within the MOU there is not just the lump sum; it is some way of saying they will get hit every time they have a call-out.
Mr HENDERSON: We are on the same page, member for Nelson. The policy intent is to reduce the number of false alarms. Advice from the box just now is there are over 500 building assets at Robertson Barracks, so it is not a simple exercise in how that system works. What I have just instructed is that, outside of the review of the MOU, the correspondence should go to the Australian government agency, Comcover, saying the Northern Territory parliament has just enacted this bill and the policy intent of what we are trying to achieve, in part, is to reduce the number of false alarms on a cost recovery basis, noting that in the past year over 240 false alarms for Robertson Barracks meant extensive call-outs for the Palmerston fire service. It is significant and has to be reduced, and we need to engage very quickly to work out a plan about how they are going to do that, and how that then feeds into a new agreement via an MOU.
I will give you an assurance, member for Nelson, we do not have the fix right here, right now, but this Commonwealth agency has to understand, either through agreement or penalty, that 240 false alarms is just not acceptable. From that premise, we will try to do it through agreement and get them to look at their systems, and why there are so many false alarms from Robertson Barracks, and what they are going to do about it. If nothing changes, then we will ensure the principle of this legislation, through the MOU - which is full cost recovery - does exist. I hope, when we come back in 12 months after this bill has commenced, we see a significant reduction in false call-outs from Robertson Barracks.
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, before I give you the call, I acknowledge our visitors. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Years 4, 5 and 6 Alawa Primary School students, accompanied by Mrs Irene Haywood and Ms Ana Bernardino. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors, looking very smart as you are, and very Christmassy in your red shirts.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, thank you for that. I mentioned also in my response that Defence, especially Robertson Barracks, has its own fire brigade. Do you know if it is actually capable of doing some of that work that Palmerston fire service is already doing for the Defence department?
Mr HENDERSON: My advice in regard to the fire brigade at Robertson Barracks is, essentially, it is staffed part-time, and on many occasions those staff are away on exercises, either intrastate or overseas. Even though there are facilities and people there, they are not there on a 24/7 basis. They cannot be guaranteed. That is why there is the call-out arrangement with the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service. That is the advice I have in regard to that; it is not a service which is available 24/7 and that is the reason there is an agreement with the NT Fire and Rescue Service.
Mr WOOD: There are people on roster, I gather, at the base. In the negotiations about the MOU, would it be worth raising that with them as well? If they have a fire brigade there and it is becoming an impost on the local fire service, perhaps they need to look at whether they change their internal arrangements to assist?
Mr HENDERSON: I suppose these things are always iterative. As the minister, I look at the distance between the Palmerston Fire Station and Robertson Barracks and think, in a utopian world, they would be able to look after their own facility with their own resources which, obviously, they do not have at the moment. I am happy to raise that.
Our fees and charges are set on a cost recovery basis, so, I assume if they ran a business case over the revised negotiations and found it is more cost-effective for them to have a response capability on base and do it themselves, then that is what they would do.
We will have a cost recovery policy, and 241 false alarms is not good enough and needs to be driven down. I cannot hold a gun to their head, and that is not the way we operate, anyway. Our government and government agencies have a good working relationship with the Defence department. Historically, we have provided this service but we are starting to get serious about fire alarm systems being maintained and being to standard, and not providing for false alarms to the detriment of the Palmerston fire service. We will have a robust negotiation with regard to the establishment of the new MOU, and I want to see the number of false alarms reduce significantly.
In an ideal world, it would be great if they could provide the response capability to the barracks from within the barracks, because that would mean the Palmerston brigade would not need to be called out; but that is not the case at the moment.
Clauses 1 to 10, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 11 read:
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I accept the assurance provided by the Chief Minister and the minister for Fire and Emergency Services. I accept there is the provision for discretion to be afforded and I look forward to the provision of the material on that matter. Consequently, I withdraw the amendment.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. I give you my absolute assurance that discretion in terms of waivers will be provided for by the Interpretation Act.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 15 read:
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 53.1. Clause 15(3) of the bill contains a typographical error. The bill seeks to insert a regulation-making power for the addition of further offences under the regulations; however, the proposed provision provided for an offence against the act and not the regulations. The proposed provision will be amended in the existing bill which says:
- An offence against this act to be a regulatory offence.
- An offence against a regulation to be a regulatory offence.
It is a typographical error. The intent of the bill is to be able to insert a regulation making the power for the additional further offences under regulations. The rewording of that clause will ensure the intent is accommodated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I move amendment 53.2. The regulations are currently under review as part of a requirement for the prescribing of Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services’ fees and charges.
Parliamentary Counsel noticed a reference to ‘an Australian Standard’ in the regulations means a reference to ‘the Australian Standard’ as at the date the regulations commenced operation; namely, 1 May 1996. Parliamentary Counsel advises currently the reference to ‘an Australian Standard’ means to a standard as of the date the regulations commenced, 1 May 1996.
This amendment will permit an amendment to Regulation 22 which will clarify a reference to ‘an Australian Standard’ means ‘an Australian Standard, as amended from time to time’. We all know the Building Code of Australia and other standards are amended from time to time. This provision will provide, as those standards are amended, this legislation automatically accommodates those new standards without having to change specific regulations to accommodate that. The policy intent is quite clear; we are applying Australian Standards and this will mean, when those standards are amended, by agreement at a national level, this legislation will pick up those amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Police. Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Statement – Enough is Enough – Proposed Alcohol Reforms
Note Statement – Enough is Enough – Proposed Alcohol Reforms
Continued from 24 November 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is closing debate and has 17 minutes.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, these reforms turn the problem drinkers off tap to stop violence and antisocial behaviour. Alcohol misuse continues to be a scourge on our community, families, and Territorians. We know 60% of all assaults are alcohol related. We know 67% of all domestic violence incidents are alcohol related. Last year, we estimate there were 55 000 incidents of police taking people into protective custody or sobering-up shelters, and 72% of Territory prisoners state their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. Territorians drink at 1.5 times the national average. Alcohol contributes to more deaths and hospitalisations in the Territory than anywhere else in Australia. Northern Territory police report 59% of their workload is attributed to responding to alcohol-related incidents.
The cost of alcohol misuse was estimated by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies at $642m per year in the Territory. This equates to $4197 for every adult Territorian compared to $944 nationally. Turning this around will reduce the burden on our hospitals and emergency departments which, too often, are dealing with injuries and chronic illness directly attributed to alcohol-fuelled violence and chronic alcoholism. Turning this around will reduce the burden on police who are dealing with alcohol-fuelled violence across our community. The costs are too high. This reform is targeted at the chronic alcoholic who is causing harm to themselves and others and our community. We have said enough is enough. We are fair dinkum about the reforms proposed.
Regarding the Alcohol Court, we disagree with the CLP; it has not been a failure. It was designed to get criminal offenders with an alcohol problem into treatment. Since it commenced in July 2006, there have been 599 referrals to the Alcohol Court, with 379 treatment orders issued, and a total of 186 clients who have successfully completed the program - 186 clients who have been into treatment as a result of the Alcohol Court.
Like the Alcohol Court, people who will go to the new SMART Court will undertake clinical assessments. The SMART Court, the Substance Misuse and Referral for Treatment Court, will replace the Alcohol Court, but we are building and expanding upon it to include drug-related offences. We will be repealing the Alcohol Court Act to create the SMART Court. It will be a specialist court with a wide range of powers to order individuals, including youths, who have committed alcohol or other drug-related offences into treatment. It is proposed that more people will be eligible to appear before the SMART Court than under the existing Alcohol Court. The new SMART Court will deal with offending related to both alcohol and other drugs. In addition, a new administrative system to complement the SMART Court to manage orders against problem drinkers outside the criminal justice system will be introduced.
The proposed Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal ensures alcoholism is not criminalised. Police will have new powers to issue notices that ban a person from purchasing and consuming alcohol, and to refer people to treatment options. People are encouraged to attend treatment and can reduce the length of their ban by undertaking successful treatment. The police can only issue these notices in certain circumstances, but it is not limited to antisocial behaviour. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal will be established to hear appeals against the police notices.
Police, health workers, doctors, and family members will also be able to apply directly to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal for orders to be made against a person who is a problem drinker. This means that problem drinkers can end up in the tribunal regardless of where they are drinking or where they are causing harm, be it in the public domain or at home. Also, if a person has received three police notices, the next time they will be referred to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal, rather than continue to receive police notices. The tribunal will ensure people undertake a clinical assessment. The tribunal will be able to make orders for mandatory treatment and longer bans on purchasing and consuming alcohol.
The police have been closely involved in the development of this legislation. They will develop the administrative processes around the issuing of bans, similar to the issuing of DV orders and the new precinct bans. Any bans on consuming or purchasing alcohol, whether issued by the police, the tribunal, or the court, or any other court, will be enforced by the banned drinker register.
There is this argument that banned people will be able to buy home brew kits or either make alcohol via any number of different recipes - not legally, of course, because of prohibition on buy and consume. If they are found intoxicated then they automatically jump up one level or go before the tribunal. Internet sales are pretty straightforward. A seller is required to not deliver alcohol illegally. For example, it is not okay to deliver to a minor. Coles have solved these problems in the Top End for their online store, and the register can be made available over the Internet so they can check. This simply means the registered purchaser needs to accept the liquor.
Madam Speaker, these reforms have also considered the issue of secondary supply. We will amend the Liquor Act to make secondary supply illegal. This means people who knowingly supply alcohol to someone on the banned drinker register will themselves be banned from purchasing and consuming takeaway alcohol for a period of time. We have learnt from the successes at Groote Eylandt in the permit system in regard to the secondary supply of alcohol. On Groote Eylandt, permit holders who have supplied alcohol to non-permit holders have lost their permit - have lost their right to purchase alcohol. After a few people lost their permits, word quickly got around and that dramatically reduced secondary supply.
We have undertaken significant consultation in regard to these extensive reforms. We have undertaken extensive public advertising to raise awareness. We have undertaken mail-outs to households in Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs. We have a website with an online survey to submit comments. We have undertaken direct consultation with key stakeholders and public forums across our regional centres where we have seen more than 100 people attend.
The feedback to these reforms: significant broad support. Some of the comments we are receiving:
- It is great to see something being done about the source of many violent situations. The NT government has stood forward and taken the lead. It is a shame that this government has to put up with so many negative CLP comments that clutter the real issues. Good for you, Hendo, you have won back my vote.
Another comment:
If it works as well as it does in Nhulunbuy, it will be great. It should also stop people in bars as well if they are a real problem.
… let people drink if they are going to drink and fall down before the sun goes down.
This is a serious issue the Territory is confronting. We have taken a bold step in the policy arena to tackle alcohol and the scourge alcohol is on our community. We are saying enough is enough. I do not think there is a Territorian out there who would argue that we are fed up with the harm we are seeing perpetrated in our community as a result of alcohol. We are seeing harm to individuals, to their families, and to the broader community.
These measures are bold in that they are untested and have been constructed out of evidence-based research around the alcohol management plans we have throughout the Territory. One consistent feedback I get is Territorians are pleased to see these are proposed to be Territory-wide measures; it does not matter who you are, or where you live, or your circumstances, it is the same measure for everyone. It is not about saying to the majority of Territorians who do not have a problem with drinking that we are going to turn you off tap. It is about saying to those individuals who have a significant problem, you will be turned off tap and you need health interventions to turn your life around.
The breadth of support for these reforms has been absolutely overwhelming. We have had the Australian Hotels Association, the Liquor Association, the Aboriginal medical services, the AMA, the Law Society and the Aboriginal Justice Agency of NAAJA, all come out in support of these reforms. The Northern Territory Council of Social Services, Amity and FORWAARD have spoken out boldly in favour of these reforms in the Top End. Across the spectrum, from service providers, health lobby groups, and the liquor industry - normally not people you would expect to find on the same page – there is strong, solid, and consistent support for the reforms we are proposing.
The only ones saying these reforms will not work, shouting these reforms down, opposing the tool of the ID system, is the CLP. We have strong support and leadership from the Mayor of Palmerston and the Lord Mayor of Darwin. We have seen strong support from the Mayor of Alice Springs. I will be focusing further consultations in Katherine, directly targeting that community which has borne the brunt of significant alcohol issues.
Anyone who lives in the Northern Territory knows we have unique circumstances. I am not proposing what we are attempting to do in the Territory would work for major urban centres across Australia. What I do know is even the Liberal government of Western Australia is watching our reforms intently. It has gone to Alice Springs and is importing the sorts of measures we have introduced into regional areas of Western Australia. So, this crosses the partisanship which has been a hallmark of our debates in the past. The Liberal government of Western Australia recognises the measures we have been putting in place and is following suit. I will continue to have an open dialogue with anyone on these reforms.
I call on the CLP to put aside the politics on this crucial debate in the Territory and come to a bipartisan approach. It is time for a bipartisan approach on alcohol. There are minor points of difference in policy now - although critical - between the parties. A critical point of difference is the issue of criminalisation. Our policy does not criminalise habitual drunks. We put in place tough enforcement measures banning them from consuming alcohol and putting them in mandatory treatment. We do not criminalise unless they have undertaken a criminal activity. That is one policy point of difference.
The other policy point of difference is in regard to the ID system. I continue to ask the CLP how they would enforce any ban if not with an ID system. Tell us how you would enforce bans if you do not have an ID system. They have buried their heads in the sand; they are not listening to what the AHA, the Liquor Association, all the healthy lobby groups and the lawyers are saying on this subject. Step out of the bunker on this one. If there is something the Territory can deliver in a bipartisan way then, surely, it is these alcohol reforms.
The CLP is running the rhetoric that we are trying to introduce reforms which hurt everyone because of the problems of a few. That is completely contrary to what these reforms are doing. These reforms target the problem drinker, not the broader community. The only inconvenience in these reforms for the broader community is a less than 15-second swipe of an ID card as you purchase your alcohol from a takeaway outlet. We are not going to be keeping details about people on a register - another furphy the CLP is running.
It is a small community, we hear what you are saying; we have heard the furphies on radio run by the members for Sanderson and Port Darwin. It is to their eternal shame that they choose to ignore the opportunity for a bipartisan approach on alcohol reforms when all the major stakeholders in the Northern Territory support these reforms. We hope these are life-changing reforms. We hope they will change the lives of the dysfunctional individuals who are chronic alcoholics, who are destroying their health and lives. We hope these reforms change the lives of their children.
In consultations, people have said to me: ‘We are supportive of these reforms. They mean kids will have a chance of getting to school. Thank you’. We hope they will change the lives of people in all communities across the Territory, from our suburban areas where we see public drunkenness and the humbug at the shops, and when we hear domestic violence going on in the home - bearing in mind 70% of grog is consumed off-licence and those horrendous domestic violence statistics: 67% of assaults are domestic violence.
I say ‘we hope’ because we have consistently recognised these reforms, due to their scale and breadth, are untested. I have also said we have based this on the evidence and evaluations coming from the alcohol management plans and the tools of enforcement we have seen work throughout the Territory. We are a government that is tough enough and bold enough to step up and take action on grog.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note Statement - Jobs in the Territory
Note Statement - Jobs in the Territory
Continued from 23 November 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the honourable minister’s comments and wish to highlight the considerable contribution the Resource portfolio is currently contributing to the Territory’s jobs growth.
I remember the dreadful days of 2000-01 when there were no jobs in the Territory and people were leaving in droves - not 700 people in a month, probably 2000 or 3000. People were selling their units to go down south to get a job. There were no cranes in the sky - not five, not four, not three, not even one. That was the time of the CLP, when the CLP had no vision, no decision-making capability, and they let this place go to the dogs.
I recall they did not have enough money to do some of the work they had promised the year before. I also recall that as minister for Roads and Infrastructure I did not have enough money to maintain mowing the verges on the Stuart Highway – enough money until October but, after October, nothing happened.
I remember when I first came to Darwin the tallest building was NT House - 14 storeys. Look around Darwin today; Evolution is about 30. Quite a few others have sprung up - beautiful buildings and opportunities for Territorians. I remember driving into Darwin seeing the sign, ‘Palmerston, population 7000’. Today Palmerston is the second biggest city in the Territory: Darwin, Palmerston, then Alice Springs.
This did not happen by accident; this happened because of this government’s efforts. This happened because we worked very hard to provide a future for Territorians, jobs for Territorians, jobs for young Territorians - not only in the urban environment but also in the bush.
The Department of Resources has led the way in creating jobs. Primary production, fisheries, minerals and energy industries continue to grow and contribute to our economic growth and jobs in the Territory.
In relation to minerals and energy, as I outlined to the House yesterday, the mining industry contributes 26% of our gross state product and employs 4000 people directly. The outcomes being enjoyed by the minerals sector from our targeted China and Japan strategy that focuses on attracting investors to the Territory minerals sector is significant. We invested $14.4m and have yielded more than $140m investment from China and $40m from Japan.
For the last financial year, our mineral exploration is booming and has boomed; it expanded to $149.4m, up by 2% from the previous record of $146.2m. As I said yesterday, we are ahead of New South Wales, which only had an expansion of $130m, and just behind South Australia, which had $166.6m. Bear in mind, only two years ago, the expenditure for exploration in South Australia was three times that of the Territory. But, we have turned it around.
Throughout the global financial crisis, we grew our exploration industry expenditure at a time when other states and territories were in decline. In the last financial year, a range of activities has been undertaken by the Department of Resources to promote investment and jobs in the mining and energy sector. We undertook promotional activities in five Australian and two international events to over 30 000 people. We undertook successful promotion campaigns for geophysics and drilling collaborations. We signed four business agreements between Territory explorers and Chinese investors. The latest memorandum for understanding was with the East China Exploration Company we signed in Tianjing during my November visit. Six Chinese companies have been granted exploration licences and commenced exploration programs. One of the geophysical bureaus in China, the Anhui Geological Bureau, has decided to make their Palmerston office the headquarters of their company in Australia.
The Northern Territory Uranium Opportunity Seminar, run in partnership with Japan Oil, Gas Metal International Corporation as part of the Australian Uranium Conference, was attended by 21 Japanese executives.
We continued to provide information and advice to a range of energy industry clients at the Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association and South East Asian Offshore Oil Conference. We received 26 onshore applications which shows renewed interest in the Territory’s petroleum resources, with industry utilising new and unconventional exploration methods for oil and gas, such as coal seam gas.
A key achievement in 2009-10 was the record attendance at the AGES Conference. There was a 32% increase in the attendance of Chinese executives. At the event, Minister Councillor Qiu of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China wrote to me stating:
- The week’s Northern Territory trip gives me a deep impression, not only of the splendid and distinct scenery, but also the huge potential of cooperation between us. With our joint effort we can push China and Northern Territory trade and economic relationship to a new era.
We are the only jurisdiction in Australia that has a dedicated China/Japan investment attraction strategy. Given our considerable success, other states are starting to copy us - not only copy us, but seek our cooperation. I am telling this House, the next target for us will be Korea. This is the next Asian giant, and we have to be there early and be a step ahead of all other jurisdictions in Australia.
Regarding the mining sector, it is not only that we have this investment from China, it is the jobs provided to Territorians, especially Indigenous Territorians. When we signed the expansion of the McArthur River Mine, one of the conditions for signing the expansion was that they provide a training and employment program. I am very pleased to say more than 50 young, Indigenous men from Borroloola have learned to drive the big trucks - not the lawn mowers as in the past, not the wheelbarrows, but the big trucks. I am very pleased to say I saw the same thing when I recently visited Groote Eylandt. There were Indigenous people who were driving the big hauling trucks carrying manganese and other minerals. This will be part of the amendments we will put in place for the mine management plans; it has to be a job plan, a training plan, and a community benefit plan.
Turning to primary industry, the industry in 2009-10 had an estimated production value of $425m, a rise of 7.6% over the previous year. The livestock industry is a major contributor, improved by 6.4% over the last financial year. The livestock export trade continues to grow and contribute to jobs in the face of recent difficult world economic conditions. The export trade is vital to the growth of local cattle production which remains a key element in our local primary industry sector. The Northern Territory is the largest supplier of live cattle and buffalo to Southeast Asia from Australia, with around 305 000 head of Territory cattle going to Southeast Asia in 2009. Of this, over 90% went to Indonesia.
This trade is making a major contribution to both the Northern Territory and Australian economies. Due to this present reliance on the Indonesian market, the Territory government has been keen for industry to pursue further opportunities and diversify into other potential neighbouring Asian markets. We have been working closely with industry to, firstly, maintain the current market in Indonesia and, secondly, to take a systematic approach to establishing additional markets in Southeast Asia.
The government recognises we also need to diversify. As a government, we are very supportive of establishing an abattoir in the Northern Territory. The Department of Resources, with the inter-departmental working group, is working with companies which are interested in establishing an abattoir. I am very pleased to say AAco announced the other day the board of directors support the development of an abattoir in the Northern Territory. It will be great for our economy, for skills, and to open new markets such as China.
The Department of Resources has been undertaking a range of activities to promote our primary industries to investors and to find new markets. In 2009-10, we finalised a memorandum of understanding on collaboration principles between northern Australian primary industry agencies. We are close to releasing the Northern Territory Agribusiness Strategy following extensive consultation with industry this year. We have also provided a range of information to potential investors such as: the development of whole-of-government for potential agricultural investment; best practice manuals for cattle production and a sustainable range and utilisation; and contributed to the inter-departmental working group to assist potential investors in abattoirs.
Fishing is an integral part of the social, cultural and economic wellbeing for all Territorians. Subsistence fishing is an important part of Aboriginal agriculture in the Northern Territory, as it is a traditional source of protein and economic benefits. Many of the freshwater marine species found in billabongs, rivers, and coastal waters of Northern Australia are totemic to Aboriginal people and, therefore, of great cultural significance.
Fishing tourism and recreational fishing are proportionally higher in the Northern Territory per capita than anywhere else in Australia. The number of visitors to the Northern Territory who engage in guided fishing tours has also increased consistently since 1994.
In 2009-10, the Territory’s commercial fishing and agricultural industries estimated total production was $122m. Our key commercial fisheries include mud crab, barramundi, offshore snappers such as gold band snapper and red snapper, shark and Spanish mackerel.
The Territory government had the vision to take action - sometimes tough action, as seen by the fishers. For example, we increased the size of mud crabs that you are allowed to take, which met with significant resistance from the mud crabbing industry. Today, the mud crab industry says: ‘Thank God you did that at the time you did it, otherwise our industry would go downhill’.
We are the only jurisdiction in Australia to label fish as locally caught or imported. We are the only ones in Australia; the others have been trying for three years now to do it, and they have found resistance from the importers and, sometimes, from their own government. They are looking to us and the recent survey where we talked to the industries of Darwin to get support to have their own fish to be labelled either as locally caught, Australian, or imported. The difference is it is not only as a consumer I want to know what I pay for, but it is a way to support our local industry. It is very easy to import fish from Asia, to bring it in at the cheaper price, but that means the disappearance of our fishing industry in Australia, and we are not allowed to do that. We will work with our Seafood Council to ensure this will remain in place - and as long as this government is in power, it will remain in place. I will work very hard to persuade my fellow counterparts to implement the same ruling all across Australia. We will win it one day, but we still have a long way to go.
In Aquaculture, we are ahead of any other jurisdiction in Australia. The aquaculture industry is an emerging industry which predominantly consists of pearling - valued at $18.9m in 2009-10 - barramundi and, very soon - and I hope the experiment will go well in Groote Eylandt - sea cucumber. There are potential opportunities for giant clams and edible oysters. In 2009-10, significant activity occurred to promote our industry: we produced over one million barramundi fingerlings for sale to commercial barramundi farms; small-scale trials commenced for growing juvenile sea cucumbers in a pond-based environment; we developed two pilot-scale sea cucumber ranching projects in association with the Indigenous communities at Goulburn Island and Groote Eylandt; there was a successful pilot-scale production of juvenile giant clams for the aquarium industry; we investigated the feasibility of an edible oyster culture; we secured Fisheries Research Development Corporation funding for the development of a framework for Indigenous participation in aquaculture; we collaborated on a national research and development project into the propagation of yellowtail kingfish and southern blue fin tuna; and we continued research into the protection and management of aquatic animal disease.
The Indigenous Community Coastal Marine Ranger Program, coordinated by my department, is nationally recognised. This government provides funding to eight marine ranger groups around the Northern Territory coastline to assist in the monitoring and surveillance of Territory fisheries. In 2010, my department facilitated the successful training of an additional 24 Indigenous marine rangers in Certificate II in Fisheries Compliance and Enforcement. It was these marine rangers who were patrolling our sea when we had a massive invasion of illegal fishermen on the Northern Territory coast of Australia. They were the ones who notified the Navy and Customs of where these people were hiding, storing nets, fuel and, sometimes, food, in order for them to be apprehended. They did a terrific job which has to be recognised. I sincerely thank them on behalf of the Territory, Territorians, and the whole of Australia for the fantastic job they have done.
I am lucky to have a portfolio which has the opportunity to provide jobs to Territorians, not only in the city but also where there are no other opportunities, in remote places such as Borroloola and Ngukurr. It is not only the mining sector or agriculture, but bringing Indigenous land back into production; having agreements with Indigenous people to bring their vast expanses of land back into cattle production. We have the knowledge, we have the capability and, after all, in the 1950s and 1960s the best stockmen were the Indigenous people. Let us bring them back into production. Let us bring them back to doing what they knew best how to do. Let us bring some pride to the communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend my colleague’s contribution to the House. My department has a unique opportunity to provide more and more jobs for Territorians.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the ministerial statement, Jobs in the Territory. I echo the Chief Minister’s opening remark that for a Labor government the most important of all economic indicators is jobs. This is a critical issue, and one which is a significant policy difference between the government and the opposition. This government sees jobs as a key indicator; a litmus test of the health of our community. Jobs create self-confidence and self-esteem. This must never be undervalued in good government policy. Jobs empower people to create their future and the future for their family.
The opposition has argued, and will continue to argue, the health of the economy should be judged by the gross domestic product, or the amount of money flowing into the community. This is fundamentally flawed, and I ask the Liberal members opposite to think about it. Think about the strength of a community with high employment and high business confidence and, in my words, high self-esteem. Think about family lives and futures being driven by employment opportunities. Think about the social outcomes achieved from individuals being able to be active participants in the community. Contrast that with the impact of unemployment - not just on an individual family, but on the whole community - and removing the opportunity for the individual to determine their future and the future of their family; in removing the opportunity for an investment back into the community. In light of the debate and rhetoric we have heard so far from the opposition on this statement, let us remove the politics and consider the issue at hand.
The Labor government’s vision is for all Territorians to have the opportunity and capacity to participate in the workforce and invest in the economic and social future of the Northern Territory - clear and loud. It is about keeping Territorians in jobs and creating education and training opportunities through employment. The opposition’s constant default position - the knocking, the talking down of the Territory - would have taken a hit last month. I am willing to wager those opposite were rather embarrassed when Access Economics predicted the Territory will continue to have the strongest jobs growth in the country over the next five years. This government understands that jobs growth will not just happen because Access Economics forecasts it. We understand it will happen through good government and strategic investment in the Territory’s future.
Before I continue with my contribution to the debate, I want to comment on the member for Sanderson’s contribution to the statement. It was the same negative diatribe we hear every time. If the Territory is so bad, then pack the bags, saddle the horses and head on out. If the Territory is so bad, which is what we hear continually from those on the other side - talk about everyone leaving, business struggling, no housing; there was not one positive comment in a 20-minute contribution from the member for Sanderson. I know he can do better!
You must listen carefully to the statement from the Chief Minister, and you must read it carefully because, if you do not, your arguments will be fundamentally wrong from the start. It is hard to say business is struggling when we have the highest business confidence. It is hard to say everyone is leaving and there is no housing. It is a self-defeating argument. Palmerston is our fastest growing city, and population growth over the past five years has been very strong. We are releasing land five times faster than ever before in the Territory’s history. Housing construction approvals are at record levels. Member for Sanderson, you have an important role in this Assembly. As a member, you need to be working for a better future, so give up talking the Territory down and read the Chief Minister’s statement carefully.
I also touch on the contribution by the member for Blain, who missed the point. The statement is about jobs. I reiterate the comment from the Treasurer: the member for Blain needs to get out of this building, take a look around Palmerston, at the land release and work under way, and at the new housing construction. See it with your own eyes, talk to the people involved and, then, assess over a 12-month period the incredible accelerated land release program taking place before our very eyes.
Two weeks ago, I issued a media release which provided an update of land release in Palmerston. There was silence from those on the other side; however, the member for Brennan commented. For the benefit of those opposite, let me share, once again, some of the extracts from that release: work is set to begin on the $3.145m project to provide electricity to the new Palmerston East suburbs of Johnston and Zuccoli. I have looked at where that infrastructure will take shape. The electrical headworks will help provide power to more than 2000 residential lots in the two new suburbs. Palmerston is becoming a city of choice for Territory families, with new schools almost complete and work starting soon on new sport and recreation facilities. We heard about that today. We heard ministers sharing those good news stories with Territorians about what this government is doing. The construction of new suburbs such as Johnston and Zuccoli means more Territorians will call Palmerston home, which is why Budget 2010-11 invests $20m towards headworks in these suburbs.
I met with the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory recently. They complimented this government on its insight, good planning, and good management around delivering headworks infrastructure with capacity to support further land release. I congratulate local company, Wolpers Grahl Pty Ltd, for being awarded the subdivision electrical headworks tender that will directly support 20 jobs, including five trade apprentices. Work will begin early next month and be completed by the end of the next Dry Season.
While inspecting work under way in Palmerston East earlier, I also named the three short-listed companies in the running to develop Johnston Stage 2. Johnston Stage 2 will deliver 284 residential lots to provide up to 583 new homes for Territorians, and includes a seniors village, and a commercial area for potential mixed use development containing retail, commercial, and residential opportunities. This is media that I released to tell the Territorians of the good story and what the government is delivering. I urge Hannon’s Pty Ltd, Gratis Pty Ltd, and Urbex to submit their tenders to develop Johnston Stage 2 before the deadline closes in two months. What wonderful opportunities for local Territory companies and jobs!
A total of 116 titles have already been issued for the new suburb of Bellamack, with titles to be issued for another 82 lots before the end of 2010. It is great to see more than 30 homes being constructed in Bellamack, and I look forward to the first lot of Territorians moving into their new homes when they are built. I have watched the subdivision take shape. I am now going out and seeing homes being constructed. I look forward to the day when I see kids playing cricket on the front lawn.
It is important to note, as well, our government’s policy. The first 12 lots allocated for affordable house and land packages in Bellamack were sold by ballot last December, and a further 21 affordable house and land package ballot will be held on 5 December 2010 – land opportunities, housing opportunities for all Territorians. Land is being released, homes are being built, and we are delivering new housing to support the jobs that have been created. Let us not forget, 15% of new lots are being set aside to deliver affordable homes and social housing for Territorians.
The member for Blain also asked what is happening at the port. Well, frankly, he should know. How about the member for Blain have a look at the port master plan I recently released which details how our port investment is driving the future capability of the port? The marine supply base is creating international interest, and I thank the Resources minister and minister for Business in driving interest in investing in our port from overseas.
Private investment is welcome in the Territory. I welcomed the meeting with the Chinese Development Bank delegation when they were in Darwin last week. I thank the minister for Resources for inviting me to that meeting. It was wonderful to meet representatives from the China Development Bank with a map of the Northern Territory laid out on the boardroom table. We walked all over that map. We talked about the opportunities in the Territory, the opportunities for all Territorians, the jobs that can be created, and the resources we have available to support that. They were wonderful people, and I took the liberty of inviting them to Tennant Creek in the Barkly on a possible next visit. I was pleased to say there was great interest shown. Mr Di, who led the delegation, advised me as a child he spent time in inner Mongolia and worked on farms and learnt to ride a horse. He is very keen to meet some of my sons and take up that opportunity of saddling up and having a look at the Barkly from horseback. So, the power of positive thinking.
In relation to the economy, there is no doubt the Territory economy is strong. You just have to go outside and have a look around to ensure you understand that. To keep it strong, we need to continue to invest in education and training, to ensure our workforce is ready to take full advantage of the opportunities ahead in northern Australia.
As the Chief Minister noted, 26 600 new Territory jobs have been created since Labor came to office in the Northern Territory. What a record to be proud of! It is an amazing achievement and it is getting better. In 2010, we have enjoyed unemployment rates at record lows - rates that are well below national figures. Our track record of both job creation and unemployment at low levels is in stark contrast to those of the opposition years. The Country Liberals will try to recreate their own history and argue that employment has little to do with government but, frankly, they are wrong. The Country Liberal Party failed to invest in the Territory and the self-claimed party for business drove the Territory economy into the ground. When I get challenged about trying to rewrite history, I will remind those opposite that I lived that, I was here. I lived through that era and I was part of the Territory movement that changed that government. In contrast, the Territory’s current record levels of unemployment at 3.1% compare well with the national figure of 5.2%. We should not forget that this result has been forged in a time of global economic uncertainty - unprecedented global economic uncertainty.
As members may be aware, I grew up in New South Wales. I noted with interest the Chief Minister’s comment about the rate of youth unemployment in Western Sydney, which is about 25%. That brings back memories of the 1970s, and it is in stark contrast to the opportunities in the Territory. I will throw out a couple of anecdotes, because I have also been personally involved in job creation. I will boast that, at one stage, we had five McCarthys working in the Barkly region. I am very proud of that. I continue to recruit people to the Territory to take advantage of the incredible opportunities on offer. My most recent targets are a couple of young carpenters I happen to know from the south coast of New South Wales, who are really struggling with the economic downturn, who have not been building houses for some time. So the message was clear: ‘Pack up the ute, gents, roll a swag and get yourself to the Northern Territory, because it is truly the land of opportunity’.
I am proud to be part of this Labor government that is focused on building a bright future for young Territorians. However, it comes with challenges, and I will talk about the challenges of Indigenous employment. As the member for Barkly, it is important I address the issue of Indigenous employment. We have heard members of the opposition talk down our strategies for increasing Indigenous workforce participation. Bluntly put, they need to open their eyes. This government is committed to the bush, to growing our regions to benefit all Territorians. This government is making inroads. In the past few years, the number of Indigenous Territorians in employment has grown by 6%. This happened due to deliberate employment strategies and investment in the regions.
We are setting the framework for real improvement in the bush and in the lives of Indigenous Territorians through our A Working Future agenda. A Working Future is the framework for enterprise development, new opportunities, and new jobs. It is about creating access to employment and relevant training opportunities. It is about driving business growth and services. Indigenous Territorians must be empowered to create their own future, to participate in the economy.
Employment is fundamental. I have my own ideas and my own lobby, and I take great advice from my parliamentary colleagues. I took particular note when the Minister for Central Australia was commenting on the wonderful opportunities for Indigenous employment but, also, highlighting from personal acknowledgement as an Indigenous man, the challenges that relate to Indigenous Australians in moving to that next stage in challenging some of the important cultural protocols in a positive way and taking advantage of the opportunities on offer. From very small companies in Tennant Creek and the Barkly, to the pastoral community, to the Cattlemen’s Association, and to the big mining companies of the Northern Territory, I have spoken about opportunities and being inclusive of Indigenous Territorians.
There are wonderful opportunities. I continue to lobby kids at home to take that step, to go out there on a limb and look at the new industries in construction, transport, mining, and pastoral, where it is a new shift change, a new way of doing business. They are well-paid jobs and they provide wonderful opportunities, but you have to take that step. You need the support of your family and your community.
The member for Central Australia drilled down into some really important levels that we need to factor in. That is about young Indigenous Territorians dealing with big money in a pay packet, with homesickness, with travelling away …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the minister, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you Madam Speaker. I thank members for their indulgence, because this is a really good story and I love telling good stories.
Let us talk about not only working with kids in the bush, but about the big end of town. My advice has come from meeting with industry, and industry being nervous about taking these steps. I like to challenge industry as well, especially when the member for Nhulunbuy introduced me to some major players at Rio Tinto Alcan in Nhulunbuy which presents incredible opportunities for training to employment and to a future. They were interested to discuss how we can engage Territorians, Indigenous Territorians, and Correctional Services’ clients coming home from a Correctional Services’ institution.
I challenged them with: if we have opportunities at Nhulunbuy and we have people to match, then let us not use Nhulunbuy, let us send them to Weipa. That was quite challenging for some of the members in that meeting, but they acknowledged my reasoning for that was to continue to develop a world vision - to continue to develop education and awareness in new lands, with new people. The message to the kids on the other side of that story is: you can always come home. Home is not going to change, home is still there. When you come home after experiencing a couple of weeks of very meaningful, hard employment, then you can relax, in a Barkly context, in some of the best waterholes in the world, or back home on a lease in cattle country or back in town in Tennant Creek. Try it, you might like it.
This is the way we are moving forward. This is part of the A Working Future policy. This is about growing the Territory’s potential workforce. This is about our government focus on ensuring individuals in these communities are job ready so they can take advantage of the opportunities on offer in their region, in the Territory and further afield.
Under this government, Indigenous Territorians in remote communities are attending and graduating from high school at home for the first time. Government agencies are working in partnership with industry to identify and support opportunities for Indigenous enterprise. We are also targeting our programs specifically at job opportunities. I highlight just one example found within my portfolio of Correctional Services: the new Barkly work camp and Katherine prison farm and work camp - important elements of the new era in Corrections which will both have education and training programs at the heart of their service delivery. The focus on education and training is about turning around the lives of prisoners, 82% of whom are Indigenous in the Northern Territory.
Taking that commitment even further both facilitates the need and the opportunity to enhance training skills and target shortages of labour in the respective regions. This is a practical way forward. This is the way we are doing business in the remote areas. This is the way we will get results for Indigenous Territorians who otherwise fall through the gaps.
To return to the broader issue of job creation for Territorians, as the Minister for Construction, I am pleased to be driving the delivery of a record $1.8bn infrastructure program. That is a lot of work which is going on in the Territory over a number of years. This is a record budget commitment made in the face of a global economic downturn. It is a courageous decision by this government to invest in the future to support and sustain Territory jobs. The $1.8bn capital works program marks a 12% increase on 2009-10 and is more than double that of 2008-09 - three years of strong investment for the benefit of the Territory and Territory jobs.
This government’s strategic infrastructure program will secure 3600 Territory jobs, delivering important infrastructure and a future for the Northern Territory. To highlight some projects: $30m to support our record residential land release program delivering power, water, sewerage and roads for the new suburbs of Zuccoli, and Kilgariff in Alice Springs; $900 000 which supported 54 residential lots in Tennant Creek, 28 already sold, the rest to go in 2011; $49m for public housing; $20m to upgrade schools across the Territory; completion of the $54.5m Rosebery Primary and Middle Schools project; $19.6m to upgrade the Alice Springs Hospital emergency department; $18.8m to build police stations and officer accommodation; and upgrades to key bush roads, including $20m to seal the Umbakumba Road and $14m to upgrade the Central Arnhem Road.
We could go on and on because there is much to add to the list. These key infrastructure projects are benefiting Territorians now and into the future. These key projects are securing those 3600 jobs for Territorians - record infrastructure spending. We heard from the Chief Minister and the Treasurer about eight budget surpluses in a row delivered by Labor. We need to remind Territorians we made the decision to enter into a deficit when required to protect Territory jobs - a tough political decision, but necessary.
As the Master Builders and industry leaders told us, the construction industry in the Northern Territory faced irreparable damage without a stimulus program. The alternative view argued by the opposition, with its typical conservative view, is surpluses should be maintained regardless of the impact on the community. This alternative policy position would have cost Territorians jobs. It was advocated by those opposite who presided over successive budget black holes when in government. This year, we will deliver $1.8bn on jobs-creating infrastructure. One of those important stimulus packages in a fiscal stimulus strategy was the Building the Education Revolution program, in providing vital infrastructure building programs at every school in the Northern Territory.
In Tennant Creek alone - I will not go into what is happening at the Barkly College/Tennant Creek High School campus with the science learning centre and the new gymnasium, I will go to some recently advertised. Tender No T101768, construction Tennant Creek/Barkly region: Ali Curung School, design and construct new classroom, covered outdoor learning area and ablutions, Building the Education Revolution, Primary Schools for the 21st Century, tendering period six weeks, advertised in the Centralian Advocate, Katherine Times, NT News, Tennant Creek & District Times. That certainly will create jobs! Tennant Creek Primary School, upgrade and extend the existing open multipurpose hall, Building the Education Revolution, tendering period six weeks, advertised in the same papers. This is jobs and infrastructure in the region.
Touring the electorate, I can comment on the fiscal strategy and the legacy it is leaving in the most incredible infrastructure we have seen in the region for a long time. Borroloola, Robinson River, Rockhampton Downs, Epenarra, Canteen Creek, Murray Downs, Minyerri, Jilkminggan – I have seen these projects in these places. I have seen the jobs and have witnessed and shared the community excitement. This highlights a very broad policy difference between us and those opposite, and the Territory community is very pleased the stimulus package and the Building the Education Revolution occurred, and the legacy will be real educational opportunities, training opportunities, and employment for generations to come.
When we talk about the delivery of programs, I must talk also about the new Department of Construction and Infrastructure. Last financial year, the Department of Construction and Infrastructure managed a record 3000 projects with a program value of $1.168bn - an amazing achievement. I again thank the hard-working members of the Department of Construction and Infrastructure for the effort they put into delivering the government’s programs. Well done, guys, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, because you have a hell of a lot of work in front of you in 2011.
We have achieved records, we have a clear focus on training, and we have a clear plan for the future to move beyond the current labour challenges so the Territory is well positioned during a national recovery.
Madam Speaker, from 2001 to 2009, the NT economy has grown at an average rate of 3.7%; business confidence is the highest in the nation. This Labor government has a record infrastructure investment. It is an achievement all Territorians should be proud of. These achievements will be built on. I commend the Chief Minister for this statement in the House.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement. He expressed a clear policy passion for jobs. His No 1 economic indicator in the Territory is jobs. That is because it is the economic statistic that is most directly related to a person. It is sometimes easy to forget that behind every statistic there are people. When it comes to jobs, that is the economic statistic that is most easily related to an individual. We believe in the dignity of work, the importance of having a job, the importance of being able to bring money home to look after yourself, your family, to pay for the roof over your head, and so on.
It is a really important point of difference between us and the opposition, particularly in how the federal Labor government responded to the global financial crisis when they said we needed to have a targeted, timely, and temporary approach - a stimulus package investment into Australia to ensure we do not go into recession, that we can keep people in a job. The federal opposition said: ‘No, we do not need the stimulus’. I believe the member for Fong Lim often refers to New Zealand where, if there is a loss in taxation revenue, essentially, we should make savings cuts to the federal budget - in many respects a double negative, a double impact on what was happening around the country. What we saw, instead, was a targeted, timely, and temporary response from the federal government through its stimulus package to save jobs and, sometimes, create jobs – but, essentially, to save jobs to ensure people still had that dignity of work, that they were still able to bring home money, to have pride.
Most people I know have pride in their job, in what they do – pride, in fact, that they have a job. Almost anywhere, in any sort of conversation, at some stage it comes up: what do you do for a living? You have a chat: ‘How do you like it; what is going on?’ People like having employment for many reasons. The most important is the pay cheque at the end of the day to pay for all the bills we have. People want to work.
The economic stimulus package, as a response to the global financial crisis, was critical for many reasons; one of the most important being it kept people in employment. It kept them earning, and that was critical. Obviously, in the Territory the biggest example of that was the Building the Education Revolution that was actively opposed by the federal opposition and members opposite have people in the federal House and in the Senate who were opposed to the economic stimulus package.
We saw the outcome of the Building the Education Revolution in the Territory - not just for the impact that it has on schools, such as my schools of Parap Primary and Stuart Park Primary, where it has had an amazing impact. The schools are 100% better for the investment. They are fantastic outcomes. The hall at Parap is huge; it could be a high school hall. It is amazing, compared to the old hall that was there. Stuart Park Primary also has a new hall. They have gone for a slightly different approach. They have more classroom space and a music room built in there as well. They have been good outcomes for the schools.
Importantly, they gave employment to people. The contractors I have spoken to saw the Building the Education Revolution coming along at the perfect time for them. They had jobs, then they had the Building the Education Revolution. Now, they have jobs after that. So, they were able to secure their workforce. Contractors who work under them have businesses which have workers who rely on them for their income, and they were able, thanks to the Building the Education Revolution, see that security of employment for their workforce. That was a really important outcome of the Building the Education Revolution investment. It was critical to have that security of employment, the dignity of work, to go home and say: ‘I worked today, I have money, I can put bread on the table, I can pay the bills, I can pay for the roof over my head. I do not have to go on to the dole, do not have to be an extra impost on the taxpayers of this country. I can work’.
That was the critical outcome of how federal Labor responded to the global financial crisis. It all came down, at the end of the day, to the individuals and families. That really is, and should be, the outcome of policies we talk about in this House. It is easy to get lost in statistics, but the most important outcome of what we did - and the example I am using at the moment is Building the Education Revolution - was to keep people in a job. To have a tradie, his tools in one hand and a pay cheque in the other, was a really positive outcome. We saw massive benefits in Australia and in the Territory from that investment.
We echoed it as a Territory government. I want to talk to some of the matters the minister for Infrastructure referred to in his statement; that is, as a Territory government, we had a record infrastructure spend in this budget of $1.8bn. It was a huge investment from government because, at the moment as we know, the investment which is happening in the Territory is largely public. There has been difficulty in securing private funds, or to spend private funds, because of what is happening globally and the constriction of private cash.
It is critical at this time that government is spending money on infrastructure projects. It is a targeted, timely, and temporary response, which is the best thing about infrastructure projects - you build them once, you pay for them once and that money has gone out of the budget; it is not a recurrent spend. You are making a very positive impact, creating a job in the private sector and keeping people in work. In time, the public sector will come back and spend that money. But, in the interim, it is important the government steps up and does what it can. That is what we are doing at the moment. We have a fantastic result out of the Building the Education Revolution at the moment. The Territory government is putting in $1.8bn - a record spend from Budget 2010-11 - into our construction program; that is, a 399% increase and a $7.7bn injection into the Territory economy since we were elected. When we first came to government in 2001, it was a $364m construction spend. Where we are now, with $1.8bn, is a 399% increase and a total $7.7bn injection. We do believe in the importance of creating work in the private sector, keeping people in employment, making sure people have a job – essentially, what the Chief Minister was speaking about in his statement.
Targeted government investment delivers projects which will have a lasting benefit for the people in the Territory. Strategic government investment in infrastructure creates jobs and drives the economy; it gives the private sector certainty and confidence to invest in the Northern Territory. We can see that confidence and investment by the private sector in my electorate. There are still projects going on. There is a confidence in the Territory at the moment, and there is certainly a confidence in Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park. There are a few projects on the go at the moment in and around my patch.
In the Parap Shopping Village, Arafura Catering Equipment’s new store has opened to the public. Anyone who has been to Parap in the last couple of months would have seen the building works going on, and the empty block between Toppy’s and the chemist being filled in. That was done by Arafura Catering Equipment, which had an office across the road. They saw and were confident about the future of the Territory, and they wanted to invest in the future of the Territory, so they have built themselves a brand new office space. They own it, they run it. They were hiring before; they have now made their own investment in the Territory, in Parap. They have stayed in Parap because they see that area as also growing local, homegrown business. Roger and Sharon are a great example of how hard work breeds success.
Customers may think it is a small move from one side of Parap Shopping Village to the other, but it represents a huge growth for a business that, over the last 11 years, has grown from four employees to 23. The area they cover is three million square kilometres – businesses in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, Papua New Guinea and Timor. The Arafura Catering Equipment looks after an area that size – there are kitchens everywhere. They do an amazing job of supporting many businesses, not just the Territory, but in other states and overseas as well, often in mining areas and professional restaurants. If you want to do a household kitchen, they will help out, but they are very much into professional kitchens; it is a massive business.
The fact that Arafura Catering Equipment is still calling Parap home is a fantastic sign of confidence in Parap and its regeneration. For those who do not know, Arafura Catering Equipment specialises in hospitality and catering sales and service, and design and installation of commercial kitchens. If you go into the Parap-based business, there is also an extensive range of catering equipment, tools and accessories for the professional and the home chef. You have to be careful when you go into Arafura Catering Equipment, because you see so much good stuff you want to buy; it is a very good shopfront. That is not their main business. Their main business is installing and servicing kitchens around the Territory, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, Papua New Guinea, Timor - all over the place. It is a massive business. They have done very well. It is a great success story for a local business, and their decision to reinvest in Parap is a sign of confidence in our local community.
Across the road from the Parap shops - I do not know how many people have been to Parap lately - is the Kingston Green development going up on the old Ross Smith site. There are the new Norbuilt offices on the old Fred’s fuel site, and a new retail centre on the old Britz site in Stuart Park, which is also moving ahead rapidly. The Norbuilt offices will be three storeys. Over 50% of the 13 or 14 offices - depending on how they configure the development - are already sold. That is a great result and a clear indication of a keen interest by business to establish itself in the Parap/Fannie Bay area. It is an area where people want to work.
There is a growing interest in people working outside the CBD. From Parap/Fannie Bay where my office is, it is a five minute drive into town, an easy cruise down the highway. It is not far away. People are saying they do not mind working in Parap and Fannie Bay and being slightly outside the CBD. There is a growing interest in that, and we have seen the investment by Norbuilt in their new offices, of which half are already leased. If you drive past now it looks like it is just about to be officially opened. They are doing the finishing touches at the moment. It is fantastic to see them invest in that area. Norbuilt is very busy. They have also been working on the old Waratah Oval site where Southern Cross is going. With the fit-out they have to do internally to the Norbuilt offices on the corner, on the old Fred’s fuel site, it will probably be around March/April next year when they will be ready to open.
The local community will welcome the extra office workers during the day. The Parap Shopping Village is already a busy place but the extra people in the area, the extra demand for a morning coffee, a bite to eat at lunch, will see the Parap Shopping Village become even better as local businesses embrace the demand.
Across the road from those Norbuilt offices there is Arnhemica which, I understand, is also on the verge of being leased. So, there will be even more office workers in the area, and local business will respond to that and the Parap shops are going to become even better. It is a fantastic place to live and I know the traders are very keen to respond to that extra demand. There are going to be more people moving in at night as well.
The Kingston Green site is across the road from the Parap Primary School on the old Ross Smith guest house site. The Quest Apartments at the front look like they are almost finished. There is a great deal of work going on at that site and some work going on at the back at the moment. It is going to be built in several stages, but there is some work going on at the back as well for residential developments. There are going to be a few more people living in the area. It is a short walk to the Parap shops from where they are, across the road from the school. It is a huge site. There will be 48 two-bedroom units and 72 three-bedroom units and, good news for the tourist industry, 42 two-bedroom serviced apartments at the Quest site.
Next door are the Parap Village Serviced Apartments which are already popular for visitors - especially for visitors who have family and friends in the area. It is always good when you visit town to stay somewhere close to your family and friends. The Parap Village Serviced Apartments have provided that for a long time now. They are very busy and popular, and the Quest Serviced Apartments next door will provide similar service. There is going to be a very strong demand for those serviced apartments; there is a shortage at the moment. People I know who come to town who want to stay for a little while often find that serviced apartments are hard to find; they are often booked out. They are very popular, so it is good to have more serviced apartments going up, especially in our area. If you are going to get a serviced apartment, somewhere beautiful like Parap or Fannie Bay is a very good spot.
At Kingston Green, construction of Stage 1 is nearly complete. Stage 1 consists of 30 two- and three-bedroom apartments in one building. Three-bedroom apartments in Stage 1 are available at prices between $585 000 and $635 000. I believe all the two-bedroom units in Stage 1 are already sold, which is a very good sign of confidence in the area. They have a display demountable set up now with finishes, so if you are interested check it out. Once Stage 1 is finished, they will have a display unit which people can look through.
Stages 2 and 3 have just started. Kingston Green Stage 2 consists of 30 two- and three-bedroom apartments in one building. Two-bedroom apartments in Stage 2 are available for $525 000, and three-bedroom apartments in Stage 2 are available from $610 000. Stage 4 will start in eight months. The serviced apartments will be built in Stages 3 and 4. The total project will finish in about 18 months. There are a lot of numbers there. I will give that all to Hansard later to ensure they get it right.
This is another important project in the regeneration of Parap. Parap and Fannie Bay are great places to live. One of the reasons our move to become an alternative to the CBD is happening for people who want to have a coffee, a meal or a drink is because of the extra people moving in, whether it is during the day as office workers or after hours on a weekend as local residents. We have strong local communities in Parap and Fannie Bay. The projects which are happening reflect our local community. They have been developed through consultation with locals. We have a local community which participates in the comment stage of development approvals, and the new projects are going to strengthen our local community.
One of those projects is the new development on the old Wirrina site at Parap. I was there last week with the minister and the new affordable housing rental company which is going to be established in the Territory. The village at Parap is going to be a fantastic development. They are moving quickly. There is a massive hole on the site at the moment. They have done that in a matter of weeks. This is the first mixed public/private unit development in the Northern Territory. I have had the opportunity to speak about this often in parliament; I am quite proud of what they are doing on that site. It is a new housing model because we recognise the old housing model does not work. We have seen, over many years now, the old housing model does not work. Wirrina is our first opportunity to look at a new housing model; one we have seen work down south. There are also examples overseas where it has worked. I had the opportunity to visit places in Brisbane and Sydney where it has worked.
Mixed housing makes sense as part of that development - social housing, affordable housing and private housing. It makes sense to develop affordable housing for rent in the inner city close to public transport, shops, schools, and sports facilities. The Australian government has recognised that; it has invested $13.5m in the village at Parap under its Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan.
The development will include 10 seniors units and 35 units to be managed by the company I mentioned. The remainder will be sold on the private market by Sitzler. This will be an attractive inner urban living option for social housing tenants, first homebuyers and young professionals. Work has commenced and will continue next year. The units must be completed by 2012 in order to meet the Territory obligations to the Australian government stimulus plan, which will certainly happen. The complex will aim to meet 6-star energy ratings, with tropical design which draws on thermal insulation, cross-ventilation, and shade to provide cool, energy-efficient living. The buildings will be one apartment deep to encourage breezes and reduce density. With a front balcony and a back balcony, winds will breeze through. You will not have a unit at the back abutting onto yours to restrict the breeze; the breeze will flow through.
The units will be a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom units. There has also been interest in the size and cost of the units. I believe they are a good size unit for a good price. We are not aiming for prestige units; the market already caters for that. We are aiming for an area the market has not catered for. There is social housing, affordable housing for rent, and units for the private market. The units for the private market at the village at Parap will be sold by Knight Frank and LJ Hooker. A display home will open up nearby later this year, and there are established site offices at Parap shops in the old Arafura Catering Equipment offices near the new Parap Police Beat.
It is important we have an alternative to the CBD when it comes to having a coffee or dinner. It is a sign of growth and maturity to have an inner city area which provides that lifestyle. The Parap and Fannie Bay Shopping Villages capture the lifestyle of Darwin with the local clubs - the Trailer Boat Club, the Sailing Club, the Ski Club, the bowls club, the Railway Club and so on. We have a great lifestyle in our area with fantastic community groups, and there is a very strong sense of community. I have discussed this with local traders at Parap Shopping Village. We have an active traders association. I have talked to them about new and exciting ways they can use the Parap Shopping Village plaza and footpaths, especially in the evening, and they are very excited about it. There is going to be a growing demand and it is just a matter of time before someone embraces that opportunity to use the plaza in the middle that is used on market day. I have had several functions there and believe it is ripe for a business to run a restaurant in the evening similar to those in Europe; it is a fantastic spot.
There is some interest in utilising the footpaths through that area outside restaurants for tables and chairs. I believe Saffrron has looked at that. We have several restaurants there and it is only a matter of time before more businesses in the area embrace the opportunity for outside dining, especially if more people live and work in the area. It is a fantastic spot, not just for the people who live and work in the area, but for those who live outside Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park who come for a drink at Bogarts, the Parap Tavern, the Railway Club, the Ski Club, the Sailing Club or the Trailer Boat Club. There are many businesses, clubs and restaurants in the area that people like to frequent. It is only a matter of time before they embrace the opportunity to go outside, which would be fantastic.
It is fair to say there probably has been a bit of reluctance in the past to invest in outdoor dining and other opportunities in the village because of antisocial behaviour. We recognise that. We have responded to that with the investment in the Parap Police Beat, our approach to public housing through the area, a broader policy on alcohol reform, and a whole series of things we are doing. We always believe that, as good as things are or as good as things may seem to be, you can always do better. It is always important to keep working and recognise that people will always have concerns that need to be addressed. That is something we need to …
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Fannie Bay to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GUNNER: Thank you, member for Daly.
Obviously, we need to respond to that. In my area we have put together a plan around how to deal with some of those concerns. They are not necessarily going to be silver bullets. I do not think there is any such thing as a silver bullet. Essentially, you have to work hard. That is the best way to address many of the problems every local member gets in any way, through hard work. There are usually no silver bullets.
The new Police Beat is based at the Parap shops. It will go a long way towards addressing concerns of traders and local residents. There are two police officers and an auxiliary officer based at the Police Beat; they have a patrol car. They are doing foot and bike patrols through Fannie Bay and Stuart Park shops as well as along the escarpment at East Point, then Vesteys, and back in. They are part of our plan to make Parap, Fannie Bay, and Stuart Park places to live to help people feel safer.
We have a climate that provides amazing opportunities, and I am determined the forward-thinking business people of my electorate have the chance to make the most of those opportunities.
Around the corner from Kingston Green is the Southern Cross seniors village on the old Waratah Oval. I had the pleasure the other day, with the Chief Minister, to attend the launch of the village. They did it at the convention centre, which was attended by 100 to 200 people. I actually did not do a head count, but there were many people there who were invited who expressed an interest in the village, and they came to see a presentation on what is going to be on-site. I did a site inspection with Vin Keneally from Manuel Liveris, the architects, to see the progress to date. They started on a Stage 1, which is the 65 aged-care beds. They have approval for 85 on that spot, and they are building 65 to start. Construction is currently under way. Though they are still working on it, you can see the quality and the clear thought that has gone into what they are doing on that site. Again, a great opportunity of recognising a policy need in the Territory of keeping grandparents in the Northern Territory. If you keep grandparents, you keep young families who will want to be with their grandparents. This is providing that need and, at the same time, being a construction project, also creating jobs and employment in the area.
There is much work going on in my area at the moment putting people in employment. That village is going to be a very important part of the population retention policy we have, as a government, in keeping grandparents in town, which usually keeps young families in town because young families want to be with their grandparents.
We are on track at Waratah Oval with Southern Cross. Stage 1 is looking good. External walls are complete, the roof is going on, the site structure is complete, the internal works have commenced, and the staff units are ready to be painted, which means they can soon get people in there and start training. They have moved that part of the development ahead, because they wanted to ensure they could house staff so they could do their training with them all in one spot, which is very sensible and good thinking. The main building will be done by Christmas, which is only a month away - two pays away; a very frightening thought in many ways, with Christmas just around the corner. The main building will be done by Christmas, with the finishing works in January and February, and the place will be ready to open in March, which is good news.
Stage 2 is the first of the retirement village units, with work on nine villas starting in a couple of months’ time. Each of those nine units will be a different design so people can get a chance to look through all of them, see what they like. The generation of people who want to move into the village like to see, touch, feel what they are going to buy. They do not like buying off a plan. They like physically seeing what is available. So, they are going to build nine different villas and let people have a look at them, let people choose what they want so, when they build the rest of the village, they can do it based on people’s preferences. Essentially, there will be nine display units.
It is going to be quite interesting when they open up. I believe there are going to be many people wanting to walk through and see what they are doing, the quality of the work. As most members would know who have visited seniors villages, the work you do in a senior unit is quite different to the work you do in an ordinary house, with the thought that goes into different things such as the width of hallways, where you put the power points and the benches. There is very specific designing you do for seniors units, and they are doing it on that site and it is going to be a very exciting development.
There is also a 3500m retail development happening in Stuart Park on the old Britz site on the Stuart Highway. The project is happening because of good community consultation between the developer and the local community that saw the site rezoned for commercial space. The consultations were initially managed by the former local members Clare Martin and Kerry Sacilotto last term. That area was shared by Port Darwin and Fannie Bay. The boundaries have since changed and it now sits squarely in my patch. They did some good early consultation work with the local community, which I picked up on when I was elected.
The front of the block was zoned Commercial, and the back of the block was zoned Residential. The initial community feedback was: ‘We do not want to lose that residential area, we want it to stay residential’. The developer said: ‘Let us have a talk about what you actually want on that site’. When they expressed their concerns about parking and so on, it became clear the developer could actually respond to that and put in place plans that guaranteed what the local residents wanted. We were able to get that site rezoned so the developer could build in that area and accommodate what the community wanted around access to the site, ensuring there was none for Coronation Drive. Parking was taken care of, and the alignment of the building suited the landscaping. The wall they were going to put in was similar to the Parap Grove wall along the Stuart Highway.
They responded very clearly and directly to the community concerns. As a result, we can get the investment of a 3500 m retail development happening, which is fantastic work for the local developer and the residents. It is a very good outcome. The project is a $6m job. Most of the site is committed to Officeworks to open on 18 February 2011. It will be an Officeworks superstore. Development is on track; Sitzler is their building partner and is doing a great job.
That is two projects I have in my electorate at the moment, the old Britz site and at Wirrina. Norbuilt is there as well, doing the offices at the old Fred’s fuel site and working with Southern Cross at the old Waratah Oval site. The site is 66% occupied already, so that is great certainty for them. A great sign of confidence is people investing in that building before it is even finished. They are saying: ‘Yes, we definitely want to be in Darwin; we definitely want to sell things; we definitely want to be there’. It is great news for Stuart Park as part of what I believe is a growing regeneration of that Stuart Park highway corridor.
There is a growing population in and around Stuart Park. Tipperary Waters and Bayview border my area. I believe there is a growing demand for services to those residential areas. That is why we have gone out for comment to rezone lot 6645, part of lot 5629, and lot 5409. We are looking to rezone that Commercial. That is the corner of Woolner Road and Tiger Brennan Drive. That went out for comment. The lots are currently zoned MD, Multiple Dwelling, which allows for the construction of blocks of units such as those across the road at Tipperary Waters. As a commercial zone, it would be possible for those lots to provide services to the increasing population in the area.
That is what most people are saying now; they want more services in that area. There are many people moving here, living here; we want to have more services. We have recognised that and we have gone out to rezone that site. I wrote to everyone in my local area about that, and the feedback I received was 100% for ‘we want services’. That was a fantastic sign of confidence in the area, what people need in that area, and we are responding to that. While I have that feedback, there was actually a formal comment period, and that is with the minister.
I am very happy to support the Chief Minister in his statement. As I said, and the minister for Infrastructure said before me, we have seen investment in infrastructure in the Territory go from $364m in 2001 to $1.8bn this year - a record $1.8bn in this budget, a 399% increase and a $7.7bn injection into the Territory economy. What the Chief Minister spoke about was, at the same time as we have made that investment in infrastructure, we have cut the unemployment rate from 7.4% in 2001 to 3.1% today, and seen the creation of around 26 000 new jobs, which is an extraordinary statistic - 26 000 new jobs, with 26 000 people in employment - that is the population of Palmerston or Alice Springs in work. That is many jobs, and many people earning money in the Territory who were not earning money in 2001. That is a great outcome for people who want to go to work, come home, pay for the bills which is, essentially, what we are here to talk about.
The Chief Minister has passion and a clear policy about jobs. That is because, as I said at the beginning, it is the statistic most directly related to a person, to what someone can do - the dignity of work, the importance of having a job, of being able to go home, pay for the roof over your head, pay for the food that goes on your table, and look after your family.
Madam Speaker, it is a fantastic statement from the Chief Minister. I am happy to commend it to the House and thank him for bringing it forward.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement about jobs in the Territory which provides a very comprehensive overview of the considerable achievements of the Labor government in job creation since 2001, and how these achievements have underpinned strong economic growth in the Territory, and will continue to do so. I listened with a great deal of interest to the contributions of colleagues on this side of the House who have applauded those many achievements in the Territory, particularly the member for Fannie Bay in his electorate.
It is not just talking about the achievements; it is also about how this government recognises some of the challenges we face - unique challenges - in continuing to drive the creation of jobs for all Territorians and how we are rising to meet those challenges for the future. That is about planning and executing those plans for all Territorians for future growth.
It was a job which brought me to the Territory 23 years ago, and I am sure that is true for many of us in this Chamber. It was a teaching job, my first as a graduate teacher, which brought me here. At the time - and I know my story is not unique - I thought I had come for just a couple of years but I stayed and have made the Territory my home. It is where my children were born and have gone to school, and it is where I hope to be for many years. I find it very hard to imagine where else I would live beyond the Territory. That is what we need to do in the Northern Territory, have people who come for a job and then choose to make it their home because it is the best place to live, work and raise a family.
With my background in education, but also with nearly 12 years in the mining industry, I welcomed the opportunity a few weeks ago to take on a new role as Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Training to support the minister with a busy agenda and reforms under way in his very crucial portfolio. My focus is on pathways through school which link to a job and, with it, a future on completion of schooling. As a government, we do not shy away from the fact we need to work hard, and we are working hard. This government is working very hard to support families and children to get to school. When we get children into school we need them there every school day, and we need to ensure what they are getting out of school is meaningful, valuable and worthwhile, and it becomes part of lifelong learning. There are many things which we want young people to get out of education but, ultimately, we want people to complete school so they can get a job.
It goes without saying that, in order to complete school, they need to be literate in English and numerate. However, we know schools do many things to nurture and grow young people. There is no escaping the fact that to be literate and numerate is the passport necessary to get young people on to that pathway. They need to see and recognise that education in school is a critical step on the all-important pathway to a job and a future. We need their families to see this and, as a community, we need to see and value this.
As I have heard the member for Arnhem say on many occasions, it is having a job and that economic independence which gives an individual choice in life. My colleague, the member for Barkly, who has spoken passionately this afternoon, has been an educator for many years - many years more than me - and a very passionate one at that. He hit the nail on the head when I heard him address a conference recently. He said we need to make school the most exciting part of a young person’s life and I could not agree more. Shortly, I will talk a little more about the exciting things which are happening in the schools in my electorate - things which are aligning growing skills, growing young people and student interest with training and job pathways.
We know education sits front and centre. It is the cornerstone of any community to develop, grow and prosper. That is why it sits as the No 1 priority in the Northern Territory’s Territory 2030 strategic plan. As the strategy states:
- Education is the key to meeting many of the challenges faced by the Northern Territory. Our social, economic and community wellbeing relies on achieving dramatic gains in education.
We know that for individuals, for our kids, education is the most important thing they need, because it is their passport to a job and a future and, with it, economic independence, self-determination and self-worth. This is especially true for young Indigenous people in some of the most remote parts of the Northern Territory.
This government supports that fundamental cornerstone with an agenda of delivering quality education, which also means delivering quality infrastructure. We have seen an enormous boost through the millions of dollars pouring into our schools through the federal government’s Building the Education Revolution program. To their eternal shame, it is a program members opposite did not support. With the quality infrastructure, the Department of Education and Training in the Northern Territory seeks to attract, retain and grow quality teachers whose skills, professionalism and dedication we value highly.
This Labor government, in 2001, came in with a massive reform agenda for education led by the former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, as mentioned by the Minister for Education and Training in his contribution to this debate. Of course, as we know, at the top of Syd Stirling’s reform agenda was establishing secondary education in the bush because, astonishingly, the CLP government, for all the years it was the government in the Northern Territory, did not support secondary education in the bush. If you do not support secondary education how does any government expect to get people on that pathway into further training and to jobs? As we know, since the Territory has had a Labor government, 150 or so Indigenous students have graduated through to Year 12. It is not enough, it needs to be more, and it is something we are working very hard to improve upon.
A crucial part of the pathways this government is growing is in the area of apprenticeships and traineeships to see us not only meet the very ambitious target of reaching 10 000 new apprentices by 2012, but to meet the demand for skills in the Territory and see Territorians meeting that demand. We welcome people who want to move to the Territory from other jurisdictions, but it is also critically important we grow and retain those young Territorians who are here.
The Minister for Business and Employment announced last week, with the Chief Minister, we are well on our way to meeting that ambitious target with 5099 taking up apprenticeships and traineeships as of October this year. This achievement is quite significant, given the impact of the global financial crisis which saw crippling downturns in overseas economies. Thankfully, this was not the case for the Territory where jobs were not only protected but created thanks to our record spend on infrastructure supported by the federal Labor government’s stimulus package which, again, surprisingly, astonishingly, was not supported by the Liberals at a federal or Territory level. At the end of the day, it is what kept people in jobs, kept people from dole queues and kept people off welfare where we could manage it.
This government is meeting the demand for skills and, what is more, punching above its weight when it comes to the quality of our apprentices and commitment of employers in the different industry sectors to support trainees and apprentices in the workplace.
This was abundantly clear at the Australian Training Awards, which I had the great honour of attending in Sydney on 19 November. It was a huge gala event with close to 1000 people, and a strong and justifiably proud contingent of finalists from the Northern Territory including – and I single out a young woman by the name of Yazmin Brown from Casuarina Senior College who was named as the Australian School-based Apprentice of the Year in recognition of her outstanding success in the automotive trade training area. It is partnerships with our schools - and in Yazmin’s case, Charles Darwin University as the training provider and Kerry’s Automotive Group in Stuart Park as the workplace host – that government will continue to nurture those relationships to deliver training and jobs for young people like Yazmin. Hats off to Yazmin for moving into a non-traditional area for women. I take my hat off to her and the world is her oyster once she has completed her qualifications.
Also taking out line honours on the national stage was the Northern Territory Department of Health and Families, one of seven finalists in the category of Government Industry Awards which seek to recognise the commitment by employers to training within their industry sector. In this instance it was health. I quote directly from the awards evening program which provided a synopsis of the nomination:
- The Northern Territory Department of Health and Families is committed to building a culture that values professional development and lifelong learning. Through Vocational Education and Training, the department has increased its leadership and management capability and increased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment in the critical skills shortage areas of Aboriginal health, which has contributed to improved outcomes for Territorians.
The department has recently invested in a major e-learning initiative to deliver an online learning management system that will revolutionise the way it delivers training and create a central point for staff in regional and remote areas to access training opportunities.
Recognition for the Department of Health and Families’ innovative use of e-learning is also applauded in grappling with the tyranny of distance which separates our very remote areas from major and regional centres. Thank goodness we have seen the passing of the National Broadband Network legislation in federal parliament so we can proceed with seeing our communications and IT infrastructure upgraded to deliver the benefits for the bush in a number of areas including, especially, training.
Whilst in Sydney on 19 November for the National Training Awards, I also attended a most productive industry forum along with ministers and their delegates at the Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment. The forum was chaired by Skills Australia and there was a speaker from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and a few others who spoke at this forum. It was valuable to hear firsthand from representative organisations like Skills Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry about how we can partner to address growing concerns about national skills shortages.
It was a representative from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry who said we need to look beyond training as something which happens in isolation but, rather, to look at it as a business investment. Nods around the table indicated we were all in agreement. In that same vein, this is exactly what our government is doing in not looking at education in isolation, but looking at it as an investment in our young people and their futures, and strengthening that connection of the pathways between education, training, and jobs.
What was also clear at this forum, not surprisingly, is the Territory has much in common with jurisdictions such as Queensland and Western Australia in the opportunities and challenges we face. In my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Training, I will be looking to explore what is happening in those jurisdictions to see what lessons we can learn, especially when it comes to Indigenous workforce development. Like the Northern Territory, both Queensland and Western Australia see a very large take-up of the vocational and education training programs.
We know creating employment out bush in our remote communities and for Indigenous people is a challenge for a whole host of reasons but, contrary to what the members opposite would have us believe with stories of doom and gloom, there are good things happening out there. There are houses being built under SIHIP, there are Indigenous people being trained and employed on that program, and we are making inroads into improving people’s lives, but recognising we have a long way to go.
It is not just about creating that one job, as the Minister for Business and Employment has made the point, it is recognising that each of those jobs has meant a new source of income for a Territory family. I can add that a graduation certificate on completion of a training course, on the way to a job, is also a source of enormous pride for an individual and their family.
We know that growing our workforce, especially in remote areas and our growth towns, is critical and there are many challenges along the way, and we certainly do not shy away from those challenges. As I said earlier, I would like to highlight some of the good things which are happening out there just to counter some of the doom and gloom of the opposition.
On 3 November, the Minister for Education and Training joined me for a visit to Shepherdson College at Galiwinku on Elcho Island, which is the government school there. Shepherdson College is a very vibrant place where student attendance still has its ups and downs but, overall, has really improved thanks to the development of strong relationships between key groups which include the school, traditional owners, police, sport and recreation, the shire, the childcare centre, the health centre, and others along the way. What also contributes to this is strong leadership and a great deal of goodwill. I acknowledge the enormous contribution the principal, Brian Hughes, has in that mix.
That school in that community is focused on getting kids into school and getting them on the right pathways by tailoring courses to link with community and what is on offer. There is a strong caring for land and sea country with the Gumurr Marthakal rangers on Elcho Island servicing not only the island, but Marthakal homelands. It is just one of the pathways many of the young ones are interested in.
To feed into that interest, the school has capitalised on their Building the Education Revolution funding, which will deliver to them - and we saw it under construction when we visited - a science centre. This is not any old science lab. This will be an aquaculture and horticulture centre. Students will build upon their traditional cultural knowledge about sea country and marine life, and have the opportunity to learn more about sustainable management, sea farming and harvesting practices. It will also be very hands-on, supported and complemented by a manual arts program. The manual arts area has just had a refurbishment thanks to Building the Education Revolution funding.
In the 2011 program at the school, students in that manual arts area will be engaged in boat building. They have a prototype blueprint ready to go. Students, traditional owners, and teachers are all very excited about this program. Let us not forget, with the Blue Mud Bay decision, commercial opportunities will arise for traditional owners along 85% of the Territory coastline. We need to look to developing those opportunities, which is exactly what is happening on Elcho Island at the moment.
The thinking there is quite visionary; it is very strategic. There is clear connectivity on a number of levels that one thing will, indeed, lead to another. What is really exciting about this process is that it draws on the skills, the interest, the aspirations and cultural knowledge capital of the people to embark on a pathway which will lead to a job within the community – if, indeed, that is what they choose to do, because there is nothing to prevent people from moving beyond Elcho Island, or from any remote community, to other centres to seek training and employment.
Another strong example from Elcho Island and Shepherdson College is the very strong creative arts program they have within the school. A few months ago, there was a group of Stage 1 and Stage 2 arts students who travelled to Sydney for an exhibition. That same teacher brought a group of students into Darwin in the previous year. The Chief Minister attended their art exhibition. I was unable to attend because I was away. This year, they travelled to Sydney for an exhibition, and that was thanks in part to some very generous philanthropic support which Michele Swanborough, their art teacher, had managed to attract. I should also add that Michele, not surprisingly, was a very worthy nominee for Teacher of the Year this year in the Teaching Excellence Awards.
What happened through that program is students, artists and traditional owners mentored students in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 art program, in the fine skills of traditional art, and also in the intrinsic links to their culture, their law, their land and their ancestors. So, this was more than just an art program, this was a life and culture program as well. These students were involved, not only as artists, but had roles to play in staging and organising the exhibition, which was held at Darling Harbour. Overcoming any shyness they may have had initially, the students talked with visitors and potential buyers to the exhibition. They told their stories, they talked about where they had come from, and they happily and confidently answered questions. According to their teacher, they were brilliant. Best of all, while the rewards were clear to see in personal growth and self-esteem, the monetary rewards came with commercial sales of their works, allowing these young artists to see that their work ...
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member to complete her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, member for Daly. I was just saying that what the commercial sales of these works allowed these young artists to see was that their knowledge, their work, their skills can translate into a job which, in turn, will see for them a financial return. That is a priceless lesson.
Apparently, there was quite a bit of shopping that went on in Sydney when the students had their last day, but there were a number of students who chose to keep some of their money aside wanting to save it for something else, and also wanting to take home, quite proudly, some of their earnings to family members.
On Elcho Island, artists, both established and blossoming, have an excellent outlet for their labours through Elcho Arts. It is an amazing gallery and should members ever have the opportunity to visit, I recommend you make your way to the art centre. If you do not, you can always keep an eye out for their exhibitions which do pop up from time to time in Darwin, and also overseas.
There are many more stories I could tell you about Shepherdson College and other remote areas, but time is upon me. I encourage members opposite to take the opportunity out bush to step into some of these schools and see what is happening. I know the Leader of the Opposition recently visited Yilpara in my electorate and the new Garrangali School where government has spent in excess of $3m in establishing new school buildings there, including a secondary education program and, with it, teacher housing to make it a small school as opposed to a homeland learning centre.
That invitation to visit goes to the new shadow for Education, the member for Brennan, who I know is passionate about education. I am sure he would love to learn more, see firsthand what is happening out in our remote schools in the bush. The invitation is there for the member for Brennan to join me on a visit into my electorate.
What I have just outlined in Indigenous employment opportunities out bush is just one sector of the job market in the bush, and it is that which allows people who live out there to find a pathway to work using the rich culture that Indigenous people naturally posses. But let us not forget also that ecoculture tourism is a growing part of the bush and, indeed, the Territory economy. There certainly are jobs out in the remote communities. As I mentioned earlier, right now there are many Indigenous Territorians working on SIHIP and doing extremely well. I saw that also just a couple of weeks ago when I visited, for the first time, with the members for Arafura and Nelson, SIHIP under way at Maningrida with many Indigenous people – there are far more people being employed and trained than they are contractually obliged to deliver and that is fantastic.
Let us not forget the mining sector. I come from an electorate with mining at the centre; it is out there in our remote areas. They are a big contributor to the Territory in export earnings, the supply chain they stimulate, and the employment and training they provide. I am really pleased to see some of the successful partnerships under way in these places. In my own electorate of Nhulunbuy, Rio Tinto Alcan has its own Indigenous training program, and has done for a few years. Indeed, one of the finalists at the Australian Training Awards for Indigenous Trainee of the Year was one of their trainees, Solomon Renata. Congratulations to Solomon; it was lovely that his wife, Frances, was able to travel to that awards ceremony as well.
To build on the opportunities and pathways into this sector that mining offers, I was pleased to announce on 5 November that this government welcomed the $8.5m investment of the federal government which will deliver trade training centres in west and east Arnhem Land at Gunbalanya, Jabiru and Groote Eylandt. I acknowledge the enormous efforts of officers from the Department of Education and Training who worked hard to prepare those submissions and secure the very best deal they could; indeed, well beyond expectations in securing funding from the federal government. I also acknowledge the efforts of the fairly newly-created unit within DET called the Pathways and Participation Unit which is looking at this very thing we are talking about.
These new trade training centres are coming in addition to facilities that have already been built at Tennant Creek High School, Kormilda College, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart at Wadeye and Marrara Christian College. I am advised that construction is also due to start fairly soon at Darwin High School, Ngukurr School, and construction is also under way at Xavier Community Education Centre in Nguiu.
The skills people stand to gain from participating in certificate courses and gaining recognised qualifications may well lead to a job in the mining centre; however, it is not limited to that. In the remote areas we have shires, homeland resource agencies, health clinics, and schools. With our emerging growth towns and our vision to build the private sector and attract private investment, that will bring with it a whole raft of other employment and training opportunities.
I also acknowledge the importance of the training sector in the Northern Territory. We know about Charles Darwin University, Batchelor which do great work, and Group Training Northern Territory is quite a well-known organisation. They have a big presence in my electorate. I had the great pleasure to attend the Dovaston Training Awards on Monday evening, held at SKYCITY casino. There were some 200 people at that dinner and, amongst them, were 70 people graduating, having completed their certificate courses in a whole host of areas - community services, aged and disability services, financial services, and frontline management to name but a few. Clearly, Shirley Dovaston, who runs the organisation, is very passionate about what she does. It was quite obvious she knows just about all her students, which included a group of women who had travelled from Borroloola for this graduation. I acknowledge and thank Shirley Dovaston for the contribution she makes to the training sector.
The higher education sector is also critical in the Northern Territory in growing our own. Thanks to a successful partnership CDU has with Flinders University we will see the establishment of our first medical school to grow our own doctors, with the first intake in 2011.
The Territory, under a Labor government, has come a long way since 2001 in driving the economy through that critical area of job creation. We have come a long way; we still have plenty to do. The CLP, by contrast, as I heard our Prime Minister say in the federal parliament last week, is long on complaints and short on ideas. It never supported the bush, so if we find we have challenges out in the bush it is because we have only had secondary education there for not quite 10 years. We have real challenges in focusing on education; however, we are getting there and are opening up those pathways.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this statement before the House and I commend it to members.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to a very important debate regarding the creation of jobs in the Northern Territory. As I said at the outset, there is nothing more important for a Labor government than the creation of jobs. The creation of jobs allows people to build productive and happy lives. Without jobs, there is misery in the community and misery for family. It is very important.
We are proud to be a government which has grown our workforce by around 26 600 new jobs since coming to government. That is an increase of around 27% of the labour force and is a fantastic achievement - unemployment at 3.1%, and 5000 new jobs created last year at a time, with the global financial crisis, when many other economies around the world were seeing jobs shed in their tens of thousands. That is why one of the most important policy objectives of any Labor government is to support the creation of jobs.
If we look at some of the comments from members opposite, the member for Nhulunbuy aptly pointed out they are very quick on pointing out problems and portraying the Territory as some basket case where everything is going wrong. As I said today, it has been a pretty exciting year in the Territory, given everything that is happening around the world.
The CLP talks the Territory down at every opportunity. The member for Braitling’s opening remarks were quite intrusive. This really is quite an extraordinary comment from the member for Braitling …
Dr Burns: Even for him.
Mr HENDERSON: Even for him. He said:
- …the Northern Territory government is overseeing a banana economy underpinned by welfare and social programs …
Well, heaven forbid! That is not the economy I see of the Northern Territory. I really do not know where the member for Braitling was going with comments like that. If you look at any of the Sensis Small Business Indexes, and listen to business people talking about the economy, they certainly do not see the Territory in that light. That is talking the Territory down to a whole new level.
We also had policy confusion on the opposition benches, where the member for Brennan was saying it was the government’s fault that property prices were dropping, and the Leader of the Opposition was saying it was the government’s fault for property prices increasing. They cannot even hold a consistent line. We know they are not talking to each other at the moment. We know they are about as divided as any group of people can possibly be. They can barely stand the sight of each other at the moment. For one of their members to be saying it is the government’s fault for property prices dropping and another one saying it is our fault for property prices increasing - jeepers creepers, what is going on over on the opposition benches?
We can see it was an opportunity for the opposition to talk about what their plans would be to grow the Northern Territory economy – where they would make strategic investments, what they would do in taxation regimes, where the opposition see there is an opportunity for private sector investment to grow in the Territory, and how to attract additional private sector investment in the Territory. It was a real opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to put out a strong vision for how he would work with the leaders of power to sustain economic growth in the Northern Territory into the future. We heard none of that - no vision, no plans, no hope for a bright future for the Northern Territory. A list of complains and whingeing, wining, moaning and groaning was the sum total of the contributions from those opposite.
I wait to hear from members opposite as we approach the election in 2012 what their economic plans will be, because there is certainly nothing on the table right now. I have not been to Terry’s website. What is that website called? Terry’s ideas or template or action plan or – what was the website called? Terry’sactionplan.com or something like that. Maybe someone can Google it. I am pretty sure there will not be an action plan for creating jobs in the economy ...
Dr Burns: Just keeping his own.
Mr HENDERSON: I suppose that is one job he is certainly focused on at the moment.
Mr Knight: He has been offering them up though.
Mr HENDERSON: That is true as well; that is true. However, I digress.
I thank my colleagues for their contributions, because I know all of us work really hard, whether we have urban electorates or bush electorates. Everyone is really focused on investment and jobs, and giving people opportunities in the economy. Members talked about record low unemployment, and it is just fantastic to see those figures in the Territory are a record for the Territory but, also, acknowledging those figures do not really do justice to the issues in the bush. We have seen creation of additional jobs in the bush in the last couple of years.
I go back to my initial speech, and I think the number of Indigenous Territorians in employment increased by 6% between 2008-09. We have stretched targets to grow that further. It is difficult, but we are focused on that. We see the best way out for people in the Northern Territory who are still living in poverty, predominantly on welfare, is a full-time job and a job that pays well. It is good to see those numbers increasing, but we will continue to work and strive to see those increase further.
I caught the tail end of the member for Nhulunbuy’s contribution, and many others talked about the importance of education, training and apprenticeships in preparing people for a growing economy and jobs for the future. I appointed the member for Nhulunbuy as Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Training with a real focus on school-to-work transition. She has taken to this new opportunity like a duck to water, very enthusiastically, and really getting her head around what we can do to further invest and support training, apprenticeships, and school-based apprenticeships. It is really important to work with business and industry to ensure those kids in our remote communities who are graduating with a Year 12 leaving certificate do transition into training or employment or to university. It is important that each and every one of those kids succeeds, given their success at school.
We are on track for our 10 000 new trainee and apprenticeship commencements. I have had the opportunity to be out and about in businesses over the last week or so, meeting apprentices and trainees. It always makes me very happy to talk to young people who are getting their start in the workplace and just seeing what a bright future they have in an exciting Northern Territory, and the opportunities that the Territory will provide into the future.
Our side also talked about the massive investment we have made in infrastructure since we came to government, particularly over the last couple of years. Specifically in regard to the global financial crisis and what has happened in collapsing GST revenues to the states, this is a government that did take a decision to massively increase our infrastructure spend to support, not only people directly in the construction industry, but also indirectly all of those suppliers to the construction industry - the engineers and designers that support the construction industry, and all of those jobs in the construction industry that then lead on to additional consumption in our economy. It was a very deliberate and strategic decision to keep the level of infrastructure spending and keep our construction workforce here whilst we wait for a final investment decision by INPEX late next year.
That infrastructure spend has had a significant impact on government budgets, and will see us into deficit country for a number of years whilst the private sector picks up where the government has left off. However, this is a government that makes absolutely no apologies for going into deficit to support small business, and to support jobs and to keep jobs here in the Northern Territory. There was no other way to keep our economy going, to keep jobs in the Northern Territory.
Again, we have had criticism from the opposition of the budget position we have and the deficits that are being forecast. There was nothing in their contributions. Well, what would the opposition have done? Would the opposition have been happy not to go into deficit and to see thousands of people lose their jobs in the Territory as the construction sector was to lay off people because of lack of private sector investment and investment that the public sector did not pick up? But, no, there was no explanation, no vision, just criticism.
We have also managed to develop and maintain a low tax base for business in the Northern Territory. We are really proud. It is a small business economy. Over 90% of all businesses registered in the Northern Territory are small businesses that employ significantly less than 100 people. We are the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia for small business that employs fewer than 100 people. All of that additional revenue that would have flowed to government stays within business and allows people to reinvest and to grow their business. Again, there were no contributions from those opposite about that tax regime and what they may do in business taxes.
The infrastructure spend, the commitment to training, the support for small business generally, the taxation environment, has consistently seen the Territory small business community over the last couple of years being right up there amongst the most confident small businesses in the country - confident to invest in their business, and about growth in their business. It is a tussle between the Northern Territory and Western Australia every time these surveys come out as to who is the top dog. Small business is more confident here in the Territory than elsewhere in Australia.
Members on the government bench have also talked about the important policy framework of A Working Future. As I have said, that is probably the most progressive policy reform in the Northern Territory since self-government. It provides a strategic vision to grow 20 towns that were previously seen to be remote communities. To grow 20 towns and grow economies out in these regions of the Territory where previously there was just only welfare and government staff working is a bold, big policy vision and one that, 18 months into the implementation, all of us across government are working very hard to see succeed.
We have had strong financial management over the term of government that has seen eight successive surpluses deployed. Our debt to revenue ratios have improved significantly from when we came to office, which has allowed us to go into temporary deficits to keep jobs here in the Territory we otherwise would not be able to do.
We have also worked very hard on investment attraction. I, with the Business minister, the Resources minister, and the Tourism minister, spend time travelling interstate and overseas promoting investment and opportunities in the Northern Territory. We are seeing significant investment in the Territory as it appears on the national and international maps. It is exciting to be able to be overseas to promote opportunities in the Northern Territory and see the interest from people, and that interest being converted into investment decisions.
As a result of the work the minister for Resources has been doing, we actually saw investment in mineral exploration last year increase. We were the only jurisdiction during the GFC that saw increased investment in mineral exploration. Compare that to when we came to office, when the previous government was just playing politics over native title. There were over 700 mineral exploration applications that had piled up on the minister’s desk, never to be touched whilst the politics of native title were played through at the time, absolutely stifling and throttling investments in mineral exploration in the Northern Territory. We moved quickly to eliminate that backlog and we are now an exciting place to invest in mineral exploration.
I could not miss the opportunity, with the couple of minutes I have left, to condemn the opposition for their political opportunism in opposing the Commonwealth stimulus - voting against that and against every school in the Northern Territory receiving significant upgrades to school facilities that have supported thousands of jobs in the Northern Territory. This has not only supported thousands of jobs in the Territory but also contributed to lasting, wonderful infrastructure for our kids, teachers, and our community. For the life of me, I just cannot believe that a party that once used to call itself, proudly, a Territory party, would side in Canberra to actually vote against investment in the Northern Territory, particularly investment in our schools. It absolutely beggars belief they opposed the BER.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are significant challenges ahead. The challenges are always there for any government to continue economic growth. We will continue to work hard to attract investment to the Northern Territory, to ensure the policy settings are right, and to see the Territory continue to grow in an exciting way into the future. I have a great deal of excitement about the future of the Northern Territory. The Territory really is going to be the place to be over the next 10 to 20 years. I just wish the opposition could get out and see it, and stop walking around with a big black cloud over their heads.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note Statement - A Working Future for Indigenous Families in Remote Areas
Note Statement - A Working Future for Indigenous Families in Remote Areas
Continued from 25 November 2010.
Mr HAMPTON (Central Australia): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my colleague, the Minister for Indigenous Development, on her statement and am more than happy to provide my response to the A Working Future ministerial statement she delivered recently.
I will go through my portfolios shortly. However, it is important in my role as a local member of a large bush electorate to understand what the statement means to my constituents in the electorate of Stuart. For me, as a local born and bred in Alice Springs, and as member for a large bush electorate, this A Working Future policy is critical to the future of people in Central Australia. We heard the Chief Minister talk briefly about A Working Future. There are other important government policies we have that link into A Working Future, such as Territory 2030, the Climate Change Policy I am leading the charge on as Minister for Climate Change, and environmental policies.
A Working Future is important because one of the things the minister talks about quite often, and has raised in our Caucus meetings with her bush colleagues, and with Cabinet, is the importance of gathering profiles of remote communities. It is something the minister has been leading the charge on in her portfolio, putting together the data, collecting the information from the regions for a picture of our remote communities. From the work the minister has done, we now have some very accurate and important data of the picture in remote and regional Northern Territory.
What is the picture? We know, through the work the minister has done, we have a relatively young and rapidly ageing Indigenous population. The Territory also has a large growing proportion of Indigenous people, which is highly dispersed. That is not new to us but it is really important we have that profile to direct and shape the policies we, as a government, move forward with in meeting some of those challenges.
We know we have a young and rapidly ageing population - both extremes – and there is a large growing proportion of Indigenous people who are highly dispersed. The official population of the Northern Territory was 210 000 persons, and the estimated Indigenous population in the Northern Territory was 64 000, or just 30% of all people in the Northern Territory. Many of those Indigenous people are living in highly dispersed regions of the Northern Territory.
I commend the minister for putting together the profile. It was something she pushed hard for very early after becoming minister, and I congratulate her on the work and the data we now have available. The work of the minister and her department looking at the growth towns is a very important part of our A Working Future.
During my time as a member of parliament I can recall when we began discussions in Caucus about A Working Future and growth towns. There was much debate and conversation about the growth towns. I am very pleased to have three growth towns of the 20 in my electorate of Stuart –Kalkarindji, Lajamanu and Yuendumu. Those three towns are growth towns; they are very vibrant, active communities. They are not only large in population but they offer many opportunities for the residents. I am very pleased to have those three growth towns in my electorate included in the 20, along with the other 17. What that means for them is now we can work with the community members, the residents of Kalkarindji, Lajamanu and Yuendumu; sit down and properly plan and design how their towns will look in the future: what types of services, what types of buildings and facilities they aspire to have, like any other country town in Australia. Also, there are opportunities for them to benefit from targeted investment in infrastructure, not only by government, but also the private sector.
During my time as a member, since 2006, I have had great opportunity, particularly as a minister, to visit many of the other growth towns. I believe it is very important ministers get around. Cabinet ministers in this government get around, particularly with our Community Cabinets, which provide a great opportunity for us, as a very close-knit Cabinet team, to go out together. I recall our Community Cabinet on Groote Eylandt. It was great to get to Milyakburra and other parts of Groote such as Alyangula. During our recent Community Cabinet at Wadeye, it was great to visit there as well as Palumpa. We are a government that gets out there. We have a great policy in A Working Future and the growth towns, and we are an active, inclusive, progressive government, members of which do not sit in the office and wait for things to come. Through our Community Cabinet process, there have been great opportunities and a great deal has come out of those Community Cabinet processes at Groote Eylandt and Wadeye. The whole of Cabinet was out there, on the ground, listening to the people. It is a very important process this government is undertaking and complements A Working Future and the Territory growth towns. I have received a great deal from it, as I said, through visiting Milyakburra, Alyangula and Wadeye. It has been a great opportunity to listen to the people there, particularly regarding my own portfolios, as a local Indigenous person, hearing the stories and listening to the ideas of other Indigenous people in other parts of the Northern Territory.
I also had the opportunity to go to Nhulunbuy, Yirrkala, and Maningrida with my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, and that has been a great learning experience. Many of the towns I have mentioned are also growth towns. It has been great to get out there through the Community Cabinet process, and through my portfolios, to listen to other Indigenous people and the challenges and ideas they have. That is really important when we talk about our Territory growth towns.
The minister talked about her experiences in her electorate, and about getting around the Territory listening to people on how they see their towns growing, being properly planned and designed, what services they have a vision for in their towns, what types of buildings and facilities they want in these growth towns, and how they can benefit from targeted investment in this type of infrastructure. It is a fantastic journey we are on. On this side of the House, there is a very close-knit Cabinet and Caucus. We are getting out there and listening to those people on the ground, which is really important.
As part of the Territory growth towns initiative, the minister talked about the local implementation plans. It was great for her to get Gunbalanya to sign off on the very first local implementation plan. Through my electorate of Stuart, in those three growth towns, people have been very active in being involved in developing their local implementation plans.
I thank the minister for involving her bush colleagues, as well as the process of consulting with the communities involved. It has been a really successful part of A Working Future. I know, through my involvement, my discussions with the minister and my bush colleagues, we have had a great deal of discussion around what should be in and what should be out of those plans, as well as listening to what the community is saying is important to them.
One of the issues I highlighted during my discussions with my colleagues and the minister has been law and order. It has been a fairly public issue in Yuendumu. I believe law and order is critical, and I am glad there are some strong parts built into the local implementation plans that cover law and order, because people out there want a safe community. They want to be able to grow their kids up, no matter where they are in the Northern Territory, and feel safe and feel that their kids have a really good environment to grow up in, not only at home, but in their town.
Through the old law and justice committees that operated through the Warlpiri communities, there are many people out there who have good experience and a lot of knowledge, both traditional and non-traditional, about law and order issues. I am looking forward to getting back out there, particularly to those Warlpiri communities, but all the other towns in my electorate that have local implementation plans, sitting down with them and looking at how we can best implement what is in those plans for the betterment of their communities. At the end of the day, those people, whether they are living at Lajamanu, Yuendumu, or Kalkarindji, want a safe and warm environment in which to grow their kids up, the same as we do in Darwin, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek or Katherine. I am pleased there are strong elements of law and order and community safety plans in the local implementation plans. It is important we continue to work on that so these towns prosper.
My office has had a lot of input into ICT. We have had good debates in here recently about the National Broadband Network. It is important that the growth towns, through the local implementation plans, have good ICT infrastructure. We all know the benefits of good ICT, through e-learning, e-Health, telemedicine, and these types of things. We know of the issues of chronic disease in many of these growth towns, and ICT is an important tool in addressing, not only the chronic health issues in our growth towns, but e-learning as well.
The member for Nhulunbuy knows the value of this type of infrastructure and the differences it could make to those communities in her electorate, with the fibre roll-out there now well and truly completed and being taken up in big numbers. I was very pleased that the minister and her department included ICT in some of the LIPs that we are talking about for those growth towns. It is such an important part of, not only the future digital economy, but service delivery in those critical areas of health and education.
I congratulate the minister on the path she has taken and the success I believe she has had in going out consulting with people, and talking to her colleagues on this side of the House about what should be in local implementation plans. That puts many of the growth towns in a good position for success into the future.
Homelands are a topic of great interest, particularly in my electorate. We have many homelands in my electorate. It is one that many people are interested in. This government is a progressive government. We are a government that gets out on country and talks to Indigenous people. I am sure the minister is fully aware of the issues with the homelands policy. Much work has been done consulting with communities, and I look forward to the minister’s work in the future on this particular policy. It is very important. Through places like Utopia, it is well documented …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I just ask the minister to step back from the mike so he does not drive the speakers away? It interferes, that is all.
Mr HAMPTON: Sorry, thank you. In places like Utopia, which was in my electorate before the last election, I spent a great deal of time out there and I have really listened and learned from people at Utopia about the importance of homelands to them and the benefits that homelands provide. There has been much research done, particularly in the Utopia region, by academics and researchers about the benefits of homelands, particularly health benefits. People living in smaller, decentralised communities are able to undertake more hunting and gathering and eating really nutritious bush food. They undertake more cultural obligations and ceremonies in country, and the spin-off is their health.
With regard to Utopia, there are many positives in homelands. There are also many challenges. There was a project through ATSIC which delivered some good systems in essential services. It was a single wire line system put out there - I think they called it Swirl. It was a power line put through the Utopia region. The main power station was at Alparra and a single wire line from the main power station at Alparra serviced all the homelands. That is another model we could look at for homelands which do not have access to that type of power system, keeping in mind climate change and renewable energy. There are many opportunities.
While there are many challenges with homelands, one of the opportunities is looking at renewable energy and how we can improve power supply to some of the homelands that may not have it. The system that Utopia has was implemented some time ago by ATSIC. There is no reason why we cannot learn from those examples and build on that. There are many challenges but I have full confidence in my colleague, the Minister for Indigenous Development, to bring together a really good homeland policy next year.
Going back to one of my other growth towns in my electorate, I go back to one of the Community Cabinets we had in Yuendumu not long ago. The issues people raised in relation to my Sport and Recreation portfolio, as well as because I am the local member - and I am glad it is in the local implementation plan - is addressing the issues of sports facilities, school attendance and the work that is being done on a feasibility study into the upgrade of the Yuendumu oval to AFLNT standards. That feasibility study has been completed and I look forward to that being delivered.
It is important that I have talked to many other stakeholders. How do we engage the community to address the issue of school attendance? That is the other challenge for many of our growth towns. We know, as a government, as members of this House, school attendance is as important as a safe community.
One of the incentives - the carrot-and-stick approach, I suppose you can call it - was we would look at a feasibility study into upgrading the Yuendumu oval to AFL standards and come back to the community for some discussion around an agreement that would link that upgrade to school attendance. It is a great initiative; the AFL in Melbourne supports it. They are on board and they are very keen to get some of the Indigenous players involved as ambassadors for these types of projects in the Territory. It is a great initiative and, as a local member, something I want to continue to work on next year. I believe we can roll out these types of initiatives across our other growth towns.
In Parks and Wildlife, there are many opportunities and I have talked to the minister about those. There are natural resources job opportunities, particularly in our growth towns, which is important to A Working Future ...
Ms McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time to allow the minister to finish his response, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: The Parks and Wildlife and Natural Resources area has enormous opportunity. We have the fantastic Alice Springs Desert Park which has developed an apprentice work-ready program for new apprentices commencing in the Northern Territory Public Sector. This is an eight-day program which will build on the success of the Desert Park, and this offer was extended to all NTPS agencies in Alice Springs last week. Our parks offer so many opportunities and work in well with the minister’s other portfolio of Tourism.
Tourism is an enormous industry in the Northern Territory which generates not only many dollars for small businesses and tourism operators, but also has an opportunity to create jobs for Indigenous people, particularly in the growth towns. One example is at Uluru and Kata-Tjuta. Throughout Kakadu, tourism also provides many opportunities. I will be talking to the minister and my colleagues shortly about the opportunities my agency of Parks and Wildlife, Natural Resources can play tapping into the tourism market with the wonderful parks we have in the Northern Territory. There are many job opportunities.
The West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project shows there are opportunities in the carbon economy - government working with developers, particularly within the framework of our draft offsets policy. Linking the parks area with tourism provides so many opportunities which can work in line with our A Working Future policy.
I believe they are the really important issues in my portfolios. As the Minister for Central Australia and the member for Stuart, I see A Working Future as a work in progress. I am proud to be part of the A Working Future policy. I have every confidence in the minister and my bush colleagues on this side of the House. We regularly talk about issues in our electorates. We know A Working Future is not the silver bullet, not the magic wand; however, it goes a long way in addressing some of those issues and providing many opportunities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement forward and offer my support.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I remind you that at 5.30 pm we will be going to General Business.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I add my support to the Minister for Indigenous Development’s statement on building A Working Future in the Territory’s remote communities. I have taken great interest in the debate on this incredible big, bold, and innovative policy from the Labor government in the Northern Territory.
I start with a comment made by the Chief Minister. When talking about A Working Future policy he referred to the Bob Dylan song, The Times They Are a-Changin’, and I started to think in that chronology. The Times They Are a-Changin’ was written by Bob Dylan in 1963. Another really important date comes to mind. The Aboriginal leader and land rights activist, Vincent Lingiari, led the Gurindji off Wave Hill Station in 1966. Another landmark date on my calendar is the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976. Quoting from the Central Land Council website:
- The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was the first attempt by an Australian government to legally recognise the Aboriginal system of land ownership and put into law the concept of inalienable freehold title. The Land Rights Act is a fundamental piece of social reform.
There was another big date that jumped into the frame for me. That was 1980 when I arrived in the Northern Territory. I was reflecting on this chronology in relation to the member for Port Darwin’s contribution to the debate. I enjoy the member for Port Darwin’s reflection on history. We can go back to the Punic Wars when we are debating some issues in this House, but I like reflecting on the member for Port Darwin’s retelling of Northern Territory history. I found some of the comments in the member for Port Darwin’s debate and comments regarding Indigenous Territorians and the A Working Future policy reflected a regressive nature. The member for Port Darwin needs to get back out bush again. He tells some great stories of his time in the bush. He needs to get back out there from the wonderful electorate of Port Darwin - a jewel in the crown of the capital of the Northern Territory. Mind you, what I am saying here is times have changed - times have changed big time. Whilst there are comparisons for the achieving of a protein diet to A Working Future policy, there has been a massive change.
I welcome the member for Port Darwin to visit the Barkly, to start looking at the growth towns in 2010 and beyond, because there are some radical changes that have taken place. Now, under a very innovative and bold policy, A Working Future, there will be some very important changes to come.
In May 2009, this government announced its clear commitment to delivering change for Territorians living in the bush - a commitment to real jobs, real towns, and real opportunities. The A Working Future policy maps that commitment for change for Indigenous Territorians. It maps a commitment to the transformation of 20 of our larger remote communities into real towns through a targeted investment in infrastructure, services, jobs, and economic opportunities.
The Territory’s strong population growth is not confined to our main centres. As the minister noted, by 2030, our larger remote communities will have populations of around 4000 people. Taking action now to plan for, and invest in, the future will help ensure Territorians living in the bush will have access to the same strong working future enjoyed by Territorians in our urban centres.
In relation to infrastructure, as we well know, the Northern Territory’s population is spread over vast distances. As the population of the Northern Territory’s 20 growth towns continues to increase, transport and infrastructure links will become even more important in delivering working futures in these communities.
The Country Liberal governments of the past were happy to turn their backs on the bush and focus their spending in town. I can say that as the member for Barkly, but also as a resident of the Barkly region for just on three decades - most of that time in the bush. If I make a criticism of policy, I make it regarding me and my family’s lives and what we saw as shallow government policy that was missing the richness, diversity, and cultural opportunities of the bush. There were things happening in the bush; we do not doubt that - and we were a part of that. The communities that were there were a part of it. However, it had a limiting aspect to life in the bush 20 and 30 years ago. There was just something missing.
A Working Future and the policy this government has adopted - the first Northern Territory government to take this brave step - has captured that essence of what is necessary to move our regional and remote areas forward ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, it being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence of Government Business until 9 pm. You will have the opportunity to conclude your remarks when the debate resumes.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Review Committee to Monitor Energy Efficiency
Review Committee to Monitor Energy Efficiency
Continued from 23 November 2010.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
That the government reviews the provisions of the 5-star energy efficiency rating by forming a review committee comprising local designers, architects, builders, certifiers, and other relevant experts to assess:
(a) the satisfaction of the standard while allowing for passive designed homes which accommodate the tropical climate;
(b) peer review assessment for these designs by local experts;
(c) the suitability of the computer program currently used; and
(d) the appropriateness of the mandatory requirement of 5-star energy efficiency rating.
Since then, I have become a little confused as to what the real story is. I have had, right up to this time, discussions with quite a number of people from the department, two builders, one accredited residential thermal performance assessor, a number of architects and others - probably who live in houses. It is an area that is not that easy to understand, but I believe it is an area we should debate in parliament to see whether we are going in the right direction and, if we are not, whether we review what has happened and see if there can be some adjustments to the existing provisions.
I was informed that the design of a house in the Northern Territory tropics has to fit within the Deemed to Satisfy Provisions of the Building Code of Australia, the BCA, or the design software called AccuRate. AccuRate is a house energy rating software which uses an alternative verification path from the energy efficient requirements of the BCA. I am reliably informed that both the BCA and AccuRate assume that a house will be air-conditioned.
The architect I was speaking to said we should be following the Queensland example that uses both AccuRate and BERS software, another software package used for energy efficiency ratings. The House Energy Rating Industry Reference Group, with the acronym HER IRG, had concerns the software would not be suitable for the tropics, and recommended the second generation of AccuRate:
- … is appropriate for use as an Alternative Verification method to assess whether residential buildings meet BCA energy efficiency requirements in BCA Climate Zone 1 (hot humid tropics).
It is interesting to note that the architect who raised some of these matters said his solar village house which used natural cooling under the AccuRate program had been assessed as only having 1.5 stars. Since I wrote this, I have been informed by the department that if there had been another method used his house could have come up to 5 stars or more.
It was interesting to note in the HER IRG report that, under one of its recommendations, it said that:
- … there is a need for ongoing research and development regarding how AccuRate rates residential buildings in the tropics, particularly in areas such as comfort ratings, separate day and night time performance indicators …
It would be interesting to hear if the research and development of comfort ratings has gone ahead. The issue of comfort ratings was raised by another architect who said the comfort rating system had been completely ignored. I have another document here, amongst many, which I am not sure has a date on it. Some of the documents that have come out from various departments are not dated. There was an evaluation of AccuRate simulations of various design strategies to improve house thermal performance in Darwin and Alice Springs prepared by Tony Isaacs Consulting Pty Ltd for the Northern Territory Department of Planning and Infrastructure. I must admit, it does have, on page 2 or page 3, a section on human comforts. As this document has no date on it I am not sure whether the statement was made before the report came out by the person who had an issue with the government over the HER IRG recommendation that looked at comfort ratings.
There is a question of whether the computer software that is being used, AccuRate, should be used in the hot, humid tropical part of the Northern Territory and why we do not use the software used in Queensland, such as BERS. My understanding is that is a possibility. There is still some work to be done on it and then builders in the Northern Territory will have the ability to use both forms of software. As it stands at the moment, we are only using one form of software. I gather in Queensland they have the ability to use up to three software programs.
I will quote from an e-mail I received this week from an architect. I am not saying that all this is necessarily right, but it shows you how difficult it is to get a handle on what the 5-star efficiency guidelines are all about. It could be that there is misunderstanding; that the department has not quite got its message over to certain people. However, I had an e-mail which was in response to the department’s e-mail which said a number of things. It spoke about the Building Code and Australia’s 5-star introduction to the Territory. It has been in operation nationally for five years and here for six months. So, it has only been in for a short while in the Territory:
- The Housing Industry Association and Master Builders have welcomed the provisions and the minister regularly meets with the builders who have not raised this as an issue.
The architects were the most vocal group on the advisory committee but withdrew their concerns following changes to the computer software and certifiers’ abilities.
The department also put in some background information:
In accordance with an inter-government agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories, the Territory government adopts the Building Code of Australia (BCA) as its main building regulation. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG), through the National Partnership Agreement on Energy Efficiency of June 2009, has decided the BCA will be the means of achieving its strategy for energy efficient buildings. The Territory is a signatory to the agreement and has accordingly committed to improved energy efficiency provisions for buildings in the Territory.
In broad terms there are three ways in which houses can demonstrate compliance with the BCA: Deemed to Satisfy provisions (DTS); and two alternative solution approaches being a software tool and expert panel. While the DTS provisions were readily available in the BCA, they are generally prescriptive in nature and can limit design solutions to achieve 5-star ratings.
Five-star ratings for houses commenced in the BCA in 2005, however, the Territory did not apply these provisions until 1 May 2010 in response to concerns over the suitability of these measures for the Territory climate.
At the time 5-star provisions were introduced in the BCA, the Northern Territory Building Advisory Committee (BAC), established under the Building Act, advised government that the measures did not adequately deal with natural ventilation for tropical designs, and they generally assumed buildings would be air-conditioned, and that the house energy rating software AccuRate was unsuitable. Naturally ventilated tropical designs are also referred to as free flowing/passive designed houses.
- A Housing Energy Rating Industry Reference Group, (HER IRG), was established to make recommendations to the BAC regarding the suitability of the energy rating software tool AccuRate for NT conditions ..
- The Department commissioned various consultants to provide technical advice to HER IRG, BAC and itself. In September 2008, HER IRG gave its final report to BAC advising that it considered AccuRate to be suitable for the tropical climate.
Originally, the reference group said AccuRate was not suitable for the Northern Territory, especially the hot tropical climate. Then, in September 2008, in its final report, it said it was:
- The Australian Institute of Architects NT Chapter provided a dissenting report not supporting AccuRate or any similar rating tool. This is because the tool models the use of artificial cooling to achieve occupant comfort for climate conditions when a house design and natural ventilation cannot sustain that comfort, as occurs often in the Territory. Furthermore, there were concerns that the assessment of free flowing houses could not be adequately assessed using either the Deemed to Satisfy provisions in the BCA, or the software tool.
I need to go on a little more. I know this is a long quote but it gives people some idea of what the government is saying, then I can compare what other people have said. This is in relation to the computer program:
- Following further evaluation and modifications to the software tool to improve the modelling of air flow and comfort, the BAC advised government in January 2009 that it was satisfied the 5-star measures in the BCA were cost-effective, would result in improved energy-efficiency outcomes and have sufficient flexibility to allow appropriate tropical designs. BAC also supported the use of AccuRate in the Northern Territory.
While the existing prescribed provisions and the rating tool AccuRate will no doubt be refined over time, BAC was of the view that the balance in BCA 2009 was reasonable. The Queensland government (having not applied the same BCA provisions as the Northern Territory to date for the same reasons) was also of the view and introduced the 5-star provisions in March 2009, with support from the architects in Queensland.
I need to go on a little further. As I said before, there are three ways you can get a building assessed for 5-star efficiency in the Northern Territory: (1) is Deemed to Satisfy; (2) is this program we are talking about, AccuRate; and (3) is you can do it through a peer review structure. Part of my motion today is saying the peer review group should be made up of local experts, and we should also have a suitable computer program for the tropics.
- Through HER IRG, the Australian Institute of Architects NT Chapter had expressed concerns that the 5-star provisions and the tools available for the assessment of houses (DTS and AccuRate) would preclude the design of free flowing/passive design houses.
Faced with a similar issue, Queensland has developed a peer review structure to support the alternative solution (performance based) method when used for architecturally designed free running buildings. The Australian Institute of Architects NT supported this concept.
The pool of experts and the volume of relevant work in the Territory were considered to be small. Therefore, it was agreed that the Territory, with the support of Building Codes Queensland who administer the panel, could give recognition to experts on the Queensland Peer Review Panel, and an expert could be then engaged by an architect or building designer through a normal contractual arrangement.
The Institute of Architects NT Chapter in turn advised that, with the establishment of a peer review option, it withdrew its original objection and supported the BCA provisions being applied in the Territory.
There has been recent mention of a local peer review panel being established in the Territory. It is understood that the Queensland Review Panel has not been accessed by any client … building designer or architect for designs since the commencement of the Review Panel. On this basis, the Deemed to Satisfy Provisions or the AccuRate software tool are considered adequate for the needs of industry and application in the NT.
What appears to have happened is there were some concerns about the AccuRate computer program which originally was designed to work under the assumption that the house would be built for an air-conditioner. I do not think that has gone away completely but, in discussions this afternoon with the department, they told me you can build a house with banks of louvres subject to some design changes. One would be if there is to be sun coming on to those windows, those windows would need to be tinted, they could be timber, or they could be of another material so you do not pass heat into the house. You could also have larger eaves so you keep the sun off the windows. The orientation of the building is important. If your house is running east/west, there is very little chance that the sun, this far north anyway, will actually shine on the windows.
It is interesting to see how the AccuRate tool, according to the department, is capable of allowing a house with banks of louvres because that is the old-style, free-flowing house many people are concerned would not be allowed to be developed.
I have asked about the Burnett houses. People know the Burnett houses on Myilly Point. Could you build a Burnett house today under the 5-star efficiency? I have been told by other people you could not. Today, I was told you can. It is simply by making sure those louvres, which make up the basis of those Burnett houses, are of material which does not allow the heat to be transferred into the house. Burnett houses used to be asbestos louvres, I think, in the old days; today you would use timber or another material. If you were to use glass, your glass would have to be tinted. If you were using the same design of the Burnett houses, I am not sure how far those eaves come out, so the only option there would be to tint the louvres or use a different material. It is reassuring, according to the department this afternoon, that you could build one of those houses. I am interested to see someone try that.
In relation to the peer group panel, the concern was - and I should mention I did get a response from an architect to the department’s paper that was sent to us explaining about the AccuRate, the DET, and the expert panel. This was the response they gave. The gentleman said:
- The advice from the senior advisor …
That is where I got my advice from:
- … contains statements that are not correct in respect of the view of the Australian Institute of Architects NT Chapter. The AIA has not altered its objection to the move to 5-star energy rating and the use of the AccuRate software in the tropical parts of the NT.
My understanding is, according to the senior advisor, that is not the case now, but this person is saying it still is the case.
- Neither the Deemed to Satisfy (DTS) provisions of the Building Code of Australia or the alternate AccuRate assessment software provide for free running dwellings.
- The cost of electricity is such that many people need the option to open their houses to the breezes for cooling. The new provisions will result in dwellings with smaller openings. Houses would have to be made from materials that will not cool rapidly overnight; entrenching the hot box that has become the vernacular in the newer suburbs. That’s fine if you can afford to live that way but few have the financial means to fully air-condition their homes.
Again, the advice I have just been given this afternoon is that you can build a house like the Burnett house.
- Note that the DTS rating provisions and the AccuRate tool do not actually require dwellings to be air-conditioned, but the system makes the assumption that dwellings will be air-conditioned and, given that (false) assumption, require dwellings to be built in such a way that they will be uncomfortable if not air-conditioned.
Although the department has said you can build a house with louvres, I believe they accept the fact that AccuRate does design it - if you pass on or sell your house – so the house can be used with air-conditioning. One way around that so you do not pass the house on to someone who cannot use it efficiently with air-conditioning is there are new types of louvres today which are very tight sealing; they are basically waterproof, and they are tighter sealed than sliding windows. So, depending on the design, you can come up with some of these solutions that would satisfy the AccuRate tool. Also, if someone wanted to buy your house later and they wanted to use air-conditioning - this is not a debate about whether you can have air-conditioning or not; we are standing in it here - it is about allowing people to use as little energy as possible and still be comfortable if they require that.
In relation to the peer panel, the architect says:
- The option offered of using a Queensland-based panel of experts is so inconvenient (and costly) that I do not doubt that anyone has taken the option: because it is just too difficult.
I should say a few other things as well to give you the idea that some of the people out there who work on the ground have some concerns. One of our local builders in my electorate, who has an understanding of how the 5-star rating operates, when he sat down and designed a house that included solar power, solar hot water, and the use of grey water, ended up getting a rating of 4.5. What he was a bit concerned about was that a normal house, without those things, could get a 6.5-star energy rating, whereas when he added these things in, he got a lower rating.
My understanding, talking to the department, is that the 5-star rating is not based on how much energy you might use with a lower or more efficient toaster or refrigerator, or solar hot water, it is about the efficiency of the house to be cooled. That is where the confusion could come in. I believe we should be saying to people, this house is a 7- or 8-star house, based on the fact that it has some solar panels on the roof, it has solar hot water, it is reusing grey water, which is very good. However, as he said, he designed a house with all these extras and it does not get counted because it does not fit in with the guidelines of the 5-star efficiency requirements.
I will tell you a couple of other things this gentleman said. Many builders are building houses designed ‘not tropical’ - they are his words - and only have to make small changes to meet the star rating. The energy rating, he said, assumes air-conditioning. He said the software bases the rating on a temperature of 24o. My understanding is that it is actually 26o. The energy rating discourages passive designs. Louvres will drop the star rating. Large eaves will increase the star rating. Air-conditioning is a good example of the rating not being about energy efficiency. Standard air-conditioners use a lot of power, especially at start up to get the temperature down. Inverter air-conditioners minimise the grunt used at start up and do not use as much power as the standard unit. There is no difference in rating for them. The cost of modifications to the energy rating would be close to 4%. He also mentioned he believes that, in Queensland, you get an instant star for solar hot water and an external patio. They are some of the issues that were of concern to that gentleman.
There was another gentleman who made the effort to become an assessor. He mentioned that the Deemed to Satisfy system was like a sledge hammer to a walnut. It makes requirements more onerous and requires more money to be spent, and is only best on renovations. That was an interesting quotation as well.
I should also say, minister, I have this pretty good magazine, Resident. It is a flash magazine. I am sure the member for Goyder will be pleased to know that it actually headlines the best of rural living. I know things are booming in Coolalinga, Howard Springs and Virginia, and I have to admit that my house is not in here and the member for Goyder’s is probably not in here ...
Ms Purick: And mine is a Burnett house; it should be in there.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but when you see the houses in here, you are seeing some pretty flash houses. There is a house in here - it is a nice heading of ‘West Virginia’. It is a beautiful house on 10 acres, but it is louvred. Vantage Homes is the company that has built this one. They have an advertisement in there and this home is only worth about $1.2m, a little over that. It is a house with a large number of louvres. It has been designed for both sorts of living with natural flow and air-conditioning. It has large patio areas and is certainly much better than my house, I can tell you. There are builders building houses which allow natural ventilation. If you have the right architects and the right money you can design houses that are both suitable for air-conditioning and natural flows.
I would not say there is a lot of confusion out there, but there is certainly some confusion. The department said today the confusion could be with about 5% or 6% of the people who deal with the efficiency guidelines. However, if that 5% is prominent people like architects and they are having some concerns about it, that leads into people also having doubts about the system - people like me, because I certainly have had difficulty understanding why one would promote a house that is suitable for air-conditioning when the very basis of an air-conditioner, much as it is very nice, is to use up energy - far more energy than a couple of fans in a house. We have had a design since the days of Burnett which did not include air-conditioning, but were pleasant houses to live in.
There is no doubt that when the temperature outside is nearly the same as the temperature inside, it is more comfortable if you can cool that air down a little. Air-conditioning does have its uses; there is no doubt about that at all. But, when we start to talk about a 5-star efficiency, when we want to build a house for air-conditioning so they use as little air-conditioning as possible, that is fine. I was concerned we were not giving equal weight to people not wanting to build with the concept of air-conditioning. It simply said this house will be built like an old-fashioned house that will just be relying on natural breezes and fans. That is where some of this confusion has occurred. I might have been confused, and that could be based on ignorance, but when architects come to me and say: ‘We have some concerns as well,’ I say: ‘Is the message out there? Have there been a number of discussions with some parts of the industry?’ I gather other parts of the industry are quite happy. The fundamental principle of what I am trying to promote tonight is it would be good to have a review because there are some doubts and some confusion about what has happened.
I understand the government had a review, originally, in relation to the introduction of the 5-star efficiency rating. There is a possibility it will be reviewing the 6-star efficiency rating. In that review process, you could take up the matters I am looking at. I do not want to have arrears in reviews, but it may be that you could incorporate the issues I am talking about as part of that 6-star energy proficiency review.
On the last issue, I want to talk about the appropriateness of the mandatory requirement of a 5-star energy efficiency rating. I am a person who believes governments pass legislation for the benefit of the community. I understand we are looking at energy efficiency because we are trying to save the planet; we are trying to have houses that use less energy than the houses of old. On the other side, it is a little sad to see what you might call the inability by Territorians to have some individuality. Of course, you have to find that balance ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Barkly.
In the Territory, to some extent - maybe it is because I live in the rural area - people were able to live in a building they could put their tick on and say: ‘That is me’. The more regulations we bring in, whether its energy efficiency, cyclone coding, or whatever, we have lost the ability to do something that is like a signature: ‘That is my house, I designed it; I like it’.
Today, we tend to bring everything down to: you must do it this way, and you must do it that way. I am caught in the reality of the world today. We want to use less energy. It is not even a matter of whether it is energy; it is the old adage that you do not waste things. Whether you eat all your food and do not throw it away, or whether you use the least energy you need to, are good principles in life.
I am torn between the balance of saying allow people to have some flexibility in the design they want and do not regulate their lives to the nth degree. However, I understand in this day and age we have moved along over the 30 or 40 years I have been here. We were not talking about energy efficiency, especially when I lived in a Sidney Williams hut - no lining, no fans and they were hot houses without any insulation at all - for three years at Daly River. That was a very energy-efficient building because all we had was one yellow globe in it. I know what the other extreme is like; it is trying to find a balance.
One other point, in the discussion about 5-star efficiency we could look at the broader discussions in relation to what the builder said about the possibility of using - if you have solar hot water, solar panels - grey water as part of the 5-star process. Eventually, we have to look at the cost of building houses. Do you use recycled material? Concrete and aluminium are probably building materials which are the two highest energy users. When people say they are building an energy efficient house, it might be you do not need to have an air-conditioner; the amount of concrete and aluminium in the house might outweigh that by a mile. I am not saying we should not build houses from concrete and aluminium.
When we are looking at this whole concept of sustainable living we do not want to ignore some of the costs. Are we building houses that are far too big for our needs? Are we building houses which are a waste because the house is enormous? Some of the houses in some of the suburbs in Melbourne are double storey; they are enormous houses. You have to ask: ‘Do you need a house that big?’ There are some fundamental questions about how much money we are putting into living our lives in the form of materials which go into these houses.
Of course, you can look at recycling material; however, you have to be careful with recycling material because the cost of recycling might be higher than using the raw material. The materials you get may have to be adjusted or made differently to be suitable for the structure you are building. I was told today recycled timber can sometimes be a problem; it is not necessarily suitable for a house to come up to cyclone code.
We are talking about 5-star efficiency, the AccuRate program, the DST – the Deemed to Satisfy - and also about the expert panel. They are issues which could be reviewed. At the same time as looking at the bigger picture regarding energy efficiency, look at other options which could be added into the review such as solar panels, solar hot water, grey water, and whether a house has been built from materials which have required less energy to produce. I am simply asking the government to review what has happened. If they wish to include that in their review of the new 6-star energy proficient houses, that would be good.
I looked at the houses at Bellamack village the other day. I am told they have a rating of 6. I believe they are very well designed. They have quite a large gap between houses, which allows free flow. If you compare the gap between those houses at Bellamack village and some of the houses you see at - happy valley, I call it - on Tiger Brennan Drive, they are practically next to one another. They have a fence between them and they have banks of air-conditioners. The Bellamack houses are not air-conditioned; they have quite a number of louvres in them ...
Dr Burns: I tried to tell you how good they were.
Mr WOOD: I know; I can eat my own words. They are a relatively narrow house which does allow flow through. They even have room for a boat. They probably even have room for a garden shed, at which I am amazed. They have room for the barbecue on the back veranda. I thought they were very good.
I know SIHIP houses have come under a lot of criticism, but the block houses we saw at Umbakumba were 6-star rating. When I visited Umbakumba and went into the rooms there – insulation is very important; they have the cool room insulation in the ceiling which I recommend for anyone these days. That makes a heck of a lot of difference. They had a bank of louvres, larger eaves than many houses you see today, and those houses were quite cool.
They certainly can be built, but those houses are all being built to a design the government wants. Of course, that was the issue I had. Why do I have to build one to that design? Can I build one that I like as long as it is cyclone proof? Why can I not build it myself? If it is a bit too hot, well, that is my bad luck. If it is a bit too cold and blowy, well, that is my bad luck. All in all, that is going to be more a philosophical debate rather than a technical debate. I believe if people want to see some good houses - small, they are not huge; the Bellamack village houses are about 94 m2. I measured the bedroom. It was not a Velcro bedroom - it was 4 m x 3.6 m with cupboards. It gave the impression that you can build houses at a reasonable price and be energy efficient if you use the right technique.
Years ago, people built houses east-west. Nowadays, it has become the in thing for energy efficiency. Anyone who built a house in the tropics and had some knowledge of building always built the house east-west so only the ends of your house got hot. Cattle stations and homesteads were all built with large verandas. Why? To keep the heat off the walls. Now, we have wider eaves on houses. Why? To keep the sun off the walls. We have just re-invented the wheel and called it a 5-star efficiency program. I wonder whether common sense went out the door in the 1980s and 1990s. Now we are coming back and spending millions on committees, reviews, and COAG meetings to design something we have always had in the Territory. We just forgot it and, now, we have come back to it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope the government will support this motion.
Mr McCARTHY (Construction): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward, and I add my comments and respond to some of the issues raised by him. It is a pleasure to debate a bushman in this House. The member for Nelson has certainly shown his roots in the Territory in this debate tonight.
The essence of the debate the member has brought forward is what he perceives is a limit on house design in relation to 5-star requirements. This has been a very interesting learning curve for me as the minister as well. I thank the member for Nelson for making the time to meet with departmental officials and advisory staff; the same staff who advise me as the minister, the same gurus who provide me with that knowledge to go forward in making very important decisions in the context of the whole of the Territory, and the same people who have provided me with the enlightenment and also the story to tell in relation to the debate.
I would like to go out on a bit of a freestyle to start off with, and quote Dr David Suzuki. If we are talking about a concept like energy efficiency, and our society and our community, then we have to be in it together. If we are talking about issues like climate change and the future of our planet, then we have to be in it together. So, when you see COAG reforms, they are talking about a holistic approach in Australian society where we all can participate but, at the same time, we all share a level of responsibility. In relation to energy efficiency, this is very scientific but also pragmatic. I agree with the member for Nelson, it can be confusing until you start to deconstruct it. At the end of the day, it is important we value the concept, as a society and community, of doing the best for Mother Earth we all celebrate here.
I begin the contribution to this debate by thanking the industry professionals who worked with government in designing the implementation arrangements for the introduction of 5-star energy efficiency. We are proud to be the first Territory government that has mandated minimum standards of energy efficiency. We want new homes in the Territory to be built to our climatic conditions. With any new regulations, though, it is important that we get the rules right, that industry understands what is required, and they are achieving their purpose. In this case, it is energy efficiency. We think we got it right, and we think it is working fairly well, but we acknowledge it is not perfect - nothing is. In general, the feedback from industry and the peak bodies, such as the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders, has been supportive of the provisions.
An energy efficient home pays back its owners over time through reducing heating and cooling costs, and is an investment in protecting the environment. Even a saving of 5% of energy per year, every year over 50 or more years, is an amazing achievement. In a collective, that is a real achievement in protecting our planet.
As background, it is important to first understand what the building controls are and how they are administered. The Territory government adopts the Building Code of Australia, BCA, as its main building regulation in accordance with an inter-governmental agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories. The Council of Australian Governments, through the National Partnership Agreement on Energy Efficiency of June 2009, has decided the BCA will be the means of achieving its strategy for energy-efficient buildings. The Territory is a signatory to this agreement and has, accordingly, committed to improved energy efficiency provisions for buildings in the Northern Territory.
In broad terms, there are three ways in which houses can comply with the BCA: Deemed to Satisfy provisions, and two alternative solution approaches, being a software tool and an expert panel. Whilst the Deemed to Satisfy provisions were readily available in the BCA, they are generally prescriptive in nature and can limit design solutions to achieve 5-star ratings. Five star ratings for houses commenced in the BCA in 2005. The Territory did not apply these provisions until 1 May 2010 in response to concerns over the suitability of these measures for the Territory climate. We wanted to get it right and take industry along with us. That is also an interesting marker in my learning curve around energy efficiency.
At the time 5-star provisions were introduced in the BCA, the Northern Territory Building Advisory Committee advised government the measures did not adequately deal with natural ventilation for tropical designs as they generally assumed buildings would be air-conditioned and that the house energy rating software, AccuRate, was unsuitable. Naturally ventilated tropical designs are also referred to as free-flowing passive design houses. These are the homes we want to promote, not the reliance on air-conditioning. On this basis, it was important to put together a review committee much like the member for Nelson is proposing tonight.
A House Energy Rating Industry Reference Group was established to make recommendations to the BAC regarding the suitability of the energy rating software tool, AccuRate, for NT conditions following modifications to the software to improve the modelling of air flow and comfort. The House Energy Rating Industry Reference Group consisted of members from the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, the Master Builders Association, Building Designers Association, Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, and the Housing Industry Association - an impressive list of stakeholders.
The Department of Lands and Planning also commissioned various consultants to provide technical advice. That advice was provided to the House Energy Rating Industry Reference Group and also the BAC. In September 2008, the House Energy Rating Industry Reference Group, or HER IRG, gave its final report to the BAC advising that it considered AccuRate to be suitable for a tropical climate. At that time, the Australian Institute of Architects NT Chapter provided a dissenting report, not supporting AccuRate or any similar rating tool. These concerns were important and we acted to ensure they were addressed. Their issue was that, in the current tool models, the use of artificial cooling achieved occupant comfort for climatic conditions when a house design and natural ventilation cannot sustain that comfort, as often occurs in the Northern Territory. Furthermore, there were concerns that the assessment of free-flowing houses could not be adequately assessed using either the Deemed to Satisfy provisions in the BCA or the software tool.
Following further evaluation and modifications to the software tool to improve the modelling of air flow and comfort, the BAC advised government in January 2009 that it was satisfied the 5-star measures in the BCA were cost effective, would result in improved energy efficiency outcomes, and have sufficient flexibility to allow appropriate tropical designs. The Building Advisory Council also supported the use of AccuRate in the Northern Territory.
While the existing prescribed provisions and the rating tool, AccuRate, will, no doubt, be refined over time, the BAC was of the view that the balance in BCA 2009 was reasonable. The Queensland government, having not applied the same Building Code of Australia provisions as the Northern Territory to date for the same reasons, was also of the view and introduced the 5-star provisions in March 2009, with support from the architects in Queensland. Faced with a similar issue, Queensland has developed a peer review structure to support the alternative solution, performance-based method when used for architecturally designed free running buildings. The Australian Institute of Architects NT Chapter supported this concept.
The pool of experts and the volume of relevant work in the Territory were considered to be small. It was, therefore, agreed that the Territory, with the support of Building Codes Queensland, which administers the panel, could give recognition to experts on the Queensland peer review panel, and an expert could then be engaged by an architect or building designer through a normal contractual arrangement.
The Institute of Architects NT Chapter, in turn, advised that with the establishment of a peer review option, it withdrew its original objection and supported the Building Code of Australia’s provisions being applied in the Northern Territory.
The motion before the House calls for a local peer review panel being established in the Territory. Government does not believe this is necessary in the Territory as we have a small building design and architectural community and critical analysis of a peer is always difficult. Critiquing the work of a peer in a small and tight-knit sector could be a concern for industry. However, I have instructed the department to work with the Queensland government to ensure a local expert could be considered on the expert panel. It is also understood the Queensland review panel has not been accessed by any client in either the Territory or Queensland; that is, no building designer or architect has needed the review panel to consider a building which falls outside of the deemed to comply provisions or the AccuRate model since it was established.
Of hundreds of dwellings right across the Northern Territory that have been built under the 5-star provisions about 50% have been approved under AccuRate and 50% under the deemed to comply provisions. We even have 6-star dwellings. There are SIHIP dwellings that are 6-star, and the new units at Bellamack Gardens, which the member for Nelson commended, are also 6-star. All of these dwellings rely on passive cooling and do not have air-conditioning. On this basis, the Deemed to Satisfy provisions, or AccuRate software tool, are considered adequate for the needs of industry and application in the Northern Territory.
In relation to 6-star energy efficiency, we are moving towards a 6-star energy efficiency standard for residential housing construction across Australia. I am happy to put on the record tonight, if this motion is supported by parliament we will establish an industry reference group in 2011 to ensure the 6-star tools are suitable for the Territory. At this time, the review committee will be able to consider the performance of the current 5-star efficiency measures.
An important starting point for the group will be to understand where we are now with the assessment tools and provisions, and how they can be improved to meet a new higher standard. Our climate is highly variable across the Territory, and it is important the tools meet the requirements for tropical homes to the north, and also temperate homes closer to the outback of Central Australia. We will get it right and will take advice from industry to ensure those who build and design the homes provide knowledge into the mix.
The member for Nelson also talked about the use of appliances and their role in determining energy efficiencies for homes. The building code does not consider the use of appliances. I have been advised these have their own ratings and consumers should choose appropriately. They have much shorter lives then a home and are regularly replaced during the life of the structure.
In conclusion, I reiterate the existing tools are working in the Territory context. AccuRate is the only federally accredited assessment tool able to be utilised in the Territory. It provides certainty for the industry and a demonstrated benefit for consumers. There are other rating tools currently being accredited such as BERS, as mentioned by the member for Nelson and, when accredited, it will be able to be used by the Northern Territory. Our rating tools do not require the installation of air-conditioning, and tropical Territory homes can and are being built.
Madam Speaker, we have a good relationship with industry and no complaints are being recorded by the department at this stage. Hundreds of new homes have been built since the 5-star rating for homes and 3.5-star rating for apartments was introduced in May this year. The performance of homes needs to be considered in the context of their expected life of around 50 years. That does not mean the tools are perfect. They can be improved, and we are confident we have the appropriate feedback mechanisms in place to ensure industry is heard.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I might have to speak a little longer.
Madam SPEAKER: Not necessary, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I do have something to say. I thank the minister for his response to the motion. Several things came to mind when the minister was speaking, and maybe these areas, although not directly related to the physical nature of the 5-star efficiency requirements, would have an effect on the principles behind 5-star ratings.
For instance, part of the efficiency guidelines include the orientation of a house from east to west but, if a government is designing subdivisions where blocks may be narrow but pointing north–south, then the ability to build a house east–west is difficult. I have seen this in developments in Palmerston, where the streets travel east–west and, therefore, the blocks go north-south, and there is little opportunity for a house on the right orientation. Whilst it is good for government to say it supports 5-star efficiency, the government has to take some of those other steps to help that, by ensuring subdivision design allows for some of those stars to be achieved.
When we talked about blocks, one of the changes which has occurred over the last few years is that building envelopes have become larger on blocks on land, so you have smaller distances between neighbour’s blocks, which means you have less air movement. In some cases, that can even aggravate the situation, where there can be banks of air-conditioners which blow heat into the neighbour’s house, or you can have metal fences which could be 6’ high, which also not only just limit the air flow but, because they are metal, are producing heat which then, as the breeze blows, is being moved into the house and not helping cool the house down.
The issue of waivers on building envelopes is another area which needs to be looked at. It is part of planning, as is the orientation of blocks. Perhaps there needs to be some emphasis - if the government says 5-star efficiency is good for the Earth then its contribution would be to ensure the designs of subdivisions it approves are done in such a way as to make it easier for people to fit within the 5-star efficiency guidelines.
The other area which has always been a concern of mine - and I have never really been able to get to the bottom of it - is covenants. I do not know who controls covenants. Sometimes private developers say you cannot build a second-hand house, a house made out of metal - it has to be a block house; you cannot have a two-storey house - it has to be a single-storey house; and the roof has to be certain colours. I have said this before: if you go past suburbs in Palmerston you see black roofs. That would take about two stars off the 5-star efficiency. I hope the government inquires into what the role of covenants is - I am talking from a negative point of view - in making it more difficult for builders to achieve 5-star efficiency. If the covenants say every third house should have a black roof, every third house should have a dark green roof, and every third house should have a dark red roof, when we know if you want to reduce heat you should have a white roof, who is responsible to say: ‘Hey, that is not going to help the 5-star efficiency’?
For instance, if there is an inability in a suburb to build a Burnett-style house because the covenant says: ‘No, all houses will look the same. I will give you four different kinds of models for these houses and you will have your garage out the front and this is what they will look like. Pick a house and that is it’, it could be because the covenant says this suburb will look all the same and you will have a choice of one of these four designs. Yet, someone could build a Burnett-style house, or even an old Tiwi Housing Commission-style house which has a hallway with a bank of louvres running down one side and bedrooms running off that. Why could someone not build that? The answer I was given is the covenants do not allow it.
Who is responsible for the covenants? Does the government have some control over those covenants? Does someone say: ‘Those covenants are working against the principle which we are trying to promote in our society’? I would have liked to ask these questions when I made my opening statement so perhaps the minister could take them down as they are areas of concern. I go past Farrar and see these different coloured roofs. My little understanding of physics is that light coloured roofs reflect light more than dark coloured roofs. Yet, we have built these houses in the tropics with dark coloured roofs which tend to absorb more heat.
I thank the minister for his understanding and agreement that the 5-star system as we know it will be reviewed. I am not asking the panel to say whether that should be mandatory; that was really a philosophical matter which I added into debate today. Even though you have lived all your life in the bush you tend to do things the way you feel like doing them. If you are building a chook shed you do not want someone to tell you how to build it, especially if you are 150 km away from Darwin. I come from that background and I have come closer to Darwin. I do not really want to come too much closer. The closer you come to Darwin, the more regulations you have ...
Ms Purick: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: Yes, I know. Sometimes you say that is life. As much as I know the member for Goyder probably agrees with me, unfortunately, as those suburbs come closer and closer towards the highway at Palmerston - the reality is that populations grow and as you get bigger populations you need more controls.
I am grateful the minister has accepted that a review should occur and will take up some of the issues I have raised today. I will, after today’s debate, have a much better understanding of what makes up a 5-star efficiency program and what tools are used by builders, architects, and planners to come up with designs which fit within that criteria.
As I said before, I hope that whatever regulations we bring forward, as long as it comes up to cyclone code in this part of the world - even in other parts of the Territory - we can keep a little of what I call our own identity, in the sense of a Territory identity, in the style of architecture. That is important. In Tennant Creek there is a mixed bag of architecture; we know it is Tennant Creek. In Alice Springs it tends to be a little more like a northern suburb of Adelaide – the type of architecture for a slightly dryer and colder or hotter climate. In the tropics we are somewhere between some of the Queensland designs and our own designs. Burnett houses are one of those designs you can recognise as being a Territory design. The upstairs houses are so much part of the Northern Territory, especially Darwin.
When I first came to Darwin the NT Housing Commission houses were simple: three bedrooms, a hallway, shower and toilet down about the middle and a kitchen and lounge room at the end - a simple design. In some ways we have made mistakes by building houses which are too complicated. People wonder why they cost a lot; it is because we build complicated houses. To be fair, Bellamack Gardens has gone back to some of that original thinking: hallway, bedrooms, shower and toilet off that, and a dining room and kitchen combined.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his response. I am looking forward to the review sitting and am anxious to see the results.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Direction to the NT Mining Board Pursuant to the Mining Management Act
Direction to the NT Mining Board Pursuant to the Mining Management Act
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move - That –
- The Northern Territory minister for Resources direct the NT Mining Board in accordance with its powers under the Mining Management Act to:
The extractive resources I am referring to include: sand, gravel, quarry rock, clay, soils, road base rocks and decorative rocks which are used in the making of concrete, asphalt, road bases and a range of construction and landscaping activities. The four main types are fine sand, coarse sand, natural gravel, and crushed rock aggregate. Dimensional stones, soil and clay are produced locally across the Territory, but on a smaller scale.
You can see there is more to the extractive industry and its products than people think and there is a need to understand the nature of the industry. I have had discussions with the industry group, as I know the minister has and will continue to do. I can recall when the Extractive Industry Association was first formed and had its first meeting at the old Berrimah Hotel. There were issues facing the industry at the time and, hence, the drawing together of the operators. It was not an easy exercise as there was a high level of distrust amongst the operators and various pieces of equipment at remote, rural sites had been torched in some kind of pay-back campaign which was under way at the time. Suffice to say, the industry moved forward, banded together, and have worked hard with each other and also with government. The Mines department, at that time, assisted the extractive industry people to get together. They assisted them well and helped them to get to the position they are in today with a strong and responsive industry.
The main markets for extractive resource products are the urban communities around Darwin, Alice Springs and the other main town centres but, more so, the Top End and Alice Springs. Like all minerals, the location of extractive resources is determined by geological conditions and is finite. They need to be accessed where they occur naturally and also close to markets. Being close to markets is crucial as the price received from extracted materials is nowhere near what operators get for semi-precious or precious minerals such as gold, silver, zinc and lead. The materials are of comparatively low value and the need to keep costs under control is paramount to a successful business.
The source of the material needs to be close to the markets to keep costs down as transport expenses for longer hauls adds considerably to the final market price. The extracted materials need to be identified, managed, and protected for future use.
The tall buildings in the CBD area would not be possible without huge volumes of concrete which, as I said before, comprises crushed rock and coarse sand, and possibly other materials. In building such a structure the concrete and other building materials need to be under constant supply at a competitive price, otherwise the final product will be unaffordable for purchase.
Some facts and figures, for example, from the Tiger Brennan Drive Stage 2 works - and these are approximate: 74 tonnes of explosives to blast approximately 600 000 tonnes of material from cutaway areas behind the Berrimah Farm and Marjorie Street. This cut material was used as embankment fill along the road formation and at the Stuart Highway interchange. Each of the two bridges at the interchange used approximately 1750 m of concrete. Given the concrete truck carries 7 m of concrete, you can see how many truckloads of concrete were used in building those bridges.
I have been told approximately 60 000 m of fine, crushed rock road base material has been used, which equates to approximately 132 000 tonnes of quarried road base. To gauge the volume of this material, it was brought to the site by a continuous convoy of triple road trains at 25 tonnes per trailer. The convoy would have stretched over 132 km. That is a great deal of material and it was all sourced from the quarries in the rural area.
As I said at the beginning, I want - and I am sure the industry wants - the government to keep its eye on the extractive industry ball, so to speak. Previously, the Geological Survey Division of the Department of Resources undertook geological research on the extractive minerals in the Top End. This work was done in 2001 by Nigel Doyle, who was employed by the department, and is an excellent piece of work. There was work done prior to that in 2000, also by Nigel Doyle in association with Huyn Ngo and Maria Duchateau. That work was titled Extractive Minerals for the Darwin Region Demand and Supply Situation to 2020. Both these reports were commissioned as the Top End of the Territory faced a growth period with major projects planned which would require massive levels of extractive materials.
Ten years has elapsed and we need to review, research and determine what and where the future supply areas for extracted materials will be given the encroaching urban sprawl and competing land uses.
Since that report was done there have been large-scale projects such as the LNG plant; many accommodation blocks built in the central business district; extensions, repairs and developments of many roads; and railway work in and around Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area. There have been other developments across Darwin and Palmerston such as the building of boat ramps and sealing of tarmacs, the construction of the convention centre, the wave pool, and the waterfront areas. The rock for the construction of the walls to make the new port area, the wave pool and lagoon did not fall out of the sky. All of that material came from the rural area and Mt Bundy.
The reports I mentioned were very good; I have used them to help me with my comments today and have used them previously. However, there is an urgent need for a new level of work to take into consideration natural population growth and normal demand of the products, developments which have gone before us and what is planned into the future: the future needs for housing, road construction and maintenance, watercourse changes and bridges. There will be an above normal demand for materials for major, one-off developments. The material needed to build a new gaol, for example, raises an issue which I will come to later.
What happens when INPEX comes to town and needs massive amounts of material for its shore facilities, jetty and sea walls? Will there be enough material to supply such a project as well as supply material for the normal demand of the products?
Where is it planned that the extractive material will come from for the new city of Weddell? Is government going to rely on the existing operations at Howard East, Sunday Creek and Mt Bundy, or is something else planned?
Sunday Creek is southeast of Goode Road in Humpty Doo. Material from this area supplies civil construction works and building works. Fine sand is extracted and blended with companies’ core sand to make concrete. Sunday Creek has been supplying extractive materials for the Tiger Brennan Drive road works. Some of the land around Sunday Creek is freehold title and there is great concern, if and when more land is turned into freehold, it will limit, if not stop, extractive work in that area. The reason is the extractive operators must get permission from a freehold title owner before a title can be granted. This may seem a very reasonable action and I do not disagree with it; however, it is the role of government to facilitate the opening of land for the benefit of all Territorians and not let landowners warehouse land to the detriment of the Territory.
An operator for this area lodged an application for an Extractive Mineral Permit. The operator was given permission to peg out the area in question and the grant documents were ready for signing. However, I understand the department of Lands stepped in and told the department of Mines the subject of the extractive mineral permit was to be granted to freehold and, therefore, the Mines department should not allow extractive titles within the area. Who is in charge here? Why was the operator not told in the first place about the possibility of a change of title so he did not waste time and money pegging and applying? Why did the Mines department not stand up for the industry and tell the Lands department to go somewhere else?
The conversion to freehold title raises serious issues for the future of Sunday Creek. If the extractive industry is locked out it will cause a possible shortage of sand material for large-scale development in the general Darwin areas and operators will be pushed further south resulting in higher costs of transportation and, ultimately, higher costs of construction.
On Middle Arm there are some leases for extraction of materials and it is on the Weddell boundary. However, with the beginnings of the Weddell infrastructure, if this material runs short, it could be costly as there is no other supply nearby.
Mt Bundy supplies rock and, again, many of the leases are on pastoral land. There are access issues there and the future of this area and the quarry industry is not assured.
Howard West is an extractive area close to markets with good levels of materials but is soon to be dumped on by a proposed new gaol. This is a prominent area for the extractive industry with upwards of 10 operators working in the area. Rock and sands are extracted and supply most of the greater Darwin area and rural area for road construction and civil works. If the new gaol goes ahead in this area those tenements will not be renewed and a major source of materials for the future growth of Darwin will cease.
The extractive industry is in discussions with government regarding the area and there is talk of utilising the material from these areas in the construction of the new gaol. There may also be compensation due to some people. However, these points do not take away from the fact the government did not think of the long-term consequences of planting a new gaol smack bang in a prime extractive materials area. It was bad enough the government made a deal with Defence to shut down the 30 Mile quarries, which supplied upwards of 60% of crushed rock into Darwin, so the Army can play war games in the bush. Now the most important area for extractive materials is facing the same fate. That is not a good planning situation.
The Mining Board undertaking the review and research will enable the extractive resources of the Top End of regional significance to be identified, managed, and protected for future extraction to guarantee a competitive price commodity into the marketplace. New areas need to be identified such that there are no constraints or conflict from other land users. It may be required to do a two-stage report; that is, the Top End and Central Australia. While I have not provided any details as to Central Australia there are land access issues also and future supply issues which need to be addressed.
As with the Doyle report of 2001, planning in the Resource department and industry needs to work further to identify future supply regions, given the projected growth and available areas. As I stated previously, the material is where it is found and not where we would like it to be. To secure the future of the extractive industry and for the future development of the cities and towns at a competitive cost price, the extractive industries and their futures need to be reviewed and discussed by the Mining Board. I believe it is an appropriate authority and it is within its powers to undertake such a task so we have guarantee into the future of the Darwin region, in particular, given the major projects which are proposed – whether they be through government work programs or industry – so the product is supplied into the marketplace at a competitive price.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I ask the minister and the government to consider this motion and undertake some further research and work through the Mining Board with the assistance of the Geological Survey of the Resources Department so there are benefits for, not only the industry, but all Territorians.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we do not support this motion.
My Department of Resources has, for many years, actively worked to facilitate the extractive industry and continues to do so. This work includes regular meetings with the Extractive Industry Association and other agencies, provision of data, and assistance with title and operational matters.
Much of the information sought in the motion is already currently available. There is a detailed report prepared by my department which was published in 2001, titled Extractive minerals within the outer Darwin area. It is a very detailed report which quantifies soils and extractive commodities including sand, gravel, quarry materials and dimensional stone in the region. It discusses the geological contacts for the deposits, provides a background to the industry and production data on the amount of material extracted. It also includes many maps, diagrams, cross-sections and tables detailing the nature and extent of the extractive material.
There is no need to update this report; geology does not change in 10 years, 100 years or a million years. Sometimes, it does not change for a hundred million years. The report is freely available from my department in hard copy, on CD, and on the Internet. Also available on the departmental Internet is production data back to 1998-99. This data shows the quantity and value of a range of extractive material produced on an annual basis. I table a copy of this information for the benefit of the member.
In addition, my department has also carried out geological and site survey work in respect of specific projects. A case in point is the site for the proposed prison at Howard West. My department has been proactive in examining activities and resources in the area to assist in minimising the impact of the proposed prison on local operations. However, the definition of extractive resources is not simply the responsibility of the government, industry must be proactive too.
Undertaking the work to the level requested could reduce the incentive of companies to undertake their own exploration and provide commercial advantage or disadvantage, depending on what is identified. Further, carrying out more detailed surveys may not be effective as extractive resources are often project specific, particularly in materials specifications and proximity, for example, hauling distances. There is no one-size-fits-all. Government has provided the guidance in where to locate material through the report but it is more appropriate and up to the industry to identify the material at the micro level.
Government has also worked closely with the Extractive Industry Association and other agencies in respect of future activities which may impact on extractive operations. I have met with the Extractive Industry Association three times in the last six months. My department meets with the Extractive Industry Association on a quarterly basis to discuss matters generally relating to the industry and as required to discuss specific matters.
My department is working closely with the Extractive Industry Association and relevant government agencies to identify areas for future use for residential, horticultural industries, industrial and other purposes as part of a broader assessment of land allocation and management of the greater Darwin area, as well as identifying resources and producing production data around larger regional centres. My department is also involved in communicating to the wider public the important role the extractive industry plays in advancing the Territory.
My department puts a high priority on the administration of extractive tenements to ensure they are progressed to grant in a timely manner. One measure is the legislative changes through the recently passed Mineral Titles Act, which reduced the time taken to grant extractive minerals titles by reducing the notification period and extending the term of the extractive mineral permit, thereby reducing administration and providing for a new title specifically for the exploration of extractive minerals. The current extractive minerals policy was released in 1998. Much of this policy has been achieved although some aspects remain relevant.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting the motion.
Motion negatived.
INFORMATION AMENDMENT (FEES) BILL
(Serial 83)
Continued from 27 October 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, whilst we give the member for Drysdale credit for persistence, we indicate, yet again, we will not be supporting this legislation. The bill proposes to amend the Information Act in relation to fees payable by specified applicants and in specified circumstances, including for freedom of information applications by members of the Legislative Assembly, with no fees applying for applications amounting to less than $3000.
Section 156 of the act provides that a public sector organisation may charge an application or processing fee. It also provides that the Information Commissioner may charge a fee in respect of the making of a complaint. Section 156(6) provides that a fee may be waived or reduced if the public sector organisation or the commissioner considers it appropriate having regard to both the circumstances of the application or the complaint, including financial considerations, impecuniosity or indigence, and the objects of the act. This provides a broad discretion in determining a waiver or reduction in fees by the public sector organisation or the commissioner.
This bill proposes to insert a new subsection following section 156(6), namely section 156(6A), which would set out specified applicants and circumstances in which a fee payable may be waived or reduced. The specified applicants and circumstances in this proposed section 156(6A) are as follows:
This proposed section 156(6A) does not require that the public sector organisations or the commissioner must waive or reduce the fee for these applicants. The word ‘may’ is used; as such, it does not provide any further right or obligation to that currently available in section 156(6).
We can also look at some of these subsections in detail. The specified applicants in proposed sections 156(6A) and (B) are already covered by the current section 156(6); that is, a fee may be waived or reduced if considered appropriate having regard to both the circumstances of the application or complaint, including financial considerations and the objects of the act.
The specified circumstance in proposed section 156(6A)(d) is also covered by section 156(6), as the circumstances for fee waiver or reduction are not limited to financial considerations. Public interest considerations can be considered within the circumstances for fee waiver and reduction, especially in light of the objects of the act, which include creating a general right of access to information held by public sector organisations which is limited only where the disclosure of particular information would be contrary to the public interest as its disclosure would have a prejudicial effect on essential public interest.
The proposed specified circumstance in section 156(6A)(c) does not make sense on the scheme of the act. Fees are not charged on a cost recovery basis and are, therefore, never economical. Currently, the only applications which do not attract a fee are applications for access to personal information. All other applications attract a modest fee for access to government information unless a waiver or reduction of charges is made on a case-by-case basis where public interest considerations or circumstances of hardship exist. The fees do not reflect cost recovery for processing the applications.
The bill also proposes a new section 156A following section 156, which provides that MLAs do not have to pay fees unless the fee amounts to more than 3000 revenue units, currently $3000, and a new section 156(6B) which states that section 156(6A)(b) does not affect section 156(6)(b).
This proposed section 156(6B) does not make sense. As it currently stands, it provides that the proposed section 156(6A)(b) – that is, financial hardship - does not affect section 156(6B); that is, to have regard to the objects of the act. Presumably, it should provide that the proposed section 156(6A)(b) does not affect the current section 156(6)(a) to have regard to the circumstances including impecuniosities or indigence.
In regard to the proposed section 156A concerning MLAs, the Northern Territory government recently made regulations under the act to provide that the Northern Territory government reports available under freedom of information are available free of charge to MLAs. It was not intended that applications for access to other documents generally available under FOI be available free of charge for MLAs. FOI fees are intended to avoid fishing expeditions and unnecessary and potentially costly demands on public servants. The fees ensure that applicants turn their minds to the information they require and tailor an application so unnecessary information is not applied for, thereby reducing unnecessary burdens on the public service and taxpayer. All jurisdictions in Australia charge fees for accessing government information and all provide limited exemptions in some circumstances such as financial hardship.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, for very good reason, this government does not support this bill.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in closing, the purpose of this bill is to exempt a member of the Assembly from processing fees for documents requested under FOI. The exemption, as outlined previously, is to apply to processing fees under $3000 or 3000 revenue units. The bill amends the Information Act to not only insert that limited exemption to members of the Legislative Assembly, but also to expand the circumstances the department may consider when deciding whether to waive a fee under section 163.
The bill will expand the circumstances the department or commissioner may consider when considering an application to exempt or reduce FOI processing fees and are as follows:
if the applicant holds a pension and concession card or other entitlement card issued by the Commonwealth;
if the applicant is an individual or a not-for-profit community organisation and fees would cause financial hardship;
if the release of the requested information is in the best interest of the public or a substantial section of the public; and
if, after requests for review or a complaint to the commissioner, access is granted to request information which was originally denied by the department
This is an important expansion of powers to enable all members of society to access government information - information which, in most cases, should be publicly available in the first place.
A private members bill to reduce the amount of information able to be hidden under Cabinet-in-confidence provisions and waive FOI fees for MLAs was introduced on 24 April 2009. This bill was defeated, mostly due to the government’s dismissal of the amendments to Cabinet-in-confidence as a threat to frank and fearless advice from public sectors.
A second amendment to fees elicited the following response from the Attorney-General:
- The second proposal contained in the bill is all fees payable by members of the Legislative Assembly in relation to an FOI application should be waived. As members are aware, this is within the agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. So, while we agree with the intent of the member for Drysdale’s amendment, in this case the government will not go through the process in terms of developing a bill to enact this agreement.
A motion was also put to the House on 29 October 2008 to remove fees for FOI applications submitted by MLAs. This motion was negatived with only one government member, minister Burns, speaking to the motion. He stated:
The Information Act creates a general right of access to information held by the public sector organisations subject to where disclosure of information would be contrary to the public interest.
The act also enables an agency to waive fees in circumstances of financial hardship. If an applicant is facing financial hardship then it is open to an agency to waive or reduce processing fees. This aims not to disadvantage a person from enjoying an equal right of access to information only because they cannot afford to pay the application and/or processing fees. To waive fees in that circumstance is consistent with the objects of the act and with freedom of information legislation in other jurisdictions.
As identified by the 2008 Solomon report into the Queensland FOI process, an FOI process should resemble a push process where government is proactively pushing information into the public domain rather than pulling and hiding that information. A push model is favoured by the Territory Labor government - or purported to be favoured – however, a model where gaining access to the information is about as pleasant as having teeth pulled. In other words, in reality what we have is a pull intent and a pull motivation. It is less likely to want to push the information into the public sector. We have seen so many reports in this House which have been hidden but have been requested. We request them in Question Time, the member for Nelson requests them, we request them at other times, and consistently these reports are hidden.
This is the point we get to in this argument. It is about becoming more free, open, and accessible to the public. We expend a lot of public money on reports. Ministers ask for a report on this, a report on that. They cannot do anything without asking for a report, really. Then they hide that report. They have been given advice, at the cost of the public’s money, to tell them what they could do, should do, might do, may need to do. Sometimes it is needed. However, the public can never access it because the Labor Party is inclined to hide those reports and lock them away.
This is the point. The public want to see these reports. There are people - and not everyone; my door is not being kicked in by pensioners saying: ‘Geez, I wish I had those last 32 reports the Labor government did’. However, I do know some people who are interested in reading reports. They come to me and say: ‘Ross, we heard that you spoke on this matter. Can we have a copy?’ We send people copies of our adjournment speeches because people like to know what is happening in this House. They should know what is happening in this House and the halls that surround this House. It should not be a secret.
The same could be said for the original Bath report into childcare, the two Cornish reports into the aeromedical service, the review of St John Ambulance Service, the review into the Health and Community Services Complaints Act, and the countless other reports and reviews that, by all rights, should be pushed into the public domain. The public pays for the reports; they are about their society which we help to govern. The public should have the right to those reports.
Speaking of the reviews into the Health and Community Services Complaints Act - which is hiding somewhere on the fifth floor amongst filing cabinets, gathering dust, you are probably too scared to even read it - it is absurd that we continue to see these reports presented and we never see them come into the public domain. It is so true; many times we have asked: ‘Can we have that report?’ ‘No, cannot have it. No, cannot have that’. Then we go through this teeth-pulling exercise of freedom of information which is set to block the freedom of information, even though its initial ...
Ms Lawrie: How hypocritical. The Country Liberal Party never introduced it; it refused to.
Mr BOHLIN: The initial parenting intent was to put it out there for the public. I pick up on the interjection. Going back 10 years ago - and I love talking about 10 years ago because …
Ms Lawrie: You were not even here.
Mr BOHLIN: I was in the Northern Territory. I understand there were two sides of parliament. One side won an election and then started saying: ‘You guys did a bad job, you did a terrible job’. We move forward, two years past, and they still said: ‘You did a bad job’. Four years past - I do not even think we took four years to get to the next term: ‘You did another bad job. You are a terrible mob’. Whilst they continue to look backwards and say, four years ago, five years ago, six years ago - it is like a clock, it keeps counting - 10 years ago. Everything that goes wrong in the Northern Territory apparently is the fault of the former Country Liberal Party, 10 years ago.
When we see reports hit the table which we do get access to, or when we hear the stories of reports, it clearly outlines the reason they do not want to hand the reports over is because they demonstrate how bad they have been at governing the Northern Territory.
The former Attorney-General promised a review would be completed in 2009 with a discussion paper released for public comment. Where is that review? How are we going with it? We need to get moving. The federal government has done one; they have stuff happening about this whole freedom of information - that little demon which hangs around. Almost three years since the Department of Justice received the Information Commissioner’s recommendations, we still do not really have any further push with that.
Minister, when will you take action? It is in the agreement between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson that you intend to do more. And do not pay lip service to the member for Nelson. We have seen the member for Nelson continually try to get information from this government. I have sat in front of the member for Nelson and many times turned to the member for Nelson mid-Question Time and said: ‘So that was a good answer’, knowing full well that even though the member for Nelson had pre-warned the Labor Party of the question he intended to ask so it could prepare itself, it still spin doctored the response. They continue to push him away and say: ‘That is all right, you do not really need to know about it. No, do not ask those questions’. The way you have treated the member for Nelson is disgusting.
The high fees and substantial delays experienced when an MLA, or anyone for that matter, submits an FOI request is contrary to the government’s claim of an open and accountable government. If opposition and the Independent members of this House are to effectively serve Territorians and are to be able to provide well-researched and fully informed contributions to key issues facing the Territory then access to government information must be made more available.
Madam Speaker, I thank you and move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Children in Sport
Children in Sport
Continued from 9 June 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale in continuation. I believe you have 25 minutes remaining.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I will put my running shoes on. Last time we spoke on this we had to run through some of this rather quickly. I will do my best to take off. Not everyone will follow it to start with, but here we go.
In the United States, Robert Wood Johnson devoted his life to building the renowned business, Johnson & Johnson. His foundation continues his mission to improve the health of all Americans. The foundation’s publication, Active Living Research, includes the following statements:
- Obesity is one of the most pressing health concerns for our children … and physical inactivity is a leading contributor to the epidemic.
…
Children should engage in 60 minutes of moderate activity most days of the week.
- … the link between students’ overall participation in physical activity and their academic performance … found that regular participation in physical activities is associated with improved academic performance.
These findings are mirrored in the Be Active WA, the Western Australia website, promoted by the Western Australian Department of Sport and Recreation, which states:
- Physical activity was a significant positive predictor of academic achievement.
…
Organised recreation may also have a positive effect on children’s attitude and self-esteem.
…
… identification with schools and school values is enhanced by involvement in organised community sport or recreation.
…
… there needs to be a greater impetus for encouraging and supporting children’s involvement in community sports and recreation.
And:
- … increase children’s involvement in organised community sports …
As this has:
- … a positive effect on academic success and attitude to school.
The report went on to note:
- In Australia, 38% of children aged between five and 14 years of age do not participate in any sport organised by a school, club or association.
I am proud to say my daughter does. Jasmine is an absolute legend at many of the sports she participates in. I am, as I am sure many other parents are of their children, very proud of her sporting achievements.
- New approaches to encourage parents, carers, and schools to optimise children’s physical activity levels need to be implemented. Raising awareness of the potential positive relationship between sport, physical activity and academic achievement may provide the necessary motivation for parents, schools and stakeholders to invest in increasing children’s physical activity levels.
Indeed, I note a comment from the Rear Commodore Juniors and Training from the Darwin Sailing Club. I am sure many of you have seen the surprisingly young children sailing their Minnow dinghies in Fannie Bay on a Sunday morning. I am sure the member for Fannie Bay likes looking across and seeing all the little white sails floating around. The Rear Commodore said,
- … I am confident that our young sailors will step comfortably into the shoes of good citizenship. They are a great bunch of young people who are doers and are always helpful. When out sailing they always ask the wind to ‘bring it on’. I am honoured to be their flag officer.
I have noted all the benefits but, sadly, there is a complete failure of this government to recognise the need for our kids to play sport. In the past two years, budgets of the Northern Territory government have reduced sport funding. Under this government there continues to be impediments such as the issues of insurance. Under this government there is no commitment to alleviate the problems faced by parents who try their hardest to encourage their children to play sport rather than veg out for countless hours in front of their computers.
The reality is that parents’ pockets are hit very hard when their children play sport. This is at a time when, under a Labor government, average household costs have increased by 180%. Parents pay for kit, time and time again, as their offspring shoot up and grow in height and size and muscular physique. Parents pay the annual cost for each child for their chosen sport or, indeed, sports.
Here are some indicative costs per child which vary depending on age, club, etcetera: soccer, the true football, $180 per year; cricket $50 to $100 a season; judo $30 for a 10-week term plus a registration fee of $30 plus, sometimes, a $5 per night fee; callisthenics $60 to $80 per term; hockey $50 to $115; and basketball, a $20 club fee, $55 registration fee and $5.50 per game. Just work it out: two children playing one sport each can cost around $400 per year. If, as is often the norm, they play more than one sport, the total can easily exceed $1000, and that is without fuel costs as there is limited public transport. Public transport is not the best yet in the Northern Territory. I know we have a new era, but we still do not have a new generation of public transport. I am told he is working on it. Unfortunately, and fortunately for the kids that have that support, parents have to take them to and from and the costs add up.
Not only are power costs going up but licensed clubs are suffering from limited funds compared to the pre-GFC days and commercial sponsorship is incredibly difficult to obtain. What is the minister’s response? The estimate in budget papers for sport expenditure in 2008-09 was $24.311m and this year it decreased to $22.963m. I note, to my dismay, there will be even less next year. Minister Hampton, on 18 June 2009 at last year’s estimates, stated:
- We are determined to deliver opportunities for all Territorians to participate in sport and recreational activities … The government is serious about promoting involvement in sport and active recreation. This is demonstrated by the significant progress towards the development of a Sport and Active Recreation Policy which is currently being drafted after extensive public consultation.
That was on 18 June 2009 and this is nearly 18 months later. Let us stop here for a moment. This was the same day the Labor government released a media release ‘Delivering for Sport’ under the heading: ‘John Ah Kit, Minister for Sport and Recreation’. That was the same day. The current member for Stuart issued the media release under John Ah Kit’s name. The minister is lost in the wilderness. It was swiftly withdrawn and re-issued under your name, minister. This was enough to prompt me to look back and see how empty your words were once again. Last year in estimates, I asked the following question:
- Minister … you stated you would deliver the first ever sport and recreation policy for the Territory. But this is not the first time a Labor government minister has promised a policy to direct the future of sport and recreation in the Territory, is it?
Minister Hampton’s response was:
- The Sports and Active Recreation Policy I am looking at implementing, I believe, is the first. We are committed to this process and we have undertaken extensive consultations over the last couple of months through regional centres and communities …
I am committed, and this government is committed, to developing a Sport and Active Recreation policy.
That was June last year. Again, I queried:
- ... did not Mr Ah Kit launch consultation, and I quote: ‘the Northern Territory’s first really comprehensive sporting policy’ - more than five years ago?
More than five years ago the former minister for Sport said the same thing. Mr Ah Kit’s policy failed to ignite; it never got off the ground properly. Minister Hampton’s response was:
- … I am not aware of that.
…
I believe our record speaks for itself, by kicking goals - and I am going to kick a big 50 m goal with this Sport and Recreation policy.
My question to the minister then was:
- Can we find out, minister, how much it has cost so far to advertise for participation, to develop a new sports policy, and hold all the public forums … venue hire, and other running cost of community consultation?
Minister Hampton then advised in the 2008-09 budget he committed $69 000, and in the 2009-10 budget he committed $31 000 towards the Sport and Active Recreation Policy. So, $100 000 is spent. One could say this money is well spent considering the problems outlined and the benefits to be gained. The next obvious question I asked one year ago was:
- When will the … plan be brought to the table? And will you commit on a date when the actual plan will be delivered?
At last the minister committed and responded:
- I have said publicly that a final policy can be expected in August.
Last year! That was August 2009, not 2010. Surely, this should not be so hard. After all, cutting and pasting from Mr Ah Kit’s day is a straightforward process - click, drag, Ah Kit policy becomes Hampton policy. On 24 February 2004 - 2004, my gosh - Mr Ah Kit stated:
- … the Northern Territory does not have a formal, over-arching sports policy that reflects the unique challenges and opportunities before us. Certainly, some planning and policy documents have been developed …
… which guide government and the sport and recreation industry in looking to the future ...
A number of individual sports have produced planning documents.
Within the month, I will be releasing a discussion paper, which will be widely circulated, with a clear process for consultation. I am hopeful that we would be able to launch the policy by the end of this year. I will be looking at the policy addressing the key issues of greater lifelong participation, better access, better skills, better services, better facilities, better pathways, better planning, better events and better governance.
That was in 2004. It has been one long month since 2004. I really am tempted to say yeeha! This is pretty serious, minister. The former minister went on to say:
- … we have called for a single over-arching plan. We are looking at a plan that indeed reaches into every corner of the Territory and is tailored to the different needs of different communities and sports in different regions of the Territory.
…
… I look forward to consulting widely and, hopefully, launching this policy by the end of the year.
That was in 2004. Here we are, six years later. We will wind back even further to 14 May 2002 when the then Labor minister for Sport noted:
- … the Western Australian government convened a high level task force to provide strategies for lifting participation rates further. Not content with doing well in Western Australia, they are determined to do even better. Their task force was charged …
- … to prepare a physical activity strategy for Western Australia towards achieving a 5% increase in physical activity over the next 10 years …
- …
- to monitor and evaluate the implementation of this strategy.
- …
- We will certainly be examining the Western Australian experience and where there are good ideas that are appropriate for the Northern Territory context, they will go into our policy mix.
That was said eight years ago. I have already mentioned the outstanding Be Active Western Australian website. Their campaign has been up and running for years. Here we are, still consulting and issuing peacock feather-like media releases, under a different person’s name at times.
We note six years ago and, now again, the Country Liberals are committed to taking action. In 2008 we announced annual vouchers for $75 - one per child - for parents to use towards the registration costs for junior sport. There may now be a better method but our commitment is in place for such an important aspect of our children’s lives. The commitment is in place but we recognise there may be a better way to do it now. Is it appropriate for the federal government to take responsibility as well, hand in hand with a range of improved primary healthcare? Is it more appropriate to provide specific clubs with direct subsidies or to underwrite insurance costs?
Let me add some detail from the review of the Australian sports insurance prepared for the Sport and Recreation Ministers Council. This report was prepared in response to increased insurance premiums, particularly in public liability insurance, and notes that 53% of sports organisations which responded have changed insurance companies, including 35% who changed as a result of the HIA collapse; 80% indicated there were major issues facing their sport in relation to insurance; and 83% perceived an increase in the amount of litigation in sport. Shortage and turnover of volunteers was the most frequently cited barrier to implementation of risk management plans.
These were cited a long time ago. There may be better ways to do this nowadays than to support individual children, through their parents, with $75 per year. We see the clubs have cried out in the past. We see this government has already looked at the WA model which has been running for a very long time.
I noted the issues paper introduced by minister Hampton more than a year ago titled Towards a Sport and Active Recreation Policy. I have recently checked the department’s website. I will make a quick statement which amends my previously prepared speech; it was prepared on 9 June 2010 so it has been sitting for a while. At that time, on 9 June 2010:
- A draft Sport and Active Recreation Policy is now being developed and will be released for public comment in September 2009.
That was what the government website said when I checked it on 9 June 2010; that it would be prepared for comment in September 2010. We do have a draft sports policy now and I commend the minister for preparing and releasing it. However, your website, in June this year, still talked about the policy hitting the table in September 2009. But the spot was vacant; it was empty, like most other promises.
So, on one hand, I say congratulations and extend my hand to say thank you but, on the other, I say, lazy to the point that – if you look at page 24 of the sports policy, the member for Braitling may recognise some of this - it looks like a bit of the Finke Desert race track. The photo of the motorbike and the motorcycle riding gear in your brand new document is in excess of 10 years old. This equipment, which they use in a different format now, is so old - either that, or you have the oldest rider. Maybe that is the minister’s personal equipment, I am not sure. The equipment and the motorbike are old. We have had many Finke Desert Races since. We have had many motocross events. You could have come to Catalina Road and seen the motorcycle guys there; there were plenty of opportunities to take photos. I am surprised you used such an old photo on such a new and, supposedly, exciting document.
I thought it might have been a month or so late, but let us read the policy outline anyway about the actions this Northern Territory government will take to encourage the vision of Territorians having a lifelong involvement in sport and active recreation. But, it is not only a website, no one has heard of it. Although many I spoke to remember taking the time to make their submissions, it has taken a long time. To confirm this, when we checked on the website for this in June this year, I had my office phone Sport to find out whether we could get the Sport and Active Recreation Policy, and the response was - no surprise here – ‘No, you cannot have a copy, a draft form is being developed’.
It was pretty shameful - the minister, who went to the effort of cutting and pasting a previous Sport minister’s media release, probably did a better job than the former minister, Mr Ah Kit, because he did get to the point where he released a policy, but it was a long time coming. With modern technology, as he is the minister for ICT, his department should have made sure his website was up to date to say: ‘Whoops, sorry, we are still another month away from releasing the policy’. Alas, that was not the case.
We outlined in the election campaign in 2008 that there was a stance that we would supply $75 per child, and it is just the start. Of course, if we go back 10 years we would have the current government telling the public that the sporting facilities we currently have at Marrara, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and all over the Territory, did not exist prior to them coming to government. Most of the sporting facilities which Territorians currently enjoy were built by the Country Liberals. We have a strong intent when it comes to looking after the sporting futures of our children.
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: You never know, member for Casuarina. Your nephew may become a Formula One driver one day. You raised that before. You never know, he may be good enough at it.
There has been no goal kicked by the minister for Sport. There has been no goal kicked at all. This government has had a lot of game time. It has had many years to practice and perfect its game but it has not scored a single goal.
A member: Oh, that is a bit tough!
Mr BOHLIN: That is a bit rough. It has not scored a single goal. But, in the good spirit of Christmas, we are seeing some movement at the station - be it late, it is good to see it.
The licensed sporting clubs in the Northern Territory are under a great deal of strain at the moment. Throughout the Territory mums and dads are under a great deal of strain when it comes to Power and Water costs. Those who have to rent a house for a family for over $600 a week are under strain. A so-called affordable house costs over $400 000 to buy.
A member: It will be hard to send your kids to sport.
Mr BOHLIN: It is going to be very hard to send your kids to sport. As outlined in this report, it is vitally important for our kids to be participating in sport every day, getting active, getting away from the computers and the television, and getting out from under mum and dad’s feet because they will become better citizens for the Northern Territory.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for this motion. He has been the opposition’s spokesperson for Sport for two-and-a-half years and I do not think he has asked one question about sport and recreation in that time. He has been gagged by the Leader of the Opposition. Maybe he supports some other member over there.
It has been a long time coming. I welcome this motion on Sport and Recreation. This government can stand proud on its record in sport and recreation since it came to government in 2001.
We do not support this motion because we are already strongly committed to assisting all Territorians with the opportunity to access and participate in affordable sport and active recreation across the Northern Territory.
This government continues to support sport and active recreation through significant funding and has invested over $48m this financial year alone to sport and active recreation throughout the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has the second highest expenditure on sport and recreation per capita in Australia. We understand the enormous social and wellbeing benefits which participation in sport and active recreation brings to Territorians through healthier lifestyles and better education outcomes, and that sports build stronger communities by connecting people to places. I can honestly say, through my own personal experiences with sport, this has well and truly been the case.
Sport is an intrinsic part of the Territory’s future and its unique outdoor lifestyle. The CLP, in its last budget, committed a measly $12.8m to sport and recreation. That is the level of their commitment to sport and recreation - $12.8m on the record. The member for Drysdale waltzes in here, after two-and-a-half years, and decides to bring on a motion about sport and recreation. He has not asked one question about sport and recreation in two-and-a-half years, and he points to this government’s performance. This government’s performance is $48m this financial year alone compared to their measly $12.8m. It speaks loud enough for me in comparing the two parties’ positions on sport and recreation and commitment. It is absolutely shameful.
There are indications that if we were to get a CLP government in 2012, the first budget item it would cut is Sport and Recreation. There was $48m from this government in the last financial year; if you get the opposition in power in 2012, it will go back down to $12.8m. That is its commitment to Sport and Recreation; that is its record.
The member for Drysdale did not even mention Sport and Recreation in his budget reply speech, only acknowledging the great work the government has done and his appreciation for the commitment to construct the Palmerston water park. This government has promised the Palmerston water park. What did the opposition promise the people of Palmerston in sport and recreation facilities? Nothing! It shows how serious the Country Liberal Party is about assisting Northern Territory families to access sport and recreation.
The Northern Territory government invests heavily in sport, enabling sporting bodies and organisations to own the sport and determine the cost to be charged to ensure a comprehensive and professional structure and competition is available to the public. We need to ensure we keep assisting the development of organisations which are capable, sustainable and have the infrastructure to cope with growing participation rates. We will not dictate how they run their sport or what they charge; they are the experts.
This government has numerous programs which support the development of participation pathways which reduce the costs to participants. Such programs include over $7m-worth of grant funding to assist sport and active recreation, including $3.7m in peak sporting and active recreation body grants. This allows peak Northern Territory sporting bodies to apply for funding to assist with increasing their capacity to develop and deliver sport. Peak recreation organisations can receive up to $130 000 to help introduce Territory-wide active recreation programs.
There is $2.28m in Active Remote Communities Grants. This provides assistance to remote communities to deliver sport and recreation activities. The grants are directly negotiated through the local government shires and provide funding to employ the 58 Community Sport and Recreation Officers in the 58 remote communities.
There is $190 000 in Grass Roots Grants. Grass Roots Grants allow organisations, including clubs, groups, service deliverers, shires, and municipal councils, to apply for up to $3000 to implement a new sport or recreation program or increase the capacity of their organisation to deliver sport and recreation ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Can I ask those members who are speaking at the back to leave the Chamber while you are having your conversation ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, member for Port Darwin, including you, thank you. Order! Minister, you have the call.
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker, there is $820 000 in Facilities Development Grants. Facility Development Grants allow sporting organisations and peak sporting bodies to apply for funding to help improve their capacity to provide affordable and accessible sport and recreation opportunities through development of their facilities. For example, this government provided $46 000 for an upgrade to new, blue tennis courts at the Gove Peninsula Tennis Club, something I know the member for Nhulunbuy is very proud of.
This government has invested, and continues to invest heavily, in sporting infrastructure with the magnificent TIO Stadium and the Marrara Sporting Complex and, of course, the jewel in the crown in Alice Springs, Traeger Park. The $33m investment to deliver first-class sporting facilities in Palmerston for tennis, netball, AFL, Rugby League and football is a fantastic announcement for the people of Palmerston. Of course, we know the members for Drysdale and Brennan oppose this. They think government is spending too much money on the people of Palmerston.
There is $13.57m committed to constructing the Palmerston water park, which will be a great recreational facility like Leanyer Recreation Park, for all Palmerston and rural families. There is $8m to the Alice Springs Town Council for the construction of new aquatic facilities, including a 25 m pool. Perhaps the member for Braitling will wear his budgie smugglers to the opening. There is $4.2m for upgrades to the athletics track at Arafura Stadium, to showcase the wonderful Arafura Games. Major works are continuing with the $4m election commitment to upgrade the wonderful and first-class facility of the Hidden Valley Motor Sports Complex. I have driven around that wonderful facility in a V8. There is $2m for Northern Territory Cricket to develop first-class training facilities at its own MCG, as well as office complexes which are part of Stage 1 and Stage 2. There is a recently opened $6.2m netball facility at Marrara.
Providing significant funding to sporting organisations allows the sport to offset the cost of membership and participation, insurance, and uniforms. The Australian government has committed funding of $72m over the next four years to national sporting organisations to deliver direct financial assistance to support community clubs to implement participation initiatives.
The Australian government has also adopted the Local Sporting Champions Program to provide financial support to 4000 more young Australians and their families to help our junior athletes attend competitions across Australia which would directly benefit Territory families. It was this Henderson Labor government which provided $100 000 to support more than 300 junior athletes to participate in the Pacific School Games, easing the cost to families. This government is also currently working with the Australian Sports Commission to approve priority funding levels to sports, with the aim to further increase participation in sport and reduce the cost of participation to families.
As the Minister for Sport and Recreation, I am committed to assisting, whenever possible, to reduce costs for individuals to participate in sport and further enhance the great Territory lifestyle. We have a record that is second to none.
Madam Speaker, this government will continue to work to deliver every opportunity for every Territorian to participate in sport and active recreation throughout the Northern Territory, and it does not support this motion.
Motion negatived.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT (ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS) BILL
(Serial 134)
(Serial 134)
Continued from 27 October 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, the bill is not supported. The Growing them strong, together report arising from the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory was presented to government on 18 October 2010. A total of 147 recommendations were put to government to implement and make far-reaching and necessary changes to our system of child protection. These recommendations are for a systematic and holistic approach to child protection reform in the Northern Territory. The government has accepted all these recommendations and is working to deliver them. These reforms are not proposed in isolation, yet this bill from the opposition is. It is on this basis that the opposition’s bill is not supported.
The government is committed to working collaboratively with a range of agencies and partners each step of the way as we implement historical reforms to the Northern Territory’s child protection system. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is one such agency which must be involved as reforms are implemented.
This opposition bill proposed to significantly expand the range of matters which may be investigated by the commissioner and impose new functions upon his office which have not been thoroughly thought through.
The Northern Territory government passed the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 which established the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. The first independent Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath, was subsequently appointed by the Administrator in June 2008. The current role of the commissioner includes: investigate, resolve, and report on complaints about service provided to protected children; provide advice to the Northern Territory government and respond to ministerial requests pertaining to child protection matters; and convene and chair the Child Deaths Prevention Review Committee.
The opposition bill proposes amendments to 11 sections of the act. There are five substantive changes proposed by these amendments:
1. expanding the scope of Part 5.1 of the act and, therefore, the role of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to include all children and any matter rather than protected children and matters brought to the attention of child protection agencies;
3. to enable the Children’s Commissioner to investigate a matter referred by the Child Deaths Prevention Review Committee;
4. to amend the basis upon which the independence of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner is assured;
5. to task the Children’s Commissioner with monitoring and reporting at six-monthly intervals on the implementation of government decisions arising from the Growing them strong, together report, and monitoring and reporting on government decisions relating to other inquiries or reviews which are related to children in the Northern Territory.
Given the scope of these proposed changes - and they are major changes - I imagine the Children’s Commissioner should be actively engaged in the drafting process of any legislation brought before the House. The Children’s Commissioner has not been consulted by the opposition in the drafting of a bill and I wonder if he had the opportunity to comment on these proposed amendments.
In relation to the bill before me, I will begin by addressing the issue of expanding the Children’s Commissioner’s role beyond protected children. The amendment is flawed. It modifies the commissioner’s current powers to investigate complaints. Under existing legislation, the Children's Commissioner can investigate complaints relating to the failure to provide services to a protected child, or failure to provide these services to a reasonable standard. A protected child is defined in the current legislation under section 260(2)(a) as:
- a protected child is a child who is the subject of exercise of a power or the performance of a function under Chapter 2;
A flaw in the opposition’s bill is the proposal to expand the Children's Commissioner’s power to launch an investigation into the wellbeing of any child, whether or not that child has previously had any contact with the child protection system. Currently, one of the main functions of the commissioner is investigation and monitoring of service provision in child protection. By expanding the commissioner’s functions as proposed in the bill, the commissioner’s functions would potentially mirror, or interfere with, the existing functions of the Northern Territory Families and Children and members of the police force. This has the potential to compromise the role of both the child protection agencies and the commissioner. Both these agencies have the skills, power and resources to conduct that role. The Office of the Children's Commissioner was established to oversee the exercise of these powers. If the commissioner has the power to conduct investigations then who will become the watchdog?
As minister, I have had a conversation with the Office of the Children's Commissioner and am aware that Dr Bath is supportive of the concept of own motion powers. The government will, therefore, consult closely with the Children's Commissioner and others over the coming months on legislative reform in this area.
The opposition bill also contemplates giving the commissioner the power to investigate an individual child death referred by the Child Deaths Prevention Review Committee. This proposed amendment is unnecessary. Reportable deaths, as such, are already dealt with by the Coroner.
The opposition bill considers the independence of the Office of the Children's Commissioner and removes a current reference to other laws of the Territory. Such a change requires careful consideration. This detailed analysis is not evident in the opposition’s submission.
Finally, the proposal to task the Children’s Commissioner with the monitoring and reporting of the implementation of the Growing them strong, together report is not supported. The Northern Territory government has already established an accountability mechanism for the establishment of the expert steering committee to report on the government’s progress to the parliament six-monthly by the Minister for Child Protection. I want the Children's Commissioner to focus on his role of investigating complaints pertaining to protected children.
While the proposed amendments are flawed, I have indicated aspects may be supported and require further collaborative and detailed analysis as part of a greater reform. We saw no reform of the Child Welfare Act for 20 years. The CLP, when in government, either turned a blind eye on child protection or never acknowledged the extent of the problem. Now, we see the member for Araluen, in her second sittings, attempting to rush to change legislation.
Madam Speaker, the government does not support this bill.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am not surprised at all that the government does not support this. Child protection in the Northern Territory has been an issue of extreme importance for a number of years but was highlighted through the Little Children are Sacred report in 2007, which was the start of the Northern Territory intervention.
I listened very carefully to the minister and what he was saying. He indicated there are elements of this bill he and his government would support. He indicated he has spoken to the commissioner, and the commissioner is supportive of own motion investigation. Yet, the minister indicated he will not be supporting this bill.
He has not come here in any conciliatory way to provide amendments to the bill as put forward by the shadow minister, the member for Araluen. He has not come here with any good faith intentions to say this is how we can work together in a partnership to reform this process so those own motion investigations can go forward. The Growing them strong, together report by Howard Bath et al said, in Recommendation 136:
- That the Northern Territory government reviews the roles and functions of the Children’s Commissioner in light of this inquiry with a view to amending the act to address the needs for:
a broader role in monitoring the implementation of the Northern Territory government decisions arising from any inquiries in relation to the child protection system or the wellbeing of children under the Inquiries Act.
This recommendation has an urgency rating of one, meaning it is to be implemented within six months of the tabling of the report. The Chief Minister said he would accept all of the recommendations of this report - a little blindly without having a good look at it, in my opinion. He said he would accept the recommendations as they are. The Minister for Child Protection accepted them, immediately announcing $131m - some magical figure - as part of these recommendations.
The good member for Araluen, the shadow minister for Child Protection, has presented this bill. It provides the opportunity for own motion investigations for vulnerable children in an effort to protect children and ensure processes are under way.
The current system, which can only investigate protected children, leaves so many children unprotected in the Northern Territory. Going on the past performance of this government, it is important we have further safety nets for the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory. Let us not forget the Sunday Territorian article of 14 November 2010 when Alyssa Betts wrote about the Ombudsman investigating whether NT Families and Children cooked the books in up to 500 child protection cases so it could say they were completed while leaving the files blank. In that article, Alyssa Betts said:
- Carolyn Richards said between 400 and 500 assessments had been left blank - bar for the child’s name - and then closed, in an eight-month period. She said those were treated as completed cases, which would then be included in statistics in public documents such as annual reports, to show how NTFC …
Being Northern Territory Families and Children:
- … was performing. It is part of her own wider investigation into the child protection system.
Which is continuing at the moment. That article also quoted NTFC Executive Director, Clare Gardiner-Barnes,who said:
- … the assessments in question were done during a special ‘streamlined’ assessment process.
The report went on further to say:
- She said the special process was approved for a six-month period because of a backlog.
‘It wasn’t the best option but it was deemed to be the best at the time, given the shortage of staff …’ she said.
When we are looking at child protection - particularly now with the handing down of the Growing them strong, together report - with the outstanding 870 cases, which has been brought down to 800 cases, why is your tick-and-flick exercise not being run for those children? Are those children not of the same calibre as the 500?
Minister, we know that under your guidance and delegated responsibility, you like to run a tick-and-flick process. All we have to do is look at Montara and how you performed in that area. The recommendation says this needs to be brought about within six months of the tabling of this report. We are now in December; the next time we sit will be in February so we are going to miss that six-month time frame to implement Recommendation 136 of the Growing them strong, together report.
The minister had the opportunity to come in here today – and if you do not agree with all of the amendments that is fine. He could have come in with an amendment to say government will accept the amendment of the bill within these parameters but it will not take the other part. He could have spoken as to why he supports this part but not that part. Clearly, he believes he is a better expert than Howard Bath or Muriel Bamblett.
It is interesting when you look at the Stateline report of Friday, 22 October on ABC, particularly the comments from Judy Hansen from Foster Carers NT. I will quote from the report. Presenter Laetitia Lemke asked Judy Hansen if she had been encouraged by the report. Judy Hansen responded:
- Very encouraged, yes. Now I think if it’s implemented properly it’ll be a wonderful thing, and I am just so hopeful that it will be.
Well, she will be disappointed. This was to be implemented within six months. It will not be implemented this parliamentary term. The Chief Minister, the Minister for Child Protection, and all the people opposite who like to think they do things in the child protection portfolio have failed at this hurdle.
Here is an opportunity to put this recommendation straight into action. This is the recommendation in the report which said there is a ‘tsunami of need’. I do not know why the government does not want the commissioner to have own motion investigation powers and why they could not be done here. This is Labor we are talking about. These are the people who support a right-of-entry process. Here we are saying: ‘Let us have a right of entry to protect children in the Northern Territory’. No, no. They will do it for the unions but they will not do it for the children. That is where we are now. This is the paradigm we are in: ‘We will look after the unions, we will look after our Labor buddies, but we will not look after children. We will not care for and protect children’.
Let us not forget the failures of this government when it comes to the care and protection of children and the money it is supposed to spend, as advised by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, compared to the money it actually spends. We have spoken about this many times before; we have been over and over it, particularly at the Alice Springs sittings last year. I will not go through all the details of the hundreds of millions of dollars the Territory government has not spent which the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommended it should spend. These are recommendations which came down post-GST when the rivers of gold had been flowing to the Northern Territory. You would expect that the government would be very keen to invest in child protection in the Northern Territory. No, it is very keen to support unions, to feather its nest, but not keen to move forward and look after the best interests of children.
This bill addresses urgent recommendations within the child protection report: own motion powers for the commissioner; a broader role in monitoring the implementation of the Northern Territory government’s decisions arising from any inquiries in relation to the child protection system or the wellbeing of children under the Inquiries Act; and specific powers for the Children’s Commissioner to obtain documents, examine persons, or carry out public investigations as part of his/her monitoring focus. Would you not expect this would be an important change, amendment, and improvement to the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory: the extension of his or her advocacy and complaint management responsibilities to other identified groups of vulnerable children in the Northern Territory?
I know the member for Araluen. I have spoken at length with her about this and she makes no apologies for the actions she is trying to take in this field. I pay tribute to the new member for Araluen, who has taken to her portfolio with gusto in trying to protect children and put reforms through this process. Since the new member for Araluen was elected there has been much reference to the previous member for Araluen: ‘Oh, the previous member for Araluen, she was a go-getter! The previous member for Araluen stood up for children’. Everyone is talking about the previous member for Araluen and how she was the resident expert in child protection. Yet, here we have a report from Howard Bath titled Growing them strong, together, with 147 recommendations on how to make improvements and what does the government do - apart from say it will do everything and then not do everything – look at a number; it came up with $131m because it looks quite good.
On Wednesday, 27 October 2010, when the member for Fannie Bay asked the Minister for Child Protection a dorothy dixer about advising the House of updates relating to the child protection Board of Inquiry, the minister said:
- Our government is committed to improving outcomes for children and families … our government acted very quickly.
- Within hours of receiving the report, our government acted very quickly.
Recommendation 136 will not be implemented in the six-month time frame. Today is the day you can make this happen. This was to test your convictions, to see how committed you are to protecting children of the Northern Territory. We have seen your failures through years and years - the Little Children are Sacred report, where you have not done the job. The minister for Housing is still sitting here with his failed SIHIP which built 88 houses for $500m in three years. That is how poor they are. What does it say in the rest of this answer? It says:
- We have a established a Child Protection Reform Steering Committee ...
This is the government of committee. I remember old Kevin Rudd, Kevin ’07, when he was coming in. Perhaps the member for Fong Lim can interject and tell me how many hundreds of committees there were. I cannot remember now. There was committee, after committee, after committee.
Now they have the Child Protection Reform Steering Committee. Who is on the committee? Let me read them out: Professor Graham Vimpani as Chair of the steering committee. I do not have everyone’s names, I am sorry. I thought I did, but I do not. They announced the committee, with very honourable people on it - nothing against that committee at all. However, with all the accolades, the thanks, and acknowledgments of Jodeen Carney, the former member for Araluen, you would have thought one of the people on that side would have picked up the phone and said ‘JC - or as I call her, Jesus Christ; that is not a derogatory term, it is a term of endearment. ‘JC, would you join this committee and help us with the implementation of the recommendations from the Growing them strong, together report?’ You would have thought that JC, Jodeen Carney, was the first person you would call. ‘Oh, thank you, Jodeen. Thank you, former member for Araluen, you have done this fantastic job, but we are not even going to pick up the phone’.
They are not even going to pick up the phone to Jodeen - sitting there in Alice Springs probably listening to this tonight. Hello, Jodeen, how are you? You would have thought you would have picked up the phone and asked her to be a partner in implementing this. Take out the politics in a bipartisan approach on this. No consideration at all. This is part of the psyche and the thinking, or the ability of the thinking, of this Labor government to be able to make improvements and reforms in the Northern Territory. Jodeen Carney should have been part of the steering committee to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in the Growing them strong, together report into child protection in the Northern Territory.
The government has failed again at a task which is so simple - to take the politics out of it, to take out the guff, the administration, the rubbish that goes on, and protect the children. We hear Labor all the time, in particular around the portfolio of Indigenous Affairs: ‘We would like to have a bipartisan approach on this’. As soon as you say something in a positive way and try to work together in a collegiate fashion, our government is quick to attack.
Here is an opportunity to work together for child protection. This is a simple thing; it would not cost any more. It would have had someone committed to the process to make reforms. Yet, here we are, with Recommendation 136 and the bill put forward by the new member for Araluen in a very positive light - but nothing, nothing at all. I call on the minister to e-mail his people upstairs and say: ‘Is it possible the member for Braitling, who is talking amazing sense, can help implement this recommendation in the first six months, as we committed to in this Chamber, as the Chief Minister committed to?’ Is it possible to pull out the part your government will accept; the key component in that recommendation? Can we put more reforms in and implement own motion investigation powers in the interests of the care and protection of children? Can you do that?
I implore you, on this second last day before our Christmas break, to put forward some positive acknowledgement in a reform process for the care and protection of children. Is it possible? E-mail away! We have more speakers on our side of the Chamber. You have 20 minutes to come forward and say: ‘Yes, I did say before that we would accept some of this, and this is the component we will accept. This is what we will accept as part of a Christmas gift to the children of the Northern Territory’. Even ring up: ‘JC, Giles said to give you a call. How would you like to be on the committee to help us implement the recommendations of the Howard Bath report? How would you like that, Ms Carney, as a token gesture for all the hard work and effort you have put into the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory?’
Minister, you have about 20 minutes. I encourage my colleague, the good member for Fong Lim, to talk for 20 minutes to allow you the time to talk to your department to provide more powers for the Children’s Commissioner in the Northern Territory to work towards the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory so we do not come back here in three years and have an even greater escalation in the number of outstanding cases. All jokes aside, this is about children. It is all good and funny, the theatrics are there, but this is about children.
I am emotionally disturbed on a continual basis about how government has responded to this …
Mr Vatskalis: Wrong choice of words.
Mr GILES: No, it is a disturbing thing, and it affects the emotions of anyone who cares about these kids. To have 870 cases outstanding is a disgrace. The report about 500 recorded cases, with a tick-and-flick-Montara-oil process done on them, is an absolute disgrace. All jokes aside, it is an absolute disgrace.
Madam Speaker, there are ways to make these things move forward. This is one way to make it move forward and you have just flipped it out because it is on GBD.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Araluen for bringing on this bill. The member for Braitling spoke about the former member for Araluen. I have to say the current one has done a remarkable job of stepping into Jodeen Carney’s shoes and taking off exactly where she left off. She has picked it up incredibly well given that many people take years and years to come to grips with the job we do in this place. The member for Araluen is showing herself as a formidable member of this Chamber and I congratulate her.
I was a little taken aback by the minister’s comments about this bill. It would be good, minister, if you could slow down when you are reading things. You have been told your speech is very hard to decipher, and it is particularly so when you are reading a set piece because you tend to rush through it. At times, it comes across as gobbledegook.
What I did pick up from what you said is the government will not be supporting this bill. I find that very sad, member for Casuarina, because I recall when this report was tabled that you came in here, hand on heart, and said: ‘This issue of child protection is such an important issue. We in the government believe in this issue. We all have to strive to work together. It is not about government, it is about community, it is about everyone. Everyone has a responsibility to do something’. You pleaded with us not to play politics. ‘This is above politics’, you said. At the first opportunity you have to demonstrate you are true to your words and believe it is above politics, you come in here and do exactly that: play politics.
As the member for Braitling rightly pointed out, this is Recommendation 136 of this report. It would be interesting to know whether you have read this report in its entirety, minister, because it is a recommendation and it is rated as priority one. Priority one means it is urgent, it must be implemented or the process started within six months. As the member for Braitling pointed out, when we next come in here you will have broken your word that you are going to accept all the recommendations of the report. Tonight, you have broken your word.
You had the opportunity to come in here, in good faith, sit down with the member for Araluen, negotiate the problems, take the credit - if that is what you want - by putting up a list of amendments. That would be one recommendation you could get off the books, having dealt with it. But no, you insist on playing politics. Goodness knows why. I suppose we can read the Hansard tomorrow and find out. Hopefully, the lovely ladies upstairs will get a copy of your speech and they can print it as it is written because it was very difficult to understand. I am sure there was some technical reason in there as to why you cannot support this bill.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you could not come into this place tonight, negotiate - even in a committee stage - and say the government is not happy with this aspect of it, it wants to change that. ‘We want to fix up a few things here, change that word to this word’. Whatever! To reject it outright is foolish and shows you exactly for what you are; that is, a hypocrite, because you say you do not want to play politics, but that is exactly what you do.
You have to ask why the government would say it does not want to play politics. That is code for: ‘We do not want to get caught up in a debate on any of this stuff because we do not want to be found wanting’, although almost every page of the Growing them strong, together report finds the government wanting. It is absolutely appalling. That is why you do not want to play politics: you do not want to be questioned or to debate anything. You would rather come in here, and have the opposition go quietly, saying nothing, whilst you guys do a little window dressing and hope the problem goes away. That is an appalling attitude.
I imagine Recommendation 136 must particularly stick in the government’s craw. It must hurt the government to think it is setting up a child protection commissioner and the commissioner wants to be able to run his own motion investigations. This government has not had a particularly good record with commissioners who run own motion investigations. Would it not be good if we could get rid of the Coroner, Health Minister? It would be marvellous if we did not have a Coroner who has the ability to run his own motion investigations. It would be marvellous if we could hide the Coroner away. Would it not be marvellous if we could get rid of the Health Commissioner, minister? Would it not be marvellous if we could pack the Health Commissioner up in a box and send her off somewhere where she could not do her own inquiries? What about the Utilities Commissioner, member for Daly - the last one you packed up in a box and sent away somewhere because he started asking a few questions and directing a few investigations around the place. What about the Ombudsman? Could we not do something about the Ombudsman? We would not want the Ombudsman to have self-referencing powers. All of these people must send the fear of God into government because every one of them comes out with nasty things to say about this government. The last thing they want is another one.
A child protection commissioner, for goodness sake! We just had a few dodgy reports come out. The member for Braitling mentioned the Little Children are Sacred report. Now we have another dodgy little one. They do not really mean much do they, minister - Growing them strong, together? We run in here, we do not even have a chance to glance at the report. You must have had a bit of a heads up because you ran in here the very next day saying you were accepting all 147 recommendations. Two big bibles of information, no one gets a chance to read them, but the government is accepting them. It is accepting all 147 recommendations. What is more, it has $131m to chuck at it as a first start.
Goodness me, it is an ideas factory over there, is it not? Gee whiz, you think on your feet! What an imagination! Absolutely unbelievable! Goodness, gracious me: ‘147 recommendations. Oh yes, we accept them’. I do not think you have a clue about what you have accepted because now you find the member for Araluen has an urgent recommendation - something which has to be done within six months. I do not know if you are going to be able to do it tomorrow, minister. Maybe you can photocopy the member for Araluen’s bill, stick your name on it and put it on the Notice Paper. Then you can say: ‘We did it. Yes, yes, all right, we have done it’. You are running out of time, minister. You broke your own word on a range of things. No, you do not want to play politics with it. Hell no, let us not play politics, minister.
It would be daft on your side – wouldn’t it? - to negotiate in good faith with the new member for Araluen. You would not want to give her any credibility. You would not want to show the courage of your convictions and not play politics. No. Absolutely appalling!
It is obvious why you are so wary of this recommendation. The last thing you want is another self-referencing watchdog who might say things about you. You are on toast as far as Montara is concerned. This last week for you guys must have been like manna from heaven. You can breathe a sigh of relief because, in reality, you should be out the door. You should be kicked out the door because you are a dodgy minister when it comes to regulating the oil and gas industry. Now, you are showing you are a dodgy minister with the Growing them strong, together report.
Tell us about the evaluation you did on all 147 recommendations? Tell us when you found the time, with all your other responsibilities, to read the report. You cannot even walk in here and make a speech off your own hind legs; you have to read something some noggin upstairs wrote for you. You are not even across your own brief closely. How embarrassing must it be for a minister of the Crown not to be able to stand up on a General Business Day and respond to a bill proposed by a brand, spanking new member. How embarrassing is that? Absolutely appalling! And you say you do not want to play politics with child protection. What rot! What bunkum!
This whole debate has shown me the futility of trying to take these guys on their word. They do not want to play politics. The member for Araluen has done a fantastic job. She has gone through this stuff; she has taken up exactly where the previous member for Araluen left off, and has done a marvellous job. She should be supported by this parliament and given credit for doing her job.
Madam Speaker, we have a minister who cannot deal with his responsibilities in his department of Energy, he cannot deal with his responsibilities as Health Minister, and he clearly cannot deal with his responsibilities when it comes to child protection. It is absolutely appalling, minister. You should be ashamed. I am sorry that, after all your fine words about child protection being so important and we should not play politics, you now find it okay to play politics. That you are not across your brief enough to deliver a speech from the top of your head, in response to a brand new member who has not even spent 14 days in the parliament, is appalling. How many years have you been here, minister? The brand, spanking new member for Araluen has shown what a fool you are, and it is a shame. Congratulations, member for Araluen.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, well said by the member for Fong Lim. He summed up the minister’s ability very well. Every Health minister we have had in the Northern Territory under the Australian Labor Party has put in a pretty ordinary performance. The new member of parliament has walked in here and is able to implement a bill, an urgent recommendation as highlighted in the report, and the government will not accept it. It is a pretty poor performance. You have to ask yourself why you would accept this. Why would you accept a bill like this, minister, when the heart of this government and the core of your belief is cover-up? It is the culture of cover-up. It is not surprising you do not support this bill. It is disappointing, but not surprising.
I introduced a bill late last year. It came to the parliament early this year as the Health Complaints Commissioner Amendment Bill, giving the Health Complaints Commissioner exactly the same powers - own motion investigation power - so the Health Complaints Commissioner could investigate some of her own recommendations in case they were not implemented or taken up by the government. It was another bill you voted down. This is despite the recommendations of a review which was done in 1999 which is lost somewhere in the ether. It is at the bottom of someone’s filing cabinet somewhere. It recommends the Ombudsman has own motion investigation power. With one of the Health minister’s we have had - the plethora of Health ministers we have had under the Australian Labor Party - that recommendation is sitting in the bottom of someone’s drawer gathering dust.
Parts of the bill I introduced, which was defeated earlier this year, were very similar to the bill introduced by the member for Araluen.
The commissioner is quoted as saying - and this is not part of the Growing them strong, together report, this is a comment made in the wake of the serious situation which unfolded in the Children’s Ward of the Royal Darwin Hospital:
- This, in my opinion, is a flaw in the efficiency of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act. I recommend that when considering any amendment to that act, the minister gives due consideration to empowering the commissioner to seek information about the implementation of agreed recommendations and to report further to the Legislative Assembly if appropriate.
I will quote from some of that speech earlier this year. It says:
- The situation that has prompted this blunt and public request to the Health Minister is the ease of which two of the commissioner’s staff were able to gain access to the Paediatric Ward, despite locked doors and entry control measures being installed at the entrance.
We had a situation where the government claimed that it was taking the situation very seriously and would immediately install cameras. At that time, the only cameras installed on that ward were in the staff canteen. There were no security measures at the Alice Springs Special Care Nursery either and it was very easy to walk through that ward, which I have done on quite a number of occasions. The measures introduced by the government to install those cameras took far too long. Only under intense public scrutiny and media pressure did it bother to do it. The Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner had no recourse to confirm whether that sort of thing had been done.
It makes a great deal of sense. Again, we are seeing this watchdog situation rear its head in the parliament. The government does not like to be scrutinised. It does not like openness and accountability. This is a recommendation of the author in the report that the commissioner has own motion investigation powers. I do not know what is wrong with that. What is wrong with that, minister? What is wrong with the commissioner having own motion investigation powers?
Mr Westra van Holthe: They might discover another failure.
Mr CONLAN: Indeed. It is a question he is unable to answer. Apart from playing politics and saying: ‘We are better than you’, it is a question you cannot answer. I would like to know, what is wrong with the commissioner having powers of own motion investigation, particularly when children’s welfare is at stake?
We have seen, in the light of that report - forget the recommendations for a second; what about the findings? The findings in the Little Children are Sacred report are absolutely appalling. We are three years on from that report and we are no better off. I doubt very much that the children of the Northern Territory are in a better situation, that their welfare is better than it was three years ago as a result of the Little Children Are Sacred report, and this one, the Growing them strong, together report.
That is a question which needs to be answered. What is wrong with the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner having own motion powers of investigation? We think there is nothing wrong with that. Clearly, the commissioner thinks there is nothing wrong with that. It is also worth pointing out that you were dragged kicking and screaming to this point in time. Here we are, 1 December 2010. Let us think back 12 months. It was the opposition which dragged you, kicking and screaming, to the point where you had to undertake a review and investigation into child protection in the Northern Territory. If it was not for the sterling work of the opposition, and a particular member of the opposition at the time, the children of the Northern Territory would not be any better off and their plight would not be highlighted as it has been once again in this report.
This goes to the heart of health across the Northern Territory and the state of our health system. Children’s welfare and the health of our children does not escape the minister. He is also the Minister for Health and the Minister for Child Protection. I believe his ability as Health Minister is reflected in his ability as the Minister for Child Protection. The only ones worse off are the children of the Northern Territory.
We highlighted today in Question Time the appalling state of our hospitals. The minister, basically, admitted his job is too hard to do. There are too many people, too many patients, not enough doctors and not enough nurses. ‘Throw my hands up in the air; it is too hard; it is too difficult. I cannot do it. It is not my fault. There are too many people coming through our hospitals. There are not enough doctors. We do not have enough nurses’. He said nothing about access block or flow through the hospital; nothing about bed block. You cannot have an efficient hospital when you are running at 110% occupancy. You cannot do it; you need flow; you need beds. He said nothing about that. Too many people was his answer - too hard.
There were 11 322 patients who left Territory hospitals without being treated. That is almost 40 patients a day who are leaving our hospitals without being seen. The minister could not give any guarantees today as to what harm was suffered by those people who had not been seen to in a timely manner. He could not give any guarantees whatsoever. The median wait time has blown out from 46 days in 2001, which is well above the national average of 36 days. People are waiting longer. They are waiting longer because the occupancy rate of our hospitals exceeds 100%.
The AMA is not one of the minister’s favourite organisations. He has gone on record before insulting the people of the AMA. He said something along the lines of: ‘It is just a rich doctors club’. Nevertheless, the AMA recommends an occupancy rate of 85% maximum. You have to have some space; you have to have some availability in the hospital to create flow. If you cannot, then you are going to suffer access block and bed block and see the waiting times we are experiencing in the Northern Territory, which are the worst in the country.
We are dragging the chain when it comes to our hospital waiting times. People are waiting much longer. They are waiting 10 days longer than they were nine years ago, although the minister claimed today he has recruited more doctors - some extra 100 or so in the last 10 years. I made the comment to my colleagues that I hope he has recruited more doctors in the last 10 years because that is his job! In the 1950s and 1960s there was only a handful of doctors here. I hope there are more doctors here in 2010 than there were in 2000. That is just doing your job. It is the same as me saying my 18-month-old has grown half a foot in the last six months because I fed him. I am just doing my job as a responsible parent and he is growing. You are doing your job as a government and you should be recruiting more doctors. It is nothing to crow about, and it is certainly nothing to paint the opposition into a corner for not recruiting doctors. We recruited plenty of doctors.
We have highlighted that people are waiting longer at our hospitals; they are not being seen to within recommended time frames. We have also highlighted today questions the minister could not answer about what has happened to those 40-odd people a day who are leaving hospital because they cannot be seen.
Have a look at the number of people through our hospitals. The minister has thrown his hands up in the air and said it is all too hard. He says he cannot do the job because there are too many people through our hospitals. Yet, he is quite happy to roll over and sign a national health agreement with the federal government, sign away some of our GST, and form one super board to be run from Darwin. He claims there are not enough people going through the southern part of the Territory to warrant another local hospital network. He is feeling the pressure. He is quite happy to say in parliament: ‘There are all these people going through our hospitals. I cannot do the job properly; I do not have enough doctors; I do not have enough nurses. Occupancy rates are well over 100%. I do not have enough staff; I have too many patients’. At the same time there are not enough patients, apparently, in the southern part of the Territory to warrant a local hospital network.
I highlight the Alice Springs Hospital Board report and the number of people who came through the Alice Springs Hospital in 2009-10. We have general separations at 39 975, so round that up to 40 000. Then, we have non-admitted specialist clinic occasions of service of 55 000. That is about 95 000 people. Emergency department attendances, 39 195, round that up to 40 000. That is about 135 000 people through the Alice Springs Hospital.
If we bring in the Tennant Creek Hospital, at the same time …
Mr Vatskalis: The Alice Springs Hospital had 30 000 people.
Mr CONLAN: Just a minute. I think you should hear this.
Mr Vatskalis: Where did you find the extra 10 000?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: These reports have been tabled and I suggest you look at them. Tennant Creek Hospital had 6700, so we are up to approximately 135 000, 140 000 rounded for your benefit. The non-admitted specialist clinic occasions of service was 2000, emergency department attendances was 12 155. We have around 150 000 people between the Alice Springs Hospital and Tennant Creek Hospital - 150 000 people a year through the hospitals.
In one breath the minister says: ‘There are too many people in the hospital, too many people coming through. We have some of the busiest hospitals in the country; I cannot do my job properly. I am sweltering under the pressure. I do not have enough doctors or nurses’. In the same breath - when he has rolled over and signed the national health agreement, the so-called health reform - he is not going to do anything to reform our health system except allow a centralist government to grab more of the state GST. At the same time he says we are not seeing enough people through the southern part of the Territory to warrant a local hospital network. You cannot have it both ways, minister. It is one way or the other. There are either too many people through the hospitals - you need all the help you can get.
You probably could do with an extra local hospital network if this is the way it is going to go. I hope it does not go down this path. This has nothing to do with health reform; it is just another grab by a centralist government to cream a bit more off the states. Nevertheless, if you are hell-bent on this then you could probably do with another local hospital network. You obviously need all the help you can get; you are struggling under the pressure. You do not have enough doctors or nurses. You have too many people through the hospitals. You have occupancy rates exceeding 100%. You have no flow. You cannot do it. You cannot manage it. You admitted that today when you said: ‘I cannot do it. That is the reason people are waiting longer. That is why we have enormous wait times at our hospitals because I cannot do the job properly. It is too much work for me’.
It sounds like you could do with a bit of help. If you are hell-bent on this local hospital network, this supposed whiz-bang health reform which is not reform at all – call it what you like - it sounds like you could do with a bit of help. It sounds like a local hospital network in the southern part of the Territory is just what you need. You need a little help; that might be just it.
Do not hold your breath because, if you look at the consultation paper in the Northern Territory local hospital network …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I remind you of Standing Order 67 in relation to digression and that this is a bill regarding the care and protection of children. Can you come back to the topic, please?
Mr CONLAN: Okay, Madam Speaker. As I say, I am developing my argument in the allotted time and this goes, basically, to the …
Madam SPEAKER: I remind you of the Standing Order 67, thank you. This is about the care and protection of children amendment.
Mr Vatskalis: He has no idea, Madam Speaker. That is why he does not say anything about it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, minister!
Mr CONLAN: About what? The care and protection of children?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Vatskalis: No, about health.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, if you could come to the point, please?
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Speaker. Sounds like I am touching on a few sore spots of someone who does not know what they are talking about.
Let us have a look at the current hospital board. I really believe this is about health service delivery in the Northern Territory. You cannot look after the children of the Northern Territory and implement recommendations for the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory if you have a malfunctioning health system. This is the point of this so-called digression.
I bring the minister back to the current hospital boards. We need functioning boards because many of the children who are identified as being at risk or have been exposed to risks will be utilising our health system and hospitals. It says here:
- It is likely that following the establishment of local hospital networks the role of the Hospital Boards will change and that the Hospital Boards Act will be amended …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have already cautioned the member about digression.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you can bring it around to child protection that would be helpful, please.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said …
Mr Vatskalis: Even the member for Araluen looks surprised, Madam Speaker.
Mr CONLAN: I know it is a sore point for the member for Johnston, because the member for Johnston …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it is simply a question of order. Bring it around to the topic!
Mr CONLAN: The member for Johnston’s whole career hung in the balance when it came to hospital boards. He was probably the pinnacle of failed Health ministers so it is a very sore point for the member for Johnston. I am not surprised he is getting to his feet and interjecting, apart from the fact that he clearly likes the sound of his own voice and likes to get to his feet as much as possible. He likes to try to match it with those on the other side.
However, it is important that I finish this paragraph from the Department of Health and Families hospitals. The function of our hospitals is the very heart of the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory because those children will end up in our hospitals …
D Burns: Why were you not child protection shadow minister? Didn’t get the gig, eh? Not up to it?
Mr CONLAN: What was that?
Dr Burns: You were not up to it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: Up to what?
Mr Hampton: Child protection.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, you have the call. Please come to the point.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not sure where the interjection was leading but, apparently, I am not up to child protection.
Ms Walker: Oh, you did hear?
Mr CONLAN: I heard what he said but I am unsure what it means.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: But, anyway, that is okay ...
Dr Burns: You have been going backwards for years, mate.
Mr CONLAN: Come on, Bungles!
Dr Burns: The member for Lessorex.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader for Government Business, cease interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: That is probably one of the better ones you brought out all year, Bungles.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: That would be one of the better ones you have brought out all year. I know you have been sitting on that just like you practice that glare in the mirror each day. There is no doubt about it.
Nevertheless, we have a couple of ministers in this portfolio. We have the shadow Health minister and we have a shadow minister for Child Protection; that is the way it is done. I know this stuff stings and the member for Johnston, in particular, does not like it because he was exposed as a complete and utter failure and was demoted. He was sacked as Health minister. He pretty much has the record in this parliament as the member who has had just about every portfolio there is and has failed at every one of them. He is hopeless as a minister; he is hopeless as a local member …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, can you please …
Mr CONLAN: … and he is hopeless when it comes to some sort of debate on the radio ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I am speaking to you! Can you please speak about the Care and Protection of Children Amendment (Additional Functions) Bill 2010?
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Speaker. I am just responding to these interjections.
Nevertheless, I will come back to the current hospital board situation which is crucial to the care and protection of children in the Northern Territory because these children will be utilising our hospitals and health system. If our hospitals and health system are not up to scratch, what hope do the children of the Northern Territory have when they have been exposed to some sort of risk, as highlighted in the Growing them strong, together report? One of the major, urgent recommendations, Recommendation 136, is that the commissioner has own motion investigation powers. It says:
- It is likely that following the establishment of LHNs …
Local hospital networks:
- … the role of the hospital boards will change and that the Hospital Boards Act will be amended or appealed as appropriate to reflect the final governance arrangements for the LHNs ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If he wants to drag the time so someone can write another speech for another member that is fine, but we are talking about child protection and the powers of the commissioner.
The member for Araluen brought an amendment here, which we have the right to accept or not accept. It has nothing to do about hospital boards. If he wants to speak on the points of the amendments we are happy to listen to him, but to attack the member for Johnston about what he thinks is a failure and talk about hospital boards and the local hospital network has nothing to do with what we are debating.
Mr Giles: What standing order is this?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat! Standing Order 67, member for Greatorex, which is about digression. I remind you this is a bill regarding the care and protection of children.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The care and protection of children in the Northern Territory will rely heavily on the efficient functioning of our hospitals and health system. If we do not have efficiently functioning hospitals, which we clearly do not, what hope do the children of the Northern Territory have after being identified as being at risk? It is all in one. You need a functioning health system and functioning hospitals. You need an efficient health system and efficient hospitals if you are going to provide proper care and protection to the children of the Northern Territory. We have just highlighted how inefficient our hospitals are, and our health system as a whole, and what failures there have been on the other side of this Chamber with health ministers. I do not think anyone could be as bad as the member for Johnston. He was probably the worst - and probably the worst in the country, and the worst in history.
I am sure the member for Casuarina tries. However, today, he threw his hands up in the air. He said: ‘It is all too hard, I cannot do it’ ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Tell me if I am wrong! The member for Araluen brought an amendment to expand the powers of the commissioner; that is clearly what she proposed. I do not understand what the Children’s Commissioner has to do with the hospital board’s local network. I hope the member for Araluen, in her closing remarks, outlines what she brought to this House and what has been debated because what the member for Greatorex has been talking about is rubbish.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That was not even close to a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, that certainly was not.
Member for Greatorex, I remind you of Standing Order 67, which is to keep to the point. This is a bill about the care and protection of children. If I have to remind you again I will ask you to resume your seat.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, it is extraordinary that the member for Casuarina thinks that overcrowding in hospitals, the longest waiting list in the country and 11 000 people leaving every year without being seen is rubbish. He has just gone on the record saying everything I have said is rubbish, when all I have done is quote from a report released today and from the government’s annual reports.
The minister thinks that is rubbish. That is obviously why we have one of the worst health systems in the country. Some would say the worst health system in the country, run by the worst government in the country. The minister thinks it is rubbish. He has thrown his hands up in the air and said: ‘It is all too hard for me, I cannot do it. I do not like it. I am not sure what to do. I am at sea with this thing. I will just roll over and Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard will save us with their national health reform and somehow our …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you can resume your seat now. Are there other speakers in this debate?
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments to the Care and Protection of Children (Additional Functions) Bill. I commend the member for Araluen for bringing this bill forward. The member for Araluen is fully equipped to understand child protection and what is required in child protection because in her former life before she became a politician she was a social worker who worked at the Alice Springs Hospital. She saw Indigenous children being admitted to Alice Springs Hospital. She lives in the town of Alice Springs and has for several years. She hears and reads of the malfunction we have in our society of not protecting our children. That has a lot to do with our people drinking, not having appropriate houses to live in, and not having quality education.
We have to ensure governments provide 50% service delivery but the other 50% has to come from the community and the people themselves. I said this in supporting the hub towns statement last week. We do not have endless buckets of money, as government, to keep putting in the services. The other 50% has to be a commitment from families, communities and towns. The watchdog has to be the government.
We have seen what has happened in the past with policy development. Recommendation 136 is clear: that the Children’s Commissioner be given more powers to be the watchdog to ensure they hold governments accountable for protection of children. It is only appropriate we carry the voice and the vision of our children of the Northern Territory in this House. When the Minister for Health spoke about the report, he said: ‘Please do not bring any politics into this’. Tonight, we have seen politics. Our children are not footballs to be kicked around from one side of the Chamber to the other. It is very important we keep in our minds the importance of protecting our children in the Northern Territory. They are the next generation. They are the future of the Territory and it is about the safety of all Territory children.
The amendment the member for Araluen is asking for is appropriate. It is a recommendation which comes from the inquiry. Minister, you said last week in this House when this report was handed down that you would accept all the recommendations of the inquiry. Maybe it is only appropriate, as the Minister for Child Protection and for Health, that you talk with the member for Araluen about seeing where you could agree on having some of her amendments incorporated into what the government thinks is appropriate for protecting children.
We must remember that we are tasked with something very important; that is, making policy which has long-term effects for the people of the Northern Territory. The recommendations from this inquiry are vital to the next generation and future generations of the Northern Territory. We have seen from these recommendations …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, it is now 9 pm. The House is about to adjourn. You can have an extra 10 minutes if you wish or you can have your speech suspended till the next General Business day.
Ms ANDERSON: I will wait until next year, thank you, Madam Speaker.
Debate suspended.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: The Assembly is now adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, today in Question Time I tabled a screen shot of last night’s ABC television news clearly showing the minutes of the CLP management committee meeting and I tabled a transcript of the document shown in that screen shot. The document, provided by a CLP member, showed that the Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, offered a government job to the Country Liberals’ candidate for Lingiari, Leo Abbott, in the run-up to the federal election.
At the end of Question Time the member for Port Darwin could clearly be seen poring over documents and could clearly be heard stating the document I had tabled and the document he had were different, and I quote:
- Pretty big differences here between the original document.
So, the member for Port Darwin has the original minutes of the CLP management committee in his possession. He was called on to table those original minutes, and failed to do so. The member for Port Darwin should table the original minutes, or is he hiding the truth like the Leader of the Opposition?
For eight days, the Leader of the Opposition has failed to answer the question: yes or no? Did he offer a job to Leo Abbott in return for him withdrawing from the CLP candidacy? It is now obvious the CLP Whip has a copy of the original minutes, which could clear up this issue, and is failing to table them. It is extraordinary that the member for Port Darwin has a copy of the minutes when his leader has, apparently, never seen them. I call on the member for Port Darwin to table the original minutes.
Another interesting leak today from CLP sources: advice there were other CLP elected members at that management committee meeting. Who were those members? What is their side of the story? Tony Abbott denied the allegations raised by the Alice Springs News on 18 November but there are other questions Tony Abbott should answer. Did he discuss with Terry Mills a job offer/deal for Leo Abbott? The minutes screened on television last night clearly stated:
- The position would be offered when the Liberals won the election.
We know Tony Abbott supported the position to disendorse Leo Abbott. Someone in the federal Liberal Party must have agreed to offer Leo Abbott a job to make that offer credible. Was Tony Abbott involved in the decision to offer a job to Leo Abbott? It is clear from media reports that Senator Scullion was also in the meeting. Was Senator Scullion aware of the decision to offer a job to Leo Abbott? Did Senator Scullion report to Tony Abbott on the job offer Terry Mills describes as ‘a private conversation’ that is minuted in CLP management committee minutes?
There are many questions still to be answered, still to be put on the record, whilst the Leader of the Opposition is still hiding the truth about what occurred and if he offered a job to Leo Abbott so he would step down as the CLP candidate for Lingiari. Did Tony Abbott endorse and condone this job offer? Did Senator Scullion know about the job offer? Was he the go-between for Tony Abbott and Terry Mills?
Many questions remain unanswered and there has been plenty of opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to provide an answer to this House, and to Territorians. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to come into adjournment debate today and tell us if he offered Leo Abbott a job. Did he do so, having had it confirmed by the federal Liberal Party that a job was on offer? If so, who in the federal Liberal Party - Senator Scullion, Tony Abbott - was involved?
I invite the member for Port Darwin, again, to table the original minutes of the CLP management committee.
Mr Elferink: I have them here; you are about to see them.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I recognise and pay tribute to Brett and Kathy Graham who have been involved in the tourism industry for more than 20 years. They run a tourism business called SEIT Outback Australia. Last weekend they were awarded the Northern Territory Small Business Export Award. That is a fantastic award and recognises the grit, determination and hard work of Brett and Kathy, especially as they have only been running the business for 12 to 18 months.
Tonight, Kathy is in Sydney at the Australian Export Awards as a nominee from winning the Northern Territory Small Business Export Award. They received a certificate last night as a finalist. I wished Kathy all the best of luck when I saw her at the Tourism Central Australia AGM at Charles Darwin University in Alice Springs last Friday night. Unfortunately, they did not win tonight but that a family tourism business from Alice Springs in Central Australia, operating for little more than a year, can be on the national stage with a possibility of winning an Australian export award is fantastic. They should be recognised for their hard work and should be congratulated. I congratulate them and wish them all the best in their business endeavours for the future.
I say a big thank you to Mr Dave Sanders and all the crew at A Class Airconditioning & Sheetmetal for the hard work they do at Arunga Park Speedway in Alice Springs. I particularly offer my thanks and gratitude to the committee of Arunga Park Speedway, all the volunteers and safety people, officials, ambulance, firies, the people in the water truck who water the track and all the people who make Arunga Park Speedway special.
Julie Thomsen is a passionate advocate of junior motor sport at Arunga Park Speedway and I have had many dealings with her. I sponsored a couple of juniors from the junior sedans at the speedway and I have now put in an amount of money to sponsor, I think eight, juniors to go to South Australia to be part of the national junior titles.
On Saturday night, I was talked into jumping into a bomber, which is a class of race car only allowed in the Northern Territory and only operated in Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Dave Sanders from A Class Airconditioning & Sheetmetal strapped in an extra seat and allowed me to get in his car. I have been a motorsport fan all my life – and I am sure the member for Barkly has watched the speedway at Tennant Creek on several occasions, which is a fantastic track built into the hill there – and I have seen rubbing, grinding, and bumping and so forth in racing, but I never realised exactly how much they rub and bump and grind until I was in the car on Saturday night. I was talked into it and given the opportunity.
I have had plenty of stacks and accidents on motor bikes, go-karts, buggies and all those types of things before but being in the bomber I was completely surprised as to how much they smash into each other at full pace. We had an accident, I think in the third race last Saturday night. We hit the concrete wall at about 80 km/h. It was quite a tough impact but the safety of the cars today with all the OH&S requirements means you go in with helmets and neck braces, the seat belt configuration, the roll bars, and all the officials there, it was really good, and we were not hurt. The driver, Dave, said it was the biggest accident he has ever been in, but we came away unscathed, which is testament to the technological advancements.
I also congratulate the Arunga Park Speedway officials. I know these practices take place across all sports, in particular motor sports for the purpose of this discussion tonight, but I was quite impressed with the way people take the safety element at the racetrack. I was surprised, to be honest. People were in the pits before the racing started, working on cars, people coming and going. Everyone had to register they were there and they all got a special tag on their arm. Before the racing started, every person had to leave the pits and they did a big sweep to make sure no one was in there and then they checked everyone off as they came back in. I thought that was a really positive move. It reassured me of the safety elements practised at that sport there. I know you can never be a 100% safe in some things but to see those safety aspects there was good.
After we hit the wall, there were people everywhere trying to help us, which is fantastic. I know the member for Stuart is a big AFL fan, and I am an AFL fan too, but I think motorsport is probably bigger, or the biggest, in terms of participation in sport in Central Australia with the drags, speedway, go-karts, the Formula 500, swingers and the Finke. I know it is massive in the Barkly too, albeit with less numbers, but highly popular.
I thank those people, the volunteers, the mums and dads, the families, who put in all that hard work and the safety elements. I hope motor sports in the Centre continues to grow in an adaptive sense to more environmentally-friendly models as we move into the future, such as solar car races and all those things. We will grow and prosper and become a green sport into the future. I hope that motorsport really grows and prospers into something much bigger than it is now in the Centre.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about some of the great and positive achievements which have been made in my home town of Alice Springs and will thank some of those people whose drive and commitment make it the wonderful town it is.
Too often Alice Springs is painted in a bad light by local members but it is a place where I love to live and raise my family. As a born and bred local lad, I am very proud to be the Minister for Central Australia. As minister, I am responsible for two main projects: the Alice Springs Transformation Plan and the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. Of course, I play a very hands-on role with many other projects in the Centre in areas of sport, environment, parks, climate change, ICT policy, and major events. I also get involved in the many issues which are brought to my attention by fellow residents of Alice Springs. I am co-chair, with our dynamic and committed Mayor, Damien Ryan, of the Planning for the Future Committee; and I spoke in Question Time about some of the major achievements taking place under the Alice Springs Transformation Plan.
I see this partnership between the Australian and Territory governments as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make big, lasting improvements in social and living conditions in the town camps in Alice Springs. On Tuesday, it will be 12 months since work began on the $150m Transformation Plan in Alice Springs. We have already seen considerable progress with new houses built and others rebuilt and refurbished. Under the plan, 85 new homes will be built, plus 101 rebuilds and 33 refurbishments. In the first 12 months of this plan, eight new homes have been completed, along with 19 rebuilds and three refurbishments. Ten new homes are under construction, and Indigenous employment currently stands at 52%. Short-term, managed accommodation facilities are also nearing completion with the Alice Springs Accommodation Park, Percy Court, The Lodge, and extra beds at the Salvation Army, and the former Mt Gillen Hostel up and running.
The Alice Springs Transformation Plan also has a focus on dealing with social issues which affect the whole community. To this end, over $14m so far has been committed to a range of programs which assist and support social services. These initiatives include a domestic violence and family outreach program; a Ready and Willing for School program; targeted family support; dog control; staying sober programs; early childhood facilities; life skills support; and, tenancy management.
In August 2010, a new public bus route began in Alice Springs which is improving access for town campers and other residents.
The Alice Springs Transformation Plan has achieved an enormous amount in just 12 months. I thank all those on the team in the Australian and Northern Territory governments who have worked tirelessly to make the plan a reality, including Rita Henry, the first Executive Director of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, together with Andrea Martin and Peter McDonald who helped keep the show on the road. I also acknowledge John Baskerville, who is well-known to many of us here, who made a brief return.
We are now fortunate to have Tracey Brand on board as the Executive Director and, on the Australian government side, I thank Mark Coffey and his team for their work; Samara Hanley, as well; and, of course, the Joint Steering Committee. I thank Tony Mayell, head of the Department of Chief Minister in Alice Springs, for his work not just on this plan, but on behalf of our town and our region in many different areas.
I thank our mayor, Damien Ryan, whom we know fondly as ‘Damien Everywhere’. I do not know how he does it or where he finds enough hours in the day.
I also thank Darryl Pearce and Brian Stirling from Lhere Artepe who have a passionate commitment to Central Australia and growing the town together with the rest of the community; and the former member, William Tilmouth, who has now retired from Tangentyere Council.
I am confident we will see many more achievements and improvements from the Alice Springs Transformation Plan over the next 12 months.
I will speak quickly about the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. Like many other towns we have some issues with young people but we should not be penalising all young people for the actions of a few. This is why I will continue to back the Youth Action Plan and the hard work put in to support it by Family and Children’s Services officers, the police, education and youth workers and non-government organisations.
The Alice Springs Youth Action Plan is about helping young people avoid getting into trouble and supporting families, as well as tackling youth-related antisocial behaviour. The plan has achieved a great deal and will continue to make an impact - the Police Beat in the Todd Mall, the Centralian Middle School running with more than 350 students, the No School No Service code, and more funding provided to the Gap Youth Centre.
Superintendent Michael White did a terrific job as our first Youth Services Coordinator and continues to support the Youth Action Plan. Unfortunately, the current coordinator, Penny Drysdale, has resigned for personal reasons but I am advised there will be a smooth transition with an experienced operator in the role while the recruitment process proceeds.
The Youth Hub will be fully operational at the ANZAC Hill campus in 2011 and will include an alternative education provider, government and non-government youth service providers, and a wraparound educational service.
A Youth Street Outreach Service operated by NT Families and Children staff runs on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. The Youth Street Outreach Service engages with young people on the streets to ensure they are safe and supported to return home or to a place of safety. Police report this resource has given them a valuable direct contact point for issues involving youth after hours.
No one has a magic wand but what this government has is a comprehensive approach - the Youth Action Plan, the $150m Alice Springs Transformation Plan, and we are turning down the tap on grog as well.
I have touched on just a few of the projects and people making a difference and making Alice Springs a better place to live.
There are many others I am very proud to support as minister: our first class sporting and recreation facilities such as Traeger Park and the Aquatic Centre; Alice again being able to take to the ice these holidays is going to be fantastic; work is being done on releasing land at the new suburb of Kilgariff and I am looking forward to working with my colleague, the member for Barkly, on that release; and the $5m committed to redevelop the central business district and Todd Mall area of Alice Springs.
I wish everyone in Central Australia a safe and Merry Christmas. I look forward to the challenges and achievements of 2011; and a special mention to the Office of Chief Minister’s staff in Alice Springs: Stephen, Chantelle and Mandy. They are a great team and work under enormous pressure, often having to deal with issues and communication, particularly between here and Alice Springs, and I thank them for their fierce advice and their very high level of commitment to me as the minister, and to the government.
I acknowledge the Alice Springs ALP branch, a small, but active branch. I thank them for the great work they did during the Araluen by-election, and the great work they did on the Alice Springs Show stall.
I wish everyone in Central Australia a safe and Merry Christmas and I look forward to 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am about to do what the Attorney-General has asked me to. The first law officer of the Northern Territory has again come into this House wildly throwing around allegations. She has asked me to table the management committee meeting document, which is the official document of the Country Liberal Party, and I will do that today. However, I will also take time to compare it with the document she tabled today. She said:
- I also table the Management Committee meeting of Sunday, 15 August 2010 transcript.
That is this document she tabled today.
I asked the CLP secretariat to forward the transcript, as she describes it, and it went to the staffers upstairs, has come to my e-mail and I have printed it out in an unadulterated and unchanged fashion.
The first and most apparent difference between the two documents is the one I am about to table and it is two pages. It is not an agenda because this was an extra special meeting; it did not have an agenda and there were no minutes taken at the meeting because they were dealing with one specific issue. It appears in a font which is substantially different to the font in the document which was tabled. We might say there is a bit of cut and pasting going on; it is a Word document, people can change the fonts. However, the content of even those two parts of the document which marry up to each other are markedly and substantially different.
This document tabled today, on the strength of what I have received from those minutes, is a fabrication. The document the ABC showed is presented to this House as a fuzzy, black and white photocopy. That is all we can take from it.
The document provided by the Attorney-General today is different in several ways. Full stops are different, locations of words are different, a different font is used and a different font size. Moreover, there are substantial differences. May I give you an example? The original minutes read, quote:
- 9. The committee will advise recommendations and necessary action.
The Attorney-General’s document reads:
- The Committee will grant both parties leave (duration to be determined) (blank, blank) to respond to the Committee’s recommendations.
That is not a little different; that is completely different. How often have I heard the Leader of Government Business attack documents tabled in this House with minor differences as incomplete and utter fabrications and, essentially, lies to this House?
I go on with this document. It is fundamentally different in many areas. On the bottom of the original document the word ‘DECISION’ appears. On this document tabled by the Attorney-General no such word appears and, curiously, when I checked the ABC news story I gained the impression you could not see the bottom part of the first page; I would have to check it. Is it possible someone on the 5th floor of this House produced this document by looking at the transcripts of the news story run last night, when the document was flicked through by the ABC, and this is the product of something produced on the 5th floor? That is what concerns me.
Now I go to the issue of the tabled document.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Will the member for Port Darwin …
Mr ELFERINK: I seek leave to table it.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, we will get back to that in a second.
Then we get to the other major difference - two pages, four pages. On page 2 of the original document provided to me by the Country Liberal Secretariat a similar note appears - font is different - as on the CLP’s minutes as appears on the document tabled by the Attorney-General. However, the same note then appears on page 3 of the Attorney-General’s document. There is no page 3 in the original document. Why does that third note appear? Because someone has drawn a line and continued typing information on page 3, going over to page 4. This information is not on the Country Liberal Party’s records.
This is the information upon which the Attorney-General seeks to prosecute the Leader of the Opposition. It is this material which is not on the official records of the Country Liberal Party; so, these are, at very best, someone’s personal notes. To successfully accuse and prosecute based on someone’s personal notes - that person should come forward and identify themselves and aver that this is a correct record of the conversation. However, we see no such averment, no such determination or identification. Why? Because I do not know where this has come from. The Attorney-General, I suspect, does not know where this has come from.
Where did the e-mail come from which was used as such damning evidence against the Leader of the Opposition? Where did the information come from for the news article in the Alice Springs News which was used as such damning evidence? It is all based on rumour.
What the Attorney-General is relying on is not the original document which was provided to members of the management committee. Why do I not trust this Attorney-General when it comes to this issue? Because this is not anywhere like an accurate record of what this document does contain and it adds a whole lot more to what this document does not contain. Whoever is feeding this information to the Labor Party and the media is not representing this material honestly. This material is, at best, a personal or handwritten note which someone has taken; it is not an official document of the Country Liberal Party. It is different and, in my opinion, is a fabrication.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to table the document. It is on the top two pages. I ask the Attorney-General to do me and everyone a favour and start identifying the people who are accusing the Leader of the Opposition, initially, of a criminal offence which, for a whole bunch of reasons, we know he did not commit. They continue to run this line. They are accusers; they should stump up the evidence. That is the tradition in a fair system. I ask them to stump up the evidence.
If these are the personal notes of some person then who is that person? If they are nothing more than a fabricated document, then the Attorney-General should say so. The document tabled in this House today is not the document the Country Liberals had as their official document at the management committee meeting.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, listening carefully to what the member for Port Darwin had to say, we have this elaborate wall of words - almost like a professor going through the hieroglyphs of these pages trying to be the expert on typography. The question is simple and the question remains. The question has not been answered: did Terry Mills offer Leo Abbott a job in return for him stepping down as CLP candidate for Lingiari? All of this other stuff just falls away, because the man has not been able to answer the question.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: And by failing to answer the question, he fails your side of politics, each and every one of you, and he fails himself …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order1
Dr BURNS: … he fails the people of the Northern Territory, and he should come clean and tell the truth.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, particularly honourable members on the opposition side, the level of interruption is unacceptable. I ask you to be mindful of Standing Order 51, please.
Member for Johnston, have you completed your remarks?
Dr BURNS: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure tonight to speak about a free national community service program called Look Good … Feel Better, and the ladies who run this program here in the north. The Look Good … Feel Better program was founded in the United States in 1989, launched in Australia by the Australian Cosmetic Industry in May 1990, and is administered by the Cancer Patients Foundation Limited, which is a registered charitable organisation. The program is now available at over 165 locations across the globe and is expected to help 10 000 cancer patients in 2010.
Look Good … Feel Better is dedicated to teaching cancer patients, through hands-on activities, techniques designed to help restore their appearance and self-image during chemotherapy and radiation treatment. We all know what some of the physical side effects of some cancer treatments can be. In many cases these side effects can be devastating, not only to the physical appearance of some cancer patients, but also to their self-esteem.
General feelings of wellbeing have direct links to levels of self-esteem and self-worth. There are many documented cases where people who are critically injured, or who have serious, late-stage illnesses, or even what was thought to be terminal, have made recoveries which are often referred to as miracles. I have no doubt some of these miracles have been brought about by the strength and resolve of people with a strong sense of self-worth and a positive attitude towards life. Likewise, I have no doubt that the restoration of self-image and appearance, the very things that Look Good … Feel Better strives to achieve, can make a significant contribution to the self-worth and positive attitude which is so essential for recovery from a serious illness such as cancer.
It is in that context that I acknowledge the work of the people who run the Look Good … Feel Better program, and particularly those who bring this great program to Katherine. Just yesterday, Look Good … Feel Better came from Darwin to Katherine, meeting in my community room. The four ladies who came to Katherine were the NT Coordinator of Look Good … Feel Better, Mrs Marilyn Harvey; Mrs Julie Pickering, who ran the hair workshop; Mrs Monica Prosser, who ran the makeup workshop; and Ms Margaret Lavery, the Cancer Council NT’s breast cancer and women’s cancer nurse.
Eleven local Katherine ladies came to the meeting to talk about how things were going with their own issues and treatments, and to take part in the hairdressing and makeup activities. I also note that part of those activities included nibbles and a few glasses of sparkling wine.
It is quite apparent that the ladies from Look Good … Feel Better really go all out to create an environment where a good number of local Katherine cancer patients can relax, have a good time and improve their overall feeling of wellness. I acknowledge also my electorate officer, Pat Witte, who agreed to model the makeup for the evening. I know she does not necessarily like being put on the spot but it was a job well done, Pat, and thank you very much.
The cosmetics - ranging from cleansers to moisturisers through to mascara and lipstick - are donated through the cosmetics industry in this great country of ours, and they are not cheap or unknown brands either; they are all very well-known brands and, in some cases, quite expensive ones.
I pay my kindest regards to Marg, Marrilyn, Julie, and Monica and thank them for the great work they do with cancer patients in Katherine. And I send my best wishes for a speedy recovery to the 11 ladies who came along last night and to all those who are battling this insidious disease in the Territory and elsewhere.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with a touch of sadness that I make some comments about the passing of an elder statesman of Katherine and reflect a little on the life of Mr Lindsay John Phillips AM. Lindsay was also, and, I might add, mostly, known as and referred to by his nickname, Phlip. Phlip was born on 26 August 1925 and sadly passed away in Katherine on 6 November 2010 at the age of 85.
It was only seven months ago, almost to the day, when I stood here offering my congratulations to Phlip and his wife, Ingrid, on their 60th wedding anniversary. I commented at the time that a 60th anniversary was a heck of a milestone, but it was but one of the many milestones Phlip passed during his pioneering and very influential life.
Phlip was a real pioneer in the Territory, moving from the west, from the Wyndham region, to Katherine in May 1948. It is with that I would like to quickly correct the record. During my congratulatory speech made in this House on 30 April last year about the 60th wedding anniversary of Ingrid and Phlip, I said that Phlip moved here in the 1960s; it was, in fact, May 1948. I regret making that mistake because …
Mr Chandler: He would let you know.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Brennan, because he did let me know. It was quite remarkable that a gentleman aged 84, as he was at the time, picked up on a slip-up I made in the House, and I was given a bit of a hard time over it too. But, anyway, it is all good. That is the sort of bloke that Phlip was – a very honest, genuine, forthright and hardworking fellow, and not afraid to think outside the box.
Phlip was involved in farming around the Katherine region, was a key figure in the beginnings of the Katherine Show, and was highly respected as a man of excellent character. But in his professional sphere the thing he was most renowned for was his crop research with the then CSIRO as it existed in Katherine on the site which is currently the research station run by the department of Primary Industry. He was very well respected for his ability to germinate seeds and grow and harvest crops from a wide variety of plants. The list of his achievements in cropping included guar, hemp, peanuts, soybeans, millet, sorghum, maize, and many others.
I was delighted, as I stood at a very sombre funeral service, to see a number of Phlip’s journals presented which documented much of the work he did whilst he was at the CSIRO. These are now pieces of history just as Phlip is part of the history of the Katherine region.
Phlip was also a war veteran and we have seen him proudly riding in the back of a vintage car as the Anzac Day parade made its way down Katherine Terrace each year. Phlip’s involvement with Anzac Day was much deeper than that. Phlip was often a guest speaker at school assemblies, talking to students about Anzac Day and the broader involvement of Australian troops in overseas conflict. Phlip added a personal touch to Anzac Day for the schools, sharing stories about his experiences, and I can attest to the impact those visits had on the students. His sharing of anecdotes and his engagement of the students at school visits left a real impact on the children, so much so, that when I was at the assembly of the Casuarina Street Primary School on the morning of Phlip’s funeral service, not only were his praises sung but I was asked to pass on the best wishes of the school, with special thanks for all he had done in helping the students to gain a much better understanding of what it means to be a soldier serving in overseas conflicts.
Phlip was an old bushie, and it is sad that our old bushies are passing on. It is inevitable, I know, but so much is lost, so much knowledge, so much experience, and there will be some people who try to emulate some of Phlip’s work from his heyday. To those people who would emulate Phlip’s work: look at the history, look at the journals which document what Phlip has done in the agricultural industry in the Northern Territory, and you will find much of the work has already been done.
Phlip is survived by his wife, Ingrid; his children, Rob, Barry, Lyn, Kyra, Greg, Lindsay and Leith; and his many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Phlip’s passing is a loss to Katherine and the Northern Territory. May he rest in peace, and may his family take comfort from the fact his many legacies will remain with Territorians for many, many years to come.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will inform the House about the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit of the Department of Legislative Assembly Outreach Program visit to Tennant Creek and the Barkly in November 2010.
The Parliamentary Outreach Education Program is aimed towards school students in urban, regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory. Its program content includes an overview of the Northern Territory parliamentary system, followed by a mock parliament with the passage of a bill developed and debated by the students. The Parliamentary Outreach Education Program is an innovative program which teaches students about the basic principles of democracy and the parliamentary processes.
Students play the parts of government and opposition members, as well as parliamentary officers in a Chamber setting, deciding on an issue to debate, writing their own speeches and voting on the bill. Throughout the parliamentary session all members are required to conform to parliamentary etiquette which mirrors the real Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. All materials, costumes and props used are provided by the Parliamentary Outreach Education Program and the classroom is transformed into a Chamber reminiscent of our early Northern Territory administration sitting in the old Darwin Primary School after Cyclone Tracy.
I thank Caroline Cavanagh, Director of the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit in the Department of the Legislative Assembly, for delivering the program at Murray Downs School, Tennant Creek Primary campus of the Barkly College, and Epenarra School, supported in Darwin by Karen Parker, Community Engagement Coordinator, and Melissa McHours of the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit. Caroline hired a four-wheel drive and travelled through some of the southern Barkly’s most beautiful country to bring this exciting, extra-curricular program to our remote schools.
I urge members to contact the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit on Level 3 of the Northern Territory Parliament House to inform themselves of the opportunities on offer for the schools in their electorates and to promote this excellent program to their constituents.
I am also proud to inform the House that students from Epenarra School who participated in the Parliamentary Outreach Education Program during November will visit the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on Thursday, 2 December 2010 as part of their Darwin excursion itinerary. What a wonderful follow-up for the unit of study to conclude the educational program with a visit to Parliament House, the ministerial offices, and then Question Time. I often wonder what Territory kids think of their elected community representatives after a visit to Question Time. At long last, I will get to ask the students from Epenarra after they witness a live Question Time in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I table some photographs of the Parliamentary Education Program at Epenarra and Murray Downs in November 2010. They are all cleared with a talent release form held by the Legislative Assembly staff.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, in the words of Tony Abbott earlier in the week: the Labor Party has lost its way across the country and there is no more evidence of this than in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government has certainly lost its way over the last 10 years with appalling mismanagement, neglect and maladministration which has left us with some very serious problems, not to mention the 800 dead cows at Mataranka Station, Australia’s worst offshore oil spill at Montara and, of course, the damning report card on child protection which came down in October 2010.
The only time this government wants to talk about child protection is when it is dragged screaming and kicking. They do not offer us any information about what is going on and how they are addressing the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. It is a shocking state of affairs.
This evening, we heard the Minister for Child Protection reject giving the Children's Commissioner the required authority and powers to act as a watchdog in the implementation of the recommendations of this report. This government is running scared and it is to the detriment of the children of the Northern Territory.
We do not hear of any responsibility taken for any of these problems. No one in the government is ever responsible for any of the mistakes or the failings we see around us - it is always someone else.
The Chief Minister was on ABC radio this morning talking to Julia Christensen and a caller asked that interjections during Question Time be toned down. The Chief Minister said: ‘It is not our fault, it is the opposition’. Even Julia Christensen had a go at him about the fact he would not take some responsibility even for that scenario.
I want the Minister for Child Protection to give us regular reports on what is happening with child protection in the Northern Territory. I want the Minister for Child Protection to offer - not on demand, but to offer - the people of the Northern Territory a regular report card on how he is implementing the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. The 34 urgent recommendations of this report should be in the process of being implemented. We do not hear anything about what is happening unless, as I said, they are dragged screaming and kicking in front of a microphone or through a media release.
A couple of weeks ago, when the minister was in China for his other portfolio responsibilities, I asked him for a report card. The next day, he gave us one. Why is this so? Why do we have to keep demanding? What the heck is going on? The 34 recommendations of an urgent nature have to be addressed by 18 April 2011. Time is running out; we are already six weeks into that six-month period.
The steering committee the government has put together was not how the report couched this group of people. The Children's Commissioner, one of the authors of the report, called it a group of people who would plan and put together a strategic response to the recommendations. The government has put it together and called it a steering committee. Where are they up to? What are they doing? What is happening with that steering committee?
As the member for Braitling raised earlier, why wasn’t Jodeen Carney, one of the great advocates for child protection, asked to be on that steering committee to give her very insightful, professional and well-measured views on child protection? What is happening with that steering committee? How is the planning, coordination and implementation going regarding this report?
What is happening with the Aboriginal childcare agency, or agencies, as the case may be? Exactly what will they be doing? What will their functions be? What model will the government be using to set up the Aboriginal childcare agencies? Where exactly is the additional $70m allocated to child protection coming from? We heard it was new funding; we have since heard rumours that is not the case; we have had it confirmed it is not new money. We would like to know exactly where the money has come from; which other areas of government funding have been robbed to put together this $70m allocated to child protection.
What about the backlog of cases which was featured in the report - the 1000 cases in this backlog? What about the 500 cases which were closed without proper case management and assessment? What is happening with those families? What is happening with those children who have had notifications lodged about them because of fears they were being neglected or abused in some way?
The role of the Commissioner as a watchdog was one of the simplest recommendations to implement; assisted, once again, by Jodeen Carney, who put it on the table in February of this year. What will become of the role of Children’s Commissioner if this government is refusing to even look at the amendments we put forward earlier in October?
The government also has a responsibility to implement all the Little Children are Sacred report recommendations pertaining to child abuse and neglect in the Northern Territory. How is that going? We would like a report on where they are up to with the many recommendations in that report. And the support and the supervision of your staff - we have heard endlessly how overworked they are, how they are overburdened with too many cases and not being supervised correctly. We would like to know exactly what the Minister for Child Protection and his staff are doing to address those needs. We want a regular report.
I should not have to stand here on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory and demand information from this government when it has been given numerous reports saying they have failed when it comes to child protection. You should be offering these reports and demonstrating your duty of care to the children of the Northern Territory. You should be demonstrating to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are committed to protecting children who are at risk of abuse and neglect. It is not good enough that we have to demand this information from you.
In fact, I go one step further and say you should be publishing pieces in the paper on a weekly or fortnightly basis stating exactly where you are up to, because this community is alarmed, it is distressed and has been consistently let down by this government for the last 10 years when it comes to child protection.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak about the passing of a great Territorian, Charlie Cagnetti, who ran what became an iconic Darwin restaurant, known 40-plus years ago as the Olympic Restaurant, then shortly after that, and for the next four decades, as Charlie's.
Charlie was around before self-government and, in the early days when the CLP won government and self-government was declared, I think half of the Territory was built at meetings held in Charlie’s restaurant. It was a fine place to dine; a fine example of Italian hospitality: good Italian food and a warm and friendly place to go to discuss all types of issues over lunch.
Charlie was the type of person who could be trusted to keep secrets, as I am sure there were many issues debated and discussed at Charlie’s in those days and for many years after. I was not part of that in those days but I had the opportunity to dine at Charlie’s restaurant on numerous occasions over the last nearly 30 years. It is sad to see Territory icons pass; unfortunately, I suppose it comes to the very best of us.
I would like to relay the eulogy which was read by his son, Roberto, and put on the public record the story of a great Territory man. I quote from Roberto’s speech:
- I am not here to regale you with countless amusing stories of the restaurant or my father’s starring role in so many of them. There will be plenty of time to do that later on today over a beer or a glass of wine or two.
I am here to talk about my father, the man, the loving husband and the father of three.
My father was a man who never wavered in his convictions - life wasn’t meant to be easy but through hard work, perseverance and sacrifice, anyone could rise above it all and succeed.
And - with my mother at his side - succeed he did.
Born Alceo Cagnetti in 1927 on a farm located near the town of Ascoli Piceno, Italy, my father was the middle of three boys - Giovanni (the oldest) and Gino (the youngest). His childhood was characterised, like that of so many other Italians during the pre-war years, by the constant struggle to survive each and every day. At a very early age he was sent out to work on nearby farms to help support his family. The work was hard and it was not uncommon for him to return home well after dark with bloodied and blistered feet, numb with exhaustion.
- As a teenager during the war he witnessed the acts of insurgency by the local partisans and subsequent bloody acts of retribution. As he would recount years later it was these experiences that forged his conviction to always speak his mind, regardless of the consequences.
In the 1950s, like hundreds of thousands of others, he migrated to Australia in pursuit of a better life. That pursuit saw him travel extensively throughout rural Australia doing a variety of jobs. The days were long and the work back breaking but he was not one to complain. He had arrived in Australia with nothing and was slowly but assuredly creating a new life for himself in this, the luckiest of all countries.
- He worked his way across South Australia and made a pivotal decision to take up a job as a kitchen hand at the government’s rocket testing range at Woomera. It was here that his bosses were so impressed with his work ethic, passion and talent that they decided to formally train him up to be a chef, a trade he would cherish for the remainder of his life.
During a trip back to Italy, he met a spirited young woman named Lorinna Lelli waiting at a bus stop in the village of Maltignano. As a testament to his charm and flair, he persuaded Miss Lelli to forgo the bus ride and instead give him a tour of the surrounding countryside. Over time he would also persuade her not only to marry him but to leave all her family and friends behind and migrate to the exciting and slightly warmer climes of the Australian outback.
They didn’t stay long in Woomera.
In 1967, my uncle Giovanni persuaded the newly weds to join him up in Darwin and together they purchased a local caf called the Olympic. My parents worked long and hard together and they built up the clientele and the reputation of the Olympic which over time became simply known as Charlie’s.
Over the years, Charlie’s became a place known far and wide for its unique character and great menu which included my father’s legendary interpretation of the classic cordon bleu and his world class chilli bugs delivered straight from the heaven’s kitchen. It also became well known for what I shall call my father’s very unique and somewhat unorthodox management style. While many of you here today may not have witnessed it in action while waiting on a meal or two over the years, you had to be working for him to really appreciate its finer details.
No matter at what time of night or day, a customer at the door always brought a smile to my father’s face. If they ordered a bottle of wine or two, he would be all the happier. And if they paid ‘cash money’, and only gave a cursory glance to the bill, they were instantly thought of as family.
Despite working seven days and nights a week, my father managed to find the time to have a family. My sister, Lucia, was the first to arrive, and then myself followed by my brother, Carlo. And while running the restaurant took up most of his time, he always made sure that he was an important part of our lives. From being there every Sunday to cook the family lunch to closing the restaurant early on a Saturday afternoon to make sure that he could be with us to celebrate a birthday, no sacrifice was too big for his family.
My father died of a heart attack on Tuesday night, 5 October, 2010, three weeks short of his 83rd birthday. While it was sudden and unexpected my family and I take great comfort in the knowledge that he lived a full life and achieved everything he set his mind to. Personally, I am also grateful that he didn’t die working in the restaurant and had a chance over the past year to spend some quality time with his family and friends.
On behalf of my mother, sister Lucia, brother Carlo and myself, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for being here today and for the overwhelming amount of support that we have received over the past week from people within the Darwin community and across Australia. It was greatly appreciated. Thank you.
That was the eulogy read by Roberto in St Mary’s Cathedral recently. It reflects the life of an immigrant to this country and the multicultural nature of Darwin in those days, and today. It is as a result of people like Charlie Cagnetti who came here and worked hard – they were the fabric of the community that became known as the multicultural community of Darwin 2010.
Without people like Charlie, without his commitment, dedication and work ethic and without families like the Cagnetti family who have survived Charlie, we would not have a Darwin that looks like it does today; it makes Darwin one of the great places to live in Australia.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this story to the public record so his family and those who follow him can see what a contribution Charlie Cagnetti made to the Darwin community.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I take the opportunity, tonight being the second last parliamentary night of the 2010 calendar, to thank a few people and wish them all a very Merry Christmas.
To my colleagues, it has been a very interesting journey this year. And to my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber: we do not always agree on things, we often have a different philosophy on things and sometimes we lose sight that each and every one of us in this House is a human being. While our job in opposition is to criticise, where necessary, and hold the government to account, there are times when I have seen things in this House which disappointment me. Nonetheless, it is Christmas, and the Christmas spirit will be on us before too long.
To Madam Speaker and her very wonderful deputies, a Merry Christmas. To Ian McNeill, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and all the Legislative Assembly staff, I wish you a very Merry Christmas. To the Hansard staff listening upstairs on the fourth level, thank you very much for your intent listening over the last 12 months. I really do not know how you do it because a lot of dribble goes on here, as well as some very cultured words and some not so cultured words. Well done and a Merry Christmas.
To the department staff from NRETAS and the Education department who have helped out over the year with different briefings and the information you have provided to the Country Liberals.
To Sue Fraser-Adams and all the Country Liberal members of a great party, remember what we stand for, remember what we are trying to achieve, and I truly, sincerely hope we can remain as strong as the party has been in the past to ensure we have every opportunity to take government once again for the Country Liberals.
To the Calder branch, my branch, thank you very much for another supportive year. I wish you well also. Have a Merry Christmas. On 17 December we will have a few drinks in the office to celebrate Christmas and you are all welcome.
To June Wessels, Bakewell School Principal, who was nominated and received the award of Principal of the Year for the Northern Territory, I wish you, your school, your staff and, of course, your students, and parents, a very Merry Christmas.
To Marlise, my electorate officer who joined me around May or June this year - Marlise came on board and restored a sense of dignity, a sense of honour, and a customer service like no other to the office; her professionalism helps support me.
To Tasma and Donna, the other two electorate officers in Palmerston, they do an absolutely fantastic job and have supported Marlise as she has learnt the ropes of becoming a very effective electorate officer. I take my hat off to both Donna and Tas as well. Donna has to put up with the member for Drysdale - that must be a heck of a job! Tasma has what must be the horrible job of having to manage an electorate office held by the Leader of the Opposition, which means the leader cannot be there all the time. It must be a very difficult job and she does it wonderfully.
To the wider electorate of Brennan, to each and every one, I wish a very safe Christmas, and to the wider Palmerston community.
Lastly, to my own family: my beautiful wife, Robyn and my wonderful, adorable children - they are the ones we, in this job, pop into the same fishbowl we choose to take on and that fishbowl creates a very unique environment. It is like living on eggshells the whole time and without their support I could not do what I do. I do not think there are many in this House who could do what they do without the support of their families. The bottom line is, that is the main reason we are in a place like this - to make the Territory a better place. I know there is not a member in this House who does not have that same desire to have the Territory as good a place to live and raise our children, and to make it as strong as we possibly can. That crosses all levels of politics; everyone wants a good place to live in and that is what our aim is.
To everyone listening, and to the entire Northern Territory, I wish you a very Merry Christmas. Please stay safe. We do not want tragedies over this Christmas period. Be careful, take care of yourselves and God bless.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I talk about a character I know who enriches my life some weekends - or detracts – I am not sure. I am sure he will understand that comment. He is a gentleman by the name of Chris Dunphy. Chris and Dianne own the Hungry Dolphin, the Woodroffe fish and chip shop. They are down the road from me …
Mr Chandler: They cook most of your meals.
Mr BOHLIN: No, they do not. I make a habit of once a week, or once a fortnight, getting fish and chips from them because they sell local barramundi and snapper. This Sunday past I went to a different fish and chip shop to try something a bit different and see who else was out there. I guarantee Chris will not like me saying it, but we thought we would have a look around, spread the money around the community’s small businesses.
I walked into that other fish and chip shop, it did not have one piece of local fish on the board so I walked out and I went to Chris - to where I know I was going to get a good feed and support the local shop owners and the local industry.
What I want to talk about briefly is that Chris has had medical issues for a long time. He has been due for a new set of hips. He is interstate - I think he has already gone - to get new hips jammed in and I wish him the very best. Owning a shop cannot be the easiest of businesses to run. I know his lovely wife, Dianne, whom I often refer to as ‘mum’. I call out in the shop as I go in: ‘Where are you, old man?’, and he comes forward, and I say: ‘Where is mum?’ He says: ‘She is out the back, cooking’. I always try to say hello to both of them. Dianne has stayed behind to run the shop so it must be difficult for her whilst Chris is away having a very major operation.
I hope things go well for you, Chris. You are a character. You give me as much curry as I am willing to give back to you and I love the times we sit and chat - 10 minutes or 15 minutes. He passes on his philosophy of life and politics of the world, and of the Country Liberals, and what we should do here and what we should do there and ‘In my day …’ this and that. If I did not enjoy that banter, I would not come to your shop.
I love having chats with you and I am sure many of your customers wonder what is going on with these two mad nuts? This young fella having a decent go with this old fella, and this old fella packing it back just the same. It must be like a comedy show to most people who watch.
Thank you for being such a fantastic Territorian and Australian. As patriotic as you are, I wish you the very best, and from one mate to another, the best of luck and I hope to see you soon.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about what have been described as ‘the fantastic efforts of the Darwin Flotilla of the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard’. I have to declare an interest here because, in February 2010, members from the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard National Board visited Darwin and a development committee was formed and, after much hard work, there was an official launch or an official commissioning ceremony for the first NT rescue vessel, NTFO1, a 12 m Noosa Cat. The interest I have is that Tony Butler and his wife, Trisha, happen to be my brother-in-law and sister. They were very much part of the development committee which got the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Northern Territory under way.
One of the great things about this organisation is it is part of a family of Australian Volunteer Coast Guards and many representatives from other states came up for the commissioning. One of the things they were, I would say, jealous about, was this 12 m Noosa Cat. You have to remember the committee was formed in February and in November they were launching a 12 m - air-conditioned, by the way - Noosa Cat, which was gifted to them by Tony and Samantha Pearce. This was a tourist vessel which sailed the harbour. It is a beautiful boat. I was there at the commissioning and went for a little trip on it around the port. People who came from the south were quite amazed that the locals had been able to obtain a boat in such a short time whereas, in other states, getting enough money to purchase a boat takes quite a bit of time.
The Darwin Flotilla commenced in November, in fact, it was launched on 1 October 2010. The Arafura Guardian, as it is called, is used for recovery of stricken vessels and for searches along the Northern Territory and the Tiwi Island coasts and operates out of the Darwin Trailer Boat Club.
You may have heard recently there was a tragic loss of life off the Tiwi Island coast. A husband and wife returning from Indonesia and coming around the west coast of the Tiwi Islands ran into a storm. Unfortunately, the husband, in his attempts to sail the boat through that storm, was thrown overboard and lost at sea. The Darwin Australian Volunteer Coast Guard went out looking for him for a day and a half, I believe. That is part of the role of the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard.
Initially, the Darwin Coast Guard will operate weekend patrols and a VHF radio monitoring service which will enable boats to log themselves in and out with the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard. The Darwin Coast Guard is a voluntary organisation which aims to: (1) promote safety in boating; (2) assist in the preservation of life and property; (3) assist persons in danger on the waters of Darwin; (4) train flotilla members and the public in all aspects of seamanship and boating safety.
They currently have recruited and are training around 85 members and, since commencement, have assisted with four rescue activities. This is a volunteer organisation reliant on fundraising and corporate and public donations; they do not receive any government assistance. A dedicated, small group, led by none other than Tony Butler, has worked extremely hard to start the Darwin Coast Guard, and I thank them for their dedication to serving the community.
I know the Coast Guard would like to acknowledge the support of their very generous donors: ConocoPhillips, Boscato Pty Ltd, Shorelands, Darwin Trailer Boat Club, Bendigo Bank, Territory Technology Solutions, Rural Trading, and Fingers Aluminium.
I was going to say that if you are interested in joining the volunteer coast guard you can look up the website, however, the web page has not yet been completed. My advice would be to contact the Darwin Trailer Boat Club if you are interested. This is a very worthwhile group volunteering its services, taking some of the load off groups like the police when it comes to preserving life and property. As we know, that is one of their roles, but it also promotes safety in boating; that is a very worthwhile objective as so many in people in Darwin and other parts of the Territory use their boats for recreation or fishing.
I put it to people, even members of parliament may have an interest in volunteering, or if there are organisations out there, businesses which would like to help and donate to support this volunteer coast guard, I am sure they would appreciate hearing from you.
I know the member for Greatorex spoke last week about the aeromedical contract. Unfortunately, I was in Alice Springs for the Local Government AGM, but I understand he raised some concerns about the aeromedical contract and some of the arguments which have been put forward to say a single engine plane, specifically, I believe, the Pilatus plane, was not the best option for the aeromedical, and the government, according to this advisor, would do better to look at a twin engine plane.
I have a copy of the latest R M Williams Outback book and inside there is a picture of the single engine Pilatus. I do not have any shares in Pilatus but I was contacted recently by some representatives from the Pilatus company. They put forward their concerns that its plane, which is used by the Northern Territory police and, I believe, by the Royal Flying Doctor Service - I think something like 31 of their planes are single engine although they do have twin engine planes as well. They were a little concerned that information given to the government was not helpful in their bid to promote a single engine Pilatus plane.
I am not an aeroplane expert but if there is some concern - as the member for Greatorex thought - that some of the arguments against having a single engine plane may be questionable then I hope the government looks at getting a second opinion before it makes this important decision about the aeromedical service in the Top End.
I am not here to barrack for Pilatus or King Air; I hope this important contract is looked at very carefully because it is important for the Northern Territory and it is also a very expensive contract. Territorians would expect the government to check all options and ensure our money is being well spent so people of the Northern Territory can have the best aeromedical service possible.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016