2007-08-30
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 6/7 Wagaman Primary School students, accompanied by Margaret McPherson, who are participating in the Parliament of Wizards as a part of Celebrating Democracy Week. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome. May I say what a beautiful uniform it is.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 1445 petitioners taken over a two-week period praying that the funding be approved to replace the Fogg Dam monsoon forest boardwalk so it can reopen in 2007. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of Standing Orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table photos of the boardwalk as it was before it was destroyed and as it is now.
Leave granted.
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with Standing Orders from 772 petitioners relating to the promotion of Darwin city. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, one of the main priorities when we won government in 2001 was to give young Territorians the chance to experience events they previously had to travel south to attend, such as AFL matches, top-level netball, basketball and international test cricket. We wanted to develop our very own high-quality music festival and get the best bands available to play, and that is how BassintheDust and BassintheGrass concerts came into being.
We wanted these concerts to be accessible and appropriate to our under 18s who cannot attend nightclubs or other licensed premises. With this in mind, we have always tried to keep ticket prices down at a reasonable cost. So $45 for up to 11 hours of entertainment is pretty good value for money and, judging by the success of the events, I think Territorians agree.
Four years on, BassintheDust and BassintheGrass are two of the biggest and most exciting events on our calendar and they are getting more and more popular by the year.
The recent BassintheGrass concert in Darwin saw around 7000 people passing through the Amphitheatre gates and that is regarded as venue capacity. That is double what it was for the inaugural event held in 2003.
This year’s BassintheDust is set to be the best ever. Its first home was the Alice Springs Convention Centre but, since 2005, Anzac Oval has hosted Central Australia’s premier music festival. This change of venue, together with the quality of the bands, has seen crowd numbers increase dramatically. The first BassintheDust had 913 young Centralians attend. Last year, the figure had grown to an impressive 2300, which tells you something about how Centralians have taken to BassintheDust. You can get to see some very interesting sights at BassintheDust, Madam Speaker, as you know - some of our senior politicians in the mosh pit.
Mr Mills: Shame!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, that record may not last for long when you consider the line up this year. Can I say that Madam Speaker is very impressive in the mosh pit!
The record may not last for long when you consider the line-up for this year, and I hope you are back in the mosh pit. We have managed to persuade Jet to back their highly successful BassintheGrass appearance in Darwin. They were enormously successful here. Those talented Western Australians, The Waifs, will be there too as part of the national tour to promote their soon-to-be-released album. Throw in TZU behind Crimson Eyes, Low Rider Mammal and a number of local acts, and you have a line-up that is sure to strike a chord with the people of Central Australia.
As most parents know, we enforce a disciplined but friendly environment for all 11 hours of the festival, with alcohol-free time running from 12 noon to 5 pm. The annual cost of staging BassintheDust has grown to $300 000. We contribute $150 000, with the rest being made up through sponsorship and gate receipts, but our investment in this event spreads far and wide.
Local contractors and service providers are used exclusively where possible, and the benefits to the local business sector and the Central Australian economy are significant. For example, a concert like this means we have to hire shading, toilet blocks, fencing, cleaning and waste disposal, security, lighting towers, generator sets and various consumer products. We use ticket agents, booking shops, accommodation houses and restaurants. It is great for business and great for the economy.
I thank Paul Cattermole and his team at NT Major Events Company for an amazing job in organising and growing both BassintheDust and BassintheGrass over the past four years. For BassintheDust, I thank the Alice Springs Town Council for their cooperation. It has sometimes been difficult along the way, but we have reached a good cooperative arrangement and, of course, in Darwin, Darwin City Council.
To all those gearing up for the festival, have a great time. I commend this report to the House and to our young guests. I hope that you get a chance to go to BassintheGrass. I am sure some of you have been already.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her report this morning. It is really important to provide as much activity and events like this for young people. The really important thing is that we demonstrate that they can have a wonderful experience without alcohol. I was very pleased to read in the paper today that there is consideration of banning smoking. I am all in favour of having a smoke-free and alcohol-free environment for young people to have great fun and listen to fantastic music with their friends.
As the Chief Minister said, it is an opportunity, especially for Central Australia, to have an economic boost for Alice Springs. We would love to see something on a smaller scale supported in the regions. In Katherine, we have the Katherine Country Music Muster which a lot of the young ones come along and experience. I wish the events every success, which is obvious by the increasing numbers attending each year.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am glad we have sorted out the problems with the Alice Springs Town Council over the venue. Obviously, Anzac Hill is the venue it should be held and the increased numbers prove that. Let us hope we do not have any grizzles and gripes from our town council who seem to carry on a little about rubbish and noise and God knows what. They should be getting behind this. I am interested in how much they contribute to this event, Chief Minister, because it is a great event.
I am pleased that you are saying that as far as possible, local businesses are used. I know there was some concern about the stage and sound system going to an interstate firm, so I presume that may have been rectified this year. Perhaps you could tell me about that.
I know it is great to have Jet, but I am sorry, I do not know who Jet is, but I am sure they are going to be good.
Mr Wood: It’s John, Paul, George and Ringo.
Mrs BRAHAM: If it has Madam Speaker up mushing or dancing, it must be a good thing for sure. The kids in Alice Springs do deserve things like this. Too often, we put them down and they are blamed for all sorts of things, so it is a real positive thing that the government is doing by putting on BassintheDust.
It shows that you do care and that you are willing to spend some money on the young people of our town. If there is any message that goes out, we should say to young people: ‘Yes, this is for you. Show us that you can enjoy it in a sensible way. Have a good time but make sure that you do not go to extremes in your behaviour’. Chief Minister, let us hope this continues as an annual event. It is well worthwhile.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. There is no question of this not continuing. We have seen both BassintheDust and BassintheGrass grow and be more sustainable over the four years. When you look at the growth in attendance, particularly in Alice Springs where we were very concerned for a couple of years that the numbers were low, we have found the right venue. The issues over the venue have been absolutely sorted out, and I say thank you to Alice Springs Town Council; I think we have a good cooperative arrangement. These events are now embedded in the calendar for young Territorians and people genuinely look forward to them.
I was delighted with BassintheGrass when, for numbers of weeks before it, teenagers were painting T-shirts, looking at how they will coordinate, and they look fantastic when they go. The same happens with BassintheDust.
I am sorry if you do not know about Jet. If you want any more information about Jet, speak to the member for Wanguri who is passionate. Considering they build on the foundations of The Beatles and Stones, I am disappointed you do not know more about them. They will be great.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, National Child Protection Week is held in September every year, kicking off this year on Sunday the 2nd. The Northern Territory program for the week is coordinated by NAPCAN Northern Territory, the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, Northern Territory Branch.
NAPCAN is a non-profit, volunteer-based organisation whose aim is to prevent abuse and neglect of children by inspiring all community members to take responsibility for children’s wellbeing. On Monday morning, it will be my great pleasure to attend the NAPCAN breakfast with my colleague, the minister for Education, where I will presenting a Children’s Champion Award.
Child Protection Week sees a range of activities, events, training and forums across the Northern Territory, all based on this year’s theme of making your community a safer and friendlier place for children. This accords with NAPCAN’s vision, which is that every Australian community is child-friendly.
An important part of Child Protection Week in the Territory is the awarding of $30 000 worth of grants funded by my agency of Family and Community Services. These competitive small grants to a maximum of $1000 are available to communities and community groups to conduct activities or events that work to prevent child abuse and neglect. To date, there have been 15 successful grant applications from across the Northern Territory. Activities and events include a healthy living and lifestyle disco dance party for young people at Ntaria, protective behaviour programs for mothers and children at the Darwin Aboriginal and Islander Women’s Shelter, family fun days at the Alice Springs and Darwin Correctional Centres, and the creation of a set of indigenous-inspired marionettes for use in delivering health promotion and lifestyle messages throughout the Top End.
Other successful applicants are: Dawn House; the Top End Division of General Practitioners; Palmerston Safe Communities; Good Beginnings in Katherine; Alice Springs Women’s Shelter; Crisis Accommodation at Gove; the Salvation Army Flying Padre; FAST, which is the Family and Schools Together; Playgroup NT; and Yipirinya School Council. Madam Speaker, I congratulate all of the applicants of the Child Protection Week grants for their commitment to this critical area of our society.
I take this opportunity to commend NAPCAN for its vision, commitment and contribution to the wellbeing of our children. The sort of work this organisation does as it quietly goes about its ongoing daily business is largely overlooked in the current climate of dramatic intervention. NAPCAN is establishing itself as a voice in support of child-friendly communities, for the wellbeing of children and the prevention of child abuse and neglect. Its community approach challenges the commonly promoted view that only parents carry the sole responsibility for child safety and wellbeing.
The Care and Protection of Children Bill I introduced last week picks up this theme. The bill explicitly states:
I am certain members of this House will support this view. Successful solutions to the complex and endemic social problems of child abuse and neglect can only be found by working in partnership with communities. The role of all of us in framing children’s behaviour and influencing the causes of child abuse and neglect is very starkly portrayed in an advertisement campaign currently being run by NAPCAN. The TV advertisement is called ‘Children See, Children Do’. The advertisement is not currently being shown in the Northern Territory, which is something I am working to change. However, I urge members to look at it on the NAPCAN website. It is confronting and emotional, and makes the point so clearly that child abuse is everyone’s business and the solution is the responsibility of all across the generations.
This government has provided substantial growth to the child protection budget and, last week, the Chief Minister announced an additional $79m in funding focused on keeping children safe in the Closing the Gap package. These are essential measures, but it is also essential that all members of our community play a part in keeping children safe. Child Protection Week is a timely reminder that we all need to keep a lookout for our kids in our community.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. I am interested, minister, that the NAPCAN advertisement is not being shown in the Territory. I am glad to hear that you are doing what you can to ensure that it does show in the Territory; it should. It may well be the case - and I am sure you have turned your mind to this - that perhaps it will require an injection of government funding to ensure that Territorians see that advertisement. In my view, that would be money very well spent.
Child Protection Week is always an interesting week. As the minister said, there are a range of activities. Perhaps next week, more so than ever before, Child Protection Week will have the attention of more Territorians than it has had in the past for very obvious reasons. I hope that the message gets through to every Territorian that the protection of our children is vital. There is no doubt about that. All of us need to do more.
I note the minister referred to the new Community Welfare Bill. I am continuing to make my way through that bill and I look forward to debating it in October. It is an opportunity, in light of the minister’s comments, for urging government generally to give some consideration to the one-stop-shop concept of mobile units, particularly in the bush, having everything from counselling, forensic police, welfare worker facilities all in the one place. That is a worthwhile thing to consider, in particular, the specialist sexual assault courts area - and I will say it again - something I think the government should look at.
I wish everyone well for next week and thank NAPCAN for its ongoing efforts over a very long period of time in this area. Thank you, minister, for bringing on this report.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, yesterday the member for Braitling noted that I did not mention the Northern Territory Indigenous Music Awards. Not only was she not listening yesterday, but she did not attend the awards. Therefore, I am happy to report to her and, indeed, the whole of parliament on this fantastic event that happened on Saturday.
Yet again, the Indigenous Music Awards was a fantastic event, as I am sure you will agree, Madam Speaker, as you where seen dancing to Nabarlek. The awards are now cemented as one of the leading events in the national music calendar, attended by heavyweights from the industry. Those last Saturday included well-known Australian performers, Sony Music, APRA, AIR and the Wantok Music Foundation.
All of the awards are judged by people at the top of their profession nationally. Already, just from Saturday, Territory performers have been offered interstate dates down south, and we are hopeful of international gigs to follow. There is absolutely no doubt that the awards and the national focus they have is reaping direct benefits for the industry. For this, we really must thank Music NT, as well as the crew from Agentur who put the night together.
I must say that this year’s awards were particularly pleasing because of the overwhelming success of performers from my own seat of Arafura. Nabarlek Band from Manmoyi outstation in my electorate, as I have mentioned, was the standout success on the night receiving five awards: Album of the Year for Manmoyi Radio, People’s Choice for Song of Country Award, Film Clip of the Year, Artwork and Design of the Year, while Terrah Guymala, the front man and principal songwriter of Nabarlek, won Song of the Year.
For me, there were three absolute highlights of the night. The first, without a doubt, was the wonderful performance by Mandawuy and Gurrumull Yunupingu, accompanied on Yidaki by Nicky Yunupingu. It was absolutely electrifying.
The second standout performance of the night was the GR Burarrawanga memorial concert as a tribute to the memory of this late great singer of the Warumpi Band. It featured many past members and family of this great groundbreaking band. Also, the women and men dancers from his home island of Galiwinku captivated the audience. A highlight of the memorial was having Shellie Morris, Jessica Mauboy and Leah Flanagan joining Warumpi for a very moving rendition of My Island Home.
Before anyone else accuses me of politicising the evening, I inform members of the Assembly unable to attend last Saturday night that the family of the late singer gave us all the honour of allowing vision and words from him to be shown to the whole crowd, and this was the third great moment of the night. In that statement, the late GR Burarrawanga made an impassioned statement about the need to hold on to land rights and culture - no more, no less than what I and a number of other speakers said on the night.
It was fabulous to see Leah Flanagan win the inaugural GR Burarrawanga Memorial Award presented by the Chief Minister. She is a wonderful young woman and very aware of the legacy left to her and other young performers by the late great Warumpi Band singer. The $5000 package she was awarded as Emerging Act will be of great assistance in her career.
Quickly, Madam Speaker, the list of winners include: Act of the Year, Jessica Mauboy; School Band of the Year, Crazy Boyz and the Frontstreet Girls; Traditional Music Awards were the Kenbi Dancers and the Wurrurrumi Kun-Borrk, songs from western Arnhem Land by Kevin Djimarr; Special Contribution Awards 2007 to Paul ‘Djolpa’ McKenzie and CAAMA’s Steven Tranter; Hall of Fame Top End Artist went to Aunty Betty Fisher; and the Hall of Fame Central Artist, presented by minister Elliot McAdam, was Barry Benning. Madam Speaker, it was a wonderful night for all involved.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Katherine, I draw honourable members’ attention to the presence in the gallery of members of the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation, UNESCO, participants in the Memory of the World who are visiting Parliament House for a meeting. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report this morning. I had absolutely no intention of politicising it, minister. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the function because, as you know, there are many functions at this time of the year. You have to try to spread yourself across as many functions as possible. I was not invited, anyway. I was not invited, as usual.
However, I did listen last night to the minister talk about how wonderful the event was, and I have no doubt that it was. Recognising the indigenous talent that we have in the Northern Territory is extremely important. I thank the minister for her report, and if she would be so kind as to organise an invitation for us for next year, we would be delighted to put it in our calendar and make sure that we come.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine, and you are right, there are a lot of festivals at this time of the year. We all try to get to as many of them so that we enjoy the smorgasbord of cultural events that the Indigenous Music Awards presents for everyone. Music is at the heart of our culture. That was the theme of the night and people certainly made that statement very clear. I will certainly ensure, member for Katherine, that you and the member for Braitling, if she is here next year, get an invitation and maybe join me in the mosh pit for the great dancing!
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill (Serial 113) passing all stages at these sittings.
As members would be aware, the Commonwealth recently passed its Northern Territory Response Act 2007 in relation to alcohol on urgency. I am advised that offences under the legislation commence on 15 September 2007. The Northern Territory government is committed to supporting and cooperating with the Commonwealth in its efforts to minimise the harmful effects of alcohol on Aboriginal Territorians. I am sure all members of this House are of the same view.
Following the urgent passage of the Commonwealth bill, it was necessary for the Northern Territory to pass its own legislation to both complement and ensure the workability of the Commonwealth’s new law before its commencement on 15 September. Given the Territory has responsibility for enforcing the Australian government’s legislation in this matter, it is essential to ensure that we are adequately placed to respond as quickly as possible to any alcohol-related problems across the Territory. As I said in my second reading speech, these reforms empower the minister to respond urgently to liquor-related harm in any Territory community.
Currently, the Liquor Act requires matters of this nature to be dealt with by way of a statutory process through the Liquor Commission. This process can, at times, be protracted. To ensure the workability of the Commonwealth’s measures, we must be able to respond to problems as quickly as possible, and I believe that this is in everyone’s interest. It was, obviously, necessary to ascertain the detail of the Commonwealth legislation before enacting our own complementary measures. That is why we are moving to pass our complementary legislation on urgency.
As I have already stated, we are committed to working with the Commonwealth to minimise the harmful impact of alcohol on Aboriginal Territorians. I hope that all members of this House will support this action.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, our concern goes to the fact that this is going through on urgency. We would approach it with a better frame of mind if we were advised as to what level of consultation was embarked upon by this government before we go along with this. We have a part to play in legislation.
We have had the opportunity for a briefing and we do appreciate that. However, there are many other agencies involved in this. It is a community issue. I am concerned about the reactive nature of this response to a very serious matter. At least comfort us with some advice as to what level of community, agency or stakeholder consultation has been embarked upon before we go along with this because we certainly want to address the causes and the effect of excessive alcohol consumption.
We do acknowledge that you, through this legislation, are gaining greater power. We understand the problem. Some of us are on the Substance Abuse committee and have had a close inspection of the nature of this problem. However, in ensuring frameworks that we can live with as a community, please advise what level of stakeholder consultation and input there has been before we can go along with this comfortably.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is a question of justifying urgency again. It is a knee-jerk reaction to what the Commonwealth has done. Will these powers that the minister is taking on be long-term? Are they going to be reviewed at any time? Have you consulted with the licensing industry? What are their comments in relation to your sudden grab of power? No one denies that we have a problem with alcohol, but we are concerned at the way this is being rushed through without people in the community fully understanding what is going on.
Minister, can you give us some idea of why, other than the fact that it is a reaction to the federal government’s legislation? How have you consulted? How are you going to get the message out there? Why should we support urgency?
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, this government is very careful about the use of urgency in this House …
Mrs Braham: Oh, come on! You do it all the time.
Mr STIRLING: Very careful. Very careful about the use of urgency in this House, given that we are a one-Chamber parliament, and there is no house of review to go over the legislation that we pass. The normal democratic process would allow legislation to lie on the Table for at least 28 days and, in the vast majority of cases, this is what the government does.
In relation to the question about urgency and what consultation has taken place, did the member for Blain ask the Commonwealth government before they passed their legislation just a few weeks ago what level of consultation occurred with the indigenous communities in the Northern Territory; what level of consultation occurred with licensees in the Northern Territory; what level of consultation occurred with the minister responsible in the Northern Territory; and what level of consultation occurred with the Northern Territory government - full stop? The answer is zero - zero!
It is okay for his mates, for his Liberal Party bosses in Canberra, to get up and pass whatever draconian legislation they like with one day of discussion and debate in the Senate! How hypocritical can you be to rail against this government for urgency when what we are doing, despite our reservations about the urgency and the haste with which the federal government passed their legislation, is our darnedest to keep up with them in complementary legislation, given that their legislation takes effect on 15 September 2007. How would it be if we had these inconsistencies between Northern Territory legislation and this hastily pushed through legislation in Canberra?
It is a bit cute, member for Blain, to ask why there is need for urgency. Not one word - not one word - from them about the urgency by the federal government in relation to their emergency legislation rammed through both Houses in the most disgraceful fashion when it comes to consultation. I happen to know that the minister met with key stakeholders over the past week in relation to consultation, but that is up to him to advise you and the House as to how far, given the time constraints put on us by the federal government, and how deep that consultative process has run. However, you are a bit cute and a bit hypocritical, to say the least.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is a bit rich of the Attorney-General to berate people who are …
Mr Stirling: Not a word from you, either. Not a word from you!
Mr WOOD: … members …
Mr Mills: An abusive thug.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order Madam Speaker! I would like the comment ‘useless thug’ to be withdrawn as unparliamentary.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, it was ‘abusive thug’. I do withdraw.
Mr Stirling: Thank you.
Mr WOOD: I am not here to debate the federal government intervention at this stage, because I am standing here as a member for the Northern Territory debating a bill that has been proposed by a minister in this House on urgency. It may well be …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: It may well be that I will support the urgency, minister. However, we are debating whether it should be urgent, and we on this side are being accused by the Attorney-General, like last time when we were having the protected areas legislation, of basically supporting the death of people by alcohol, etcetera. Great claims made that by delaying this, we would be responsible for death and abuse. That is really lowering the reason that we are here, lowering the seriousness of the debate and making this debate petty.
Getting back to the object of this debate, the minister has proposed this legislation. He has explained why he would like to put it on urgency, and we are entitled to ask the minister various questions without being accused of doing something immoral or causing the end of the world.
Minister, we had a good briefing from your department about the legislation, and it is obvious there are some good reasons why you need this power. We are beholden to ask whether the people affected by this legislation - and I know that alcohol is a serious problem in the Northern Territory, and if people think that if I ask about the licensing people, that means I support the rivers of grog, I do not! The reality is that licences are legal in the Northern Territory. People who own licences are entitled to own licences. They are given to them by the government.
I ask the minister: what consultation has occurred with those people who hold licences? That is the Hotels Association and the liquor industry. Have they had time to look at the minister’s powers? You have major powers. Section 33A(a), ‘Minister’s powers to determine additional licence conditions’. You have fairly substantial powers over a licence, there is no doubt about that. It is not unreasonable for me, as a member of this parliament, to ask: have you had consultation? What sort of feedback did you get? Was the feedback reasonable? Did you consider any changes to what you were doing? Is the issue of general and public restricted areas a topic we should have been discussing in the community?
Again, I understand that because of the federal government intervention, sometimes these things could not happen simply because the alcohol legislation is going to come in about mid-September. What you are trying to do is ensure that there are no unforeseen problems with Mr Brough’s legislation; that it could not be put through using the normal processes of the Liquor Commission. I am not sure whether this is part of the urgency debate or debate on the bill, but why could the Liquor Commission not use its powers to do exactly what you are doing and, therefore, keep the process as we know it and not give you these vast powers?
Finally, minister, if it is urgent, what do you see as the finality of this amendment? I presume that you regard it as the federal government does: it is an urgent requirement to deal with a particular issue. I gather the federal government’s laws will run for five years. I might be wrong. Will your amendment have a sunset clause along the same lines or will these powers be permanent?
Madam Speaker, that is what I want to ask the minister because this is major legislation. It gives the minister very widespread powers that he normally would not have. I would have thought that when a minister wants those sorts of powers, the community and those people affected, like industry and Aboriginal people who a lot of these sorts of bills are aimed at, should at least be given adequate time to debate these things.
Notwithstanding that, and even though I am not a great supporter of urgent legislation, from the briefing I received, I will probably get an answer saying that these are necessary changes and they could not be done by the next sitting of parliament. At the moment, I am willing to say I support the urgency, but I would like to hear the answers to those questions.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. The issues that were raised are valid, and I will try to address them. The case that I made in my speech leading into this urgency debate outlines basically why we will be debating this bill on urgency.
Essentially, as I am advised, the Commonwealth legislation comes into force on 15 September. There are no sittings between now and then, and it is very important for our legislation to complement the Commonwealth legislation and be workable.
We have tried to work with the Commonwealth at officer level to try to make as much of their Emergency Response Bill harmonise and complement our Northern Territory bill. I praise our officers in Racing, Gaming and Licensing and officers at the Commonwealth level who worked together long and hard to try to bring some complementarity to this legislation.
On the issue of consultation, there was, obviously, quite a lot of consultation between government agencies on this issue; but with the community as a whole, obviously not. There has been very little consultation in that regard. I have had conversations with members of the AHA and foreshadowed that we would introduce legislation. I also foreshadowed to them that, as minister, having ministerial powers is a lot of responsibility.
I know from my time as Minister for Lands and Planning, I had certain powers regarding interim development control orders. I think I exercised that once. I know that the checks and balances in the exercising of ministerial power - it is not something to be taken lightly and, in my book, the less you do it, the better. Obviously, with a minister having powers without avenue for appeal is a very serious matter. There are safeguards. The minister has to table his decision within six sitting days and I imagine if there was something very controversial, there would be discussion in this parliament. Also, there is capacity in the bill for the minister to delegate to the Licensing Commissioner to hear matters and then give advice to the minister, which is a similar situation to what exists within the Planning Act. I see an element of public and industry consultation for those sorts of measures where the Licensing Commission could hold hearings, take submissions and give advice to the minister.
The bottom line is that there are going to be situations where the minister has to act rapidly in the interests of harm minimisation and, to some extent, public order. That is why these powers are in the bill. It is all about that issue, particularly given that everyone acknowledges that with the changes to the Commonwealth act, there will be movement of people from one area to another, and there could be growth in problems outside a restricted area declared by the Commonwealth law. It could be that people move to another area adjacent or whatever, and it then behoves the Northern Territory minister to try to address issues that may arise around that. I do not think there has been any argument from any side in this discussion about the fact that there is going to be a likely exodus of people and knock-on effects that will occur.
One question was: how long does the minister expect to hold these powers? The review of the Liquor Act has been delayed somewhat by the Commonwealth intervention and legislation, but I would like to see a review of those ministerial powers as part of the review of the Liquor Act and consultation about that. Then I would like to see whatever comes out of that codified within the new Liquor Act. We are still hopeful of consultation moving forward in the latter part of this year, but it may be delayed into next year. I see that as a process to give the opposition, industry, the community, time to comment on the minister’s powers and for there to be some debate in this parliament on those issues.
Madam Speaker, I hope I have covered most of the issues that have been raised. I believe there is a valid case for moving this on urgency, particularly given the 15 September deadline and the need to make our legislation complementary, in addition to the workability aspect, particularly since the Territory will have the responsibility of enforcing Commonwealth law. We need to be prepared. We need to move with the Commonwealth and, therefore, I commend to this Assembly that we accept this motion of urgency.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Disasters Amendment Bill amends the Disasters Act as in force at 18 March 2003. The amendment is to enable the special powers to enforce cleanup to come into effect once a cyclone watch has been announced, rather than when a cyclone warning has been announced. This amendment is designed to give the Northern Territory Emergency Services the power to effectively prepare for an approaching cyclone.
As members will be aware, a large part of the Northern Territory’s population lives in communities which can be directly threatened by cyclones. Experience has shown that flying debris is one of the biggest threats faced in a cyclone. It is, therefore, important that anything which might become debris is cleaned up as at cyclone approaches. In the vast majority of cases, Territorians respond to this problem well, cleaning up their properties prior to the cyclone season each year and again when cyclones directly threaten. Unfortunately, there are always instances where people do not do the right thing, putting their community at risk. It is important that NT Emergency Services have the power to deal with these individuals appropriately.
At present, regional and local counter-disaster controllers can order cleanup when a cyclone warning is declared, or 24 hours before a cyclone is expected to strike. Recent history with Cyclone Monica suggests that this is insufficient time. Consequently, this amendment provides them with special powers to enforce cleanup from when a cyclone watch is declared, or 48 hours before a cyclone is expected to strike.
Amendments have also been made to review penalty provisions under the act. A separate penalty has been included for a breach of section 44 of the act, which includes offences such assaulting or obstructing a person exercising powers under the act. The penalty under section 45 for a general breach of the provision of the act has also been increased significantly. The original penalty for a breach of the act was set in 1982 and is inadequate to reflect current times. The increased penalty provisions will ensure that NT Emergency Service workers are adequately protected and help ensure that people and bodies corporate do the right thing in an emergency or disaster.
Madam Speaker, many Territorians enjoy a tremendous tropical lifestyle, which is the envy of the rest of Australia. However, for those who reside near the coast, with this tropical lifestyle comes the unavoidable risk posed by cyclones. It is important these risks be minimised to the maximum possible extent and this means providing the Northern Territory Emergency Services with the necessary tools.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders suspended as would permit the Local Government Amendment Bill (Serial 101) passing through all stages at this sitting.
I well understand honourable members’ reluctance in principle to support this urgency motion, but this is an important and necessary amendment to the Local Government Act allowing for the orderly development of new local government of the Northern Territory.
Honourable members will be aware that my original intention was to introduce this legislation at the last sittings but, on reflection, I decided that I would like further discussion with key stakeholders through the Local Government Advisory Board.
I am glad I took that step, and I thank the members of the advisory board right across the Territory for their commitment to local government reform, and their assistance in developing legislation to assist with new local government for the Territory.
This government does not seek to hide from members of the Legislative Assembly the details of our proposed legislation or its intent. In fact, a briefing was offered and accepted by the opposition and Independent members, and no additional information or briefings have been sought since the bill was presented last week.
Members should now be fully aware of the nature and intended effect of the legislation, and that its specific purpose is to enhance my ability as the minister responsible for local government to ensure a smooth and orderly transition to the Northern Territory’s new scheme for local government being developed with our key stakeholders. It is not, as I emphasised, the new Local Government Act that is being developed as part of the local government reform. An exposure draft for the new act will be available within two months, and that bill will be introduced into parliament later this year for debate early next year.
There has been some criticism in recent days suggesting that the government is in some way attempting to ram through this legislation without adequate consultation. I assure members that nothing could be further from the truth. Key local government stakeholders taking part in meetings of the Local Government Advisory Board are fully aware of its purpose and our intent to pass this legislation in the August sitting. In particular, the bill has been discussed in detail at three meetings of the advisory board. I am proud to say that over 300 Territorians from all walks of life are actively involved in the advisory board and the transitional committees.
The advisory board has met on six occasions, with a series of further meetings scheduled before July 2008. All legislation associated with the new local government has been, and will continue to be, discussed in detail at these meetings. The transitional committees established in each of the proposed new shires have also been meeting regularly, with about 31 meetings held until now.
The Chair of the Local Government Advisory Board, Mr Pat Dodson, has attended over 50 meetings throughout communities, engaging with members about the new shire reforms. As the minister, I am taking an active part in the consultations. I have visited over 30 communities …
Mrs Braham: Stranger in the House, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause, minister. Please remove yourself from the Chamber. Minister, please continue.
Mr McADAM: As I said, Madam Speaker, I have taken part in active consultation. I have visited about 30 communities and attended about 100 meetings, listening and participating in discussion about local government reform, and I will continue to be active. I will continue to participate, talking directly to all Territorians about the benefits of our local government reform and responding to concerns that may be raised.
This detailed and ongoing work with our key stakeholders demonstrates this government’s commitment to active consultation. The Local Government Advisory Board, the key stakeholder forum, and local transitional committees, will continue to have a central place in the ongoing reform process.
The timetable for local government reform requires passage of these amendments in this sittings to enable the administrative structure of the new shires to be created, CEOs and corporate services managers to be employed, bank accounts to be established, establishment of business management information technology and communication systems, and preparations to be made for the employment of shire staff. These are necessary amendments needed to facilitate an orderly transition to the establishment of the new shires in advance of them becoming fully operational on 1 July 2008.
Madam Speaker, effectively what I am saying is that this is very important legislation. I deferred this legislation from the June sittings because of my concerns about the need for consultation. I have duly addressed some of the concerns that arose from the advisory board and others who have spoken to me about it. This bill is absolutely necessary. The legislation is essentially part of a process, a time frame to ensure that the new shire councils become fully operational in July, with elections in October 2008.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, our concern is that there has not been enough detail in this proposal. There has not been enough consultation with stakeholders. We believe that there is no reason whatsoever that this needs to go through today on urgency. The minister could not provide any satisfactory reasons at a meeting on Monday at Berry Springs. We do not see any need for this to be rushed through. We want it to be consulted with Territorians. In fact, at the meeting on Monday, the crowd even turned against the minister. That is how dissatisfied they were with his responses. As a result, Madam Speaker, we oppose this going through on urgency.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also appose the rushing through of this legislation. The government is sending out the wrong message. I have presented two or three petitions to this House from people in Litchfield Shire. They were reflections of two public meetings where similar motions were passed asking the government to slow down this process until we have seen a full economic analysis of what the results of these changes will be.
There has been no slow down. The message that the minister is sending out to those people is that he is not going to do what they asked us, but is going to rush this bill through on urgency - a bill that has not been out into the community for people to discuss. The advisory board is not the community. The advisory board is a select group of people who give advice to the minister in theory after they have been given advice by a transition committee. I do not believe that the transition committee has debated this issue, at least not from reading the minutes.
This urgency debate is going to work against the government trying to bring people along with these reforms. It was clearly stated at the meeting at Berry Springs that people are against reform. I do not say I am against reform. However, if the process is not correct and people do not understand what is going on and you do not bring along the community then, please, do not ask why people are opposing these changes.
Madam Speaker, if you look at the reasons the minister wants this legislation to go through, you have to ask: who set this process in place? This is the timetable that the department proposed. I imagine someone in the department decided this will be the process: it goes from such and such a month to such and such a month over a couple of years. It was decided by someone - who I do not know, but my feeling is someone in the department has been pushing this. There has been no consultation about the timetable; similarly with the boundaries.
The government decided there would be nine shires - no consultation, no discussion about whether that is an inappropriate number. It will happen. Not only will it happen, from then on all this will happen according to this timetable, and we will not deviate. That is not the right way to bring people along. I do not know who put this process into place. I do not believe it was the minister; I believe it was the department and the CEO. I have concerns about whether this process is driven by someone’s concept of change. The same person had problems as a CEO in Alice Springs. In fact, large numbers of people resigned from the Alice Springs Council when that CEO, who I believe is the person behind this, was there because they were upset about the rate of change and the lack of involvement of staff. In fact, I have a letter here from some of those people who resigned. This letter goes back to a letter to the Chief Minister ...
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Very explicitly, the question before the Chair is a motion for urgency to allow the bill to pass all stages at this sittings. The member for Nelson is now straying off into an attack and slur on a public servant that has absolutely nothing to do with the question before the Chair. I urge caution on the member for Nelson in attacking public servants. He has privilege in this Chamber, but I urge him to use it wisely. That is in relation to the letter he was about to read. However, I believe that it is totally inappropriate, given the question that we have before the Chair, and I urge that the member come back to addressing the question as opposed to what he is about to do, which is attack individual public servants. That is not related to the question that is currently before the Chair.
Mr WOOD: May I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Nelson, briefly.
Mr WOOD: No, I do not agree with the member for Wanguri. My object was not to slur the personality of the CEO to whom I referred. I am arguing whether that person is competent to do what is happening here …
Mr Henderson: It has nothing to do with this!
Mr WOOD: … based on …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: May I finish? I also believe that, in the case of what happened in Alice Springs where people complained about the rate of change, that is partly reflecting what is happening here ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business, I have made a decision on this. In relation to the motion itself, the comments that you are making are not relevant, member for Nelson. I ask you to continue only on the motion. I also remind you of standing orders. Pursuant to those standing orders, I remind you that, when you are making personal comments about people who are not members of parliament and who have no right of reply, you do so very carefully.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minister argues on urgency that by doing this now, he will have created fully-fledged new councils by the 1 July 2008. These transitional arrangements will give him that power. The 1 July 2008 is another 10 months or so away. The timetable for legislative processes to amend the Local Government Act, according to this, goes to 14 March next year. There is adequate time for that to occur.
The other purpose of this bill is to convert the association councils performing local government functions from the Associations Act to the Local Government Act. We have plenty of time to do that; we have up to 14 March, so there is no need for urgency. The minister also said that he has to deal properly through restructuring orders to ensure that we do not have unnecessary elections. Under section 24 of the existing Local Government Act, which is headed ‘Minister may do certain things in relation to elections’, it says:
The minister already has powers to hold off elections in those areas. Therefore, he does not need urgency with this bill.
The minister’s argument - which he put this morning, at the meeting at Berry Springs, and on Tuesday when there was a question - was:
Minister, you have had a few people talk to you. You then decided that you would defer introduction of that bill and then bring it to this parliament for an urgency debate. You are saying to us as members of this parliament: ‘Well, I spoke to some people outside of parliament; but the people inside parliament I will not give due consideration to’.
We also need to look at these changes. The urgency is not required, as I have just demonstrated. The urgency says to members of parliament: ‘You are partly irrelevant in this debate. I have spoken to an advisory board and some people out there, and they are fine with it, and so I will rush it through at this sittings’.
That views us with contempt. We need to look at this carefully. This legislation has very wide powers which we will discuss at the time. Those powers should have been given adequate time for consultation amongst ourselves. I refer to the opposition and the two Independents, and the broader community, not just an advisory board appointed by the minister. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, this should not be passed on urgency.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I support much of what the member for Nelson had to say as to the reasons why he and the opposition do not support this urgency motion. I note what the member for Nhulunbuy said before in relation to the previous motion for urgency to amend the Liquor Act. The outburst we saw is at odds with the position that we have in relation to this bill. I say that because we do not see that there are compelling reasons for urgency. The member for Nhulunbuy said, in essence, that the government treats urgency in a very circumspect and careful way, as it and any parliament should. We believe that urgency is being abused in this instance.
I listened carefully to what the minister had to say. I have also listened to others who have spoken. Minister, with the greatest of respect, there is not a need for urgency. I was not at the meeting on Monday night, but I heard about it from a number of people - including a colleague - who do not work in this building. The depth of hostility and animosity was very deep and probably unprecedented when it comes to any reform vaguely of this nature. The reforms are sweeping, therefore, all Territorians should be encouraged to know as much about them as possible.
We had a bill introduced into the parliament last week. Our fellow Territorians, minister, for the most part, have not seen the very bill which you want us to debate. That is unfair and unfortunate to say the least.
I note that the member for Karama said this week in the context of another debate:
That was on 28 August 2007. There is a glaring inconsistency in what the member for Nhulunbuy had to say in an earlier debate, in what the member for Karama had to say in an earlier debate - but wait! There are more inconsistencies. I have a copy of Labor’s Good Government policy, which I have said before and I will say it again I understand no longer exists on the Labor Party’s website. There are a few things that I will put to government in our attempts, valiant as they are, to persuade the government from pushing on and ramming through with these reforms.
After the covering page of that document, under the heading Good Government, it says:
The then Opposition Leader, the member for Fannie Bay, talked about ensuring transparency and accountability. There were references to the previous government. The then Opposition Leader asserted that our system - that is our democratic system in the Northern Territory - was not open, nor was it accountable and that democracy was reduced as a result. The then Opposition Leader said on page 6 of that document:
Never a truer word was said, given the existing situation. Local government is something that every member in this House knows in terms of its importance and the role it plays in local communities. All of us, as local members, have people coming into our offices, talking to us about local government matters. It affects most people in the Northern Territory on a daily, weekly or certainly a monthly basis.
To ram through these reforms without letting our fellow Territorians look at, let alone understand, legislation that we are now debating is absolutely disgraceful. Whilst I do not have any doubt that the government will reject our pleas, I say to the minister that he does so at his own peril. We do not share this government’s view that Territorians are stupid. We do not share this government’s view ‘Do not worry, let us push it through now because by the time the election is upon us in 2009, they will have forgotten’. Oh, no they will not.
I can tell you that the calls, faxes, e-mails to my office here and in Alice Springs - and I am sure those of my colleagues, the Independents and probably, if truth be known, offices of members of government - have been very significant in the depth of feeling, the hostility and the numbers.
This is running hot, Madam Speaker, and this government does a great disservice to itself but, more importantly, the people of the Northern Territory, by pressing on and insisting that this matter be dealt with on urgency. We strongly oppose that move, and we oppose it for the reasons I and others have outlined.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to members opposite speaking against the motion on urgency from the Minister for Local Government.
I reiterate that, as a government, we do not use the urgency provisions lightly or recklessly or in any way on a regular basis. My colleague, the Minister for Local Government, very clearly outlined that, in the time line that has been committed to for the reform of local government - which I do believe every single one of us in here believes needs to happen - this bill should have been introduced in the House in the June sittings.
At the time, the minister pulled the bill to allow for further consultation with affected parties on the requirements to introduce this legislation as another step along the way to reform and a new Local Government Act. Therefore, in fact, there has been additional consultation from what was initially proposed. Through the structures that have been created in the move towards a new act, the Local Government Advisory Board has met and considered this legislation a number of times, as have transitional committees and people who are key stakeholders in regard to the reforms that are being proposed.
This is not being rammed through without any exposure to the people of the Northern Territory and, directly, the people who are affected. Of course, there are going to people who oppose this. It does not matter what legislation is proposed, you are never going to find 100% of the population of the Northern Territory will support it. However, there has been significant additional consultation.
This bill is transitional. As the minister said in his speech supporting the motion, the full bill to replace the existing Local Government Act will be put out to the people of the Northern Territory as an exposure draft, a draft bill that people will be able to see and comment on, and make comments back to the minister before the minister brings a full bill back to this House that will be considered in the appropriate way. This is a step along the way.
Speaking to some of the comments that were made by the three speakers to date, the member for Greatorex said there was not enough detail. The member for Nelson essentially said the same thing, as did the Leader of the Opposition. On the matter of detail - and this is why there are crocodile tears being cried today by members opposite - it is my understanding that the Independents and the opposition were provided with a full briefing on the detail of this bill on Monday last week, before it was introduced to the House on Wednesday. On Monday last week, they had a full detailed briefing of the bill ...
Mr Wood: We did not have the bill.
Mrs Miller: We had not seen the bill.
Mr Wood: That’s a bit backward.
Mr HENDERSON: You were provided with a briefing.
Mr Wood: Yes, but we did not see the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The bill was introduced on Wednesday and tabled in this House. If members were doing their jobs properly and were sincere in their comments, as opposed to playing politics, they knew that - as they did last week, 15 days ago on Monday last week - we would be bringing on this bill on urgency today. If members opposite genuinely wanted more detail, more understanding, had specific questions as opposed to opposing the bill totally …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is now talking about the content of the bill. This is about urgency. Why is the minister pushing this through?
Mr HENDERSON: I am not talking about the content of the bill at all.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, I ask you to contain your comments to the debate.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely. I am containing my comments to the comments that were made by the opposition as to why they do not support the bill. They are saying they did not have enough detail. If they were sincere in their comments, as opposed to playing politics with this - and I understand that they are going to play politics with it and whip up the people who are opposed to the reforms - they would have come back and sought further information, put questions through to the minister’s office, sought more detail, and they have not done that.
They have had over a week, 15 days since the briefing, to seek further detail. That has not occurred. That is why the comments made by the member for Nelson in particular, who is out in the community, the great protector, the great oracle on local government - he has no vision; all he is doing is white-anting from day one any reform that the government seeks to put through. If he was sincere …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is a load of garbage.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: You could not even run a rubbish tip.
Mr Wood: You would not even give us a block of land for it!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Order! I do not have much of a voice today, honourable members, so I will be using the gavel a lot more. Member for Nelson, resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: Regarding the issue about the processes of this parliament and the responsibilities that we all have to question legislation, to be across legislation when it is voted on, to try to amend legislation to make it better - particularly for the Independents and the members of the opposition - if they had genuine concerns about this bill as opposed to the reform program, they would have sought more detail, asked more questions, and sought follow-up briefings on the points they claim they did not have enough detail on. They did not do that, so it is crocodile tears and playing politics.
The member for Nelson talked about trying to bring people along. Actions speak louder than words and, from day one, the great guru of local government, the oracle for local government in the Northern Territory, has done nothing but try to white-ant the reforms. As I said, actions speak louder than words in regard to trying to bring people along.
I do not believe that the urgency motion is being abused in this instance because this is a step along the way. On the new act that will establish the new shires across the Northern Territory, there will be full and comprehensive consultation. My colleague has committed to an exposure draft bill that will go out for full consultation to the people of the Northern Territory. Feedback will come back to advise the minister and his Cabinet colleagues. The bill that will be presented will advise parliament on the construct of the new Local Government Act and the creation of the shires across the Northern Territory.
This bill is just a step along the way. It has been deferred from the June sittings to this sittings, 30 August. Members opposite had a briefing on this bill 15 days ago, and the bill itself was presented in the parliament last Wednesday. Not one single point of clarification, question or point of detail has gone back to the minister’s office for further information. The members opposite do not support the reforms, they do not support the reform agenda …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the minister is going to say that, he should put up or shut up. If he is going to say that, show us the proof.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, resume your seat.
Mr Wood: Well, he is saying that all the time.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, if you feel that you have been misrepresented, you can approach me to make a personal explanation later. Otherwise, resume your seat.
Mr HENDERSON: They do not support the reforms. There has not been one word of support for the process, the path that we have gone down or the time frames. They are just playing politics. We accept that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The statement just made was completely false, ‘not one single word’. There are plenty or words that contradict exactly what the minister is saying.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, there is no point of order but, if you feel that there has been misrepresented, you can approach me to make a personal explanation.
Mr HENDERSON: I will conclude very shortly. Members opposite had time to understand or question the details in the bill that will be debated later today, knowing that we were going to bring this on urgency on the last day of the sittings fortnight - not ramming it through in the first week - to allow members opposite to fully get their heads around the detail of the bill. The offer was made through the minister, who is very genuine in his support for regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory. In fact, he is absolutely passionate about achieving better lives and better outcomes for people in regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory. If members opposite were genuine and passionate about the same things, they would have approached the minister’s office with specific questions on points of detail that they claim they have not had the chance to understand.
Madam Speaker, they have failed in their duty of questioning and scrutinising this legislation. They are playing politics. This is a step along the way. It is a sensible bill. It has been deferred from June. I urge members to support the motion.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, we are not against reforms. We are all aware that there needs to be reform. I would have thought there is enough uncertainty in the bush at the moment with the federal government interference, if I can call it that, without causing more uncertainty by this minister. What is four weeks? Why not wait until October to ensure we have all digested what you are talking about; that people in the communities have digested what you are talking about? Four weeks is the usual process in this House. The usual process in this House is to introduce a bill and leave it on the Table so that members can absorb it.
It is all very well for the member for Wanguri to say that we had briefing but, at the time, we were not given a copy of the bill. Therefore, although we had a briefing, we were not sure of the detail and what the content was.
I remind ministers on that side that you have half a dozen staff and a whole department to inform you about what is going on. I am not crying poor, but the Independent members have one person to do all the legislation that you are pushing through this sittings. We do our best. We try hard to get across the bills coming before us, but when you throw them on urgency, you make a double workload. If the member for Nhulunbuy tells us we are not doing our job; he would not be able to do it with the limited resources that we have. If he wants us to do it better, then government, give us more resources so we that we can get across things more adequately. Let us face it: you have departments and minders to inform you. So let us not go down that line of saying we are not doing our job. We are. We try very hard to raise things in this House that are relevant.
The relevance of this is that you are pushing through this bill and there are no exceptional circumstances for you to do it. If there are, the minister has not spelled them out. There are no exceptional circumstances that I can see why we should have this bill rammed through today.
Madam Speaker, this will be the 12th item of legislation that this government has put through on urgency this term, since June 2005. The 12th piece, yet the member for Nhulunbuy claimed they only do it occasionally on urgency. If you do your mathematics, 12 since June 2005 is a lot. It is a lot and most of it is unnecessary. The member for Nhulunbuy must realise that you are pushing through legislation unnecessarily on urgency, when urgency was meant to be for exceptional circumstances. It was meant to be for that word ‘urgency’.
This bill is not urgent, minister. You know that you can wait until October. You know it will give people more time to absorb it and more messages to get out there. Your reforms are still being questioned by some communities because they do not have adequate information.
This bill gives you a lot of power. I am not debating whether you should have them or not. I am not debating whether reforms are not necessary in the bill. What I am saying to you is that I have not being convinced that you have exceptional circumstances to put this through. I am not convinced that this government, in the climate of today out there in communities, can justify having this bill pushed through. This is just another something that is being imposed upon communities when, to be honest, they do not really need it at the moment.
Most of all, members of government must realise that, to be fair to all the members of this parliament, you should give us time to study these bills, ensure we can do our consultation with the people we need to, ensure that you give us all the information rather than give us a briefing before we get a copy of the bill. For goodness sake! How many more items of legislation are you going to be pushing through on urgency in this term?
Mr Stirling: Very few, Loraine.
Mrs BRAHAM: Oh, come on! Twelve already - 12 items; this will be the 12th. That is a lot. That is a lot, whether you would like to admit it or not, particularly when it is unnecessary. Madam Speaker, no, I do not think we should support this urgency. I ask the minister to reconsider his decision ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: Stop mumbling! Minister, reconsider this decision to go ahead.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: Are you mumbling again, member for Nhulunbuy? Stop it! Reconsider the motion and defer it; just defer it. It is as simple as that.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments. I will pick up on the comments by the member for Braitling. She said to wait four weeks. You need to remember back to 1999, member for Braitling, when you were the very minister who introduced a range of reforms. Where are they, member for Braitling? They are not here, are they? This is the very point we are in ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: You did not do anything when you were minister, the CLP did not do anything when they were in power. For two decades we waited for reform and nothing happened! You did not do a damn …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The reforms I put through were not done on urgency. They were of a voluntary nature and I said …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, there is no point of order. Resume your seat. Member for Daly, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr KNIGHT: In 1999, Madam Speaker, we had the member for Braitling in the CLP government - the CLP government. They talked about discussion papers they had been talking about for decades. Decades! What happened? Nothing! They talked and talked and talked, and nothing happened! Focus for change - nothing happened. The next step - nothing happened; they dithered. They dithered on reform. They did not do a thing …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: They dithered on reform, and they say there should not be urgency. There should be a lot of urgency, member for Braitling and CLP members, because you dropped the ball. You dropped the ball! It is down to you that there are problems in the bush with local government. It is the CLP that set up councils with 20 people! Twenty signatures on a page made a council. That is why we have problems in the bush with local government reform. You knew about it two decades ago, and you did not do a damn thing about it! That is why we are here now. That is why we are here now; it is because of you!
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is unparliamentary.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Daly, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Mrs Braham: Syd Mark II.
Mr KNIGHT: I take that as a compliment.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: I will pick up on a few of the comments by the member for Braitling. She said we cannot leave it as it is. We cannot leave it as it is. This was in 1999! We had Tim Baldwin saying that it had to be done: ‘We have to meet the challenge. We have to build on work of my predecessors’. He was the former minister, and he had predecessors who started this reform, and what did they do? They did absolutely nothing!
The member for Nelson said this came out of the blue! It has been coming for decades, it has not happened, and this government has enough guts to do something about it, and do something about it properly, member for Nelson. You sit there with crocodile tears saying this is all too new. You know that reform has to happen. You have admitted that. The new member for Greatorex has also admitted that reform is necessary, but this is just the talk of the CLP ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, please pause. Would you contain your comments to the motion, which is about the urgency?
Mr KNIGHT: I am saying, Madam Speaker, that there is a definite need for urgency because it has been talked about and talked about for decades by the CLP, and they just did not have guts nor the brains to implement it. It has been at the cost of the communities. The new member for Greatorex cries crocodile tears for these people. He has been to one meeting, and where was it, member for Greatorex? Was it – you said yesterday – Bees Creek? That is somewhere out in the rural area, is it not? It was actually Berry Springs, member for Greatorex. Get it right! Get to know your portfolio and get to know the Northern Territory.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s motion on urgency and inform the House what I have been told by my constituents in Macdonnell. I want to thank the minister for going out and informing my electorate.
I had the opportunity, when there were problems at the very beginning of the reform, of the minister coming out to one of my communities. At a meeting at Mt Liebig, we had over 100 people from Kintore, Papunya, Haasts Bluff, and Mt Liebig who addressed all their issues to the minister, and they encouraged the minister to bring this on.
My electorate of Macdonnell, and that first shire, the southern shire, has said to the minister: bring it on and bring it on today. This gives them an opportunity, and I congratulate the minister for being so bold. I congratulate you, minister, for setting up the transitional committees. Those committees have been out informing people. I really want to take this opportunity to say that this bill needs to be passed today on urgency, and I support you, minister, in everything that you are doing with local government reform.
It gives us, as the Territory, the opportunity to think outside the square. Instead of Papunya thinking about Papunya and Kintore thinking about Kintore and Haasts Bluff thinking about Haasts Bluff, this allows them to think for the whole shire, and what they can do between the Queensland border, South Australian border and Western Australia border in my electorate. It broadens their capacity to think wider about how to have better governance structures and how they look at economic development, not just in their little communities, but throughout the whole region in the shire. I stand here to support the member for Barkly, the Minister for Local Government, in the initiatives that he is taking to bring this bill forward.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the core issue being reform, I believe all members stand on the side of the necessity for reform. The question here is the path we take to achieve that reform. The question we have before us is: should we proceed on urgency or not? I am opposed to the necessity for urgency because if we are going to impart a new system that is going to bring about the reform, and all the virtuous things that the members opposite believe it will bring, you need to bring the people with you, otherwise you are imposing something else upon them. Then you are left with an immense responsibility, after raising expectations, as to whether you can deliver.
You are delivering at the grassroots. You cannot take those people with you if we, as members of this parliament, do not have the adequate time or respect paid unto us, enabling us to get an understanding of exactly what decisions we are making on behalf of those we represent - then our duty has not been done.
It is a very sad day when we have members defending their decision, and they dredge back. They reach not so far back, and they take their arguments from times past when such terrible things occurred. Then they said: ‘Well, it was bad in the past so that, therefore, justifies our bad decision today’.
You cannot have it both ways. If you were so offended by what occurred in the past, why replicate it today, if that is the case? If, as the member for Wanguri says, they were sincere; if you were sincere, if you were genuine, if you genuinely digested what it is that so grieves you about the past - that you would now not get over it but then do unto others as they did unto you. It is a weird position you have; totally inconsistent, like you are bent out of shape about something that happened in the past and, to make you feel a little better, you do the same today.
You are arguing for urgency. I oppose urgency. It is wrong for the very reasons that you were so offended by such things that may have occurred in the past. That was the strength of your argument in the past. If that is your consistent argument, it is wrong today, it was wrong in the past. I believe it might well be. I sat here for a short time in government, as did the member for Wanguri. I observed those times.
I was wondering whether there was going to be a change. What I have seen in six years is a morphing into the very thing that you once despised - completely. You are arguing this, running out these words as though it does not matter. Why does it not matter? You have 19 members. You are not leading, you are being led. You are implementing something on which you have not convinced the majority. You have convinced some, those who will go along meekly and mildly, but the majority have not been sold on this. They desperately want to be brought in. By having it through on urgency, you are further retarding the capacity of bringing people along with you so that we can have the benefits that you believe we can have from a reform process. It is opposed.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I am sorry I raised the question about a former Attorney-General in the CLP who was a frequent user of urgency motions. When I put it to him one time - and it was well before the member for Blain’s time in this Chamber - he said: ‘Well, it is because I am Attorney-General and I pass a lot of laws’. I am the Attorney-General now and we avoid the use of urgency at all times where we can.
I listened closely to the input from all members in this debate. I have to say that the only person opposed to urgency that I was taken with was the member for Braitling and the views she put about the difficulties Independents, in particular, have in getting across legislation on an urgent basis. I accept that, notwithstanding that the Independents have access to a far greater level of resourcing than they ever had at all under previous governments. There was no support under previous governments.
I want to make it clear that we do not do this simply because a former CLP Attorney-General who was fond of using urgency. We do this because the important part of this legislation lies in the restructuring orders. It is necessary to have those restructuring orders in place to allow the minister to utilise those measures in the bill for recruitment, and setting up the shell and the structure for the future, in order for the whole transition and process to have reform of local government in place by about the middle of next year.
If it does not pass today, it is October before we are back in here, and it would be post-October before the restructuring powers - and I admit they are considerable powers awarded to the minister under this legislation, but I know the minister very well and they will not be abused. In fact, there will be regular reporting to Cabinet at any time those powers are used. Knowing the minister as I do, before they are used it will be checked through government as to why and how and the necessity for those powers to be used.
Notwithstanding the sympathetic hearing I give to the member for Braitling, there are other broader, wider and deeper issues. There is a real necessity for the minister to have the ability to utilise the restructuring orders to put in place the transition measures, the shell around the future, so that reform will take place next year. Notwithstanding that, I ask the member for Braitling at least to take that into account.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to respond to all the speakers. Clearly, there are some very different points of view on the need for this bill to go through on urgency.
I had every intention of introducing this bill in June of this year. As I indicated, there were some concerns along the lines of: ‘Minister, just defer it so we can take some further information and have a look at some of the details’. It is for that reason that I did it - the only reason why I did it. It is for that reason it is before the House now.
It is also very important to understand that people talk about detail in respect of this bill which, effectively, is an enabling or a transitional bill to local government reform by July of next year. Effectively, it allows me to do two things. Number one, it allows me to be able to transfer effectively around 22 councils from the Associations Act under the Local Government Act. Member for Nelson, you raised the issue of whether I had the capacity to do that. Well, I do not and that is why I am doing it, because I want to be able to defer elections and a whole range of other issues as we transfer the associations into the new Local Government Act.
The other thing it allows me to do is restructure. Effectively, it will allow me to be able to, upon advice from the advisory board and the transitional committees - and as I have indicated to you previously, I do have the capacity to be able to listen to people outside that, to take their points of view as I did in respect of the deferring this bill in June. It will allow me to define the boundaries. It will allow me to put in place the business information systems. It will allow me, for instance, to be able to move to the prescribed councils which effectively are all very critical components of the process of arriving at a new model.
Without exception in this House, there would not be one person who would deny the fact that we need to move to a new model of local government or, indeed, some form of government in the bush. I have said it in this House a hundred times before, and if necessary I will say it a million times into the future: this is so important in bringing a framework that allows better levels of accountability, management, practices, principles and administration - all those sort of things we talk about.
The member for Blain said: ‘In times past, in times past’. Well, quite frankly, I do not give a damn about times past. This government …
Mr Conlan: What about the member for Daly? He cares. He cares about times past.
Mr McADAM: I beg your pardon?
Mrs Miller: The member for Daly cares about times past.
Mr McADAM: We have an opportunity here as a parliament to put in place a model, not only for indigenous communities but for non-indigenous communities, that is going to provide certainty into the future. If you want to sit back and ignore all those issues that have occurred in the past surrounding communities, both indigenous and non-indigenous, the local government models …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McADAM: … then do so. The point I am trying to make is that it is for this reason that we do have a time frame in place and, as a government, we are committed to achieving local government reform. This is but one step in the process. As I said previously, there have been six or seven advisory board meetings, there have been 31 transitional committees consisting of something like 300-odd people; Patrick Dodson, the Chair, has visited 50-odd communities, I have visited 30-odd communities. There are levels of consultation out there.
When you go through such a reform that is under consideration now, it is difficult. We have never said that it is going to be easy. It is going to be an absolute challenge and that is where we should be coming from. I am very happy to take on board all the concerns. This bill will be the beginning of a process which is going to arrive at something which we can all be proud of in the future.
I have absolutely no doubt that there is going to be a bit of pain along the way, but that is what governments are elected to do. Governments are elected to ensure that we leave a legacy for people in the regions that will make them so much better off in the future. I have no doubt about that and I am sure the member for Nelson has no doubt about that. Equally, it applies to the members for Braitling and Greatorex. We all have the responsibility. Madam Speaker, this motion on urgency is for the reasons I have described.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act so as to allow damages for pain and suffering, mental and bodily harm and curtailment of expectation of life, better described as general damages, to survive the death of a claimant of a dust disease-related claim if the claim is afoot at the time of the deceased’s death.
This bill will also amend the Limitation Act. The Limitation Act governs the period within which claims must be made in the Northern Territory. The community is well aware of the suffering faced by those who have contracted dust disease-related illnesses. Diagnosis of dust-related diseases can come 10 to 20 years after exposure and, sadly, often result in death soon after diagnosis. This fact, combined with the rapid onset of symptoms, puts these claimants in the difficult position of requiring speedy resolution of their legal claims to protect their entitlements. This is not always possible and, as a result, claimant’s families, who have often already carried the burden of primary care, only receive low level compensation payments and face high legal costs if the claimant dies prior to the determination of the claim.
The purpose of the bill is to amend two acts to ensure victims and their families receive access to fair compensation. The bill achieves this objective in two ways: first, by ensuring access to fair compensation by allowing general damages for claims commenced prior to death to continue after the death of the claimant; and second, by abolishing the limitation period within which a claim can be made.
The usual limitation period for common law claims in tort is three years unless, pursuant to section 44 of the Limitation Act, a fact material to the case is discovered after the limitation period has expired. In this case, an extension of time can be sought. However, the argument as to whether the claim warrants an extension of time can be lengthy and increase legal costs unnecessarily. To make the position abundantly clear and eliminate the need for legal argument on the matter, this bill removes any limitation period for dust disease-related claims.
The second component of the bill relates to the availability of criminal damages after death. Currently dust disease-related claims, like other common law tort claims, are governed by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Section 5 of that act currently provides that should a person die before their claim is determined, then the damages recoverable by the estate of the decease person do not include damages for pain and suffering, bodily or mental harm or the curtailment of expectation of life which, together, are known as general damages. In other words, general damages do not survive the plaintiff’s death.
The object of the bill is to remove this restriction regarding general damages for dust-related diseases claims; that is, damages for pain and suffering, bodily and mental harm and loss or curtailment of expectation of life will be recoverable by the estate of the deceased where the action remains undetermined.
Similar legislative amendments have occurred in other jurisdictions. This bill is intended to achieve consistency with other states regarding dust-related claims but, most importantly, it will ease some of the worries of claimants, ease the burden on their families and, potentially, speed up claims so they are finalised while the plaintiff is still alive.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 22 August 2007.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, in the initial stages of this, there was a request for urgency. Matters were raised by the opposition which, basically, referred to being advised of the work that had been undertaken to ensure there had been proper coordination with the agencies that would be directly responsible for carriage of the changes that are proposed in the legislation. I am somewhat encouraged by the response of the minister to those inquiries. They were genuine inquiries, something not understood, perhaps, in the reactive sense and the response by the Deputy Chief Minister. However, I do appreciate your response, minister, because we know that these are difficult times and we have been placed in an extraordinary position.
There seem to be two factors combining to create an environment in which there is a need for unusual action. One is what can only be referred to as an increased community awareness that we, as a community, have a problem with alcohol. More and more, we are becoming aware that it is something that all of us must respond to in one way or another. There is that on one side, and then the Little Children are Sacred report, which was the foundation of the response of federal government. That has required a response on the other side. Those two factors’ intentions have resulted in this bill.
I am not entirely comfortable, and I am sure the minister is of the same mind. It would be better if we were in a position where we could negotiate ourselves through this difficult period without the pressure of contemporary circumstances, but we do not have the luxury. It is for that reason, without articulating in detail the concerns that I and the opposition hold, we do not intend to oppose the bill. This intervention is a response to the broader intervention, and both are to respond to a problem.
There may be problems that arise from the nature of the powers that are now transferred to the minister, which are extraordinary. I choose to work with government in a cooperative way as far as possible to identify the problems and try to seek a solution because I am part of community groups that are concerned and trying to work through our own solutions in our own way. The reason I asked the question about proper briefing of stakeholders is because I am involved at a different level, not only in the parliament with regards to legislation, but on the ground, as other members are.
It is important that those who are concerned and are working - some as volunteers on the ground - are properly brought into this, otherwise we will have some satisfaction that there has been a legislative change made and it will not be able to be carried all the way through to effect a result, ultimately, to the benefit of those who are vulnerable.
That was nature of my questions. I was dismayed by the response from one your colleagues but, nonetheless, I will leave it at that. You will not be opposed by this side of the House; rather, you will have our support. Notwithstanding there are areas that we could go into and raise points of political difference and the like, we will leave it as it is. We will do the best we can to work through this so that we can find a meaningful solution for the benefit of those for whom we are attempting to make things better.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, we said a lot of things earlier today about the urgency of this legislation and why we felt it should not go through on urgency, but now we are talking about the legislation itself. Minister, you are going to have enormous powers. I believe you are a genuine person and that you certainly would not abuse those powers. However, it is almost scary what you are going to be taking on, and it is a reaction to the federal government, to fit in with what they are doing. I certainly believe government-on-government intervention is not a good thing. We should have been able to do a lot of these things ourselves without federal government intervention. I understand that we have an alcohol problem. We have tried many restrictions in the past. Sometimes they have not worked; sometimes they have.
I am still not clear in my mind whether this government believes that indigenous people should drink. Regardless of saying that we have problems with alcohol in both societies, the federal government is targeting indigenous communities. This bill is targeting indigenous town camps. If we believe that indigenous people have the same rights as the rest of Australians to drink alcohol, then we are not really setting in place scenarios where that can happen. All we are doing is placing them in situations where the only place they can drink is in a public drinking place, or a social club. They cannot drink in their own homes in town camps; they cannot drink out on communities. We do not want them to drink in public houses in many of the towns because they cause disturbance. I have to say, minister, the introduction of the ‘No grog. Restricted area’ sign has been taken up by many people in Darwin and in Alice Springs, and that is a good thing for the safety of the tenants who have them.
What are we trying to achieve? What are we saying to indigenous people? How are we allowing them to join mainstream Australia or be part of a community if we are making it so difficult for them to ever to learn to live with alcohol? That is a catchphrase, I know, we have used in the past. Do you not think in some way we have to be a little more proactive rather than impose restriction upon restriction to make sure that these people, who are not the heavy drinkers, do learn to drink sensibly?
Sure, I am with you and everyone else about the people who abuse alcohol. I guess we do not want to get into that debate, because we know how difficult that is. Would you explain how you think we can say to indigenous people that alcohol can be part of their life safely, the same way as it is for you and for me? How are they going to do it?
I notice that the Licensing Commissioner now has to be answerable to the federal minister. That must be a worry to you. It must be a worry that the Licensing Commissioner now can go direct to the federal minister. Surely, that is not the way our Territory - and I guess he is an independent officer - public servants have to act. Minister, with what you are introducing, do you believe photo IDs are going to be the answer to solving the problem of people who purchase large quantities of alcohol? How are tourism operators going to get around this, for one thing? How are they going to purchase large quantities of alcohol to take out on their trips? Wholesale, perhaps, or are there going to be provisions about purchasing from a wholesaler? How are you going to allow these tourism operators, as we mentioned the other day, who want to go to Rainbow Valley or somewhere and cater for tourists they might have overnight around the campfire? Will they need a permit? When is all this detail going to come out so they can at least start preparing?
I spoke to a contractor the other day who said he was off to one of the remote communities, and he said: ‘I cannot take a beer any more’, whereas in the past many of the remote communities did give permission to the contractors to have a beer after work, because people on those remote communities know how important it is to ensure that contractors keep going there. How will you get around that situation? Those contractors who go out work hard. I am thinking of the electricians or the people who look after generators and what have you. They are not the ones who cause problems on the communities. We do not want the ones who build houses to suddenly say: ‘We are not going out there any more. I am going to be out there for three or four weeks on end and I cannot even have a beer’. What are you going to do about that, minister? Will you issue permits to those people?
We talked about book-up when we were having the briefing, and it is a very wise that you have said people cannot use book-up if they are purchasing alcohol. How will you police it? Something like vouchers given to people to use in supermarkets, so they will not be abused and used for alcohol? It is a good idea that people are given vouchers and not given cash, particularly aged people, because sure as eggs if they are given cash it is often taken from them. However, if they are given vouchers, is there some way of preventing those vouchers from being abused and used for alcohol? Even with this legislation, there seems to be a means for you to fix some of these problems that we have had in the past. I am interested in whether you are going to take on some of these problems that we already have to make life a bit better.
On the other hand, how are you going to make life such that Aboriginal people will think they are part of mainstream and not that they are being ostracised and isolated? I realise that you think rivers of grog cause many problems out in communities, but you cannot say that all Aborigines are drunks and abuse people. We have to get away from that. There is an image we are creating if we say no grog at all. Let us face it: there are white people who live on communities as well, such as police, teachers and essential services guys. They are not going to be allowed to drink either, although they, at least, know when they come into town, they can probably stay with friends and drink. We know prohibition does not necessarily work. How do you know that these restrictions will work? We have to start doing something to fix the problem in a way where there is not injury to people, but there is a sensible way of living.
The interesting part will be how you respond to the problems in our society. It will be interesting to see what this legislation does to enable you to make life better, to make a difference. If it is purely legislation for more restrictions, I do not see a good result. In anything we do, having restrictions certainly will not help people. Let us face it: there are many people who probably do not need help.
I am a little like the member for Blain. We have talked through so many issues over time. This bill is only for a five-year period - is that right?
Dr Burns: The Commonwealth legislation is.
Mrs BRAHAM: The Commonwealth is for five years. Yours may go on or you could review it in time because you may not need to have these very restrictive powers as time goes by. Minister, I hope you have some effect on what is a problem in communities. I just hope the effect will be a good outcome, not just restrictions, restrictions, restrictions.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I support the minister and his bill. I agree with the member for Braitling. It is not about Aboriginal people. Most Aboriginal people do not drink and, in my experience, it is not Aboriginal people who cause havoc. Any person who consumes excess alcohol has the same potential to create havoc. I have seen that in the city and in my electorate at Casuarina. I congratulate the minister. I know that extreme situations require very prompt and, sometimes, unconventional action or reaction and it is very wise that the minister has brought this bill to the House.
I support his proposal to change the situation with book-up. I was always opposed to book-up. I oppose buying alcohol on book-up. As a matter of fact, I oppose book-up in a city situation. I cannot understand why people would be forced to surrender their PIN numbers and card to a city retailer and be trapped for the rest of their life into going somewhere and buying food that is either out of date, or twice or three times as expensive as the local supermarket. If I had my way, and I have always lobbied for it, I would completely remove book-up from a city situation.
I am very happy with what the minister has done here. If you go to a shop and you have a licence, you cannot have book-up in your premises. I know why. In the past, people booked up alcohol under the pretence they are buying other goods, or very easily they booked up money taken out of the till, then turned around and bought alcohol with this money, which is absolutely incredible. I find it difficult to understand that these are the people who are in most need to utilise every single penny of their welfare payment to buy food for themselves and their families. These are the people who are trapped by people who use book-up to keep them enslaved in their small premises. I strongly support the minister in this action.
I also support the minister for declaring special restricted areas. I have a vested interest, as do many other members around town. You probably have parks in your area that occasionally or frequently become drinking places for itinerants. They move away from the liquor store, open the cask and start drinking sessions, sometimes starting 12 midday and finishing at 2 am or 3 am. As a result, first of all, none of the residents can use the park, and second, in the middle of the night, they start having their drunken fights and everything else. We all witness them. Recently, I wrote to the residents in my electorate, people living around Johnston Park, asking them if they agree or disagree with me approaching the Darwin City Council to declare Johnston Park as a dry area because people have had enough. The response was overwhelming. I have written to the council, but I think now I will ignore writing to the council and will probably write direct to the minister, providing all the information and the signatures I have received from local residents asking to declare this park as a restricted or dry area.
I support the minister imposing special conditions on licensees. We have seen the results of restricting alcohol. I was in Borroloola recently. The local hotel had lost its licence. People were allowed to purchase only certain quantities of takeaway alcohol, light or mid-strength beer, and the advice I had from local residents is that Borroloola was a totally different place. No domestic violence, no violence at night, no drunken brawls; it was a different place. We have seen the same thing happening in other areas.
Groote Eylandt is a very good example. Under the introduction of restrictions by our government there, not only have we seen a reduction of domestic violence and a reduction of brawls, but we have seen a significant improvement of the lives of the Aboriginal people in the area. We were there for Community Cabinet, sitting outside the small heritage church at Alyangula, and one of the local people told us that last year, we would not have been able to sit out in the open as we did because people were drunk, walking around with machetes, and fighting each other. Since the restriction of alcohol, things have changed completely.
Before the introduction of the permit system in Alyangula, indigenous employees at GEMCO had sickies running at 7.1%. The current sickie average is 2.4% sick leave. You have seen an immediate reduction of about three times in sick leave. The simple reason is because they do not wake up with a hangover. Before, they did not wake up at all to go to work. We immediately have a significant change, and congratulations are in order for that.
I am very strong on civil liberties, but sometimes, as I said before, an extreme situation requires extreme action. Stopping and checking a vehicle for carrying liquor in restricted areas without a warrant, while I might not like it, I endorse strongly because these are people who make money from the misery of other people, their fellow Territorians. They stock their cars with alcohol, which they buy at a very cheap price at some retail outlet, and then sell it for three, four, five times the price in some of the communities. I am aware there was a case in Casuarina where at 6 o’clock in the morning, a taxi would arrive outside the Casuarina Village, open the boot and sell casks of wine for $50, $60 and $70. This information was provided to the police to deal with. I find it disgusting that these people will make money from the misery of others.
The power for suspending, reworking and varying permits is necessary. The minister has to be able to react quickly and effectively. Sometimes, he will have to throw the book at the people who are not doing the right thing. If we are going to reduce the harm from alcohol, not only to the people who drink it excessively, because it is only a small number of people – if you look at who is actually drinking, they are the same people you will see in Nightcliff, Casuarina, and Jingili, but they are rotating around. Every time you close one outlet, these people will move into another place and they start the same cycle again; the cycle of self-harm, damaging the neighbourhood because they cause the problems and fights. I have seen women bashed, and kids running around naked, semi-naked or hungry because people just ignore them. I am not referring to Aboriginal people; I have seen white people doing exactly the same. I have seen white people rolling drunk. I have seen white men exploiting Aboriginal women because of alcohol.
I congratulate the minister for bringing this bill to the House. I did not intend to speak for long. You well know my feelings on this issue, and I look forward to the passage of this bill.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, this discussion on liquor has come about because there is a very small number of people in the Northern Territory who cannot handle their liquor. There is another lot who decided that they are going to make money out of it at the expense of the health and wellbeing of others.
I am supportive of this legislation, minister, but I will speak about some aspects that I find a little worrying. One of the things that has become quite confusing for the general public throughout the Northern Territory is the overlapping of what is federal legislation and what is Northern Territory legislation. Why can there not be an overarching framework that makes it clear for people out there exactly what legislation is? Why can it not be simplified? It is becoming quite confusing and it is fragmented. An opportunity was missed earlier when you were introducing legislation for dry towns, saying that each town and community could make up their own mind about what responsibilities they were going to accept and have their own plans of management.
That has not been terribly effective because, instead of it being implemented for dry towns right throughout the Northern Territory, some communities were quick to take up the legislation and some were not. As a result of that, when those did get their act together, the problem moved somewhere else. That is why we have the rolling stone effect happening around the Territory where the problem has just been moved from one area to another. It would have been so much easier to have it implemented right across the Northern Territory. In light of what has happened, the reports that have been handed down, it probably would have been a darn good idea.
I have looked at the Port Augusta example of a dry town. I know that Port Augusta has really significantly improved. They have commissioned a scientific report to ensure that they were given the right information about how successful Port Augusta is. I do not believe that has been released yet, but I was interested to talk to them about the difference it has made to their town since it was declared dry.
The other aspect of that is where did a lot of those people go? I know that some of them may have gone over a hill, some of them went to Coober Pedy and some came further on up to the Northern Territory. That is the rolling stone effect I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, the only way we are going to be able to deal with that is to be really tough. Unfortunately, government needs to implement tough restrictions in all the towns.
I speak for Katherine and I felt it was a bit slow coming on board with introducing and applying for dry town status, and then it was a little piecemeal. But now, thank goodness, they have decided to apply for the whole town to be dry, and I am very supportive of that. Those people who still want to have a social drink can do so, but what we are doing is ensuring that the abuse of alcohol is not carried out in public places and around the town, making it very difficult for a lot of the families who live there.
You talked about not allowing book-up. I was a licensee for 11 years. In the whole of that time, I was never allowed to book-up. It was part of the liquor laws, and my rules and regulations for running Red Gum Tourist Park where I was not allowed to book-up. I would not have dreamt of booking up alcohol. I am a little confused as to why you have said this bill will prohibit takeaway licensees from accepting book-up as a form of payment. To my understanding, that has always been the case. As far as I knew, that was always how I had to run my business. I was never allowed to have book-up, and I certainly did not keep cards. Cards, to me, are just a piece of plastic. Most times if someone had a card, it did not work when they tried to withdraw money, so plastic cards certainly were not kept.
It is a pity that there are other businesses that you cannot ban this in apart from liquor outlets, minister, because I am well aware that there are a lot of businesses that do hold plastic cards and PIN numbers. That is a grave injustice to the people they hold them for because it holds them to ransom. They seem to be totally and permanently committed to leaving that card at that particular store. It is a shame because it certainly makes it difficult for them to learn how to balance their money and their fortnightly payments ...
Mr Knight: The Bucking Bull.
Mrs MILLER: Perfect example. That is one, and there are plenty of others that are like it, and I do not agree with it at all.
The member for Braitling talked about two aspects that are of great concern to me as well. Are there going to be permits available for tourism operators who work and travel across indigenous land? Will they be able to get a permit? They are not carrying a busload of drunks; they are likely to sit down and have a wine with their meal at night, which I do not see any harm in doing. The same thing applies at Uluru. The same thing would apply when people are having their drink watching the Rock at sunset. I have done that myself and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was perfectly sober, but it was very nice just to have a glass of champagne watching the sunset at Uluru. I do not believe that it would be a very good image to send to the tourism industry.
Everyone is aware that we have some very serious alcohol problems on indigenous land – a very serious problem. However, we should not be detrimental to the tourism industry which contributes so much to our economy. The Minister for Tourism is going to deliver a statement on tourism some time this afternoon telling us how wonderful tourism is. We do not want to detract from the tourism industry.
I have had a lot of concern expressed about civil contractors working in restricted areas. I have had two people come to see me in my office in the last three weeks whose workers have told them: ‘Mate, if we cannot have a beer at the end of the day, we are not working with you. We are just not going out there’. When one of the contractors goes to work on restricted areas and Aboriginal land, he never, ever had his campsite near the town, wherever he is. He is going out very shortly and he is going to be about 45 km away from the town. My office made some inquiries to see if he could apply for an exemption, and he was told that, under the new federal legislation, he could not apply for a permit to be able to take alcohol for his half dozen workers to have a beer at the end of the day. That is going to present a huge problem. He is just one contractor. There are several of them around Katherine, plenty of then working throughout the Northern Territory on restricted land who do not abuse alcohol at all. However, they do like their workers to have a beer after they have worked in hot, tropical conditions all day, had their shower and had their meal. I would like to know if the minister can tell me what is going to happen in that area.
I do not have any time for grog runners at all, and the tougher you can be, as far as I am concerned, the better. That applies to any vehicle taking alcohol into a restricted area. I was told by a taxi operator that taxi drivers are not allowed to physically search bags or any sort of freight that they have on board their taxi when it goes into a restricted area. Is that true? I am not aware that that is true. In an instance where one driver did ask his passenger if he had alcohol on board and he said, ‘Yes, one bottle’, the driver said, ‘Get rid of it’, which he did. However, he also had another bottle in the bottom of his bag underneath a lot of clothing. He was stopped on entering an indigenous community and had his cab confiscated. The person who had the alcohol in his bag went on home and the taxi driver lost his vehicle, which is his means of employment. He was without it for quite a while. When I spoke to him, it was over two weeks before he was able to even contemplate getting his vehicle back. Could you please clarify that for me? I would not be very happy if I suspected that there was alcohol on board a vehicle that I was taking into a community. I would not want to go there; I would want to know.
Walking in the morning in Katherine which, unfortunately in the last few months I have not done enough of, is quite an eye opener because there are casks that seem to come out from underneath bushes. I do not know where they come from, but there is always a supply of alcohol, even early in the morning. I have not been able to ascertain whether they have had it stashed somewhere, or someone is providing it for them. I really look forward to the part of the bill that will give you powers to really clamp down on grog runners and those who are taking advantage becoming law.
I seek clarification on the couple of issues I raised, minister. I would really like to see some consistency in the way the legislation is being implemented by both the federal and Territory governments. You should not go back in time because history does not always work, but the history did in this particular case: the Living With Alcohol program from the 1990s worked well. I have not had one person tell me that it was a terrible program. As a matter of fact, it has been the other way around. They have said to me it worked so well.
We all know the reasons why it is no longer here, but its goal was what we are all looking for now. I will read from it:
And this is going back into the mid-1990s, do not forget:
We have fallen way behind that, and it is really upsetting. Maybe, if that program was still in place, we may not be at quite such a bad place as we are now. There are some aspects of the Living With Alcohol program that would be wise for us to look at; for example, all the things about culture, control, care, harm reduction - all the things that we are talking about now. Sometimes, there are things from the past that have worked well and we are wise not to throw the baby out with bath water. It would be wise to revisit some of those areas.
Minister, I am very supportive of this amendment, and I look forward to listening to other speakers.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. Much of what I wanted to say I said during the urgency debate. I have some concerns. When the minister spoke during the urgency debate, he admitted that there had been very little consultation with the industry. That concerns me, not because I am here promoting the liquor industry, but the liquor industry is a legal part of our society and it is approved by the government. Therefore, I would have thought that with such major changes under section 33AA, it would have been good to hear from the minister any responses from the Northern Territory liquor industry or the AHA as to what they thought about these powers.
I know that the minister will use these powers carefully, because I know the minister, but you may not always be the minister. This legislation passes from one minister to the next, so we have to look at this legislation on its merits. It would be good if the minister could allay some of the concerns arising from his statement during the urgency debate that he had very little contact with the industry. I wonder whether, over the luncheon adjournment, he had any feedback. The minister not only has the power to determine additional licence conditions; he has widespread power over many aspects, such as when a premises is open, the type of liquor that can be sold, the amount of liquor that can be sold, the ID required and the keeping of records. They are all powers a Liquor Commissioner would normally have and would go through a more open process. The minister now has the power to do that on his own. I understand the minister will have to report back to parliament and, if it was unfair, there would certainly be debate in the media. However, the community consultation part of this amendment is lacking.
Again, I realise it has to go through on urgency, but using the same argument as the member for Wanguri used earlier, we had 15 days to find all these things out. You had 15 days to get comment from the industry because it went up last week and it is being debated now. I am hoping this bill does not go through and we find a major flaw in it that the industry will find detrimental. Even though some of these restrictions are meant to be detrimental, it may have been something that was not foreseen by those who put this bill together.
I do not agree with the member for Katherine on the issues of contractors and tourism operators on Aboriginal land. It may not be within your power to effect any change to that because it is more related to the intervention by the federal government, but we have to be careful as we are dealing with someone’s land. Whilst there might be some issues in relation to the tourism industry, and there will be matters that contractors will be concerned about, we are dealing with people who own that land. If permits are to be given to those people, then the people who own the land should have the majority say in whether they can or cannot.
We put restrictions on people on private land. The government puts restrictions on whether you can take a dog into a national park. It is not uncommon for us, as owners of land, to restrict what people can or cannot do. If I try to take the perspective of an Aboriginal person and we had no drinking in our community, the federal government had made all these statements about rivers of grog and the problems with alcohol, and then, on our piece of land, we have some people drinking. I am just an ordinary person in the community, and I say: ‘The government has told us no more grog here, and yet over here there are some people who are allowed to drink’. There may be good reason why people should be allowed to drink over there, but should the other side of the argument be that us non-owners of the land, if we wish to participate on that land, have to give a little in relation to what the rules are?
We have to be careful that we do not forget those people who own land. If people were to come on our land - and we might make the rules that you cannot bring a dog because we have wildlife – and we said: ‘We do not allow grog here because we do not drink and we prefer not to have it’, people would make the choice of whether they want to go in or not.
Some people might say that would unduly affect the tourism industry, for instance. If I was coming to the Northern Territory from overseas or interstate, wanting to enjoy an experience on Aboriginal land, if I was sincere, I would be willing to accept some of those rules.
It is a two-way street. ‘Yes, I am allowing you onto my land, but there are some conditions. You cannot go over here, for instance, because that is a men’s site. We do not want you going over there because there is a small community that is not involved in tourism, and we would rather you did not drink because our community has a drink ban on it and it sends the wrong message if you allow one group of people to drink and we do not drink’. That would be them-and-us based on race.
In relation to contractors, I fully understand what the member for Katherine is saying, but it may be that when contracts are awarded, if there are contracts at places where there is no drinking, it is simply stated up-front. You are, basically, declaring it before contractors have a chance to tender to say that these are the conditions. From memory - and I cannot give you exact times and dates - I recall this on some of the communities I worked at. It was not always, but there would have been restrictions on what the contractors could have brought in. It did not say they could not drink outside the community but, unless they had permission from the people there, they could not drink.
It is a difficult issue, member for Katherine, I realise that, but again …
Mrs Miller: You have to get contractors to go out there.
Mr WOOD: Yes, and one could argue that if you want the work, you have to accept the conditions. Perhaps the issue that you are talking about needs to be thought through with the government, with the Aboriginal community, and with contractors to see whether you can come up with some sort of an arrangement where that could happen. It may be, as I said, if you put your argument, member for Katherine, to the people who own the land, you may come up with exactly what you are after. I am not trying to preach to you, but be careful that when speaking about this issue, we do not forget the people who own the land. They own the land and they should have a fair say in what is happening.
I believe you could solve the problems. Most Aboriginal people, when you explain the situation to them, are probably pretty fair and reasonable. When we are talking about these issues, we must remember that we have a federal government that has made some major statements about alcohol on Aboriginal communities. It has certainly cracked the whip on the amounts of alcohol, or whether alcohol can be consumed at all on some of these communities. It can look a little hypocritical if we then allow other people to come on to those communities and drink, not so much from our point of view, but from the point of view of the people who own the land.
I raise those issues as part of this debate. I would be interested to know if the minister could say whether the matters raised by the members for Braitling and Katherine are within his bailiwick or are they really completely outside what we can do? Are they a matter that we should take up with the minister, Mal Brough?
Madam Speaker, to sum up, whilst I fully understand why the minister needs these powers, if we are not careful, we can shift the problem from A to B with these changes, and we need some strict control over B.
The only other matter is the question of whether you have had any consultation with neighbouring states. For instance, if we declare large areas of the Territory dry, or the Commonwealth declares them, and you bring in your special purpose restricted areas, what effect will it have on places like Kununurra, Camooweal and Marla Bore? Have you had any negotiations with neighbouring states in relation to what the effects will be? As most people know, when people are desperate for a drink, they will travel long distances to get that drink. I am interested to know whether you think there could be any ramifications from both Territory and Commonwealth legislation on neighbouring states in relation to this matter.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s, first, urgency motion and the legislation itself. The legislation is needed at this point in time in the history of the Northern Territory. Tough situations deserve tough responses, and I believe it is time for this legislation to complement or work alongside the federal legislation. It does what the federal government says their actions do not do. They say they want to get tough on grog, but their actions do not really achieve that. Their so-called ban on alcohol really is superfluous because most of the communities they have specified are dry anyway. The three cartons of beer takeaway law is a bit strange, and I will talk about that later.
The urgency is required. This issue has been around for a long time. It has been talked about, we have had parliamentary committees, and there has been a whole range of inquiries. We all know that there is too much grog out there, it is getting into the wrong hands, there are too many outlets, there is too much consumption and a whole range of things. I take the points raised by the members for Katherine and Nelson that the problem does move around.
Personally, I would like the minister to target behaviour, and I know he is on this track anyway. We need to target irresponsible drinking. We can quarantine an area, we can do certain things, we can do something with outlets, but it is about irresponsible behaviour. There are a lot of responsible drinkers, both indigenous and non-indigenous in the same community as irresponsible drinkers. In the longer run, as a society, we need to target irresponsible drinking. I believe this idEye system being proposed for Katherine is well on that track; it targets irresponsibility. It says if you misbehave, the penalties will apply to you. If you do not misbehave, if you drink responsibly, nothing will happen. It is a voluntary system, as the demerit points system is; you do not have to be part of it. If you stick to being responsible and live by the rules of the community, and have respect for one another, you will not be penalised.
Alcohol is the single biggest threat to Northern Territory society. It disrupts families and communities, and it draws so much money out of personal incomes, households and the budgets of governments. We spend huge amounts of money on our police force, our health system, our education system and our child protection system, and most of the work that they do is alcohol-related. A huge proportion of the Northern Territory budget, which is taxpayers’ money, our money, is being spent curbing irresponsible drinking behaviour. If we can get that under control, and reduce it by 50%, 75%, it means that is 50% of the budget, and 50% of the workload of the departments and 50% of their budgets. Instead of putting on more police, more Accident and Emergency nurses, more nutrition workers, more teachers for children who are falling behind at school because of problems at home, and more child protection workers, we can actually do a lot more positive things. We can improve education out into the community with better facilities, better infrastructure. We can do a lot more if we stop spending money on the downside. We need to kerb this alcohol problem into the future.
The legislation has a range of measures. They give the minister a lot of power, but he needs that power to be able to go into a situation with a licensed premises, and take control of a situation because things flair up. He needs to be able to move in quickly. In Katherine about five or six years ago, Kirby’s lost their licence for three days and it was the quietest you have ever seen that end of town. It was so peaceful. We have floods in Katherine, as people well know, and the town is so peaceful when it floods. Floods are a terrible thing, but I tell you what: the community was so quiet and peaceful because all the outlets …
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: I tell you what: there is responsible public and there is irresponsible public. I remember during the last floods, when there was water still in the main street, I boated into town from East Side to get into my office. Walking down the main street in a foot of water was this bloke with a carton of beer, heading back across the bridge to Kalano. I thought: ‘Where on earth has he got that from?’ I went up the street a bit further and the bottle shop had opened. A state of emergency was declared in Katherine, and the bottle shop had opened. There are some very irresponsible publicans out there. This is where the minister can obviously use his powers to curb those problems.
I support the minister’s legislation. It is putting everyone on notice. Publicans need to realise that the community is fed up with this problem and they have to get on board and be part of a solution. They have to realise that you cannot sell a heap of alcohol without there being a problem. It is about being part of the solution. It is part of our society that everyone likes a drink, but it is to no one’s interest whatsoever - the individual, family, society or the publican - for people to be given too much or get out of control. Publicans need to be part of the solution and work with the government and other organisations to come up with ways of targeting irresponsible drinking.
We know it is only 5% or so of the population. It is a very small pocket. In Katherine, they talk about 100 problem drinkers. Katherine gets its name from 100 problem drinkers. If we target those individuals for their own good and for their family’s good, we will fix their lives and we will fix the town. If we can do that across the Territory, it will be a win for not only individuals in the current generation, but generations in the future. Minister, congratulations on your bill, and I look forward to working with you to implement it.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members for their contributions, which have been very thoughtful. I certainly appreciate the support from the opposition and Independents. I will endeavour to answer the questions that have been asked by each speaker. Some of them have themes and I will try to address those themes as I proceed.
To preface this closing part of the debate, I emphasise, as I did in my second reading speech, that we are a government that has taken steps in relation to alcohol abuse in the Territory and we are prepared to take more. These steps represent a large a large stride and it is a way forward. I flag for the Assembly that we are prepared to take more steps. I said earlier today in debate on the urgency motion that there is a review of the Liquor Act, and we are ready to go out to public consultation on that - or nearly ready since the Commonwealth intervention and, of course, the laws that were passed very recently. There is a further opportunity for the Northern Territory community and this Northern Territory parliament to participate in taking more steps in relation to alcohol because it is such a vitally important issue.
As the member for Daly pointed out, the cost of alcohol in lives, misery and services in the Northern Territory is immense - absolutely immense. Our per capita consumption of alcohol is on average at least twice the Australian average. In some parts of the Territory, it is almost three times the Australian average. My first profession was as a pharmacist and, as students, we did a subject called pharmacology. We learnt the dose effect curve: the higher the dose, the greater the effect. So it is with alcohol. In small doses, in convivial companionship, people enjoying themselves, it is okay. However, in higher doses, the trouble starts: social disruption and the aggravation and then people’s health is affected, families falling apart, etcetera.
As a strategy, we have to look at reducing the amount people drink and, as has been pointed out in the debate, if you are talking about Aboriginal people, there are a lot of Aboriginal people who do not drink. I know a few in this Assembly who do not touch a drop of the stuff. However, there are some people, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who imbibe too much. Unfortunately, what we see in a lot of our regional centres and in Darwin is a very visible problem of Aboriginal people and alcohol. Let us not forget some of the scenes down here in Mitchell Street. We cannot lose sight of that fact, either, but today we are talking about a more global strategy.
My sister lived in the Territory in the 1960s and 1970s. She was a teacher in the more remote parts of the Barkly and Katherine. She is a Ted Egan fan. I remember her bringing a record back to Brisbane, where we lived, and one of the songs was:
I thought: ‘That sounds like a pretty good place, with everyone having a good time’. The point I am making is that there is a hard drinking culture embedded in the Territory. It was a badge of honour at one time. I still like Ted’s song; it is a good song. However, we have reached a point where we have to take strong action to redress the issues we face.
To recap the major elements of this bill, it gives: the minister power to impose a new category of declaration, which is a Special Restricted Area; ministerial power to impose special licence conditions; ministerial power to impose a liquor supply plan; improvement to the return of seized vehicle provisions; increased search powers related to grog running; and prohibits licensees with takeaway licence from accepting book-up as a payment for goods unless exempted.
It is very important to remember the definition of book-up, which is essentially keeping someone’s plastic credit card and their PIN number. We are not talking about a line of credit that many people have with their local shop; we are talking about this very specific practice of book-up.
I turn first to the member for Blain who acknowledged that we are in very difficult times. In fact, he said we are in an extraordinary position and we need to respond to a problem. There was certainly agreement about that. He talked about the alcohol problems and another precipitating factor, the Wild/Anderson report in which the authors talked about the ‘rivers of grog’ in the Northern Territory and the need to address that.
I was certainly heartened when the member for Blain said whilst there might be reservations about some elements of this legislation, in principle the opposition did not oppose it. I welcome that support from the opposition.
A number of speakers, including the member for Blain, said that I acknowledged this morning that there has been little or no consultation with industry in relation to this and asked what I am going to do to rectify that. I can assure this House that we do have a communication strategy ready to roll out to the community and licensees, and we will be engaging with them about these measures. It is a very valid point. I think it was the member for Nelson who said we did not go out for consultation. There are some times when governments do have to act to set down policy parameters. The federal government has done that and the Northern Territory government has also done that in relation to these matters.
I listened very carefully to the member for Braitling. She raised quite a number of important issues. She talked about the responsibility of a minister having the types of powers that are part of this bill. I agree with you, member for Braitling. As I said this morning, those powers should be used with wisdom and very sparingly. I can assure this House that I will not be using the powers unnecessarily or without thought. Using power sparingly is always the best way to go. I can also assure this House that if there is a situation where urgent action is required, I will act in accordance with this legislation in the interests of the community. That is the sort of criteria that I am going to use in respect of these powers.
The member for Braitling has reservations about government-to-government intervention and any interventions that do not really engage with communities, and I certainly agree that is a valid point. I point out to the member for Braitling that what this government has proposed with Closing the Gap, is to engage with communities. We want to work with Aboriginal people and Aboriginal communities saying: ‘We are here. We have the resources, we have a plan, but we want to engage with you’ because, as the Chief Minister said in relation to Closing the Gap, Aboriginal people have to take that step. Governments cannot do everything, and that is why we are looking to engage with Aboriginal leadership to take those steps, and that is vitally important, member for Braitling.
You posed the question that we are bringing in all these different interventions and restrictions, and was there a base question about whether we believe that Aboriginal people should drink? I can say to the Assembly that Aboriginal people, of course, are citizens of Australia, and they have rights. However, balanced with that, the Wild/Anderson report really found a major problem in relation to alcohol and its nexus with child abuse, and it is incumbent on government to act on that. It is not a pleasure to do it, member for Braitling; we do that with a lot of thought. It is a difficult thing to do, but it is something that we have had to do.
You talked about restricting people to only drinking in certain places in more or less controlled environments. What we have seen in the Territory is the major problem with alcohol abuse and the effects that flow out of that really come about through uncontrolled drinking. When people get takeaway, they take it somewhere and then trouble brews when people get drunk. Usually, when people are drinking on licensed premises, it is a controlled drinking environment and, basically, there are differences between the two. I would like to see people, if they do want to drink, drinking in controlled environments and learning to drink in that way.
You talked, I thought very eloquently, about all these measures, and the bottom line should be making life better for Aboriginal people and communities. I certainly concur with you there. What I have seen is that drunks are often centre stage. They are noisy, they are aggressive, they just take over everything, and the non-drinkers, the family groups, particularly the women and children, are pushed to one side and the drunks have centre stage. What we have to do is take away the alcohol, take the drunks away from centre stage so families, once again, can reinstitute family, community and cultural controls - normal family processes. The alcohol is just feeding into this cauldron, and no one is getting any rest, no one can assert normal family controls, whether it is over spouses or even over children. Taking the alcohol away is going to give people some breathing space; an opportunity to really institute some normal social controls. That is certainly my hope about making life better.
As part of Closing the Gap, government has certainly flagged up education campaigns. Also, regarding alcohol rehabilitation and early intervention, I certainly believe that is the way to go to make life better. I know as a researcher, when I was researching into the health effects of kava when I was with the Menzies School of Health Research in East Arnhem, I went through all the hospital files in Gove District Hospital and you could see some people on the slippery slope. They would present in A&E, and it would just get worse - broken bones, all the rest of it. Then you looked on the front and, of course, it said deceased. I always thought if there was more early intervention for those people, that that terrible cost could be averted. We have to look at rehabilitation and early intervention services, and I am confident that, through Closing the Gap, we are going to be doing that for those who are afflicted by alcohol.
The member for Braitling also raised the issue of whether the Liquor Commission would be under the direct control of the Commonwealth minister. The advice I have had, member for Braitling, is that the Commonwealth minister can ask or direct the Liquor Commission to provide him with information but beyond that, I believe the Liquor Commission still can operate autonomously within the Northern Territory.
You raised issues about tourism operators and contractors, as did the member for Katherine. It is an important issue, and it does point to some areas of difference that we, as a government, have with the Commonwealth. I said in the urgency debate that, generally, we are trying to cooperate with the Commonwealth and really integrate with and complement their legislation. However, I have to say we certainly do not agree with the 1350 ml purchase of alcohol and people recording their names and showing ID. We implore minister Brough to work with the industry to find a better way to achieve his policy outcome. The industry is suggesting that there be a dollar nexus to that system. If it stays at the 1350 ml, it becomes overly complex.
In a meeting I had with the AHA, one of their members told me that there are eight x 1031 combinations of alcohol products that could make up 1350 ml. Now, eight x 106 is eight million, so I do not know how many million, million, million eight x 1031 is, but it is a hell of a big number. Once again, I call on minister Brough to reconsider this 1350 ml.
Likewise for tourism operators; there is a whole range of tourist places that are going to be affected. You mentioned the sunset viewing. I understand there is a whole range of places within Arnhem Land and Central Australia. I have written to minister Brough in the last day or so and asked him to reconsider the 1350 ml. I have also raised the issue of the impact on the tourism industry and asked him to reconsider that.
Another issue I have asked him to reconsider relates to the Daly River. Probably four weeks ago, I raised the issue of the Daly and pointed out that the Commonwealth’s laws would prohibit people from having a drink while they were fishing on the Daly River. Minister Brough, to his credit, replied and said that he had fixed that. However, this week I have received legal advice from the Department of Justice that it is not fixed and, generally, it will be illegal for people to drink on the Daly River when they are fishing. I have written to minister Brough about that also, and I hope that minister Brough can fix it because I know there are going to be lots of people at the Barra National and the Barra Classic next year who are not going to be too happy about that. We would like to work through those issues with minister Brough.
In relation to contractors, I tend to agree with the members for Katherine and Braitling. I would like to work through those issues as well. You asked about specific permits and whether I have the power to issue permits to those contractors. I do not, member for Braitling. The situation as it is now, under the Commonwealth legislation, is that the Northern Territory Licensing Commission is undertaking a complete review of all alcohol permits throughout the Territory. They will be submitting that to minister Brough’s task force, which is headed by Sue Gordon, with recommendations, I would say. However, the final decision in relation to that will be with the Commonwealth task force. I ask members on the other side to really lobby the Commonwealth to ensure there is some sense in all of this.
I understand what the member for Nelson was saying. I can see that there could be tensions there if a group of people living in close proximity to another can drink and some cannot. That could create tensions,. However, there are ways, through discussion, consultation and engagement, we can work through those issues. I know that there a lot of people who work out on communities - police, teachers, health workers, etcetera – and some of them might find it a bit hard if they cannot have a drink. I know there are lots of communities where they cannot have a drink and people are happy with that but, generally speaking, it could be an inhibitory factor to the very difficult job of recruiting people on to remote communities. It is something that we need to think about.
Regarding the issue of the vouchers that you raised, member for Braitling, I am advised that that is really a Commonwealth matter. Our provisions relating to book-up simply relate to the plastic cards and keeping of PIN numbers. I am not really sure how the Commonwealth’s arrangements with Centrelink payments are going to work, but that could be another issue that we take up with the Commonwealth.
You asked about my powers and I have made it plain that through the review of the Liquor Act, we need to have a discussion about those in the very near future. As has been noted, the life of the Commonwealth legislation is five years.
The member for Casuarina raised the issue of book-up and how that has impacted adversely in his electorate, as it has in some areas in mine. We are proposing changes there but, once again, I emphasise that we are talking about book-up, the keeping of cards and PIN numbers; we are not talking about a line of credit for people.
He also talked about Borroloola where there were licence conditions imposed. In fact, the licence was taken away from the hotel and the other liquor outlet was quite happy to have conditions on the sale of takeaway. Both the members for Daly and Casuarina talked about the positive effects when alcohol is not available on a community. The member for Braitling asked about making life better, and we heard a couple of stories where life is made instantly better when alcohol availability has decreased.
A few speakers talked about grog runners, and the importance of coming down hard on them. Certainly, in this legislation there is capacity for police to randomly search vehicles; there are increased police powers in that regard. That complements the very severe penalties that the Commonwealth is imposing on grog runners. Most people would agree that those severe penalties are warranted. We are doing our part by giving police more power to search vehicles in a random fashion.
The member for Katherine expressed some concern about the overlap of federal legislation with some of the measures that are being implemented in this legislation. All I can say to the member for Katherine is we have worked very hard with the Commonwealth to ensure that the two suites of legislation dovetail and that there is integration. Obviously, we are in discussion with the Commonwealth about a communications strategy about all these changes. We need to nail that down in the very near future because we really only have until 15 September.
The member for Katherine talked about the rolling stone effect. I have not heard that one before, member for Katherine, but I think it is quite apt. As I said in the urgency debate this morning, everyone acknowledges that there is a displacement effect and there is going to be increased displacement as the Commonwealth measures come in. That is even more reason why the minister needs to hold these powers: so that we can address issues as they arise on a place-by-place basis. It does make it very difficult, though. You did ask whether we had spoken with South Australia and Western Australia. The short answer, member for Katherine, is no, but it is a very good point that you have raised. I have taken it on board and will be communicating with my counterparts in those states as well.
You talked about the regime of book-up. I am advised that a code of conduct and a protocol was instituted in 2004 about book-up for licensed premises. This has been codified in law and taken one step further, in that anyone with a liquor licence cannot sell general merchandise as well and take book-up. People have to make a choice in the business about whether they want to retain a liquor licence and general merchandise. If that is what they want to do, there will be no no-book. If they want to have general merchandise and no liquor licence, they can have book-up.
I dealt with the issue of tourism operators earlier and the process by which Racing, Gaming and Licensing will be interacting with the task force over permits.
On the issue of taxi drivers searching customers, I do not think drivers have a legal power to search. I am advised that under Northern Territory legislation that it is a defence for someone if they can prove that they did not know someone had grog in a bag, but I am not sure about the Commonwealth legislation. It is something that needs to be clarified with the Commonwealth.
You talked about the success of the Living with Alcohol program. I agree with you; it was a very successful program. It was a shame that the High Court found that it was a tax, and we suffered a knock-on from a High Court decision. I am a believer that the discounts in price for heavy beer versus light beer and heavy alcohol products was an incentive for people not to drink such heavy alcohol and reduced overall alcohol consumption. It did have a positive effect, and the revenue from the wine cask levy was able to fund education programs and so on. We do not have the ability to levy a tax, but it is something we could take up with the Commonwealth once the dust has settled. It is a very good suggestion.
The member for Nelson asked about consultation with industry, and I think I have talked about that. He talked about section 33AA and the powers. As I outlined in the urgency debate earlier today, there is capacity for the Liquor Commission to hold hearings and make recommendations to the minister on changes in licence conditions or liquor supply plans. However, there is still always a capacity, member for Nelson, for the minister to act in a very direct way. All I can say to you about the consultation and the way government has moved on this is that it was a decision of government to move policy this way. I give the undertaking that we will be engaging with industry about the implementation.
I have tried to deal with the difficult issue you raised about contractors or other workers on Aboriginal land. It is a difficult issue, and you had a very good point. I do not have an easy answer for it, but it should be a matter for negotiation.
The member for Daly said tough situations demand tough responses. He also acknowledged the need for urgency in this matter and said we should be targeting irresponsible drinking. He touched on how alcohol misuse impacts heavily on the Northern Territory budget. He said that industry needs to be part of the solution, and I agree with that, but we all have to be part of the solution.
As the Chief Minister said when she spoke about Closing the Gap, Aboriginal people have to step forward, too. Governments can only do so much, whether it is the federal or Territory government. They can only do so much. Aboriginal leaders and people need to step forward. We all need to engage and address the problem so that we can move on.
As I said in my maiden speech in 2001, part of the reason I am here and what I am committed to is unlocking and realising the vast cultural, economic and social potential of the Northern Territory. Grog is holding us back. Grog is hurting us. Grog is causing all sorts of problems. I mentioned Mitchell Street, and that is a problem we have to address. We all have to work together on that. Alice Springs has similar problems around Melanka and other places. We have to work together on those problems. We cannot say: ‘This group has the problem; we do not have a problem’. We do have a problem.
Following the Wild/Anderson report citing rivers of grog, we really to have to take tough action. This bill is part of it. As I said, there is a further review of our Liquor Act coming in the next few months. It will be out for consultation. There will be a consultative process around that. I am sure, given the very thoughtful offerings of members opposite, there will be a lot of debate and many good ideas to come forward. It is very important for us to keep on taking steps in this regard.
With that, I thank members for their contributions, and I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: I call the member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, I will not be keeping the House up any longer than necessary. The two issues I wish to raise relate to extra clauses, if that is something the government will agree to. They may not, of course. I am sure how an extra clause attached to this bill would be handled by you, that is all.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will put the question on taking the bill as a whole.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I have two items, and perhaps I should have discussed them more before you gave your second reading response. There are two areas of concern. One is a period of review. This is a special bill with special powers. What I am suggesting is that that there be a clause at the end which, basically, says there must be a review every 12 months, and a report of that review be brought back to the House. As we have agreed, the minister has far-reaching powers. I wondered whether you agree that there needs to be provision for a review of this bill?
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I appreciate what the member for Nelson is saying. This is an extraordinary bill with extraordinary powers in an extraordinary circumstance. As you have said, this is the first time you have raised it with me. I do not believe I can accept your amendment to the bill. However, I will give an undertaking on behalf of this government that when the Commonwealth legislation lapses, we will have a review of these elements of the legislation. I give you that undertaking from the floor of parliament, but I am not prepared to take it as a formal amendment to the bill.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I accept that, although, because it is such a strong bill, a review every 12 months gives not only us, but the people that it affects, an opportunity to see how it is going and comment on it so that if the bill needs some sort of amendment, you obviously have the information required to make that amendment.
Following on from that, minister, if you are looking at a review at the end of this legislation, should there not be a clause which gives some notification of when this bill will cease to exist and your powers will not exist any more?
Dr BURNS: As far as I understand, member for Nelson, this bill really flows out of the Commonwealth legislation, and they have given a five-year time frame for that legislation. I am not sure whether it is actually in their bill or not. Because the two acts work together, I think they are linked and, in that regard, our bill is contingent on their act.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, that is exactly what I am saying: if you had a clause which linked the conclusion of this bill to the cessation of the federal government’s bill, that at least would give people some idea that this is not a permanent power that you will continue to have. The way the bill is written, you could have these powers for a long time.
I thought that, perhaps at the end, the bill could have had a cessation date to alleviate anyone’s fears that these powers would continue beyond the intervention period.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, once again, to reiterate the undertaking I have given you, member for Nelson, on behalf of government, we are prepared to review this bill when the Commonwealth act is no longer in existence.
Second, I have already flagged that there will be a review of the Liquor Act within the next six months, or probably a bit longer given that some of these developments are pushing that time frame out. You would have an opportunity to propose that as part of that review. I do not feel inclined to accept this amendment as it stands from the floor of parliament. I have given you adequate undertakings, first about a review when the Commonwealth legislation lapses, and the capacity for you to have input during the review of our Liquor Act over the next six months.
Bill, as a whole, agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 22 August 2007.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about local government reform. During the McArthur River Mine debate, which had people crossing the floor because of the abuse of process this government engaged in, the shadow for mines, the member for Katherine, discussed the issue …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: What prompted the CLP to support the government on that occasion was the direct and obvious threat to 1000 jobs in the Northern Territory. No such imperative exists today ...
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The legislation that is before the House deals with the Local Government Act. I ask that you rule that the member for Greatorex direct his comments to the legislation that is before the Chair, not a bill that passed through this House when he was not here.
Mr CONLAN: I am getting to that, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you could, member for Greatorex, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: No such imperative exists today. In fact, the only imperative that may exist in this argument that is relied upon by the minister, is stating that he cannot hold over elections from existing councils until 1 July 2008. It appears that there are only a couple of councils that will be affected if this matter is not dealt with on urgency and, if that were true, then we on this side would be prepared to support urgency to make that possible, but that is not what this bill is limited to.
This bill casts a much wider net than that simple objective. That net extends to a timetable, rather than simply trying to suspend a couple of council elections.
This bill is designed to empower the minister to ensure that the amalgamations go ahead on 1 July 2008. The question is: is this reasonable? By demanding urgency, the minister is signalling that there is a matter of such serious and urgent public importance that the democratic systems that underpin this House, and the voters who put us all here, are set aside and ignored so that this matter can be dealt with.
Where is the urgent and serious matter that so inspires the minister to call for the suspension of full public review through the normal process? Why is this matter so important that the electors of the Territory can be pushed aside by this parliament?
The astonishing thing is that this bill was in the possession of the minister prior to the June sitting. This means that there was never a need for urgency. This matter could have been placed on the table at that time and proper public scrutiny could have been brought to bear upon the content of this bill. There has been no public scrutiny whatsoever. There has been a mere weekend pass, if you will, and soon this bill that no one got to see prior to last week will pass into law with enormous criticism coming from all quarters. Never has this government attempted to pass a more unpopular item of legislation. There have been speed limits, demerit points and pool fencing, and they had some form of public support from some quarters, but this has been universally decried.
It has been decried not for its content, but because of the steps that this government is taking to ram it down people’s throats ...
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: There is a corresponding law in this House at the moment, that seeks to protect children in a more comprehensive way than the existing legislation. Considering the range and scope of the issue of child protection in the Northern Territory at the moment, I can understand that bill being presented on urgency. It is there to protect the children of the Northern Territory. The Minister for Community Services has sought no such urgency because the processes of review are so important.
Compare that to what this bill is trying to achieve and ask yourself: how can the holding over of a few council elections be more important than child protection in the eyes of this government? The answer is that the government is trying to avoid political heat over the local government issue. How can this minister come into this place and demand urgency when he has been anything but urgent in presenting the bill?
The minister has spoken of the need to reform local government in the Northern Territory. We, on this side of the House, accept that there is need for local government reform. We accept it, but it demands a genuine, proper attempt to consult with people about how that reform should proceed. That is not what has occurred. What has occurred is that the government has made a decision and now they are trying to push it upon a very reluctant public.
The minister, in his second reading speech, talked of an advisory board that is advising him on needs of interest groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Minerals Council of the Northern Territory and the Cattlemen’s Association. They were all cited as having input into the process. Perhaps the minister would care to explain using the names of those organisations when all three had roundly and comprehensively slammed the minister and the minister’s approach for what is going on with this legislation. The Cattlemen’s Association, as I understand it, walked away from the advisory board because of the government’s steadfast pigheadedness on this issue. Minister, a bit of advice: if you have an advisory board, it might be worth listening to their advice.
The government is running education campaigns run by that good, old chestnut, SOCOM. Good old SOCOM. They are also degenerating into screaming matches. Public meeting after public meeting is being attended by people expressing their frustration, anger and dismay at what is happening. The message must be getting through to the minister. You would think the message would be getting through. I find it impossible to believe that the member for Goyder has not reported to the minister about the depth of anger in his electorate. I know he went to a public meeting not so long ago and was basically told to just sit down and shut up when he tried to sell the propaganda line of the government. Despite this, in the second reading speech the minister said:
‘Proceeding reasonably well,’ he said, smiling in the face of adversity. On Monday evening, I went to a meeting at Berry Springs to listen to what the people of the Litchfield Shire thought about the changes. I was staggered at the anger. The minister could offer the people there no comfort whatsoever. They asked simple questions about rates and the minister could not answer. They asked the minister to slow down, but he refused. They asked the minister again and again and again what the urgency was, and all the minister could say was: ‘Because it is my time line’.
I remind members of words uttered by the minister on 27 June 2007 during estimates. He said:
‘A greater capacity in terms of also being able to raise money because we are talking about rates here.’ He was sitting on the bill we are debating right now, and he was reporting to estimates that this is a rates chase.
It is worth remembering that the government’s income annually is more than 50% higher than it was when they took office. The rivers of gold have far exceeded the wildest expectations of Treasury every year since the new taxation system was introduced. That taxation system was passionately resisted by this government when they formed opposition.
Nevertheless, there has been no saving by this government. There has been a ballooning of wages, a problem so serious that the Auditor-General, in his February 2006 report, saw fit to criticise government for one hundred …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Once again, this is a bill about local government reform. It is not a bill in regards to the government’s financial position or what the Auditor-General has to say about the government’s financial position. This is very specific legislation about local government. The member opposite has not spoken once about the detail of the bill and I urge you to get him back to the subject.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, there is usually a degree of latitude. There is no point of order, but try to contain your remarks to the bill, please.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There has been no saving by this government. There has been a ballooning of wages, problems so serious, and I will say it again, the Auditor-General in his February 2006 report, saw fit to criticise government for a $120m blow-out. There has been annual over-expenditure across portfolios by government ever since coming to power.
Year in, year out, increases in locally-raised taxes and GST income have saved the government from deficit positions. Now, the minister says that Territorians need to be taxed even more. One may remember a few years ago when times were leaner, previous Australian governments tried to engage in a process called cost shifting. We heard the Chief Minister complaining in here the other day that the Territory is paying 61% of Royal Darwin Hospital costs when it should be 50:50 with government. That is a direct legacy of that approach.
The government is continuing to look around for sources of income, for other people’s money to offset its expenditure, and that is what this is all about. This government wants to rate cattle stations. The question is: why? They provide all their own services, they impose no demands on the Northern Territory other than a demand for decent roads, and they have an industry that generates some $300m each and every year for the Northern Territory - and they pay rent. That rent was doubled the moment this government came to office and, because it is calculated on UCV in recent times, has absolutely skyrocketed. Now, the government wants to impose rates on this industry that will be aligned to UCV of the properties.
There will be enclaves of non-rateable areas such as Yulara and Nhulunbuy. These company towns will not be rated and will be excised from local government areas. Why? Because they provide their own services. So do cattle stations. What about the promise made nine years ago that the ALP would return local government to residents of Yulara? Now that opportunity exists and the ALP has sought to sidestep those people completely. There is simply no consistency in the minister’s approach. He is picking winners and losers as it suits him.
Litchfield Shire is a glowing example. They have some $5m in surplus in their bank account and a lot of that is thanks to the member for Nelson ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: That shire will be abolished and its replacement is going to have to look after poor performers such as Belyuen and the Cox Peninsula. Rates will go up, and the Chamber of Commerce has said that, as for residents of Darwin, as a result of the wash-over effect, that will be in excess of $200 every year.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Greatorex, particularly in his capacity as a shadow minister, has an obligation to be accurate with his facts. We know that the Town Clerk of Darwin has said it will be $1 increase. He is making these figures up. As a shadow minister, he wants to be very careful about what he says in here. He is not on the radio now, Mr Deputy Speaker. He owes a debt to the people of the Territory to get his facts right.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, member for Katherine.
Mrs MILLER: Yes, could we just get on with this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, instead of listening to a response from the member for Sanderson?
Mr Kiely: Oh, sit down, Fay.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Every member has a right to raise a point of order. There is no point of order, but the member for Greatorex will obviously live and die by his comments.
Mr Kiely: $1.
Mr Henderson: $1.03, actually.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the extraordinary powers the minister is demanding this House give him.
After four days of scrutiny, this bill will give him the power to issue restructuring orders, and these orders empower the minister to, among other things, abolish a council. The former CLP government abolished the Yulara Council, and the Australian Labor Party screamed from the hill tops. Now this government will abolish over 60 councils and they do not want more than a week’s public debate on the whole issue.
You can understand if people are given to some sort of cynicism, and being a little cynical about this whole process being engaged in by the Minister for Local Government. It is all being done for no other purpose than to keep up with the minister’s agenda. As he said, it is about a time line, and that time line is 1 July 2008. The reason that date is so important, obviously, is because the government wants to have the first shire elections in October 2008. It is beyond me, and many on this side of the House, why the transition is going to take so long. We all know that the Northern Territory Electoral Commission is capable of throwing an election together rather quickly. You have to ask yourself: what is so important about getting all this up in a hurry? The reason is that there will be an election in 2009. This government wants to put as much distance between itself and the next Territory election because they know how damaging this will be to them.
The federal government have taken over councils that have formed most of the problems in the Northern Territory, and they will not be handing control of those back for another five years. That should be the time line; if not five years, then perhaps two or three or four years. What is the hurry? These could be properly bedded down and made operational through a process of full consultation with all Territorians and all stakeholders, and launched when the federal government return those councils to the Territory’s jurisdiction.
The current arbitrary time line is simply for the sake of the department’s convenience and the government’s electoral chances. It has nothing to do with common sense. This has everything to do with raising taxes, as quoted by the minister - taxes on Territorians and cost shifting to local government. They are doing it in a fashion that will be at least damaging to the chances of an ALP victory in 2009.
This government owes it to the people of the Northern Territory to slow down. This process is nothing more than riding roughshod over the people of the Territory, and other attempts to impose it have been resoundingly rejected. The experience of the people who live in the Western MacDonnells, for example, in Alice Springs, is a clear example of opposition to this, and you would have thought that the minister would have learned from that. People swore at the minister, they cursed him and finally, while the minister was trying to talk to the crowd, they walked out en masse. The political cowardice of sitting on the legislation and then pushing it through on urgency is reprehensible.
I draw your attention to a comment by the Leader of Government Business this morning, when he said, and I have it from the Daily Hansard:
I will say that again.
Well, perhaps not on a regular basis, but they are certainly doing it this time. The CLP does not support this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to clarify something I said in the urgency debate this morning.
I have been assured by the minister that my comments in relation to who was driving this legislation, implying that it is his department and not the minister, were incorrect. He said he is the architect behind these changes and has the support of Cabinet. I accept that and, if I have a criticism, that is where I will aim it.
My reference to the CEO related to a previous time when I was comparing an issue some years ago with the current issue in the context of the way the local government reform process was initiated and being pushed along. The minister has, as I said, assured me that he is the one behind this push.
I, therefore, apologise to employees and the CEO of the department for any personal offence.
Minister, I should also say there will be times when politicians must be free to criticise departments, especially if we disagree with the way they carry out their responsibilities given to them by the minister. That is part of our job. The question of how that is done without being seen as attacking someone personally can be difficult. That was not my intention this morning.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now address the issues before us. We have a bill on urgency that gives the minister a lot of power. That, to me, reflects poorly on the government. I have been accused by the member for Wanguri of never supporting this. He is saying I have not given support for the model that the government is proposing. I am not saying everything in the model is bad. He, basically, said that if I do not support their model, then I am against it. I have said, on a number of occasions that I support reform of local government; it is needed. However, the fine print - and some of it is not that fine - is my concern.
It is interesting that we have a bill going through today on urgency which gives carte blanche power to the minister. As I said in the previous debate, I know this minister will use the powers in this bill wisely. However, he may not be the minister in the future. This bill does not have a sunset clause. Whilst I may have faith in this particular minister, who knows what we might get? The member for Sanderson could be minister one day and …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: This is the kind of bill the member for Sanderson would love. It is funny because, as I said, this is Celebrating Democracy Week. Here we are celebrating the public participation in the democratic process, and we are rushing a bill through without the public - not the advisory board, the public - having a great say about a bill which takes a lot of power away from the public because it puts so much power in the hands of the minister.
My concerns go back a fair way. There are lots of reasons why the government wanted to introduce amalgamations and reform. Many of those I agree with. One of the problems I have is that much of what has been said about the reasons for reform basically apply to Aboriginal communities where it has been said many times that quite a number of these councils are dysfunctional. Of course, what has happened in that broad sweeping approach is that it has picked up places like Litchfield Shire which, as a council, is quite viable. That is one area you have made a mistake. You have said the federal government supports it, Mal Brough and Tim Lloyd support it. That is correct; they have written letters supporting the principle of amalgamation. They have not said: ‘Yes, that is right and that is right; we agree with this, this and this’. No, they have just said they support in principle the Territory government’s attempt to have amalgamation.
Where do we move from there? We then get a timetable and map that shows nine shires. We are told that there will only be nine shires in an area that is one-sixth the size of Australia. Even if you were to look at the issues about amalgamation in Queensland, you would see that nowhere in that state do you have such an expansion of the boundaries of local government into single local government units. Even though Queensland is losing a considerable number of its councils - and some of those are quite small, especially on the south-east coast - if you look through the guts of Queensland, many of those local governments have not changed, but they are nowhere near as big as the proposed Barkly Shire or the one that goes through Ti Tree or the Alice Springs region. They are huge proposed shires. They are as big as Victoria in length. In the case of the Central Desert Shire, Yuendumu to Tobermorey Station is the equivalent from Darwin to Tennant Creek.
Has there been, or was there, any chance for us to debate the merits of that? None. Yet I have a number of papers here that have been released in recent times. One from February 2007 was An Analysis of the New Perspective on Amalgamation in Australian Local Government by Brian Dollery and Joel Byrnes of the School of Economics, University of New England, and Lin Crase from the School of Business at La Trobe University. This extract will give you an idea of what the paper is about:
They go through various amalgamations throughout Australia and look at whether they were successful or not. Their conclusion is that big is not necessarily better. They say that there are other models whereby you can work on more regional, voluntary agreements and they appear to be a better type of local government.
Whether you agree or disagree with me is beside the point. What I am getting at is that nowhere in the community was there the ability for any of us to debate whether we should be going for super shires, medium-size shires or small shires. We were not involved in the process so it is hard to say on one hand that you are against it. I am not against the principle, but I never had a chance to have a decent say in the size and the type of shires that the government is proposing.
There was another report, Is Bigger Better? Towards a Model Process for Local Government Structural Reform, by the Australian Institute of Urban Studies in 1999. It was written by Angus Witherby, Brian Dollery, Martin Auster and Neil Marshall. They looked at the cost-effectiveness of having larger and bigger shires. What I am saying is that we should have been part of the formal debate process. We did not have that opportunity. This is where the reform agenda got off on the wrong foot.
Again, as I said - lo and behold! - this timetable came up with very little input. It is set in concrete. I presented three petitions to parliament in relation to this. They came from motions passed at the Girraween Primary School meeting and the Taminmin High School meeting. The petitions read:
The government has said no. That is very disappointing because I think, at the Berry Springs meeting, Mr Laurence Ah Toy asked exactly that. He framed it in a non-threatening way because he said: ‘We support a reform process, but without knowing what the ramifications of this reform process are, we cannot come along with the government and support the process because we do not know what we are being asked to support. We do not know the cost, and what the governance principles will be. We do not have that information’. There has been meeting after meeting where people have not been given that information.
The minister said that in 10 days from the Berry Springs meeting, there will be some business plans. I hope there is a series of options and not just one business plan because there is word going around that we will only see one. I hope we see all the options. People are saying that they have asked the government to slow down and, today, the government is running a bill on urgency. People are saying that the government is not taking much notice at all.
You might argue that this has to be urgent, and I am not going to get into that debate again, but it is sending out the wrong message. People were not involved in any discussion about this bill. The advisory board represents a pretty broad range of people, and there are not a lot of local government people represented, except from a departmental point of view ...
Mr McAdam: What about LGANT?
Mr WOOD: No, LGANT is only represented by one. I said before the advisory board should have more feet-on-the-ground people like CEOs and works supervisors, the people who have to deal with issues like roads, which are a big issue for local government.
Minister, people do have concerns and I hope we will have plenty of time to look at them. They are concerned about UCV. In nearly all the papers I have, a flat rate does not get much of a mention. Even when you are looking at options for cattle stations, there is no option for a cattle station at a flat rate; most papers cite UCV. I know people can argue that UCV can be manipulated by the process to come up with something similar to the flat rate, but many of us disagree with the principle of raising money for local government using a system based on the value of the land. I know many local governments throughout Australia do that, but the one thing Litchfield Shire residents feel is that is not the way they want to go. They do not want to have their rates based on that; they want them based on what is the cost of running the council. You divide that by the number of blocks and you have an answer. Simplistic? Maybe. It has its problems, yes. It is administratively easy to carry out, and for 22 years, it has not done a bad job.
Another area that concerns many people is what the core functions of the new council will be. Most Litchfield people are happy with the core functions they have, but the government has the power to add core functions to the system. The government is going to hand over 1500 km of roads. There has been lots of talk about funding from the Commonwealth and, maybe, some from the Northern Territory government, but people in the rural area would like to see a very watertight promise that the money will actually be there. Not might be there, but actually be there.
That is a summary of some of the issues that concern people. If those issue were dealt with earlier than this stage, not nine months after this timetable commenced, some of the angst that people have at these meetings might have been reduced. People are not going to accept changes to local government if they are unsure of the consequences of those changes.
Minister, in relation to matters covered in this bill, I am concerned that you have extraordinary powers. What is missing is community involvement. Generally speaking, when a community government was established under the existing act, there were proposals within that act which, for instance, if someone had an application to have a community government council, they would inform the residents, fix a time and place for the meeting of those residents, explain to the residents the purpose of the application, and endeavour to ascertain the opinions of the residents. What I am saying is that in our existing act, there is room for community involvement in what is happening. We are taking that away. I know this is a transitional process, but we are taking it away and giving the minister lots of power ...
Mr McAdam: No, no. You do not understand.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, look, minister, if I am wrong, I will hear you in response. The restructuring orders are the minister’s powers, and they are pretty wide-reaching powers. I ask the minister about Part 2A, Re-structuring Orders, proposed section 28A(2)(e):
Considering that we are scrapping community government councils altogether, I wonder why we would be converting a municipal council into a community government council. It seems to be something that will not happen.
At what stage exactly will the elected members on a council, say, in the case of Litchfield, finish as councillors? I am not clear on the date that they will finish being the elected members. I gather there is a manager set up at some stage for a certain period, but I hope the presently elected members will have their powers preserved to the very end, until the new council is elected. I do not think people are going to be too happy seeing their council run by a manager, and we do not know where that manager might come from, especially as we have a good council at present ...
Mr Henderson: You think so?
Mr WOOD: I live there, member for Wanguri.
Mr Henderson: They cannot even run a rubbish dump.
Mr WOOD: I will pick up that interjection. The minister well knows that any land for municipal purposes, such as rubbish dumps, is set by the local government. It is made available by the Northern Territory government. Litchfield’s dumps were all on Territory government land. Litchfield tried many times to get some land at Sunday Creek and that land was not made available ...
Ms Scrymgour: No. Gerry, we went through all that. You know that those discussions with Litchfield Shire Council, everything went wrong with planning and the dump.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Arafura!
Mr WOOD: I responded to the interjection, which was the same old interjection.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and I am trying to stop those interjections. If you could return to the bill, please.
Mr Henderson: It is true. It is all being dumped in Darwin.
Mr WOOD: It is not true. Why did you not give us Sunday Creek?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, continue your remarks to the bill.
Mr WOOD: Another issue that concerns me is proposed section 28B, Effect of Order:
Whatever is in this bill, even if it does not fit within the guidelines of the Local Government Act, overrides it, and that is a pretty wide-reaching power. We should be trying to ensure that these changes fit within our existing act. Although it gives the minister power to do certain things, we should be trying to maintain consistency with the act, not allowing for any inconsistency.
The other matter that concerns me is that I would have expected a sunset clause to be in this act. If any act should have had a sunset clause, this should be the act because, if this act were to continue, even when local government was established, the minister still has the power to drop in and say: ‘Your council is abolished. We are going to split you up. We do not like the look of your wards’. Even though the minister might say that is not the intent, there should be some requirement that at a certain date - and this should be written on the timetable - this bill will cease. The idea of a sunset clause should be taken on.
One question that has caused some concern amongst councillors in Litchfield Shire is: is the real reason for this the dissolution of Litchfield Shire? This was raised at a meeting at Cox Peninsula. I said to people at that meeting that the reason the government wanted to close Litchfield Shire down was because it was not viable into the future. When I said that at the Cox Peninsula meeting, the member for Goyder said it was a lie. I must remind the member for Goyder that on 13 February 2007, the Minister for Local Government, in reply to a question, said:
Mr McAdam: It is true, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: From your point of view, minister, it may be true. From the people’s point of view, we have had no statistical, financial or governance information to prove that. It is very difficult for me to listen to the minister saying that when we know that Litchfield has more than doubled in population in 20 years and is part of extraordinary growth in the Northern Territory. Its growth is probably second to Palmerston, it has very high land values and is developing quite quickly. You only have to look at Coolalinga and the other side of the road where there is an application to develop more of Coolalinga. You would have to say its potential as a growth area is quite phenomenal.
However, you must keep in mind that that council and the people there want to keep the basic core functions. They do not want to have the aged-care centre, the childcare centre, the companion dog, da de da de da. I am even concerned about where the library might end up in our little part of the world. I am not sure, but there are rumours around that the Taminmin Library might be either fully or partly a function of Litchfield. I do not know, but that is the rumour going around. I heard it when I was done there recently.
When people do not know the facts, they are going to jack up about what the government is trying to do. If the government said to me Litchfield Shire is not viable in the future, I would expect them to show me those reasons. I expect the people in Litchfield to be given a chance to evaluate the government’s reasoning, to put it up to test. We lost our shire manager because of this. He resigned after being there since the beginning; he just could not take it. He said: ‘Enough was enough’. He said when people said that it is not viable: ‘I ran a good council. We kept our costs to a minimum, our staff to a minimum’. There are only about 11 staff. How many other councils have 11 staff for a population of 17 000 people? We created new methods of doing things, like the local road act and infrastructure development levy. We had voluntary management groups running all our reserves. All those things were designed to bring community together and to keep the costs down.
I put my concerns partly because the bill has come before us today, rushed, which is a problem, partly because it is one of the few opportunities we have had to debate some of the real core issues in this local government reform, and partly because there are many questions that the public have not had answered. Even though people on the other side of the House are saying, ‘You are against it’, I am with the people in the Litchfield Shire who say: ‘Yes, we know local government needs reform. We would be happy to consider what that reform is about, but until we know the information and judge whether, for instance, what rates are to be, or have some idea, why would anybody put their hand up and say: “Yes, beaut”?’ Those matters have not come to the public yet and I do not think anyone in government can expect people just to give a big hurrah and move on.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave it at that. The message that has gone out today with this bill being rushed through will be seen by people in the Litchfield Shire as a slap in the face. Not a slap in the face that they are necessarily against transition legislation, but a slap in the face because the legislation has been rushed through. I have already given the reasons why I do not think it has to be rushed through. I am interested in the minister’s response as to why section 24 of the Local Government Act cannot change the dates of the elections.
People see it as a slap in the face considering that they passed motions at two meetings and they filled in three petitions asking the government to slow the process down. We are so attached to this little map; it is like this is the be-all and end-all. Unfortunately, if government does not have a little room to move, people get pretty upset. I hope the government will slow the process down. I hope we will get adequate time to look at these business plans. Unfortunately, the way this bill has been presented without adequate community consultation, I certainly will not be supporting it
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this amendment bill but, in doing so, I emphasise the point that will certainly be made by all members on this side of the Chamber. This is not the big-bang change to the system of local government that the minister has been working so hard on. It is preparatory legislation; it is about transition and process, something that the opposition and the Independent member for Nelson fail to understand. It is about getting ready for what will be one of the great reforms carried out by this government.
We are not there yet. As the minister has made perfectly clear - and I have heard him over many months talking throughout our various electorates and through the media where we have had discussions - there is much work to be done. No one is saying that this is the end of the road. This is the transition bill that will allow the minister to go forward.
There are two aspects of this amendment bill I will discuss briefly: the issue of avoiding unnecessary elections; and the conversion of associations to the status of community government councils under the current Local Government Act. I emphasise what we are talking about are transitional arrangements to allow Territorians to ease into the reform process so that they can hire CEOs for the new shires and work alongside them in developing shires that will achieve the outcomes we are looking for. One of those key transition processes is to allow the Local Government Minister to waive the need for existing local governments to go to an election before next October when elections for the new shire structure will happen for the first time.
In my electorate, that will involve the councils at Gunbalanya, Minjilang, Warrawi and the Tiwi Islands Local Government. In effect, for these councils, it will be business as usual, but it will be more than that. The continuity allowed by this process will allow all existing councils - and I emphasise all - to work together as they move towards the reformed local government structures due to be enacted in the middle of next year. It would have been deeply unfair for the electors of Minjilang, Gunbalanya, Maningrida, Warrawi and the Tiwi Islands if they were not to enjoy the same continuity in discussions and negotiations as other towns and communities in the region.
More than that, it will allow each of the towns and communities that will form the new shire structure uninterrupted access to the process of working with the new CEOs who will transition each of those towns and communities towards general shire elections next October. I thank the minister for this provision. It is an important one and is welcomed by towns and communities affected.
The second area I wish to briefly comment on is about the need for a smooth process in getting to the new shire structure. One of the ongoing problems affecting local government in the Territory for many years is that not all groups carrying out local government functions, especially in remote areas, are, in fact, constituted as such under the Local Government Act. This was noted decades ago by the CLP when they established the community government council provisions of the Local Government Act. Over the years, there have been problems associated with this for successive Local Government Ministers.
In short, associations established under the Territory’s Associations Act, as well as under the federal associations and councils act, undertake local government functions and, over the last two decades, have evolved into being recognised as such under both federal and territory funding arrangements. A key problem with this is that the Northern Territory Local Government Minister has not had sufficient powers over such associations regarding direction and regulation of their work.
In the transition to the new shire structure, it will be critical for the minister to be allowed careful management of the process over all existing bodies with local government functions, not just the ones established under the Local Government Act. Of course, during this period, the associations will retain their corporate identity, but will assist with stability and enable quick intervention if any mismanagement occurs during the transition period.
Again, these provisions of the amendment bill we are considering today are designed to provide fairness and transparency for all involved in the process. All bodies performing local government functions will be subject to the same provisions but, more importantly, will have access to the same levels of negotiation and discussion. In my electorate, this will allow associations such as in Maningrida, Minjilang and Warruwi the same privileges and responsibilities as all the other places in the Northern Territory.
I do not agree at all with the Prime Minister or his intervention, and we know that the federal government has supported the local government reforms. The federal minister has had a lot of discussion with our Minister for Local Government about the need for local government reforms. Here are some words from the Prime Minister when he was here yesterday. It is a message that he gave to indigenous Territorians, but it is a message for everyone through all of these shires. The Prime Minister said:
He was talking about the intervention:
This transition bill is not about pushing anyone around; it is a transitional bill which outlines a process. There is a lot of positive thought around this. I know there have been concerns, member for Nelson, and I have heard some of those concerns from the Litchfield Shire. However, it is a brave new world. We all need to move into the mainstream. That is where the future is. It is about streamlining the systems. I have seen the benefits of having a streamlined and centralised system. This local government reform is important. It needs to happen.
Minister, I fully support the amendments that you are proposing. It is not about giving the minister carte blanche. It is needed. It is necessary that the minister has the power to be able to determine boundaries through this transition period. There has been a lot of consultation, and the member for Nelson, I know, has been participating in some of those consultations - not all of them. I must say that it is on the head of every member in this House to provide and take that responsibility in getting out to our electorates and talking to our constituents about these reforms. You have known about these reforms for some time. The CLP member for Greatorex and others, are a bit cute when they stand in this House and say that this is all being rushed through when the CLP did this same exercise, which is where the Tiwi Island Local Government came from. This was done under the CLP, no different ...
Mr Wood: That was not a great attempt. I did not support that one.
Mrs Braham: I did!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, member for Nelson, you can give yourself a big pat on the back and a gold star for being consistent. However, he also needs to get a life and realise we are now in the 21st century and people have to move on. Regarding Litchfield Shire sitting separately from everyone else, the reality is that they will not be ...
Members interjecting.
Mr WARREN: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51 refers to members being disruptive. As members of this House know, I wear hearing aids and I cannot hear what the minister is saying. I ask that you rule and bring the House back to order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please cease the interjections so the member for Goyder can hear the valuable contribution by the member for Arafura.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Deputy Speaker, maybe I have pressed some buttons and they are getting a bit excited over the other side. It was the CLP who started these reforms. The member for Greatorex needs to do some history lessons here and, perhaps, he needs to take a walk down memory lane, have a look at the exercise in which the CLP undertook the reforms. I was over on the islands a couple of times when the then CLP Minister for Local Government was pushing this through, and they were talking about the Tiwi Islands local government transition from the separate councils to one super shire on the Tiwi Islands. The hypocrisy of these members! They get on the pulpit and bang the table, holier than thou, preaching to people about the transparency and good governance. This is the joke of the clowns over there, where they …
Mr Wood: You are not baiting anyone by your comments.
Mr Mills: You are very provocative.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am not being provocative, member for Blain.
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I do not think I was being provocative at all.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please direct your comments through the Chair, and contain them to the bill.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will wind up soon. The amendments in the bill are fantastic. There are problems, and we are not denying that there have been problems in our remote communities. There has been a lot of consultation. In my electorate, I know that particularly in the west Arnhem area, people have been talking about these reforms for over two years. WCARA, the West Central Arnhem Regional Authority, as a group - which included Minjilang, Warruwi, Gunbalanya, Jabiru, the whole of Cobourg - has been talking about coming together under one super shire for the last couple of years. They are probably further down the track than most of the other regions. However, I do not think that they should be penalised and held up because Litchfield has a problem.
Member for Nelson, you have a responsibility, as does the member for Goyder, that information going to residents, ratepayers and people in those communities is correct; that you do not stretch the truth, so to speak, and incite a lot of grief and stir up a whole lot of anxieties in people. Most people do not like change. We recognise that change is always a big thing. However, it needs to happen. Minister, I applaud you and look forward to the passage of this bill.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been provoked to speak. I make this clear: I do not think there is anyone in this House who rejects the destination, where we want to be; it is road we are taking to get there that is the point.
I have nothing but admiration for the member for Nelson who has tirelessly worked to ensure that people who are having this reform done unto them are informed as to what is occurring. The saddest part of all this is we only have four members of the opposition and two Independent members. You sit over there and belt us up and make snide comments, and have a great old time and laugh about this. It makes me wonder what goes on behind the scenes ...
Mrs Braham: Wait until I speak. What will he say then?
Mr MILLS: Yes. Anyway, it is all very well to have this strange rhetoric which almost takes us close to having war crimes tribunals of crimes that occurred in the past. Put that aside; it is how we get to where we all we want to go. I was not in the CLP for 27 years, sitting there as Chief Minister or whatever. I just happened to turn up on this side of the political equation. I am going to stay here, I can tell you that because I am not attracted to the other side, not for a second ...
Ms Lawrie: Oh, that is good. It is mutual.
Mr MILLS: That is good because the roles are going to be reversed, and I am certainly looking forward to speaking to you when you are in opposition ...
Ms Lawrie: If you are around. They say that you are going to leave your seat, Terry. That is the local goss.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs Braham: Do not provoke him, I want to talk.
Ms Lawrie: Well, he raised it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Karama, member for Braitling!
Mr MILLS: I am trying my very best, Mr Deputy Speaker, not to be distracted …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am trying to help you as much as I can, member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, and I appreciate that support. We do want to get there. There was that desire in …
Ms Scrymgour: Well, just agree with it and sit down.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Arafura!
Mr MILLS: There was that resolve, implemented by former government. This government has chosen to proceed towards that goal in a manner which has caused concern amongst those who are going to have the reform implemented upon them. That is the concern; it is the process to get there.
Why I am particularly provoked to speak is because, embedded in the tail end of the comments from the former speaker was this ‘going around and spreading misinformation and stirring the folks up’. I have heard that come through a few channels. There was a time when the rumour was circulating that something significant was going to occur that was going to change the way that people conducted their community business regarding local governance. Then some details started coming out in a leaked manner. It was unclear; people were concerned. If we had been completely motivated politically, we could have made hay during that time. A joint response by an Independent member and a member of the opposition to do something that was not occurring was to convene a public meeting and to provide government the opportunity to explain to people who were getting pretty antsy what was going on.
The member for Daly was there. I received a phone call from someone on the fifth floor saying: ‘We want to have that meeting conducted in a manner that does not get out of control’. I chaired that meeting and that was the purpose of it; to ensure that people had the opportunity to ask questions. I made sure it did not get out of control. I played a responsible role. Others would back me up on that. It did not use it to exploit a political advantage. It was an opportunity to have information passed out. I could have easily stirred that crowd up. One of the participants and the joint organiser was the member for Nelson. We played a responsible role to ensure that information went out because it was not occurring.
We are in the terrible position now, where the folk who still want to be a part of this have asked for very specific information to be presented to them so that they can be a part of it. It is not going to be all sweet and rosy. I know that over there they love to manage these events so that everyone starts singing Kumbaya and we all march off toward this great goal. It is not going to happen that way. There will always be people who will resist change, but you have to do it in a way that you respect those upon whom you are implementing the change. That has not occurred.
Some of these characters over there have finally been dragged out and they are starting to run their little meeting at 5 o’clock in the afternoon for the rural folk so they can say: ‘We have consulted’. It is the same management technique of this government, which is very adept at managing public relations exercises rather than real, gutsy reform that takes courage. What they do when things get a bit hot, just as we saw with the middle schools implementation, is make a decision and lock it in. ‘That is the decision, that is the goal. How are we going to do that? We are going to call up Sheila’. Sheila comes in and she manages it through and creates this impression that we are all being consulted. We are all jolly good fellows; we are all having a go at having buy-in. It is a con. The decision is made, locked in. ‘You come up from Melbourne, we will pay you a few bucks. Come and entertain the folk with the greatest …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Earlier today, we had a comment about making allegations against people who could not defend themselves in this House. Even though we are covered by privilege here, we need to respect the rights of a well-founded, well-run and very legitimate organisation. To say that they take part in any con is very derogatory. I urge the shadow minister to be very careful with the language he uses.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member for Blain is well aware that public servants and private consultants do not have the right of reply in this House. You should choose to either continue the remarks or, like the member for Nelson, give an explanation of your speech. It is up to you, member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: Unbelievable! Okay, we will back it off a notch and we will say that a highly-paid consultant is employed; a gun for hire is recruited. You bring them up from down south …
Mr Wood: Hypothetically.
Mr MILLS: Perhaps. You bring them, wheel them out and organise the gatherings. If you had the capacity to see things from the other side of the equation - and you have obviously gone through a re-education program whereby parts of your judgment was altered so that everything seems fine. However, I can see it, others can see it. You cannot pull the wool over the eyes of those who went to some of those community consultation exercises, which were almost like community re-education programs. They can see it as plain as day.
They can see that a decision has been made and let us create the impression that we are being consulted. Consulted on what? We have been brought in and told: ‘Do not worry; it is a bit of fun and games, an exercise to create that impression, tick that box, community consulted and get back to where we are going’. No change. People do not like that. All that is going to occur is that you may be more acutely aware of the responsibility you are taking upon yourselves in this decision. Take a playground analogy. We all know the little fat kid - sorry, I should not …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Well, it is up to you, member for Blain. There are not many schoolchildren who listen to this debate or read the …
Mr MILLS: All right, it may be offensive to those who are listening who are.
All right. There is the playground bully and then a much larger playground produces a much more robust bully. Let us say it is from the federal parliament and they come and bully someone in the smaller playground, say in the Territory parliament. They are outraged. They squeal in horror that they have been bullied, and they whimper and they sob, and they whinge and they moan at the injustice of being bullied by this big, awful monster of a person who has come and dared to intimidate and belittle them and override them ...
Mr Wood: It’s Matthew!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr Kiely: The simplicity of your analogy is matched only by the strength of your bloody ignorance!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, honourable members! Wait, please, member for Blain. I remind you all of Standing Order 51 and that I will be placing members on warnings from now on. Member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. Once this person has received this level of bullying and is so deeply and acutely offended by it, they run the very same approach in their own playground. There is a terrible inconsistency here. We have run this line in a couple of debates during this sittings and members opposite refuse to see it. Others can. I think some can see it, but will not acknowledge it.
There seems to be one scream of outrage and horror when there has been intervention by the federal government. It is completely justified if you override the wishes and desires of those in legitimate organisations representing their constituents, and you say it is justified and in their best interests. If you look at that analogy, which you found so crass, offensive and difficult to understand, member for Sanderson, you might see that there is a terrible inconsistency.
No one denies – and I will say it again for fear of being misrepresented and misunderstood – that we all want to get to the same place, but there are, as expressed at public meetings in which I have been involved and other meetings I have held, some baseline questions that people need to ask. They need to know that answers have been forthcoming and that they can be a part of the process. I do not expect for a minute that there is going to be a magic moment when everyone says: ‘That is a relief. It is going to be good’, and off we go. That will not happen, but there is a deficiency created by a lack of information which is then interpreted as a lack of respect, and that will make it difficult in the future.
You will not always be in government; rest assured on that one. Others will have the responsibility of dealing with the legacy as a result of this process that has been unleashed through your own decision-making. It is quite clear. I can see, others may not, that the timing of this is contingent upon a Territory election. You want to get the unpleasant stuff out of the way. The same thing happened with middle schools. You get it out of the way so you can get far enough away from the next Territory election so that it is bedded down and easier to manage. You are weighing up some political risks. I can see that. It is quite plain.
It is for those reasons that I cannot support it. There are words games that will be played and misrepresentations. That does not mean we do not support the reform; it is the path you have taken to get to that position that will not be supported. I will not be a part of it, nor will the opposition.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, first I thank the transition committees, the people who come out of the communities and hold these meetings to talk about the issues; for their dedication to see change in the future direction of local government and the advisory committee chaired by Pat Dodson. I thank those people for their commitment to direct this reform and inform people what is going on with them.
The local government reforms are an absolutely essential step in the development of the Northern Territory. Who can deny that? It is absolutely necessary that we have change, and new challenges are always scary. As people, as Territorians, we have to stand up and support change. In the past, we have spoken about administration in communities.
When you have a look in my electorate, there is 20 minutes between Haasts Bluff and Papunya, an hour between Papunya and Mt Liebig and an hour-and-a-half to Kintore. There are four communities in that proximity that have four different accountants and auditors. This is about cost saving and future direction to encourage people to think more on a regional basis rather than their individual community, and it is to leave something solid for the younger generation so that we have that one place where all the administration is done, and there is comfort in leaving security for the younger generation having a more secure and better community.
As many of you in this Chamber know, many of our communities are in crisis, and have always been in crisis. For 27 years, the opposition spoke about it. I was an administrator in one of those communities in Papunya, and I certainly had the opportunity of talking to the member for Braitling when she was the Local Government Minister, and the former member for Greatorex when he was the Minister for Local Government about all these issues. I waited for some 15 years to see the reform back then because we supported it.
It is essential that our government is able to demonstrate leadership in improving the lives of people living in the bush and, for that matter, all people throughout the Northern Territory. This is about driving us as Territorians; it is not about division. It is about encouraging us to believe in a better future not just for indigenous people, but for all Territorians. That is the message that we need to send out to people who are fearful or who think that they have not been consulted. I want to give my 100% support to this minister, to the advisory board and the transitional committees for the information that they have put out in my region. I have certainly been a witness to that.
The Local Government Minister has continued to show committed and strong leadership, and has demonstrated the guts to take the next step in local government reform. He has certainly shown that this does take guts. I congratulate the minister for giving us, as Territorians, the opportunity to have a new future, to ensure that we travel down this path. Any path that is new, as I said earlier, can be feared in terms of its future. The minister has shown real leadership here.
The minister has a clear vision for positioning the Territory into the future. He has shown that by setting up the transitional committees to talk to people on the ground, and the advisory body to ensure that there is that inter-agency link to the transitional committees to ensure that the message is getting out. We know that we have very poor service delivery and increasing inequity, particularly in the bush, and we want to ensure that there is a difference now. As the member for Arafura said, this is about taking us as people forward and, if there are inequities in certain parts of the Territory, we need to ensure that shift and change the focus of that inequity.
I am very disappointed to hear the member for Nelson not supporting the reforms. This really does need bipartisan support. I urge members opposite and the member for Nelson to ensure that there is bipartisan support because this is really about the future directions for good governance, good administration and for the future of us as Territorians. If we can make a difference in this situation, then a lot of things will change.
There has been an extensive consultation process involved in all the communities with the key stakeholders throughout the Northern Territory. I have been witness to the minister and the chair of the advisory board coming out to a community when there were concerns raised. As soon as the minister got the message that there were concerns, he was out there. We had a barbecue and the meeting lasted five hours. If the minister was not really interested in informing people, it would have fly in, hello, goodbye and gone. However, the minister committed to answering all the questions from all those different people in all those communities about how they can move forward. Certainly, my people have had that fear, too, but that fear has been allayed because of the consultation process and the fact that their own people are involved in the transitional committees. There have been nominations from grassroots, from all our communities, and those people have taken the messages back.
Madam Speaker, the bill before us today will allow the minister to continue to demonstrate his leadership in positioning the establishment of the new shires by 1 July 2008. The consultation process will be over a period of 18 months and involve all communities and the public. This consultation process allowed for by the minister shows the rest of the country how real local government reform should be conducted. I welcome the reform. I welcome the bill. I look forward to the new Local Government Act and the continuing excellent work of the advisory board chaired by Mr Pat Dodson, and the considerable input and commitment of the shire transition committees as we move to 1 July 2008. I congratulate the minister and commend the bill to the House.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am one of the few people left from the CLP government who can say it is a pretty tough road the minister has embarked upon.
The member for Daly said I did nothing. That is not true. In 1999, I introduced reform to local government with a lot of support from LGANT and other communities. This government needs to remember they took over government in 2001. Anything that I initiated was passed on to them.
We did have some amalgamations on a voluntary basis. Ask departmental staff how hard it is to maintain that momentum with all those councils out there; how hard it is to keep them operating on the right track and to keep them interested and involved. It is a most difficult task.
The first amalgamation we had was at Anmatjere in the Ti Tree area. They had a previous local government association with the town, so there had been a bit of history working together. However, they are probably the one group that I would say to the minister will be able to embrace this new shire because they have already had experience of it. They are the ones that took it on before and tried to make it work as well as they could. If he is going to start anywhere, start with where you will achieve success so you can go on. The Tiwi Islands amalgamated to have the Tiwi Community Council. There are other groups that formed after I left that particular portfolio and this government took over. Regardless of the member for Daly thinking that nothing happened, we did try. Perhaps we took a too soft an approach by saying: ‘Do it on a voluntary basis’.
No matter what you do, you are going to need a huge amount of resources to maintain the councils. I know that is going to be a problem.
Do members opposite agree with that? I am sure they would. They were the remarks I made in this House in 1999. They could almost be a reflection of the words of this minister who is going through the whole process. Let us not kid ourselves that this is an easy process; it is not.
I quote from the previous Labor minister, Jack Ah Kit, who went further, claiming that it was almost impossible to find a functional Aboriginal community anywhere in the Northern Territory. In attempting to explain the apparent failure to build effective local government on Aboriginal communities, he also noted that skilled and dedicated council staff are extremely difficult to recruit and retain in remote communities. What is going to change? That is going to be part of your problem: to get the right people to do these jobs. It is going to be so difficult to maintain them, ensure they can relate to their people and get the job done. It is not something that is new. What is new is the fact that this is being pushed through fairly quickly.
I noticed there was a letter in the Alice Springs News this week from Roy Chisholm, who is President of the Cattlemen’s Association, basically saying to slow down. Slow down. That is the message I am hearing from everyone. I look at this map, minister, and it concerns me. Look at this central area down here, from the eastern border to the western border. You and I know that the communities on the east are cohesive, have a good work ethic, do not have a lot of the problems that other communities have, and are mainly Arrernte people, whereas the people on this side are Pitjantjatjara, Pintubi, Luritja, and often do not get along with each other. Yet, we were told in our briefing that these boundaries had been selected carefully to reflect the cultural aspects of these groups. I am not quite sure how the people on this side will possibly be able to relate to the people on this side. I am not sure how a shire council will be able to cover the aspirations of all those people.
It is a bit like this one here. The area of the Barkly is larger than Victoria, but look at this one. You have Alpurrurulam all the way over here and you have other communities over here. Are you trying to tell me that those boundaries were based on culturally appropriate community lines? To me, it would have been common sense to have a shire on the eastern side of the highway and a shire on the western side. Then you would have been putting planned groups together, but to try to amalgamate them across like that, in my opinion, is making the task even more difficult. I would like the minister to tell me on what basis he did that. You cannot say they all belong to the same clans or tribes because they do not. You know as well as I do that there are some pretty hostile relationships on this side to that side. Why did you not look at doing that? Why did you not look at putting the eastern groups together and the western blocks together? It would have made more sense.
I am pleased that you have left Alice Springs Town Council alone. I am not sure how you personally feel about the Tennant Creek Town Council and its amalgamation in this. We all know the Mayor of Tennant Creek resigned recently and I think it was a little in disgust at what was happening. Are the people of Tennant Creek really going to be able to coordinate all the activities of the people in that shire? That is going to be extremely difficult. I will just show the people in the gallery so they understand what I am talking about. That is a shire; that is a shire. That is huge suites of land in the Territory for anyone to manage, particularly when they are culturally inappropriate.
Minister, in your reply can you justify why you did that and why you cannot rethink it? Why can you not stop and rethink the boundaries that you have drawn up? In the briefing, we were told they were done with a lot of consultation, but I cannot see it. I think you are asking for trouble. You are just making it a lot harder than it needs to be.
If you thought amalgamation was good, minister, was there any particular reason you did not amalgamate Palmerston and Darwin? Would that have not have made a sensible amalgamation and economy of scale, or did you think it was best to leave Palmerston on its own as you have done with Tennant Creek? I guess that is good.
We heard a spray from the member for Blain about consultants, but I say thank goodness you did have consultants and did not leave it entirely up to the department because they probably need a fresh look from someone who could stand aside and grasp it in a different way. As you know, the member for Nelson implied this morning that there was one member who had a narrow, blinkered outlook on this approach. I will not go there.
The main argument today has been about rushing through this legislation. My main argument is: why have you broken up the boundaries in this way? I do not think they are workable. You and I should not kid ourselves: this is a difficult process. In five years time, will people stand in this House and beat you around the head for what has not happened? That is a possibility. You can have all the goodwill in the world, but you will need a massive number of staff and qualified people to make these shires work. I am interested to hear your responses.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support this local government transition bill. I do not intend to demean debate by responding to personal and incorrect attacks on myself, the member for Daly, the Minister for Local Government and other members on this side of the House. That is all I will say on that matter because it demeans those who prosecute that kind of attack and undermines the legitimacy of their arguments.
This bill is critical to ensuring the smooth transition to the new local government arrangements. There are two parts to the bill: the first allowing restructuring orders, giving the minister powers to set the framework for the new local government; and the second to allow the transfer of the current association councils to the new shire structures.
This is not the proposed new Local Government Act, and I make that very clear. It is essential that the new councils be established, boundaries set and unnecessary elections deferred. It also enables existing councils to continue to participate in the transitional arrangements leading up to 1 July 2008. Despite what the opposition keeps saying, this process is not being rushed. We are 10 months into a 20-month process, which has allowed for considerable consultation and negotiations.
We are now at the halfway mark and the time is right to facilitate the move to the next stage of the process. Unlike other states, 20 months is a long time to develop this process and plenty of time for engagement in that process. We are halfway there and the time is ripe now.
Let us not be confused: this is not the proposed new Local Government Act, as I said. It is anticipated that the new act will be available as an exposure draft within the next month and will be debated early in the new year. Those on the other side of the House speak as though these bills are one and the same. I state again that they are not. The opposition harps on about slowing the local government reform process down. In fact, the member for Greatorex suggested the other day that we hold off this reform for five years. I noticed in the House today it was two, three, four, years – whatever – to allow the federal government intervention to run its course.
His mate, the member for Solomon, has suggested that federal intervention should be for 99 years. How long should we wait? We have a very indecisive opposition. The time is right now. Clearly, neither parliamentarian understands that the two processes are not independent. In fact, the federal government is supportive of reforming local government in the NT. Not only have they clearly stated that, but they have financially supported our reform process.
The member for Nelson spoke of what he called in-principle support by ministers Lloyd, Brough and the Prime Minister. I read a quote from the Prime Minister, who reportedly said in today’s Northern Territory News:
Clearly, he is very decisive on that perspective.
Local government reform is the business of the Northern Territory government, and we have to get on with it. The Northern Territory needs to move to a new system of local government that can take us forward for the next 50 years at least. People have talked about the reasons for change for the last 15 years. The Martin Labor government, unlike the CLP opposition, is taking a responsible position in improving the delivery of local government services across the Northern Territory.
The CLP wants to link local government reform to their federal government intervention. The CLP flippantly wants to sell out our Territory to their Canberra-based federal mates, who also want to take over significant aspects of our Territory lifestyle. The federal government also wants to force a uranium waste dump on us.
Madam Speaker, the CLP just do not get it. Let me state it loud and clear: this is not the proposed new Local Government Act. This is an ancillary act that will allow the transition process to take place in a smooth and managed manner. I will make it even clearer: this bill allows the administrative matters of the transition process to take place, such as the movement of association councils to the Local Government Act, deferral of unnecessary existing council elections, and the appointment of senior staff to begin. Again, I repeat: this is not the proposed new Local Government Act.
The CLP opposition keeps sledging the process by claiming this is about giving unprecedented powers to the Minister for Local Government, again scaremongering, when they know quite well that it simply and specifically gives the minister the necessary legislative powers to facilitate the transition process. Again I stress this is not the new Local Government Act.
This bill will allow the establishment of prospective new shires; that is, it will be the conduit that allows the sensible and eminently logical process of rationalising 62 regional local government bodies into nine regional shires and four municipal councils covering most of the Territory. This bill will allow the employment of senior staff, the CEO and corporate service managers of each shire. It will allow the purchase of stationery and a Common Seal, the establishment of bank accounts and accounts with suppliers. It will also ensure the establishment of business systems, IT and communications networks. Furthermore, it will allow the establishment of shire headquarters to be coordinated across the Territory. It will allow the new CEO to engage closely with current staff and elected members of existing councils across each shire. It will allow the smooth implementation of the shires’ strategic plans. Without the passage of this transitional bill, a new CEO would be unable to implement the planning processes and procedures essential to the reform. Those on the other side of the House know this quite well. This bill will also allow the corporate services managers time to arrange the transition of existing council staff and recruitment of new staff.
This process is not being rushed. Over 20 months has been allowed for consultation and negotiation. Most importantly, consultation at all levels is continuing. This consultation is happening between councils within the nine transitional committees, significant stakeholders at the advisory board level, which includes the Australian government at all stages, and between government service providers and interdepartmental committees of both the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth.
The second section of this bill relates to the 22 association councils. Amendments in relation to these councils include minor administrative changes such as notifying the regularity of meetings. To date, these councils have been permitted to deliver local government services without being fully covered by the provisions of the Local Government Act, and this is not tenable. Initially, these local government bodies will be required to nominate an area of service delivery, as is the case for municipal and community government councils. For these councils, this area will simply be defined as a radius to cover the existing community in addition to any roads or outstations currently serviced by the council. For all intents and purposes, the operation of these association councils will continue unchanged until the new shires are established.
Apart from the definition of their service area, the council’s name and status will remain exactly the same. One minor change will be that the regularity of meetings will be noted in an updated constitution, which will be tabled in the Assembly the near future by the minister.
As I said, these amendments are to facilitate the smooth transition to the new shires. They will allow planning to continue to give new senior staff the opportunity to become familiar with the communities and the people with whom they will work after 1 July 2008. This will ensure that there are arrangements in place for the implementation of strategic plans and for service deliveries in the new shires. These are plans, the product of the work of the transitional committees, councils and community members that will form the basis of the new Local Government Act. Let me repeat for those on the opposite side of the House: this is not the proposed new Local Government Act; this is an ancillary act to allow the transition process to take place in a smooth and managed manner.
Madam Speaker, I conclude with a commendation of the Local Government Minister, and urge parliament to pass this important legislation so that the transition process can proceed unimpeded by a poorly prosecuted opposition.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate. Obviously, it is a very passionate issue, one on which people have different points of view.
There is one thing I was very encouraged by, and that is the fact that, without exception in this House, there is recognition that local government reform needs to occur. It is fair to say that that was a common theme. The issues arising are about how we get there.
I appreciate the remarks made by the member for Braitling; she was a minister in a previous government. She has had some experience in respect of this process. I acknowledge the fact that I, as the minister, am very much aware of the difficulties that lie ahead; the need to engage people and to ensure that the processes are adhered to. Member for Braitling, what you said is important. It is something I acknowledge in the context of how we get there because, as you said, you tried a different approach. We are trying this approach, and the bottom line is we always have to have the capacity to learn, to listen and to be able to get there because this is very important reform.
There were some common themes from the opposition and Independents. I am not going to address every particular point that members raised, but there was some commonality. One of the issues was around the consultation process and how we establish mechanisms of the process.
I want to make something clear about the advisory board. Most members in this House would be aware that the exercise was to try to ensure major stakeholders across the Northern Territory were represented on the advisory board, which would advise me, as the minister, on a range of very important issues and milestones to get there. This included organisations such as the NT Cattlemen’s Association because they have a major interest and, effectively, they reside in regional Australia where these reforms are going to impact. That is equally so in respect of the mining industry because, again, they are in regional areas. These reforms impact on the NT Chamber of Commerce equally; businesses, not only in regard to the major municipalities, but businesses right across the Northern Territory.
Cabinet deliberately made the decision to involve these organisations. We also involved people from LGANT who have a long and distinguished history in local government in the Northern Territory. We involved the Commonwealth government because they are a major player in the provision of services out there. We put the land councils on the board because their constituents are affected as well, and we appointed people from the communities themselves - people who have had a long history in local government so there are people from their own communities who can provide input into this process.
The first point I want to make is that the advisory board, I believe, is pretty well balanced and has the capacity to provide advice. They are also very passionate and committed. That is why you have a difference on the advisory board. If you have the Cattlemen’s Association or the Chamber or the Minerals Council having a point of view, that is fine. We respect that and we will listen to their points of view. The important point I want to make is that probably from meeting one, there was disengagement on the part of three of the major industry bodies. I was always under the impression that they said to me: ‘We will re-engage when we get around to talking about some of the major issues’.
There are two major issues for them. One is the impact upon their respective industries, and the other one, which is an important one, is impact on the economy. That is where we are getting to at this important stage in some of the planning. For that reason, they are going to re-engage in the process and that is very important.
It is equally so in regard to the transitional committees. There are up to 300 people right across the Northern Territory involved in this process and a lot of those people live in communities. They are CEOs of existing councils, both indigenous and non-indigenous. They are people who are committed, pretty passionate, want to see a change, want to see a difference and are contributing. I thank them very much for their ongoing contribution.
I indicated earlier the number of communities that I have visited. Pat Dodson and I have probably visited close to 100-odd communities, both indigenous and non-indigenous, throughout the Northern Territory. We have engaged in meetings right across those communities. A whole range of issues have been discussed. To suggest that consultation is lacking is a little unfair and, in a way it is a bit of a slight on the people out there who are working very hard. The other common theme to come from the opposition and Independents is the time line. This government really makes no apologies for the time line because we all acknowledge and recognise the sometimes precarious position of some of the communities out in the bush and, indeed, some of the communities closer to the major regional centres.
We had to provide some leadership for people to know exactly where we were going to go: (1) that there was going to be local government reform; and (2) these were the time lines we were going to meet regarding the outcome. For that reason, it is providing leadership to the people of the Northern Territory, the people who live out in the bush. That is why I pay great tribute to members on this side of the House who assisted me in putting this matter to Cabinet.
I come now to some other issues. I know the member for Greatorex is new to this issue. He has not been involved, and we can forgive him for that. I know that he has not visited a lot of communities other than the public meeting he attended the other night. He can be forgiven for not fully understanding what this bill seeks to do. I think I am right when I say he indicated that he did not believe that there are many community government councils that require deferral of their elections as a result of all of this. To correct the record, one thing you learn in this House, no matter who you are, is that you always try to get your facts right. There are something like 22 councils that fall into this category. I will have the capacity under this enabling legislation to defer those elections because there are at considerable cost. I have already been able to defer six elections under the existing act, which I can do for a three-month period. Now, under this enabling legislation, I can defer others.
Another issue he raised was cost shifting or the fact that there is a perception - and why shouldn’t there be given the history of government and their relationship with local government regarding any government wanting to cost shift onto local government? I am very conscious of that, very aware of it. We have an intergovernmental agreement with LGANT. An agreement is an agreement, and it is certainly not my intention to deliberately in any way cost shift, be it into roads or any area, because I am very conscious of the fact that this is an evolving process and you do not go putting cost burdens on to the shires as they go forward.
The member for Nelson’s contribution was very good. He and I have some very clear differences regarding the process, but I know that he is supportive of reform. We differ on how you get there. There are some points that I want to make, and I think I addressed them in the context of no consultation. He referred to Professor Dollery and said there were concerns about the amalgamations of councils. It is important to understand that the same professor supports our position, in part, of what we are trying to do. Therefore, there is a different perspective in respect of his comments.
The member of Nelson raised the issue of flat rates. Sure, that is what has happened in Litchfield over a very long time. That is the one that they want to live with. My position is that we will present a set of options to the transitional committee which will include a configuration of rating options, including flat rating options or configuration of UCV or a UCV differential. We will be presenting those to the transitional committee. I would expect them to provide me with advice which is fair and equitable. That is something I have been saying all along. To allay the fears of the member for Nelson, I believe that, once given the information, community concerns will be allayed.
In respect of comments by the members for Nelson and Greatorex, they were all centered around Litchfield. I appreciate that, given the history of the member for Nelson’s involvement in that area. As I said before, however, this is bigger than Litchfield. This is the Northern Territory we are talking about. Whatever we do in the proposed Top End Shire is indicative of what we will do across the Northern Territory. Of course, each shire will be different, but I hope that provides some comfort to the member for Nelson.
Member for Nelson, you talked about a sunset clause. I am happy to look at that at some stage in the future. This is the sort of reform in which we need to be constantly engaged. As the minister, I will certainly do that. I am prepared to have a look at a review of the act. I cannot say when. It will certainly be after the time that shire councils are in place, which would have to be two to three years’ time. I am happy to have a look at that to ensure that it is still relevant and determine whether or not these powers are still required, so I am quite happy to do that.
To the member for Blain, what more can I say? I know he chaired a public meeting. He said he did it without fear or favour and that is very important. He talked about consultation. I have made my point about the number of consultations that have occurred right across the Northern Territory and in that Top End Shire. We know that we are not going to be patted on the back and praised at all these public meetings, but the important thing is to get out there engaging people and listening to their views.
I want to assure the member for Blain that there has been a rather comprehensive consultative process going on. He might have a point of view about the timing of it, which is his right, but as I have always said this reform is so critically important to the wellbeing of people right throughout the Northern Territory, and that is the reason why we have put in place time lines. I believe that addresses some of the concerns of the member for Blain.
The member for Braitling made some comments about the shires being too big. She used Tennant Creek as an example, which is my community, and implied that Tennant Creek would not be able to provide services out to the communities. Of course they cannot, and they will not. Tennant Creek may well be an administrative hub but, effectively, what will remain in those communities within those shires will be infrastructure, assets and vehicles. There will still be a great requirement on the part of existing communities to have all those services that they have now. The big difference is going to be that you will not have duplication of the administrative and the management sides - things like insurance and having five or six bulldozers across a shire.
To make the point clear to the member for Braitling: this is not a centralised model as such. It is centralised in the context of administrative, business information systems, communications and technology. Yes, there are more efficiencies in having a centralised shire. In service provision, the goal, aims and objectives, I have made it clear that it is not a case of wanting to absorb those resources and expertise back into the regional model, because I have seen where that has not worked. The idea here is to have a hub and to ensure that the services remain.
The member for Braitling referred to the Central Desert Shire and said that communities there, because of their cultural differences, may not be able to get on, which could potentially make this fail, and that people do not want to be part of one shire for cultural reasons or different ethics on each side of the highway. I not sure what she means by that, but I have been out with the member for Macdonnell. In the main, it is in her electorate. We have spoken to people at Titjikala, Aputula, Mt Liebig and Harts Range.
The transitional committees, those different groups from the different communities, have worked closely. They see the benefits in this reform. More importantly, they believe they can work together. Therefore, I want to allay the fears of the member of Braitling. I have been out with the person in question who is responsible for the area. I am very confident people will have the capacity to work together to get efficiencies and better coordination - all those things to which these reforms aspire.
On the same point, it is important to understand that it is a fact that in the old ATSIC Regional Council - and I am not saying this reflects the nature of its charter - people across the Barkly, Katherine and Central Desert areas worked together. People could see what the benefits would be and could share a vision for their place. This adds to it.
To members on the government side, thank you for your support of this amendment. The member for Arafura spoke passionately because of her long association with the Tiwi exercise and her long involvement in community organisations and people on the ground. She said it is important these reforms occur. She quoted what the Prime Minister had to say. I will not go into all the details. However, he said: ‘I made it very clear to the council, I will do to any other community in the Northern Territory, we have to have a special aim’. You know what I am referring to in respect of that quote. What he is saying is that indigenous people should have the same level of service and share the same aspirations as other Australians. That is one of the reasons we have introduced this reform. The Prime Minister, in the Northern Territory News this morning, said the arguments in favour of amalgamation are that they will produce more genuine council areas. Thank you, member for Arafura, for your contribution.
The member for Macdonnell has lived in the communities. She was born in a community. She knows what happens in communities. She is aware of all the heartbreak, the lack of services and the lack of commitment of governments, and she knows that people are denied opportunities that are so cherished by other Australians. It is fair to say that the member for Macdonnell shares this vision of being fair dinkum for the first time. Let us treat people out there in the communities as we would any other Australian. Let us aspire to provide services out there. We know it is not going to happen overnight but, if we have this framework in place, we can provide people with a far greater opportunity, far greater certainty, better management practice principles and, more importantly, a form of governance which is recognised by all levels of government because it occurs elsewhere.
Whilst we are talking about local government reform - I do not have it in front of me - but as part of the Connect Australia funding, the Department of Local Government made an application to Connect Australia in respect of improved communication information services to the new regional shires. Only a few hours ago, the federal minister for Communications, Senator Helen Coonan, announced a $6.4m package for the regional communities in the context of local government reform in improving business, information and communication systems. This is evidence that governments are looking to invest in it and that is great news. I pay tribute to all the people in my agency who put the submission together and who were successful in securing the $6.4m.
The member for Macdonnell began by paying tribute to the transitional committees and the advisory board. I share that sentiment. Those people have given up a lot of their time, some people on a voluntary basis. Some people are paid, but the majority on the transitional committees are people who do not get paid and are working very hard to achieve these reforms. I share the appreciation of the member for Macdonnell in regards to all those people out there who are on the ground, not worrying about the politics here in town, and working together to try to secure an outcome. This is not only indigenous people, but non-indigenous people as well. That was a very important point.
The member for Goyder made some important points and they are worth repeating. Who knows when the federal election will be? All indications thus far are that the federal government has indicated it is supportive of this reform. We have had discussions with the opposition minister for Indigenous Affairs in respect of local government and again, there is support. It is bipartisan in a way, which really augurs well for the future.
Madam Speaker, I hope that I have done justice to the contributions by members. I thank each of them for their contribution. I fully realise and understand we are on a difficult road to achieve some of these outcomes.
There have been comments made about this bill effectively giving me powers to bring about the local government reform. I accept that. It is based on advice that we have received. I want to give this assurance: I will be very vigilant in the way I act in respect of enabling legislation, the restructuring orders and the transfer of associations into the Local Government Act. I will do everything I possibly can to ensure that I continue to consult with the transitional committees and advisory board. I will continue to remain open to suggestions, ideas and recommendations from any member of the public, from industry bodies and from members on both sides of this House.
I am acutely aware of the responsibilities thrust on my shoulders on behalf of government. I want you to know that I will be vigilant in the context of exercising the powers in this bill ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77, to allow my colleague to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McADAM: I will be brief, Madam Speaker. I wish to pay tribute and extend my thanks and appreciation to all staff in my office and all the people involved in the Department of Local Government. These things do not just happen; people put in hard work, effort, dedication and commitment. I thank them. I thank my colleagues on this side of the House. I thank the opposition and Independent members and reiterate my thanks to the advisory board and transitional committees.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr McADAM (Local Government)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I wish to update the House on progress in the tourism sector. Tourism continues to prosper and is poised for further growth. Tourism is worth over $1.5bn to the Territory economy and directly employs 12 845 Territorians, or 13.5% of the Territory workforce. Over the past year, we have seen positive results to support this.
In March 2005, Tourism NT embarked on a new marketing strategy, the successful Share Our Story campaign. It was met with a significant degree of cynicism by the opposition and some in industry, and other self-proclaimed experts. Two years on, the strategy has delivered and is paying a very impressive return on investment, with tourism visitor numbers well up compared with previous years.
In the year ended March 2007, the National Visitor Survey indicates that the Territory received more than 341 000 holiday visitors who stayed an average of 9.7 nights, a total of 3.3 million nights, an increase of 25%, with an overall expenditure by interstate visitors totalling $884m. The International Visitor Survey tells us that 335 000 international holiday visitors came to the Territory in the year ended March 2007, up 3.7% compared with the previous year.
Not only were there more international holidaymakers, they stayed longer and spent more on their trip. Overall expenditure to the Territory increased by 13% to $372m, and holiday nights increased by 17% to 2.3 million nights. That is direct expenditure into the Territory economy. It is pleasing to see that both domestic and international holidaymakers are staying longer in the Territory, an area in which we are outperforming the rest of Australia.
The Martin government has invested significantly in major infrastructure which will help to underpin the Territory’s economic future and provide the basis for future growth in our burgeoning tourism industry. The cornerstone of this investment is the Darwin waterfront development. This is a massive project and one of which I am proud to say government is determined to see through to completion. We are beginning to see the project quickly move from vision to reality. In total, the waterfront development will provide a wider economic benefit of $350m. Construction alone is expected to boost the NT gross state product by a further $154m over 14 years.
Local workers will also benefit, as the project contracts include an 85% local content target. Approximately 1000 jobs will be created in the construction phase of Stage 1 of the project. A wide range of skilled workers will be employed, including project and site managers, foremen and supervisors, carpenters, bricklayers, scaffolders, concreters, steel and plaster fixers, painters and electricians.
The Darwin convention centre and new cruise ship terminal, which are part of the waterfront development, are two good examples of how this investment by the Martin government will have direct and long-lasting benefits to the tourism industry. It is expected that the convention centre alone will generate an additional $193m in tourism spending over 20 years, with an accompanying increase in gross state product of $139m over the same period. The Darwin convention centre is expected to create 160 tourism jobs for Territorians by the fourth year of its operation, growing to over 200 new jobs by the 10th year.
For the record, the waterfront development is expected to cost government about $149m. The private sector will pay for the rest of the project and, as the Chief Minister said in the House today, the Territory taxpayer is only paying 14% of this project. The government’s careful management means that there will be an increase in returns from apartment sales, a direct result of our decision to lock in our returns to final sale prices. The waterfront development will be a major catalyst for a range of new businesses to emerge, which will significantly increase the range of employment opportunities for Territorians in retail, hospitality and other service-based industries.
Jobs will be available in a wide range of areas, including wait staff, bar staff, duty managers, chefs and kitchen hands, in-house accounts and front reception. The wave lagoon facility will be a great new recreational activity for kids and families, and is an excellent addition to the attractions for visitors to the Top End.
Research undertaken by Tourism NT over many years indicates that the youth market, backpackers and visiting families to Darwin, want a facility of this kind and the government is delivering it. Similarly, al fresco cafs and restaurants in the vicinity of the convention centre will provide new dining options for locals and visitors alike, and will complement the many established business in Darwin and cater for the increased demand.
Coupled with the Alice Springs Convention Centre and various other conference facilities in Darwin and Alice Springs, the new Darwin convention centre will be a world-class facility and place the Territory in an excellent position to capture a greater share of the lucrative business tourism market. The business tourism sector is showing positive signs, with the number of events across the Territory up from 28 in 2005-06 to 34 in 2006-07, which is an increase of 21%. The estimated economic impact of these events is around $6.37m, an increase of $2.41m compared with the previous year.
During the last financial year, Tourism NT bid for 74 events to be held in the Territory, winning over half of them. In fact, there are 52 events to be held between 2007 and 2010. These events should inject around $15.4m into the local economy, with four events for Uluru, 24 events for both Darwin and Alice Springs and another 40 events up to 2010 still to be negotiated.
Business tourism is big business, but it is also very competitive, particularly in our neighbouring Asian region. Some rival destinations are even offering cash incentives to secure business and this makes the job of attracting conventions to the Territory more challenging.
Our strategy of levering the emotional pull of the Northern Territory whilst providing world-class conference facilities and ensuring value for money experiences will go a long way to meeting this challenge, as will the improved domestic and international aviation links, plus the progress that has been made in increasing the supply of quality accommodation available in Darwin. These developments are critical to meet the projected increase in demand associated with the convention centre. I am pleased to advise that private developers are currently constructing over 800 new hotel rooms which will be coming online between now and the middle of 2009.
The Saville Pandanus, the most visible development at this stage, will see more than 260 new rooms coming online in 2008, with new accommodation at the waterfront opening in 2009. Medina Serviced Apartments and Vibe Hotel will deliver an additional 241 rooms. The Chief Minister was at the first concrete pour for those hotels today. This is great news for the tourism industry because it provides some new and refreshing accommodation options and expands the range of products available to meet the needs of the leisure market.
The Top End is increasingly recognised as a significant cruise destination, and this will be further underlined when the new cruise terminal in the waterfront precinct is opened in the second half of 2008. As many of you are aware, work has already started at the site of the cruise ship passenger terminal, which will be located on the hard stand area adjacent to Fort Hill Wharf. The new terminal will provide an improved arrival experience for cruise visitors, whilst meeting current international security requirements.
In 2007, 35 large cruise ships and 13 smaller cruise ships are expected to visit Darwin, which represents the largest number of visiting cruise ships on record. The $4.5m cruise ship terminal will help attract even more cruise ships to the city in future years by providing better passenger facilities and a more visually friendly drop-off and pick-up point compared with what Darwin has offered in the past.
The previously industrial-looking Fort Hill Wharf will be transformed into a modern, landscaped, mixed-use extension of the city. Visitors will have direct access to all of the new facilities that are being developed at the waterfront precinct. The building will feature contemporary architectural styling that will convey a welcoming, tropical image to visitors. The initial building footprint is 960 m2 of enclosed airconditioned space, including passenger queuing, Immigration, Customs, Quarantine and baggage collection areas. A covered walkway will link the terminal building with Fort Hill Wharf.
As Tourism Minister, I am convinced that government’s investment in the waterfront development will add significantly to the range of tourism offerings available in the Top End, enticing even more visitors to the Territory’s capital, Darwin, especially during the shoulder season.
Earlier today, I had the great pleasure of launching the 2007 Destination Darwin marketing campaign under the Share Our Story program. The five-week campaign, which promotes Darwin as a vibrant harbour city full of colourful characters, has an investment value of over $1.2m. This campaign aims to further extend shoulder season travel beyond the traditional visitor season of June to September, and reminds people that Darwin is a destination in its own right, offering great experiences as well as access to our world-renowned natural and cultural icons. Results from previous Darwin campaigns already indicate that we have a receptive audience to our Darwin positioning, and have set a benchmark from which we can build an even stronger preference and interest in travelling to our northern capital.
On Tuesday, the Martin government announced its plan, Creating Darwin’s Future, to build a better Darwin. Its centrepiece, a World War II museum, is a much-needed tourist attraction, long identified as a point of difference and one which will increase travel, length of stay, and visitor spend. Other initiatives under the plan, such as the World War II heritage trail, a ribbon of green around Darwin Peninsula, a revitalised Esplanade, developing better entry points, a covered pedestrian walkway linking the waterfront and Smith Street, and much more will add to the appeal of the destination and enhance the visitor experience. A truly tropical, vibrant harbour city is in the making, one which will become a must-see destination on very visitor’s itinerary.
Cruise Down Under, Australia’s peak marketing body for cruise shipping, is having its annual convention in Darwin this week. Two international speakers will share their knowledge of industry trends, opportunities, and how best to cater for this market. A recent report commissioned by Cruise Down Under found that in the last financial year, 2006-07, the total expenditure from domestic international passengers and crew across Australia is estimated at just under $220m. The direct and indirect economic contribution is estimated to be $376m and supports a total of 1891 jobs. Expenditure in the Territory was estimated to be $9.8m, which was on a par with Western Australia and Tasmania. The direct and indirect economic contribution is estimated at $18m and supports a total of 85 jobs. This shows that the cruise industry has a significant flow-on effect for the broader Northern Territory economy. I was very pleased to welcome 90 delegates to that conference to a reception at Parliament House last night.
We expect that Darwin will enjoy a bumper cruise season in 2007-08. I am pleased to report that a number of new cruise liners have committed to Darwin for the 2007-08 season, including Star Cruises, Oceania Cruises and Swan Hellenic, plus the magnificent Sapphire Princess will be returning to Darwin for the third time. The Orion, Coral Princess and Oceanic Princess also home port in Darwin during the cruise season which means there is more potential for cruise passengers to fly to Darwin or to travel here on The Ghan. They are also more likely to take tours around the Territory before or after their cruise which, obviously, benefits the tourism industry.
We know that many cruise passengers are interested in taking side trips to areas outside the CBD and port precincts, so I encourage tourism operators to think seriously about how they can develop touring products and experiences catering to this market in line with the projected increase in demand. The fact that the Cruise Down Under conference is held in Darwin this year speaks volumes about the strategic importance of the Northern Territory to Australia’s cruising future. This is truly an exciting period for the tourism industry. I know that many tour operators are developing products that will appeal to the conference and cruise markets.
The House has already heard, from my ministerial report last week, about the advances in our aviation capacity and the importance of aviation access to achieve tourism growth. As I stated then, we have seen a steady growth in both international and domestic capacity and passenger numbers at both Darwin and Alice Springs Airports. However, it is important we do not become complacent in attracting new services or keeping our current services. Earlier this year, I was approached by airlines and the Northern Territory airports regarding the heavy impost of Australian government security charges on NT airports and, in particular, those imposed on Alice Springs Airport. These costs are levied by our airports on the ticket prices of all airline passengers using services to that region. Put simply, when airlines assess the likely fares required to operate to the Northern Territory inclusive of taxes and security charges, the Northern Territory is not competitive against destinations of similar travel times.
No one would argue against the importance of aviation security in this country. Maintaining high security standards is critical in maintaining travellers’ confidence and ensuring Australia’s reputation as a safe country for visitors and residents alike. However, the main point I made, both in my letter to the federal Transport minister and in a comprehensive paper to my colleagues that I presented at the Tourism Minister’s Council in Canberra this month, was that the current security pricing regime discriminates against small, low-volume airports that pay a proportionately higher cost for these services. I argued that this has the impact of limiting growth to regional centres and appears to counter other Australian government policies that aim to expand air services to regional airports, and has the effect of reducing the dispersal of tourists around this country.
When we consider Alice Springs specifically, due to the strategic defence facilities in that region, this airport has been placed in the top security category along with major capital cities around the country. As a result, the costs per head are already higher than the larger competitor airports. The federal Tourism minister agreed that Alice Springs airport appeared to be an anomaly within Australia owing to its top tier security rating. This anomaly made it ineligible to apply for the $15.4m infrastructure package made available to the country’s 26 regional airports. It was agreed at the Tourism Ministers’ Council that a request be made to the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services that Alice Springs be given special consideration to cover the cost for the upgrade of security facilities. Jointly with the federal minister for Tourism, I wrote to the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I am hopeful this request will be given every consideration so that Alice Springs residents and visitors alike are not unfairly disadvantaged and expected to pay higher ticket prices into the future. These higher prices work against us, especially in the domestic market, and reduce our ability to attract visitors.
So what about the future? Reports from the Tourism Forecasting Committee and the Territory’s own forecasting panel predict international visitation will remain strong with good growth in inbound visitor numbers in 2007-08. There are a number of challenges facing our industry over the next few years and we cannot become complacent. The Tourism Forecasting Council predicts that outbound travel by Australians will continue to be stronger over the coming years and domestic travel within Australia. This is because of Australians’ increasing propensity to travel overseas coupled with the strong Australian dollar and future expansion of low cost airlines, Jetstar, Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways, to overseas destinations. This trend is likely to impact negatively on domestic tourism, with total visitor nights across Australia expected to decrease by 3.5% nationally per year over the next six years.
On the up side, however, there are a number of aviation developments on the horizon which will help to soften the impact. As you are all aware, Tiger Airways will enter the Australian market later this year. Virgin Blue, Qantas and Jetstar are also ramping up their capacity over the next few years. As I have previously mentioned, the Territory will be a significant beneficiary of these developments with the resulting competition and lower fares making our destinations even more enticing to visit.
Supported by the successful Share Our Story marketing campaign, many more visitors from the southern states are expected to take the plunge and holiday in the Territory. This is expected to result in an injection of almost $900m a year by 2008-09 by interstate visitors.
ABS figures for the March quarter indicate that the Northern Territory showed the highest growth in demand for hotels, motels, guest houses and serviced apartments compared with the rest of the country. This is despite the March quarter typically being a quiet period for the Territory. This is great news for the thousands of Territorians employed in the tourism industry because it means year-round employment opportunities for them and proves that our strategy of extending the tourism season is working.
On the international front, the relatively high value of the Australian dollar in relation to the Japanese yen, the growth in air capacity between Japan and China and other structural issues in the Japanese market continue to present a challenge to the entire tourism industry. In comparison to some destinations on Australia’s east coast, the Territory is doing better than the other states. Our strategy is working to align with the National Action Plan, but also explore avenues through which the Territory can maintain its position in the market.
In May 2007 was the first charter from Japan to Darwin, including a connecting journey by The Ghan to Alice Springs. This was part of a series of charters that have been undertaken over the past few years as part of our aviation and marketing strategy in the Japan market. Tourism NT continues to work closely with JAL and Japanese wholesalers to continue this successful program into the future.
In fact, Tourism NT is currently negotiating with Japan Airlines and major Japanese wholesalers regarding the possibility of additional charters over the New Year period. Tourism NT and Territory operators are also levering off the $12m world heritage campaign in Japan, with Tourism Australia, airline partners and wholesalers to be launched later this year. This campaign will present new and compelling reasons to visit Australia and focus on the single strongest experience: world heritage. I have no doubt that the Northern Territory with its two world heritage national parks, Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta, will feature strongly in the campaign.
The American market will also be a challenge over the next few years because of the issues with the US economy related to the sub-prime housing market. The recent increase in the Australian dollar compared to the US dollar means that a holiday in Australia is more expensive than it has been in the past. The possible entry of Virgin Blue on the Pacific route will help to increase competition and, hopefully, place downward pressure on airfares. Our strategy in the US market is very targeted, focusing on niche segments in educational travel such as alumni groups, universities and associations. This approach allows us to obtain maximum reach and cut through in this highly competitive market.
Tourism NT will also continue to focus on attracting more UK and European visitors to the Territory. These visitors have a greater propensity to travel to a number of Territory regions and spend up big whilst they are here. These challenges remind us of the constant need to keep focused on the job and continuously work on strategies and innovative programs to keep a step ahead of the game. I have no doubt that these markets will continue to perform well over coming years.
The Internet is now the primary avenue that many of our international markets use to source for planning and booking holidays. Tourism NT has invested heavily over the past 18 months to develop a number of foreign language consumer websites. Our international consumer website, Australia’s Outback at travelnt.com is now available in German, French, Italian, Chinese, with a redeveloped Japanese website about to be completed and work under way on the Korean language translation.
The Territory has experienced strong economic growth over the past few years, demonstrated by our low unemployment level, demand for residential property and growth in the retail sector. Tourism is also a significant contributor to our economy and it is important that we ensure it is sustainable over the longer term. As I have said previously, the outlook is good but there are challenges ahead. It is time to reflect on where we have been and determine how the industry and government can best work together to continue to make the difference.
My agency is currently in the final stages of developing the next five-year strategic plan for the tourism industry. The strategic plan, whilst building on the last one, will provide clear vision and direction for the industry over the coming years. It will assist government and industry to seize opportunities and address potential threats. I am sure that the plan will provide the necessary catalyst to move the industry forward over the next five years.
Past shocks have reinforced the importance of direct and efficient aviation links to the development of not only the tourism industry, but freight and business generally. Key to the expansion of aviation in the Territory is the development of a suitable strategy providing direction to the industry. This is exactly what we are doing by developing the next three-year Northern Territory Aviation Strategy. Through the strategy, we will continue to develop new aviation links and work with airlines to develop tourism opportunities and provide direction to the industry in key areas of domestic and international air access, regional air access and freight and aviation support industry.
We will also continue to undertake the crucial task of maintaining and developing relationships with those airlines who already service the Northern Territory. I am proud that this government has demonstrated such a strong commitment to the Territory’s tourism and aviation industries, and that it continues to recognise the importance of tourism to the economy. I look forward to continuing to work with industry and to implementing the five-year tourism strategic plan and the aviation strategy to deliver increasingly positive and economic outcomes and more jobs for Territorians.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement tonight. I am happy to hear that tourism does continue to prosper in the Northern Territory. A quick glance at some of the figures in the minister’s statement demonstrates how important the industry is to the Northern Territory. I believe $1.5bn dollars was the figure quoted, so it is a lot of money and a lot to the Northern Territory economy.
After a couple of slower seasons which I know we have had over the last couple of years, it is good to see numbers increasing and, importantly, that people are staying with us longer. They are not just coming here more often, but they are spending more nights here as well, so that is promising.
The convention centre was mentioned by the minister. The Alice Springs Convention Centre, as you know, minister, is a leading facility for conventions in the Northern Territory and continues to provide world-class convention facilities for those people coming to the Centre. I hope that, with the completion of the Darwin convention centre, together they will provide greater scope for the convention market in the Northern Territory and not take away from each other. I know there were some concerns in Alice Springs, but let us hope that these two convention centres can work together and provide great world-class convention facilities for those coming to the Northern Territory.
The waterfront had a great run in the minister’s statement and, hopefully, as the minister predicts, it will increase employment opportunities for those already living in the Northern Territory and for those considering a move to the Northern Territory. Hopefully, once it is completed with the restaurants, bars, retail outlets and the like, it will encourage people to come to Darwin and bring with them their skills base to the Territory.
Aviation was highlighted in the minister’s statement. Aviation, reiterating your ministerial report last week, does play a vital role in the Northern Territory. It always has and, no doubt, always will, by virtue of the vastness of the Northern Territory. We rely on air travel greatly. It has opened up the Northern Territory, not just to Territorians, but to the rest of Australia and the world. Again, as I said in my response to the minister’s report last week, I hope the government will continue to push for affordable air services in and out of the Northern Territory. Alice Springs and Darwin have great jet air services and facilities and, while no one expects Katherine or Tennant Creek to have quite that standard of terminal facilities, it would be good to explore some improved services for those towns. I know that Tennant Creek is concerned about the lack of air services.
The minister mentioned Japanese charters. There was not a lot in the statement about Japanese services into Alice Springs. The few that we have had in recent years were very successful, bringing in 300-odd Japanese tourists. I think we had a couple over the course of a year. I am not sure how many we have had overall, but I know they were very successful, most welcome by local businesses and tour operators such as Ooraminna and the like. I would like to see those further explored, but it is great to hear that the Territory will benefit from Japanese charters.
Alice Springs supports any new service that comes to the town. We do not want the same fate as happened with Virgin Blue a couple of years ago. I know the previous minister worked hard to get that into Alice Springs and, unfortunately, it was not overly patronised and so they pulled out. Hopefully, we might see them back again; we might see Jetstar and Tiger Airways as well. I do hope that the people of the Centre support any further air services into Alice Springs.
There was not a lot in the statement about the drive market in the Territory. Of course, the grey nomads are everywhere at this time of year; you cannot miss them on the highway. They also provide a great source of income for the Northern Territory. Part of that $1.5bn is a result of the grey nomad tourist traffic. I hope the minister will continue to provide services for the drive market by way of rest stops, barbecue areas and free camping sites along the side of the road. There is nothing like taking a drive up the track and pulling over, camping in many of the spots and discovering some of the great history of the Northern Territory. I know that is why a lot of the grey nomads do that …
Mr Wood: Whistle Duck Creek at Davenport Range.
Mr CONLAN: It is a great spot. That is a big part of the tourism trade in the Northern Territory, and I hope the minister will continue to consider that.
There was a lot of focus on the Top End in this report, and not a lot on the regional tourism market. I hope the minister will place a strong focus on regional tourism. The minister did mention the Share Our Story advertising campaign, and said it had attracted a bit of criticism and flak around the place. He said that it is working, and that is great to hear. It is great to hear that that very expensive campaign is working and, as a result of some of the figures, we have to admit it is. That is a great thing; it is always good to see these things working and generating the income and results they were designed for.
In Share Our Story, there are a lot of landscapes, vast red deserts, waterfalls, and the great scenery we have in the Northern Territory, which is very important. However, I would like to see more exploring of the townships of the Northern Territory; that is, Alice Springs, Katherine, and Nhulunbuy - shots around the streets showing some of the restaurants and bars, and people enjoying those parts of the Territory. We see a lot of focus on what to do in Darwin, which is fantastic, but we do not see as much emphasis on other towns. It would be good to consider that down the track, minister.
I welcome the minister’s efforts in limiting ticket prices. It is a big concern for the Alice Springs Airport to limit those price hikes due to the uniqueness of that airport.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement this evening. It is pleasing to see that tourism is going ahead in the Northern Territory.
Debate adjourned.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Speaker has received the following letter from the member for Nelson:
Is the proposed discussion supported?
Mr Stirling: Hang on.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need four.
Mrs Braham: Four, you need four.
Mr Wood: Including the mover.
Mr Stirling: Five.
Mrs Braham: Four.
Mr Stirling: When did it change?
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: I will support it, but it is five.
Mrs Braham: No, it is not, it is four.
Mr Stirling: It is five; it has always been five.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Five? Okay. It is supported.
Mr Stirling: That is what I said: you do not have the numbers.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I thought I would never get there, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We were going to enter into an other debate there.
Mr WOOD: Yes, we will have that debate later.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise this matter of public importance, which relates to home affordability for first homebuyers in the Northern Territory. I have restricted it to this, although there are other people in our community who find it difficult to buy houses in our major towns and rural centres.
The National Platform and Constitution of the ALP says under Chapter 2, A Strong Economy for a Fair Society, Principle 4:
I should note an article by ACOSS today that says:
To some extent, they are some of the people that I am talking about. The ALP National Platform and Constitution also says that Labor is committed to providing:
These are fine words. We have had a number of debates about this in the House. The government will say that that is exactly what we are doing, but you are only sticking up for some of the people of the Northern Territory and that section who are now struggling. They are the battlers, the first homeowners, the single income families, the single mums or dads trying to raise a family.
I raise this matter of public importance because I believe the right to own a house in the Northern Territory should be something that all people, if they wish, should be able to achieve. Unfortunately, there are some in our society who will never be able to attain that goal unless this government does something to help. By that help, I do not mean keeping people in debt for the rest of their lives; I mean making land available for those people who cannot get into the market, specifically first homeowners. This has come home to me very much lately because my daughter came back to live with me because of the high cost of rent in Palmerston. She is a single income mum with three children who found it difficult to keep up the rent payments. She then looked to purchase some land in the rural area and she could not find land cheap enough to build a house and still obtain a loan. It was way out of her reach.
She is not alone. Look at an article in the NT News on 1 August 2007, headed ‘HIA Wants Cheap Land for First Home Owners’, which reads:
As well as that, the Treasurer said in his media release in relation to Budget 2007 that homebuyers were the big winners. He said in that media release that the current median price for Darwin was $370 000 and Palmerston $342 500. Then I looked up the figures from the Northern Territory government’s own website called The Territory. It has a section called Land and Property which says for the March quarter of 2007 - and this is a list of median house prices from the Real Estate Institute - inner Darwin $605 000; northern suburbs $401 000; Palmerston $375 000; and my part of the world, Darwin rural, $440 000. It also mentions weekly rent, which is worth noting: inner Darwin $480; northern suburbs $410; Palmerston $360. That gives you an indication of what young people have to face at present.
The Treasurer said that those who pay stamp duty when buying their first home or unit will only do so if their property is worth more than $350 000. The median prices from the Real Estate Institute are well above $350 000. I realise that is a median price but, looking through the real estate pages in the paper on Saturday, the majority of houses are above those median prices and there are not many below it. If they are below it, I am not sure where they are. If you look through the paper, there is Colliers, Howard Springs, my own area, $589 000 for a three-bedroom house. At Woodroffe, $499 000, which is a four-bedroom house; Alawa, there is a chance in Alawa, $242 000. Land at Fairway Waters, the last block at Fairway Waters, is $228 000. Where are you going to get the money to build a house if the land is worth $228 000? There is vacant land at Rosebery for $175 000, and another block of land at Rosebery for $170 000. If you look at Herbert in the rural area, a two hectare block is $215 000 to $220 000 without a bore, and $227 000 with a bore, and you are a fair way out of town. Another at Rosebery is for $439 000, and Alawa for $380 000. The list goes on.
Although you do find a few houses and some units, if we are looking at places for first homeowners with a couple of kids, unless you want to live in a unit, there is not a lot of room to go elsewhere.
I am trying to highlight that there are people who will not be able to secure loans and, if they can, the way the government has now set it up, they will either have to have a loan for a long time or they will have to ask the government to take a percentage of their property. That might be okay, but you have to remember that the portion the government owns goes up and up, and they have to pay for that after they have paid their share. Do we really need to go down this path? Must we do this? Don’t we have a responsibility in a place as big as the Territory, one-sixth the size of Australia, to look for alternative ways of allowing our young people who do not have large incomes to find a place to live?
Beyond Reach, a workforce housing crisis in the making by the Residential Development Council, which is a division of the Property Council of Australia, came in the mail a couple of weeks ago. I know the Attorney-General has had a few words to say about it, but it raises a couple of issues. It looks at a range of employment and compares that around Australia to see where you can buy a place. The first page says: ‘Primary school teacher and administrative assistant,’ and goes through each state and has an annual gross income estimate. A primary school teacher in the Northern Territory earning $57 180 and an administrative assistant would earn about $37 099. Their total income would be about $94 000, and they would have problems getting a mortgage for the house, so it would be okay for a unit and they could rent a house and rent a unit.
Then you go to the police officer, the single income family, and he would be on a wage somewhere between $40 000 and the high $50 000, so they have it here in the Northern Territory that he would earn $58 387. According to these figures, he would be using up to 59% of his income if he tried to buy a house, so he is not in the market, and 45% if he wanted to try to buy a unit. He would also need 30% of his income if he was to rent a house, but he would manage a unit using 25% of his wage. That is a fairly typical one. That is not a poor person, but it is a single income person.
If we have a look at a couple others, there is a sole public servant in their late 20s on a gross annual income of between the high $50 000 to low $60 000, so he is up there on a high classification, perhaps would earn $61 241. I am quoting from the Residential Development Council’s book. He could not afford to buy a house. He could not afford to buy a unit. He could rent a house, and he could rent a unit. A single income full-time childcare worker in their late 20s earns between $26 000 and $37 500 per annum. In the Northern Territory, it was estimated that $30 066, and there is no hope of buying a house. They would have to use 114% of their money to buy a house, 88% for a unit, and they cannot afford to rent a house or a unit. That is the reality.
There are people out there who can buy houses, but there are also people who, if they do get a loan, are in debt for the rest of their life, and there was another group of people who simply cannot afford it. I have met many people who are saying: ‘My daughter is trying to buy a house, but they are staying with us because they cannot find a place’.
We need to use some initiative. We are at a crisis stage in the Northern Territory. If people cannot afford to buy a house, and if we have waiting lists for public housing of 29 months for a one-bedroom house - and I do not have the figures for the two-bedroom and three-bedroom, but I know it was up in that area - it is a long wait. Government has to look at new ways of doing things.
I will read what the Property Council says about possible solutions. Some of these are not applicable to the Territory, but the one area that might be is a fairer funding of infrastructure. I thought this was interesting and might be worth the government thinking about it:
What I gather they are saying is we will not add the full cost of infrastructure on those people who first buy their house. We will manage it so that cost can be spread over a generation or two. I thought that is worth looking at.
Another interesting matter was highlighted on ABC news the other day is the Salisbury Council. Regarding Salisbury Council, I am quoting from Adelaide Now, which reads:
Ms Lawrie: You do not like shared equity.
Mr WOOD: Pardon?
Ms Lawrie: You did not want shared equity previously. Salisbury is based on shared equity.
Mr WOOD: Hang on.
That is worth considering.
Ms Lawrie: Shared equity is what it is, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Yes, well that is if ...
Ms Lawrie: You said shared equity is not fair.
Mr WOOD: Yes. That is if …
Mr Stirling: Yes, it is.
Mr WOOD: No. You are comparing HomeNorth, I presume, that has been …
Ms Lawrie: No, no. The Salisbury model is a shared equity model.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, I am not going to debate it now. I am saying it is a model that has some merit in our debate.
The simplest model is the one where you own the land. You simply own the land and you can retain that land. When development applications come in, you can say to the developer: ‘A section of that land or a percentage of that …’ - and I am not talking about flooding the market. Every time I have brought this up, you keep saying: ‘Oh, you are flooding the market; the market will go backwards’. We have to realise that there is a percentage of people out there for whom the government has a responsibility. They cannot afford the market. That is exactly what Beyond Reach says. If you look through the papers, you cannot tell me that everyone can afford a house ...
Ms Lawrie: No argument.
Mr WOOD: I am saying the government has not done enough. It is hanging around worried about the market. It is releasing land at its own pace when it should be looking at developing land specifically for first homeowners, where all you pay for, as the government, is the cost of the infrastructure that is going in. The blocks of land are not part of the auction deal when the land comes up for sale, so you can retain those blocks and cover the cost of the infrastructure plus a small margin.
I do not believe that that would be much more than $50 000 or $60 000 today. Land was being sold in Palmerston about a year or so ago for about $75 000 or $80 000. All of a sudden it is up to $140 000 to $170 000. I do not believe infrastructure has gone up that much. There may be some change, but not that much. People I have spoken to have said the market has taken the price right away.
I am asking government: why can you not go down this path of specifically retaining land for that purpose? You can put a covenant on the blocks saying people cannot sell them for, say, 10 years, they must build within two years and, if they have to sell earlier, they can only sell back to the government ...
Ms Lawrie: You are going to love Bellamack when it is announced, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I wait while people like my daughter cannot afford to buy. Do not forget that Bellamack is not the only place in the world. I have said before there is land in the rural area. You mentioned in debate recently, minister, that the land belongs to the Commonwealth. That might be the case ...
Ms Lawrie: Around Darwin.
Mr WOOD: I am not denying that, but there is a lot of land that belongs to the government. If you have problems with the Commonwealth, have a look at your own land.
When I asked about the rural area, minister, you said we would have to provide infrastructure and services to go with it. Of course, but I would not have proposed the idea if I did not know the services were right next door to the land I am referring to. The forestry land has power and water. In fact, they upgraded the water line to that area about six or seven years ago. The government has the ability to open up some rural land for rural subdivision. Again, nothing has happened.
I have mums and dads saying to me - and if they were not saying it to me I would not be here today: ‘My daughter is at home. She has looked for a house and she cannot afford it’. My family is staying with me. They either have to go way down the track or live in a unit. The reality is a lot of people are not that well off. We live in a society where some people are very well off. We also live in a fairly expensive part of the world; the cost of living is higher here than probably other places, so it is difficult for people to get into the market. The government has to do something. All I have heard is that the market will be flooded. It is in here; it is in other statements the minister has made. What I am proposing to the government is that they release some land for first homeowners. The housing association is telling you there are problems with it, the construction …
Ms Lawrie: Gerry, you will run out of time.
Mr WOOD: … the construction association is telling you there are problems …
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock.
Mr WOOD: It looks nice! Did it run out? I did not see it.
Ms Lawrie: Yes.
Mr MILLS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the …
Ms Lawrie: You cannot after …
Mr Kiely: You cannot; it is already finished.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, I ask the government to consider what I have proposed.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the member for Nelson for raising this important matter in the parliament. It has been the subject of some discussion during the parliamentary sittings fortnight. It has certainly been a matter of discussion that I have been involved in for some close on two years now.
Fundamentally, we do not have a total argument here, member for Nelson. I will disagree on some aspects of what you have said but, on many aspects, I agree. Is there a necessity for land release that provides for a component of affordable land or affordable land and house packages? Is there a need for that in the greater Darwin area? Absolutely, there is. I am not sure how many times I have to repeat this, but I will say it again for the sake of this MPI. The Bellamack subdivision will contain affordable housing ...
Mr Wood: Housing. You are looking at land and house packages.
Ms LAWRIE: ‘Affordable housing’ is a description of land that someone can purchase at an affordable rate and then build on, or it could, indeed, be a land and house package. Okay? I am also on the record, publicly on radio, as saying Bellamack will include proposals which entice developers to meet the government’s requirements there rather than we say proscriptively ‘Thou shalt do thus’.
Salisbury is one model, but there are other models around Australia of delivering affordable housing and the developers are all aware of them. My agency is certainly aware of them because it has done its research. The government is aware of them. There are a range of tools that can be used, whether it is shared equity models, or a ballot model for first homebuyers where the land is actually given them for free. There is a whole gamut of tools used around Australia to turn off lots under the umbrella of affordable housing. I am not going to be proscriptive, but I will say on the record that Bellamack will include affordable housing.
There is a need for social housing. You said, in your daughter’s scenario, she can put her name down on the public housing list, but she has to wait. Social housing, public housing will also be a component of Bellamack. Bellamack will represent a subdivision model that we have never seen in the Territory. It will be contemporary and designed to meet a range of marketplace needs without distorting the market.
When I say beware of flooding the market, there is a very real reason behind that. You used the example of your daughter and I will use an example of someone I know. She is the single mother of five children. They bought their house in the northern suburbs some years ago. That is that person’s wealth. That is that person’s asset. They have no cash wealth. She is a single mother of five kids with an ageing parent. She will use their only wealth, which is their family home, their asset, to change their living circumstances; that is, sell and purchase elsewhere, to care for her ageing mother. What I will not do to all of those battlers across the northern suburbs - the member for Blain describes them as wealthy, and I invite you to come out and have a tour around my electorate of Karama …
Mr Mills: Are wealthy?
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely. In a media release, you said Darwin is for the wealthy. There are a whole lot of battlers out there right across the northern suburbs of Darwin and Palmerston whose wealth is in their asset. What they have done through the years of a buoyant economy, from when we have really seen our economy turn upwards from about 2003 in growth, is use the appreciating value of their asset to increase their mortgage to put more value in their home.
They are absolutely tied to the value of that asset in terms of their wellbeing. If we devalue their assets, particularly equity, mortgages will be foreclosed. That is the reality of what we will do to families; we will be turning them of their homes. I have said it before and I will say it again: there is a fine line that governments have to walk in turn-off of the supply end of the housing market.
You talked about homes and you disparaged units, which is interesting. When I attended the Rudd Housing Affordability Summit …
Mr Wood: Disparaged them for families.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, for families; you disparaged units for families. When I attended the Rudd Housing Affordability Summit in Canberra, there were a range of stakeholders: developers, real estate experts, housing modelling experts from the United Kingdom, and different experts from around Australia. One of the developers asked why it is that government intervention and bureaucracy have made it harder for us to have a range of options in the marketplace which are affordable for people.
They quoted the era of the 1950s and 1960s and the growth of Australia’s cities where you had the unit above a shop. They said: ‘In my day, someone wanting to get their first place would buy into a unit above a shop. Its value would grow, and then they would buy into a townhouse, or a unit, or a house’. There are steps that people can naturally take, entering into a housing market, and we should not discount the role units play in that.
Member for Nelson, you used the description of a family in units, but there are vast cities across Europe where families live in units.
Mr Wood: We are in the tropics, not in Europe.
Ms LAWRIE: I have lived in parts of Asia in a unit, surrounded by families living in units. I had my babies in Darwin in a unit. Do you want a high-rise unit, or do you want a unit complex with six units in it? They are the choices you start to make about where you want your young family in a unit. However, it is purchasing into the market at the value you can afford to purchase in - that is, the value at which you can afford to service your mortgage - that is a good entry into the market. That is cyclically and actually what occurs.
The great Australian dream of ‘I want my 800 m block and a big southern-style home’ is setting people up to fail. Families who go under in mortgage stress have overextended themselves when they have purchased. We have to be careful not to set people up to fail.
I make no apology for the fact that the market in the Territory today is a direct result of the Territory’s strong economy. When the economy is down, prices are down, and that is wealth in real terms for Territory families. Do we have to keep an eye on the Territorian families who have raised children and want to buy a house? Yes. My sister has been looking for a house to purchase. You need to have a balance in the marketplace where you still have some affordable options, but you are not devaluing the family asset.
We have a growing population and that, in itself puts pressure on availability. While property prices have risen in recent years, interestingly enough, Darwin remains the second most affordable capital city behind Canberra, and the Territory has the highest percentage of first homebuyers in the property market. You can scoff at that, but they are real statistics.
In relation to residential land, our land releases are an important aspect of the property market. Uncontrolled land release from the government would absolutely lead to a declining market, and with the nine Howard government interest rate rises in a row, the last thing homeowners need right now is the value of their property declining. The government has sensible land release strategies across the Territory.
It is this government that has cut stamp duty. It is this government that has expanded the HomeNorth scheme. The stamp duty threshold has been lifted to $350 000. That means 85% of first homebuyers will not pay stamp duty. That is a real leg-up for them when they are entering the market.
The revamped HomeNorth scheme has been significantly improved. For families with children, we have raised the threshold to $70 000. There is not a single government scheme anywhere else in Australia with an income threshold that high. It is recognised around Australia as the most progressive government-sponsored first homebuyer scheme in Australia. Others are looking at what we are doing and saying it is a good model.
The property value limit is now 85% of the average-priced house. As the Treasurer has explained before in discussion in this Chamber, that means the scheme can move with the market ...
Mr Wood: But people are in debt for longer.
Ms LAWRIE: The fairness of the scheme retains its currency. The member for Nelson says but you are in debt for longer. Welcome to reality, member for Nelson. I bought into the market in Darwin four years ago now, and I am in debt for 30 years ...
Mr Wood: I have just finished paying my debt, but that is right, yours is longer than mine and it is going to get worse.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, and my parents who bought into the market in Darwin in the 1960s were not facing debt for that period ...
Mr Wood: Well, that is what this debate is about, to try to change that.
Ms LAWRIE: You want us to completely distort the whole housing loan market and devalue people’s property. It is bizarre ...
Mr Wood: No, these people cannot get into the market. They are the ones I am talking about.
Ms LAWRIE: HomeNorth has introduced more than 1000 people to home ownership in the last couple of years. You are saying we are a government that is not helping first homebuyers enter the market when we have helped more than 1000 people. You can scoff, but it is a pretty big number, more than 1000 people ...
Mr Wood: I did not scoff. Do not jump to conclusions; I just opened my mouth.
Ms LAWRIE: Government has formulated regular forums with the stakeholders, the Real Estate Institute, the Housing Industry Association, the Property Council and the Territory Construction Association. They have all delivered the same message to government: you need to release more land ...
Mr Wood: And cheaper.
Ms LAWRIE: The message you are delivering is the message the CLP …
Mr Wood: It is there, HIA, the Construction Association.
Ms LAWRIE: What I will point out in the debate today is they delivered that message a year ago ...
Mr Wood: First of the eighth, there it is. That is this year.
Ms LAWRIE: That is your example, but in discussions I was having, it was a year ago. A year ago, I said to them: ‘I have brought forward the Bellamack release’. They said: ‘Thank God’. Bellamack was not scheduled for release until 2008. I brought it forward by a year.
When I was made the Minister for Planning and Lands, I asked the agency when Bellamack was scheduled for release. It was 2008. I asked the earliest time we could release it, and the answer was if they work like the clappers, mid-2007. I said: ‘Then it is mid-2007 that we will release it’. The discussion you are having now is a discussion I was having 18 months ago. It takes that length of time to get …
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: You say that is the problem, and I guess it is a level of ignorance as to understanding that you have to identify what the capital works requirements are. You get costings from capital works requirements. Your information comes from several government agencies in that regard. You have to go through and put the funding into the budget. We did. There was $7m in the budget announced in May. You then have to look at how you are going to do your subdivision. That is critically important to delivering things such as affordable lots within the subdivision. If you just put it out to the market, which is the history of subdivisions from government in the Territory, you will not deliver your affordable housing component.
We could have done what previous governments have always done in the Territory, which is just release the land to developers. We are not doing that this time because we want to address the need in the marketplace without distorting the market.
An announcement on the release of Bellamack will be made shortly, but it will include approximately 650 and, potentially, 700 lots. As I have said time and again, there will be a component of this release that will include public housing and homes or land for first homebuyers, guaranteed. The things you are calling for are absolutely locked in to the Bellamack release ...
Mr Mills: This year?
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely.
Mr Mills: On the market?
Ms LAWRIE: Expressions of interest, yes. The market will then determine how quickly it can turn it off. I am hopeful that we will see lots being turned off - I do not want to distort it, but there are developers who are ready and our infrastructure is able to be turned off quickly, too. It will be tighter and quicker than most subdivision turn-offs because we have done all the preparatory work.
In the greater Darwin area, because we have been talking about Palmerston and the Bellamack release - and I pick up your point; let us not just look at this release, but at future releases. You were at the DCA meeting where we had the Palmerston East plan up. Clearly, as a government, we are saying: ‘Yes, we are turning off Bellamack, but we need to start the work now for future land releases’. I had a lot more to say ...
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw the member for Karama’s attention to the time.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to give a briefing, Gerry.
Mr Wood: All right, thanks.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That red light does not seem to be going off. Did it go off? I did not see it. Member for Blain.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this very important matter. It appears that it is going to be a chat, and there will be locked in positions.
This is a matter of such importance that it goes way beyond the discussions about the distortion of markets. It is, in fact, distorting our future and our society, altering the way we manage our capital, storing up debt today, which will be passed on to the future, ensuring that there are many who will simply not get into the marketplace.
We can stay within the parameters and try to find solutions within the paradigm, but I put it to you, for a government of great reformers which talked about doing brave and visionary things with the shire amalgamation, there are some visionary approaches that can be taken with this problem. The Labor Party’s slogan of Building a Better Territory …
Ms Lawrie: And the CLP never would have, Terry.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: We have an opportunity. Quite seriously, we have an opportunity to really build the Territory because the units around town are being rented out at high rents. Think of this: sometimes there are young professionals who put their money together so that they can pay the rent. They do not mind living in town but, if given the option of affordable land on the urban fringe where they could put up some bricks and mortar, not only would they take their good wages that they are getting at the moment for tradesmen and the like in the Territory, they would dream of a future in the Northern Territory. They would think of raising kids here. They would be making very different decisions.
Because there is such demand all around the country for affordable land, we really have a chance to break that and do something that others are not doing. It is possible; this is not pie-in-the-sky. There will, hopefully, come a time when those who are held back by the existing paradigm can be set free by changing the way we view the potential we have in the Territory, and particularly our land asset.
There are impediments to the release of land undoubtedly, but those impediments can be properly understood and removed.
I was flying into Alice Springs when I was the Leader of the Opposition a couple of years back and I knew that when I was to land, I was to field questions related to the issue that was very topical at that time in Alice Springs; that was shortage of land. People wanted to expand, develop and so on and there was a shortage of land. There were negotiations going on that had been going on for some time. It was quite a complex matter. I was getting my head into the complexities of all the negotiations that were going on between traditional owners, government, different agencies, developers, and it really was quite complex.
As I was fielding the range of options in my head as I was coming into Alice Springs, I looked out the window and I just laughed. It was just like this joy come over me. I thought: ‘Why are we worried about a land shortage?’ Out the window of the plane, I spotted land everywhere. It gave me a completely different take on this. There are, obviously, problems with the release of land, but we are blessed with plenty of land, tonnes of potential, people wanting to move to the Territory and stake their claim on this piece of earth. We could do something. We need to get a clearer idea of what the impediments are, and then find a solution of how we can dismantle and remove them, or reduce their impact. That is possible. You just have to look at it in a way where you are seeking to find an answer to a problem rather than describing the problem and saying, ‘That is it’, and living inside the problem and saying, ‘If you release more land, you will distort the market’. Bunkum! I do not believe that; the age-old maxim of supply and demand must be in balance.
If you take another position in that argument and say: ‘We must protect the existing values so we cannot release’, you must let it flow. People will not take up that which they cannot afford to take up, or they do not want to take up. The demand will match the supply. Developers need to get out further than they are at the moment. Why are they not out further than they are at the moment? Why is demand so pressured not just in Darwin, but right around this country?
There is a reason for that. It is not a peculiarly Darwin problem. It is a national problem and there are reasons. Why on earth would this country have such a problem where supply is so short and demand has been exacerbated to the point that current generation, young people like my daughter and her new husband, and my son, on their forward plans is this flickering, almost fading and disappearing, dream of owning a house. It is just so far out. When I was their age, my wife and I were thinking it was such a reality; it was right in front of us. Things have changed right around the country; it is not just in Darwin.
Consider why it is such an important issue. It is because not only has economic implications and consequences, but social ones. Because we have land, we can find ways of ensuring there is adequate supply, and it will address into the future both economic and, more importantly, social consequences. Robert Menzies, in 1942, described the importance of home ownership. The material home, he said, represents the concrete expression of saving for a home of our own.
Advanced socialists may rage against private property, even whilst they acquire it, but one of the best instincts in us is that which induces us to have one little piece of earth with a house and a garden which is ours, to which we can withdraw, be among our friends, and no stranger may come against our will ...
Mr Stirling: Is that why you are taking the blackfellas’ country from them?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: For more than 50 years, the average Australian was able to buy their first home on the average wage. For more than 50 years, the median house price was around three times the median household income. It was possible; it was a realisable dream. Now, 50 years later, that dream has become so remote. In many of our capital cities, it is six times the median income, and up to eight or nine times in some other cities. The dream is becoming an impossible one.
The consequences of that, both socially and economically, are that the demand that places on a family to service a debt that is now far greater than it was for the past 50 years means that they both must work; they must spend less time with their children; and they must work longer hours. They have to put their children into childcare generally; they are spending much more of their working life at work and less with their family and community. It has that social consequence. It also has an economic consequence because the money is going to the mortgage rather than saving and passing on an asset to the future. We are now considering passing on debt to the next generation.
Once upon a time, land was about 25% of the total cost of a house. Now it is 60%. In the 1970s, from my reading, there was a decision made by governments when land was in plentiful supply and market forces operated with greater freedom, that it would be a good idea to get some structure around land and they formed land banks. The purpose of those land banks was to ensure that there was a plentiful supply of land at an affordable price. That was the central motive of government, to ensure that there was a plentiful supply and it could be afforded, because they understood how important home ownership was; the social and economic benefits of home ownership so that people could realise that dream.
Over time, and more pronounced in recent times, the emphasis has changed. Now, the central purpose of government is not to ensure a plentiful supply at an affordable price. Now, the central emphasis is to maximise the financial returns of government, to control the process for economic benefit to government. This is clearly demonstrated right around the country and here in the Territory no less. Own-source revenue to government since 2001, largely as a result of stamp duties from families saving their money to invest in that dream, has increased by 80% to the Territory government. That is a result of stamp duty. I would much prefer to find a way where that money could stay with that family so it could be invested and benefit that family rather than the quantum flowing to government. That is an 80% increase of own-source revenue.
You can see that the emphasis has changed and that is demonstrated where the language is that we cannot distort the market and we have to go through all the careful process. At the bottom of this is an artificial land scarcity. There is no land scarcity. The supply of land has been choked by excessive processes and a lack of will, from government’s point of view, to release the land because they are enjoying the revenue that is raised from the increased value of land and those transactions and the stamp duty therein.
Why has there been such a reduction in supply - not just in the Territory; it is the same disease right around the country? Because there have been increased restrictions. There has been an increase in planning regulations and the effective zoning has locked it up. The process is now grinding down so slowly that pressure is falling upon those who are trying to get into the market, and putting up almost an impossible wall of debt that they have to climb. We see smaller blocks and units. We wonder about the obesity epidemic, yet we have kids who have nowhere to play. We have kids in childcare. Parents just do not have the time to spend with their families because the whole process is grinding along so slowly. We have plenty of anecdotal evidence and reports to say how slowly this process is working. There are ways of solving this, and those matters will largely deal with the …
Mrs MILLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77 to allow the member to conclude his remarks.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, I say no. It is unprecedented. There are set time limits of 20 and 15 minutes respectively.
Mr MILLS: All right. Just to keep things sweet, thank you very much for your support. I was going to say there are solutions. However, I have been unable to outline them, but they rely on a change of attitude and courage in the form of a government leadership.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to the House for my lack of knowledge of contemporary standing orders. For 15 years, as a member in this Chamber, I well knew the rule about getting a matter of public importance up, and the number in support was five, because in opposition for 11 years, we always had to have five of our seven. There was one occasion when, despite our best efforts, we could only muster four, and we lost the opportunity to put our matter of public importance. I was caught out with four rising and, wrongly, asking where the fifth was. I thank the Deputy Clerk for pointing me to the amendment put, and obviously carried, by the Standing Orders Committee on 29 November 2005.
I take it that was recognition of the outcome of the 2005 election and that it would be unfair of the opposition to have to rely on the support of an Independent in order to get up a matter of public importance. I do apologise to the House. I do understand the standing order for a matter of public importance now requires four, including the mover, where it was once five, including the mover.
I touch on one issue that the member for Blain raised, which was Menzies referring to what it meant to people regarding the great Australian dream of owning that bit of Australia, the block and the house, and the efforts he made in his time as Prime Minister to ensure that as many Australians as was possible could attain that dream.
That same rich Liberal philosophy would be useful today when you see one group of Australians in this country - and I refer to the traditional owners of this country - who have a depth of knowledge, passion, longing, understanding and relationship with the land that far surpasses even the 25th generation of white Australian who may have had the family farm and property from the time they came to Australia. It far surpasses any of that relationship with the land.
We have a Liberal government today dispossessing those same traditional owners of their land in terms of ownership for a period of five years. I did not think I would ever say publicly ‘Long live Menzies’, but it is a pity Prime Minister Menzies was not there today because he could not, on the one hand, express that passion for home ownership and the importance of it to Australians whilst, at the same time, dispossessing traditional owners of the ownership of their country, albeit for a period of five years.
It is an important ambition. It is a part of the fabric of our society. It is one of the issues in the Northern Territory where we have had such low rates of home ownership in our history compared with the rest of Australia, and why we are so keen to do so much about it.
I am pleased to report that the Territory remains, in the figures just released by the Real Estate Institute, the second most affordable jurisdiction in Australia. There is only the ACT in front of us, but we are well above all other states and the Australian average in affordability. The order goes ACT, NT - and forget the rest because they are so far behind. In the June quarter 2007, home loan affordability actually increased in the Territory by 2.3%, in stark contrast with the rest of Australia which decreased by 4.2%. That is the second quarter we have seen that increase, albeit if you go back 12 months and take it month-to-month over 12 months, you will see in the Northern Territory that home loan affordability has actually decreased because of the movement in the market over that time. However, in the June quarter 2007, we have moved back in to improving affordability against the ground lost over the previous 12 months and a bit more.
I am proud of the work that this government has done to help many Territorians, young people and families, fulfil the aspiration of home ownership. Under the Martin government’s strong economic management, the Territory economy has taken off. We have worked hard to create the environment of growth and prosperity that we currently enjoy. The employment figures show if you want a job in the Territory, you can get one. The property market, of course, is reflecting that strong economic growth and I am certain it is welcomed by Territorians who own their own home and who see their equity increasing on a weekly basis. The fact that we have remained the second most affordable jurisdiction for housing demonstrates the hard work that this government has put in to allow first homebuyers, those on low incomes, and families to get into the market.
The member for Nelson should be aware, of course, of the Martin government’s comprehensive plan to help Territorians own their own home. Since 2001, we have drastically reduced the stamp duty for first homebuyers; we have broadened HomeNorth to focus on families; we have released land in Palmerston and Alice Springs with areas reserved for first homebuyers; and we are releasing land in Bellamack with a comprehensive roll-out into the future to ensure we do not suffer the same land availability squeeze being felt in other parts of the country.
What do these policies do? By lifting that stamp duty threshold to $350 000, it means 85% of first homebuyers do not pay stamp duty. That is $15 312 straight off the purchase price. That is $15 312 the first homebuyer does not have to find for the government and it goes a long way for first homebuyers. Other ministers and I have received comments saying: ‘It was a big relief. It helped us out in the first few months of the biggest purchase of our lives’.
For the record, we have made significant improvements to the HomeNorth scheme. We have lifted the income threshold to $70 000 for families with children to ensure we keep pace with the market. The property value limit is 85% of the average-priced house. In Darwin and Palmerston, the new limit is $310 000. We have lifted the government equity to $70 000 and, most importantly, we have kept the 2% deposit and a $10 000 interest-free loan to get people started on setting up a home.
HomeNorth has enabled almost 1000 people to buy their first home since 2004. It is the most generous scheme in Australia. Buying a home, we recognise, is the most major purchase that most of us will ever make in our lives. Our reforms tip the balance for many young people to get into the market.
I heard the members for Nelson and Blain talking about the price of houses. It is not the only way to get into the market. Part of the effectiveness of HomeNorth is that it has allowed people to get into units, start paying them off, establish equity in the property (1) by repayments and (2) by the rising market. It does not take that long in a rapidly rising property market for them to go the commercial market and say: ‘This is what we have done under HomeNorth’. This is why the banks are keen fans of HomeNorth because it allows people to get in the market, albeit it with a unit, they get that equity and get going in the market and they get the growth of the property value around them. Within a reasonably short time, they are off to the commercial sector to say they want to renegotiate a new loan: ‘I want to sell my unit and go into a house’. The banks say: ‘Thank you very much. Here is a customer who, but for HomeNorth, would not have been here’. The bankers of Darwin encourage me to revamp HomeNorth and to keep it alive.
In a media release of 16 July, the member for Araluen and the CLP’s candidate for Greatorex unveiled a policy regarding the government’s HomeNorth shared equity loan scheme. They suggested removing the price cap on houses and the income cap on loans and increasing the maximum government equity to 40%. To quote from their release:
The CLP opposition wants to remove the price and income cap for Alice Springs. What a surprise that would be! So it does not matter what your income is - $50 000, $500 000, or $3m a year - under the CLP opposition policy, you would get HomeNorth. That does not strike me as the best thought-out, costed or strategically targeted housing policy you are likely to come across. HomeNorth is not about helping millionaires and the top end of the market buy houses with $1m-plus price tags. It is, and should be, about getting those people who cannot quite make it into the property market, the helping hand to get them over the line. As I have said, the banks certainly appreciate what HomeNorth does.
The Martin government’s forward looking land release programs are also striking the right balance between demand and the threat of over supply set out clearly by the Minister for Planning and Lands. I will not go into that detail again. What she and I have done over the last 12 months is bring the key stakeholders from the property development market and sector together and showed them with comprehensive briefings and maps where the government is going in land release for residential and industrial property. We are keen to continue those stakeholder groups because people have gone away with a much clearer picture of where things are up to.
Bellamack has the capacity for 600 blocks; Mt John Valley has strong capacity, and land there will be reserved for the first homebuyer. If the opposition were genuinely keen to help first homebuyers, they would take themselves off to the federal government and urge them to listen to their own back bench - that is, the federal government’s backbench - and double the first homeowner grant to $14 000.
I want to turn briefly to the issue of supposed free land offers, which was raised by the member for Nelson as a remedy for land prices. I saw this mentioned again recently in newspapers proposed by the Salisbury Council in South Australia. It is incompletely incorrect, of course, to label such schemes give-aways or gifts because, more accurately, it involves providing the land with no initial outlay which is, therefore, a form of shared equity scheme so it is a value to be repaid on sale.
The Territory, of course, already has a shared equity scheme available to first homebuyers and low income earners but, with this more extreme proposal, there could be real problems for owners when there has been a substantial increase in the value of the land. It would substantially decrease the proportion of equity the homeowner has in their property. The Northern Territory Treasury has advised me it is unclear how such a program would impact on land values elsewhere in the Territory. The question of how blocks would be allocated would be very difficult and could create resentment both amongst current landholders and those who miss out. That is the problem when you get into those cute sorts of schemes. Introduction of any such scheme would likely require amendment to the First Home Owner Grant Act. Such an amendment needs to be agreed to by all the states, territories and the Australian government and would also require amending the Stamp Duty Act.
Home ownership is something that all young people and families should aspire to. Nothing has changed in all the years since Menzies made the home ownership statement. Nothing has changed at all. It is a genuine aspiration and we should do whatever we can to help people achieve it, but it is not always easy.
We will continue our efforts to provide the economic opportunities and assistance necessary to help Territorians achieve this goal. As tough as it is out there, the last quarter has shown that we are turning around home affordability. As it is decreasing across Australia, home affordability is again increasing in the Northern Territory. There should be no surprise about that. The Northern Territory historically is counter-cyclical with national movement. If home affordability began to improve markedly across the rest of Australia, the reverse occurs; we would probably be losing our way in home affordability. At the moment, the figures are going with us. We have lost ground over the last 12 or 18 months, but the last two quarters are showing that turnaround again.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 9 October 2007 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I will speak about a beloved friend, a great mother and wife and a respected professional: Pam Gollow, who died on 18 August 2007 in Townsville where she was travelling with her husband.
Pam was a dear friend, and it was with great sadness that we received a text message from her husband, Adam, to advise us that while they were travelling, she suffered a brain haemorrhage in Townsville. She was hospitalised in Townsville and, a couple of days later, we received another text message to advise that her condition had deteriorated to such an extent that Adam asked me to help send the kids to Townsville.
Pam Gollow, nee McPherson, was born in Sydney. Her mother was Joyce and her father was Hugh. She was the second eldest in a family of 10, and she grew up in Carlton near Coongarra, where the family house still is. She went to school at Morefield Girls High. She joined the workforce as a bank teller and then worked developing photos for Agfa.
In the mid-1970s, she left Australia with her best friend Rachel on a ship heading for England to earn enough money to travel around Europe. She travelled to Israel and, while she was in Israel, she met her husband, Adam, in 1979 in a kibbutz. Then she travelled to Greece and returned to Perth, Australia in 1980.
She started working in a photo laboratory, but it did not take long to realise that was not her life ambition. She wanted to do something else, working in the health area. She took the mature-age exams and was accepted into Science at the Western Australia Institute of Technology, or WAIT, in 1982. WAIT is now known as Curtin University.
She worked part-time and studied full-time for the next four years. She completed a Bachelor of Applied Science in Nutrition and Food Science in 1984 and a Graduate Diploma of Dietetics in 1985. She finished near the top of her year. In 1985, she married Adam and later started at the Royal Perth Hospital as a Clinical Dietician. They have two kids, Conor, who was born in 1987; and Jess, who was born in 1989.
Pam Gollow was a very good friend. She was the first person I met when I studied at WAIT. We met in a biology class in February 1993. We were both examining organs found in animals and trying to identify them, and work through biology was quite difficult for both of us. While we were studying biology, we started talking about our pasts, and she was very excited to find out that I had come from Greece just a few months before. She brought her packet of photographs from Greece to show me.
At the same time, unbeknown to me, she studied with my wife, Margaret, and other professionals, Sue Gough and Sue Carruthers. They all attended the same class and, as Margaret said, Pam was well known for her gentle personality, for being friendly and helpful and because she was one of the few dieticians and nutritionists who did not have an eating disorder or follow any eating fads.
Of course, after we graduated from university, we all went our own ways. Margaret and I made our way up to Darwin. One day, Margaret received a telephone call from one of her friends to say that Pam was coming to Darwin to work for the Health Department at the hospital. It was in January or February 1994 when Margaret invited Pam and her husband Adam to come to our house in Coconut Grove. Of course, you can imagine my surprise when I opened the door and Pam was standing there. My first question was: ‘What are you doing here?’ Of course, the same question was asked by Pam, leaving our spouses very puzzled because we had to do some quick explaining to tell them how it was that we knew each other. It was very interesting. After that, we met each other very often, spent quite a bit of time together and enjoyed some really good times. Pam was a very friendly person, a very genuine person, with a great sense of humour.
She worked at the Health Department where she earned the respect of her colleagues. She was also a character. I remember very well that one day we went to their house to a party. We arrived a bit early and found Pam using the leaf blower in reverse to blow dry the dog before the party.
She was also very selfless. She insisted on taking home our son Alexander for a night just before our second son Michael was born. Poor Alexander was left scarred because Adam, Pam’s husband, was yelling at the kids. I also remember Pam and Adam coming to our parties. Adam always wanted to leave early because he wanted to get up very early in the morning to walk the dogs, pulling Pam, who did not want to go, with him. We spent some great times together.
I remember Pam and Adam and his father and mother and Margaret and I having Greek Easter together. The difference was that Margaret is Catholic, I am Greek, Pam was Anglican, Adam and his father are Jewish and his mother is Church of England. It was a very interesting Easter, but we all enjoyed it.
I well recall Pam’s 50th birthday at the Trailer Boat Club. It was a beautiful afternoon, one of those wonderful Dry Season afternoons. As we were watching the sun go down, I turned around and I said to Pam and Adam, jokingly: ‘There is another beautiful sunset brought to you by the first Labor government in the Territory’. Adam looked at it and said: ‘What is next - naked girls?’. Believe it or not, that was the exact moment that a topless girl chose to cross in front of us at the Trailer Boat Club. Adam’s jaw hit the floor and Pam laughed her head off. It was one of those jovial moments that you cannot forget.
Pam was also very courageous. In a tragic accident at home, she lost one of her eyes while they were gardening. She never complained. She went through all the tests, all the examinations. She accepted that she had lost her eye and moved on with a glass eye. The only time we heard her saying something about that disability was when she asked Margaret one day to pour some boiling water in a cup of tea because she was sick and tired of miscalculating and burning herself.
It was with great sadness that we learnt that Pam died. She was a lovely person. Adam organised a small gathering last Sunday at the Cullen Bay foreshore. He invited some friends to get together, remember Pam and have a few drinks. The ‘few friends’ evolved into a huge crowd about 250 to 300 people who came to celebrate Pam’s life, to remember her, and say goodbye with a flower and a glass of wine. Some people spoke about Pam. Everyone was very moved, including her mother, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and others who went to remember the wonderful person who was Pam Gollow.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about a few events that have occurred or are about to occur in the rural area.
Last Saturday, as the member for Goyder would recall, we had Poets Day at the Taminmin High School Library. It was a very successful day. We had two-and-a-half hours of poetry. Some people might find that a bit boring, but everyone who attended found it terrific. It was not just poetry; there was literature read and songs sung. It was organised by Sandra Parker, who organises it every year. Poets day has got bigger and bigger. I was tempted to read one of my poems into the Parliamentary Record, but on second thoughts, I might leave it until another day.
I thank the staff of Taminmin High School Library, Iris, in particular, and Marinda. They not only allowed the Taminmin High School Library to be used, they also participated, with Iris playing the trombone and Marinda playing the bongo drums and singing. It was a wonderful day. Many seniors attended. They either participated or sat and enjoyed a cup of tea and some biscuits and sandwiches. It is a day that is getting bigger and bigger.
We have a great addition to the Howard Springs area with the opening of the new Arafura Medical Centre. It is another one of the medical centres own by Lionel and Pat Crompton. Looking at the number of people who are now attending that surgery, you would certainly say that it has been needed as more and more people come into the area. At the moment, they only have one doctor but, as time goes on, there will be more and more people using that clinic. Lionel and Pat Crompton own a number of these medical clinics throughout the suburbs and the rural area. It is of great benefit to rural people.
Speaking of medicine, we had a debate about oncology the other night. In that debate, I raised the issue of oncology in relation to Lucas Heights. The member for Sanderson was very interested in what I said and he did some research. He is correct; the oncology unit is not connected to Lucas Heights, it is radiology. I stand corrected by the member for Sanderson and thank him for that research. Of course, we do need isotopes from Lucas Heights for our radiology department at Royal Darwin Hospital.
An interesting new asset to our community is a set of cricket nets that have been built by the school council at Girraween Primary School. I was asked to open them and, in this case, I did it with an opening bowl, attempting to bowl out the Principal of Girraween Primary School, Mrs Bredhauer, who was not bowled out; she whacked the ball a mile. It was a good occasion. All the children from the school came down to see the opening of the nets, and there were two members of the school council, Troy and Simon, who have been very involved in building those cricket nets. They are a great asset to the school. If you have never been there, Girraween Primary School is a fantastic school. It has great facilities - basketball courts, netball courts, a football ground and now it has these new cricket nets which enables everyone at the school to learn to play cricket.
I was invited to open a little business in the rural area called The Black Anvil run by a gentleman called Ken Moody. He makes wrought iron products such as candle holders and plant holders, mosquito coil holders, and he is now making rocking chairs and ornamental bicycles you can put in the garden. There is no limit to what he is doing. He is even putting some chooks together for me on a wrought iron frame. I wish Ken all the best. He worked in sheet metal for many years and now he has gone out on his own in the Humpty Doo area. If you are looking for some of the products that he makes, you can go to Coolalinga Markets every Saturday and see what he does.
A number of schools are coming up for their anniversary. One last week was Bees Creek School. The member for Goyder and I were there. They had their 10th birthday. Peter Collins, the past president, was there. Unfortunately, Peter has suffered a number of strokes over the last couple of years which has made his vision very poor, but he attended that night. The member for Goyder, I think, presented the school with a large cake which Peter Collins cut. Peter then unveiled a water fountain with his name on it which is there for everyone to see.
Peter is one of those marvellous people who is loved by all parents and students who have come in contact with him. It is unfortunate that he had the stroke. That would leave most people a bit depressed, staying at home and not doing much, but not Peter. He is back working with DEET and he is up and running again. The 10th anniversary of Bees Creek School was a great occasion,.
There are a couple of other schools that are coming up for anniversaries. Howard Springs School is coming up for its 30th anniversary this week, and Berry Springs School is coming up soon as well. I congratulate both those schools on their anniversaries. They will both have great celebrations and they have a proud history. Of course, being 30 years old, those schools have former students as parents who are bringing their children to those schools.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, community safety in Palmerston is a key priority for me and this government, which has recruited and trained more police than any previous Territory government. It continues that drive to ensure police can do their job properly. I work as closely as I can with police and residents in Palmerston to help identify hot spots and nip emerging issues in the bud. I was shocked by a recent CLP media release calling for police to be taken from their duties in Palmerston and elsewhere and relocated to Alice Springs. I understand that the media release was deliberately not circulated outside Alice Springs, and it is no wonder when you read it.
It was doubly surprising, given the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has criticised government for not giving enough resources to policing in Palmerston. I wonder whether the member for Blain has told his constituents his party is in favour of removing police from Palmerston to Alice Springs. Maybe the CLP members are now saying that they were wrong in their criticism and, in their opinion, Palmerston is, in fact, so safe it can afford to lose police resources. I strongly disagree with the CLP position. This government has already put extra police in Palmerston. My message to the minister is that more police in Palmerston would greatly assist the command in its fight against crime, not fewer. The CLP proposal would put at risk the safety of people in Palmerston. I am not prepared to allow that. This government will not allow it.
Mrs Sharon Young is the Education Coordinator with the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit. Sharon is a teacher of six years experience and, as part of Celebrating Democracy Week, is conducting Parliament of Birds and Parliament of Wizards programs for primary school students in the Chan Building. In addition, she has conducted tours for senior students from secondary schools. Over 400 students from 10 schools have participated in the programs. The sessions have proved to be so popular with schools that the unit will now run a similar program in September and October, and is proposing to conduct regular parliamentary education programs in the Chan Building throughout the school year in 2008. Sharon has been assisted by Phyllis Mitchell and new Legislative Assembly trainee, Debbie Mitchell.
We have all seen the kids come and sit in the public gallery. A few of us have gone up there to speak with the children. They absolutely love the program and it is a great credit to Sharon, Phyllis and Debbie.
Last weekend, there were quite a few events happening. On Saturday 25, I had the great pleasure of attending the Palmerston City Schools Community Day. The member for Drysdale spoke about the community day last night and I fully agree with what he said. I particularly enjoyed the performances by the Palmelody Choir and Bakewell School Choir. There was also a fine performance by some young ladies from the Palmerston High School Dance Troupe.
Palmerston schools and their communities are putting a great deal of energy into Palmerston education, providing the people of Palmerston and surrounding areas with the best education possible. I commend them and thank them for their great efforts.
The Special Education Centre at Palmerston High had a stall on the day. The stall was selling Student Creations cards produced in their Enterprise Education program, designed to develop students’ work skills. A planning process for 2008 determined that the centre’s primary outcome for students is the highest level of independence possible for post-school life, either in work or positive recreation time.
The Enterprise Education program is central to the work the centre does with students as it teaches valuable pre-work skills. The program is completely self-funded and all profits go back into the program to sustain it. Students are involved at every step of the process from manufacture through to marketing. Alfred’s, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, and the Sticky Beak Caf are three businesses stocking their cards. Locals also support the students with regular purchases; I bought a few on the weekend. Christmas is on the way. Fellow members, place your card orders now and the centre guarantees delivery by November. Contact Frankie Maclean, the head of the Special Education Centre, through the Palmerston High School to arrange your order today. Buy in bulk and save even more. I ask members to support the students of the Special Education Centre as they are fantastic.
One of Darwin and Palmerston’s brilliant festivals is the Filipino community’s Barrio Festival. Congratulations to John Rivas and the other members of the community who put long hours into organising the event. I also want to thank Celcie who was in charge of the bar and made sure all of us bar staff got our breaks and something to eat. I had a lot of fun, even though we were extremely busy keeping patrons supplied with drinks, including the iconic San Miguel. There were many queries during the night about where people could buy San Miguel. I do not the answer; however, if anyone does, please let me know.
Working at the Barrio meant I was somewhat late for the Shine Girls event run by the Palm City Church in Palmerston. This is a great initiative building up the confidence of young ladies. I am proud to support this important local event, and congratulate Tracey Lilly and her team who put it together.
Another major event in Palmerston recently was the Asia-Pacific Tang Soo Do karate titles, which were held at the Palmerston Recreation Centre. The host was the Northern Territory Tang Soo Do Karate Academy of which Sharon Kimberley is master. This sort of event is now possible in Palmerston because of the recreation centre. It is a first-class facility, and the karate titles were a first-class event. Congratulations to Sharon and her team who put it together.
I attended on Friday night to watch the black belts perform their open hand and weapon forms. I then attended the opening ceremony on Saturday morning, and stayed to watch a little of the events afterwards. Sharon has run her academy for many years. She also teaches short courses at Palmerston High School specifically for young girls, training them in self-defence. Sharon is a consummate businesswoman. The Tang Soo Do Academy is as much a part of Palmerston as the water tower. I know it sounds like a funny comparison, but both are synonymous with Palmerston.
Art Libien recently celebrated his 60th birthday. Art is a wonderful man and very generous with his time in the community and the classroom. His family are long-term residents of Palmerston and have seen the city grow around them. Happy birthday, Art; I hope it was a good one. I could not get there, but would love to have been there for your 60th birthday celebrations. One of the great things about being a politician is that it brings you into contact with people who give tremendously to their community, and Art is one of those.
Danila Dilba and the YMCA are a couple of organisations that are also part of the social fabric. They recently had a Youth Awareness Activity Day. Activities included touch Rugby, basketball, a pool competition and barbecue. It was a pleasure to support this event and the young people of Palmerston who were part of it.
I cannot believe federal minister Nigel Scullion’s decision to put the YMCA’s drop-in centre funding at risk. The YMCA works closely with young people. So often we read bad news stories about young people, and here is a program which has had a huge positive effect over a long period of time. It is beyond comprehension anyone would put its operation at risk.
The Prime Minister and others talk about not giving handouts. Well, the drop-in centre is not a handout, it is a hand up for many youths in Palmerston. It is a chance for them to be off the streets, out of trouble and in the company of positive role models like Michael McLean. I implore, I beg, the federal government to give the YMCA the funding it needs to run the drop-in centre properly. The Northern Territory government has funded the YMCA to allow it to continue its work, and I just want to see the federal government put its contribution back in.
I would like to make mention of Cazalys’ distribution of funds to its member sports clubs. It was an excellent night, and Ray Norman certainly looks like he enjoys giving the money away. This year, Cazalys is supporting clubs by purchasing balls for the club in exchange for having the Cazalys logo on them. Whether it is footballs, netballs, soccer balls, Cazalys will come to the party and support the club. That type of equipment assistance is vital to our local clubs to make it that little easier for them to do what they do best; that is, provide sporting activities for our youth.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like the House to note a special landmark award for the Kenbi Dancers of Belyuen in my electorate of Goyder.
Last Saturday night, at the 4th Northern Territory Indigenous Music Awards, the Kenbi Dancers shared the award for Contribution to Indigenous Music with Wurrurrumi Kun-Borrk. The joint award was all about recognising their ongoing commitment to the performance of traditional music and dance. This was a wonderful accolade for this terrific indigenous and cultural dance group.
The Kenbi Dancers range in age from a teenage lad to one of their song men and dancers who is still very active at 64 years of age. In fact, the Kenbi Dancers were an important feature of the recent Darwin Festival. This festival has been recognised as the best so far. The Kenbi Dancers performed at the launch of the festival program, opened by the Deputy Chief Minister, Hon Syd Stirling in early July. They were also one of the featured dance groups during the nine nights of traditional Aboriginal dance held each evening at the Star Shell in the Botanic Gardens. The award they received builds on their great history as a dance troupe which holds the record for longest performance history of any similar group in Northern Territory.
As a group, they have been performing since the early 1980s. As well as regular performances at the Mandorah Hotel, they have been showcasing their talent at many events in Darwin. The Kenbi Dancers have often been acknowledged as the Aboriginal face of Darwin by tourists and locals alike. They contribute greatly to the tourism of this region. Last Saturday’s award was well deserved, and I extend my warmest congratulations to each and every member of the group, and their manager, Steve Brown. Long may you keep dancing.
I had the great fortune to attend the wedding and reception of my great mate, Lucio Matarazzo and his beautiful wife, Catherine, on 27 July 2007. The wedding was held at St Mary’s Catholic Cathedral in Darwin and, incidentally, it was also the Darwin Show Day public holiday. It was a beautiful and fine Dry Season day, with clear blue skies and bright sunshine. It was a very moving ceremony and an excellent day to start a long and prosperous marriage indeed.
Lucio is a Darwinite through and through. He was born in Darwin and is a very well known and liked Darwin-based union official for the Australian Services Union. In fact, he has been the face of the ASU in Darwin for the past 17 years.
Catherine arrived in Darwin in 2000 and fell in love with our beautiful city and, of course, subsequently fell in love with Lucio. Catherine Dash, as was her maiden name, originally hailed from New South Wales and is a very well admired and respected public servant. Catherine was heavily involved in preparing the recent legislation at departmental level for the driver demerit points legislation. It should be noted that many lives will be saved because of this important legislation. In her earlier years in Darwin, Catherine worked as a ministerial adviser for my colleague, Hon Kon Vatskalis MLA.
Lucio and Catherine were married in the company of 95 of their family and close friends. Lucio’s parents, Mr Alfonzo Michael Matarazzo and Mrs Lina Matarazzo, who are now retired, came from Adelaide for the wedding. Alfonzo is no stranger to Darwin. He first came to Darwin in 1956, and was a successful, long-term Darwin-based floor sander, along with brother, Maurice Matarazzo, who still lives in Stuart Park.
Catherine’s parents, Keith and Janet Dash, travelled from Sydney to Darwin to be at Catherine and Lucio’s wedding. Keith and Janet were successful scientists prior to retirement. Keith worked at the CSIRO and Janet as a university lecturer.
Lucio’s brother from Alice Springs, Dr Gus Matarazzo and his wife Mary, and their children, Michael Matarazzo and his partner Debbie, and Paul and Lana Matarazzo all attended. Lucio’s brother, Gus, is a well-respected and successful doctor, who has been practising in Alice Springs since 1981. Among Lucio’s numerous relatives and friends who attended the wedding were his Uncle Maurice and Aunty Carmela Matarazzo. His Aunty Carmela sang a wonderful solo rendition of Ave Maria at the cathedral. Their sons, Peter and Robert Matarazzo and their families and six children also attended. Lucio’s cousin Peter is a well-established floor sander in Darwin. His partner, Robyn On, is a member of the long-term Territorian On family who owned the famous Charlie On’s Parap Road store in the past. Incidentally, Lucio’s cousin Peter and family live across the road from Lucio and Catherine in Stokes Street, Parap.
Lucio’s other cousin, Robert Matarazzo and his wife Sarah and their children also attended. Robert is a well-known accountant in Darwin. Special mention must go to Lucio’s other dear uncle, Uncle Mario and Aunty Eleanora Matarazzo. Lucio’s Aunty Eleanora created a wonderful floral arrangement at the church altar for the wedding day. Also, their children and families attended, including Lucio’s cousin, Felix Matarazzo and his wife Enza. Felix is the current President of the Darwin Italian Club. Also in attendance were Lucio’s other cousins, Gus Matarazzo and his wife Grace, and his cousin Nick Matarazzo, who lives in Darwin, and his cousin, Anna Matarazzo, who travelled here from Brisbane. Felix and Enza’s daughter, Ellie, was in Lucio’s and Catherine’s bridal party.
Catherine’s brother, Andrew Dash and his wife, Susie, and their three children also travelled from Brisbane to be at the wedding. Andrew and Susie were the best man and matron of honour in the bridal party, and their five-year-old daughter, Catherine’s niece Samantha, was a flower girl at the wedding. Andrew is a successful engineer in Brisbane.
Other members of Catherine’s family included her four uncles and aunties from her father, Keith’s side of the family; namely Catherine’s Uncle Bob and Aunty Joan Dash, Uncle Alan and Aunty Audrey Dash, Uncle John and Aunty Jan Dash and Uncle David and Aunty Willemien Dash, who all travelled from New South Wales to be here for Catherine’s and Lucio’s wedding.
Catherine’s mother, Janet’s side was well represented with Catherine’s Uncle Bob and Aunty Cecilia and their son and Catherine’s cousin, Mike, who also travelled from New South Wales.
Some of Lucio’s close friends and guests who travelled from intestate included Mr Andrew Dennard and his wife, Helen, from Adelaide. Andrew is the South Australian and Northern Territory Branch Secretary of the Australian Services Union. Also in attendance were Mr Keith Harvey and his wife, Mary, from Melbourne. Keith is the Senior National Industrial Officer form the National Office of the Australian Services Union in Melbourne.
At the cathedral, Lucio and Catherine gave thanks to a long-term Territorian, Jenny Rivett, who played the organ, and her mother, Mrs Pat Palmer, who also sang at their wedding. Both Jenny and Pat are members of the well-known Palmer family, which includes Pat’s son and former minister in the NT Assembly, Mr Mick Palmer.
After the wedding, we all moved to the wedding reception at Furlanos in Parap. At the reception, Lucio and Catherine gave special thanks to Father John Kelliher who was the celebrant who officiated at their St Mary’s Catholic Cathedral wedding. All agreed Father Kelliher performed the marriage with dignity and made it all the more enjoyable and memorable for all of us who were there.
A highlight of the reception was the spectacular lion dance performance by Mr Nathan Tam and other lion dancers from the Chung Wah Society and Darwin’s Chinese community.
Lucio and Catherine also wanted me to pass on their great thanks to Mr Alan Peckham from Uptown Entertainment who officiated as the DJ and MC at the reception; Mrs Margaret Black from Furlanos Reception Centre in Fannie Bay; Ms Colette Mann and her staff who did the catering for the reception; and Mrs Rachael De Virgilio from Rachael’s Design a Cake, who made the 1.6 m wedding cake in the shape of a church. Rachael is the daughter of former long-term Territorian Peter Chambers who is a past Electrical Trades Union official in Darwin. Peter was one of Lucio’s union mentors and is a long-time mate of both Lucio and I. Last but not least, Lucio and Catherine also gave special thanks to Chantelle the Fairy who entertained and kept approximately 20 children of guests happy with her face painting, story telling and balloon blowing at Furlanos.
Many members of this parliament know Lucio and Catherine personally, and I am sure all members of the House join with me in wishing Lucio and Catherine a very long, happy and prosperous marriage.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to put on public record my deepest sympathies and condolences to Audrey, her children and grandchildren for the loss of her dear friend and a man who worked in Aboriginal Affairs for many years, Michael ‘Mick’ Ivory, who was born in Townsville in 1926 and passed away in August 2007.
He was a real Territory treasure. He worked for years in Aboriginal communities such as Maningrida and was head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs when I started work at the age of 17 in Alice Springs. He taught many of us work ethics when we first entered the public service. There was a few of us Aboriginal girls who worked for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs back then – Peggy McMasters, Sandy and Vera Ah Chee. All I can say is that he was like a father to us within the department. He encouraged us to make sure that we worked hard - we worked in Births, Deaths and Marriages - and he offered us all the promotions and made us realise that life is not easy; that you have to work to get the things that you want. That is certainly something that he helped us achieve. I extend my condolences to Audrey and children.
I also want to talk about a lady who passed away recently at Santa Teresa who was a real family woman and committed herself to helping her family and the whole community. She worked for Medical Services and she was a real healer. I am talking about Agnes Palmer who was on renal dialysis. She also had breast cancer, but never spread the message that she was sick herself. She always gave so much to other people in grief, sorrow and pain, tried to help the community recover from the crisis that we see in our Aboriginal communities, and encourage them to strive to help themselves and send their children to school. I extend my condolences to the Palmer family of Santa Teresa.
I place on the public record my condolences to the member for Arnhem and her family. She and her family have been blessed by her dear mother who was so loving and gracious to her daughters, sons and grandchildren, but also to the community of Borroloola. Standing here tonight, I can imagine her sitting up there on the right hand side of the gallery when we were debating the McArthur River bill. This lady really taught us to walk in truth during very hard times. She gave us that encouragement and the blessing to make the right decisions. I want to say to the member for Arnhem what a great loss she was, not only to her family, but also to other members. I certainly extend this condolence to her on behalf of my people at Papunya, Mt Liebig, Kintore and Haasts Bluff.
I want to talk about the nurses, police, EOs and shop managers on communities who, during very hard times in the last seven weeks, have helped set up army tents and tried to work with the Commonwealth on the intervention. They have done it very tough. We do not show our appreciation much to these people on the ground. They are the force on the ground in some of these communities. I am grateful that, as the Northern Territory government, we have put extra money into education, police and health. I thank Bob, the local sergeant at Papunya station, who is a wonderful bloke, and Parko, the shop manager, Russell at Harts Range, and Anthony, Sid Ellison, Leo Balry, Phillip Eluca, Roxanne and Theresa.
I make a special mention of Rod and Gail who have worked as trouble shooters in lots of Aboriginal communities. They have worked in places in Western Australia at Balgo, and in the Territory at Yuendumu, Kintore and now at Papunya. They are very lovely people who have gone out of their way to ensure that the minister’s local government reform is well understood within my region, and are the leading force behind encouraging people to do it now because they see opportunities for advancing that region through the reforms. I say a special thank you to Rod and Gail. They are lovely people. Also, to Jane Achuwunga at the Resource Centre at Hermannsburg who has been a real support and encouragement, to Lyn at Harts Range, Harry Scott at Titjikala, and Neville at Finke. Of course, I cannot forget my sister, Dorrie at Mutitjulu, an absolutely wonderful woman who has stuck by our people at Mutitjulu, and Theresa Nipper at Areyonga.
There are a few things I want to put on record, one of which when the Papunya football team beat the Mighty Magpies, the member for Stuart’s team, by five goals last weekend. Up the mighty Eagles! They now have a one week break before they play in the grand final. This weekend is Santa Teresa versus Yuendumu. I would really like Yuendumu to win because that will give me encouragement to barrack for Papunya in the grand final. Last year, I could not barrack because I had two teams from my electorate playing in the grand final, so I had to keep that impartiality and not barrack for either team.
I would like to put on the public record that my son is getting married in Phuket on 7 September. I wanted to say sorry I cannot be there, and hope everything goes well. I also wish my daughter a happy 26th birthday for 27 August.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I want to talk about the wonderful achievements of people in the Johnston electorate.
News just to hand is that two students at Jingili Primary School have been recognised for their efforts in the 2007 Young Territory Author of the Year Awards. I congratulate Jessica Harpur on her Commendation Award and Koal Smith for his Encouragement Award. As we are well aware, literacy is a vital skill in today’s society and it is fantastic that these two young students have taken to writing books while still in primary school. I wish them well in their future endeavours and look forward to hearing about their further accomplishments.
I congratulate and recognise the efforts of some young sports people in the Johnston electorate. Jesse and Billy Browne of Moil have been competing in BMX and Jesse has been awarded a trophy from Satellite City BMX for the two-day Open 2007 six-year-old boys’ Sprocket Rocket. Billy received a medal for competing in the two-day open competition. Congratulations, boys, and well done.
Staying with the young sports stars of Johnston, Hayden Verity has earned himself a medal from the Darwin Dragons Rugby Union Club for participation in the Under 10s, while Jason O’Meara received a medal from the Darwin Hockey Association for playing in the 2007 Under 10 boys premiership winning side. Macon Reily, Billy Browne and Jarod Luis won trophies for their participation in the Darwin Junior Football League competition in the Dockers Under 10s team, and Matthew Wells won the Best and Fairest award for the Darwin Dockers Under 10s team in the Darwin Junior Football League.
I also mention a young sportswoman with exceptional talent, Grace Fuller. Grace has won seven medals in the NT Surf Lifesaving Championships held in Darwin recently. Grace won gold in both the Under 10s beach sprint and beach flags. She was second in the Cameron event, which involves the board, running and swimming, and more running - so plenty of activity in that event. She was second in the 200 m swim and third in the boards and mixed relay. What a fantastic result for a young girl. Keep up the good work, Grace. All these young competitors go to school at Moil Primary School. It is an excellent school with a lot of participation in sport and, of course, academic studies.
I must also mention the great work again being done at Jingili Primary School in raising awareness of the plight of orphaned children in Timor Leste. The Student Representative Council is showing some real imagination in their fundraising. Last year, it was exercise books, the year before shoe boxes filled with school material and, this year, they are collecting balls, any size, any shape, new or old. The SRC has set up a collection point in the foyer of the school, and not only are they advertising in the school newsletter, but they have been writing personal letters to people like me to encourage support. Well done, and I am more than happy, of course, to support them. The balls are collected and the SRC will attempt to have them delivered to Lea Lau School in Timor Leste, although they recognise this might be difficult due to inclement weather in the later part of the year and the ongoing unrest in East Timor. However, I am assured that every effort will be made to get the balls over to Timor Leste for distribution to needy children and schools. I commend the Student Representative Council and, indeed, the Jingili School community for their sustained efforts to create a better life for the orphans and underprivileged children in East Timor.
I also take the opportunity tonight to talk about three women who have recently retired from the Department of Health and Community Services after a total of more than 76 years service between them. The three recent retirees are Leonie Bean, Jennifer Gough and Kaye Rolfe.
Leonie Bean has made a mighty contribution over many years to the Department of Health and Community Services. Leonie was farewelled at the function held at the Gove District Hospital on 16 May this year after 20 years of service. Leonie commenced work in the Maternity Ward of Gove District Hospital in 1986 as an enrolled nurse. During the course of her employment at Gove District Hospital, Leonie worked in the Paediatric Ward, and in the Medical and Surgical Wards before transferring to the Emergency Department and the Specialist Clinics, where she remained until she retired.
In 2000, Leonie was elected to the NT Nurses Board for a period of four years and was endorsed in this role as one of a minority of enrolled nurses. Leonie has always had a very special bond with the Yolgnu people of Eastern Arnhem Land. She is highly regarded by the local people who look to her for support regarding health and personal issues, and she is often asked to attend special ceremonies. Leonie has been adopted into a well know Yolgnu family in Yirrkala, and I am sure members join me in wishing Leonie all the best in retirement.
Similarly, Jennifer Gough has made a mighty contribution, particularly at Royal Darwin Hospital, over many years of service. On 7 June this year, Jennifer retired from Royal Darwin Hospital after more than 20 years of service. Jennifer was engaged as a registered nurse and worked in a range of departments in Royal Darwin Hospital during her employment, including Pathology, Mental Health, Workforce Support, and operating theatres. Over the past six years, Jennifer worked tirelessly, undertaking scouting and scrub duties, but mostly in Anaesthetics.
Jennifer has been a dedicated nurse and a valuable staff member who worked hard to provide high standards of patient care with her drive and enthusiasm, which I am sure will be sorely missed within the hospital. Jennifer was also a campaigner for occupational health and safety and, at one stage, was a member of the Royal Darwin Hospital Occupational Health and Safety Committee. I am sure all members join me tonight in wishing her the best in her retirement.
Another mighty contribution is the one Kaye Rolfe has made to the Department of Health and Community Services. Kaye retired from the department on 10 August after 36 years of service. She commenced as a registered nurse at Royal Darwin Hospital in 1971 in the Intensive Care Unit and worked in various other areas during her time there.
After Cyclone Tracy in 1974, Kaye transferred to the Darwin Community Health Nursing Team. Always conscientious about professional development, she obtained her Midwifery Certificate in 1976 and, subsequently, completed her audiometry training. For the past 23 years, Kaye has been a nurse audiometrist in hearing services in Community Health.
Kaye provided a valuable service to Top End people over this period, and she has been a strong advocate for hearing issues. She has been extensively involved with indigenous health in both urban and remote settings. Kaye has played a supporting role for other audiometrists in the hearing services.
Kaye is an avid animal lover and hopes to support the RSPCA and other agencies during her retirement. She is also a keen walker, and residents of Nakara will have seen her over the years as she pounded the pavement on her 5 km walk every day, I am advised. Kaye is taking long service leave, and will then proceed to retirement.
I thank Leonie, Jennifer and Kaye for their contribution to health services, and wish them long and happy retirements.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker I close, once again, highlighting the achievements of the people in the Johnston electorate, and commending the great contribution over many years from three wonderful ladies to the Department of Health and Community Services.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I congratulate all schools and students involved in the Northern Zone Athletics Carnival at Marrara. It was great to see such strong competition. The students thoroughly enjoyed themselves. It was a friendly competition, and a very successful afternoon put together by the great efforts of Paulina Motlop whom I have known for many years as a PE teacher at Manunda Terrace Primary School. She has recently stepped up to the elevated position of running the physical education competitions across the zone and is doing a magnificent job.
This year, there was an unusual result. Normally, there are two awards given out at the end of the carnival. One is the handicap perpetual award, which is the Delia Lawrie Shield, and the other is the overall winners, which is the Len Kiely Shield. Normally, you do not see the same school taking out both awards. However, it was an exceptional year this year and the little school nestled away in my electorate which punches above its weight consistently – they have taken out a national literacy award in the past, for example - Manunda Terrace Primary School took out both the handicap and overall winners. It was a real feather in the cap of the PE staff at Manunda Terrace Primary. My congratulations go to all of the students who participated. Well done to Bill Armstrong, the principal, who is immensely proud of his students, I am sure, and the dedicated hard-working staff at Manunda.
At Karama, we have a strong sense of community and there is a small, but cohesive, band of people who turn up every month to the Neighbourhood Watch meeting. Marion, the quiet achiever, is the Area Coordinator, and Joe and Heleneare there, solid as a rock, at every meeting. We have organised fun days during some previous years, and last year we had our first information day at the Karama Shopping Centre. Neighbour Watch decided they wanted to repeat the information day so we had a range of store holders providing information to members of the community, and it was very successful. I thank Marion, Joe, and Helene for their enormous efforts. They are residents living out a nice existence in Karama, but they are very community-minded and spirited people - solid, quiet achievers.
I take the time also to thank Kevin Cluley who has been actively involved with his wife, Rita, in Neighbourhood Watch. Kevin is a very quiet, gentle man, a retiree whom I know is very actively involved in his local community. Kevin was encouraged by our local Neighbourhood Watch team to step up to a Neighbourhood Watch Board position. Anyone who knows Kevin knows he is not the sort of person to put himself up like that, but he took on the efforts of our local Neighbourhood Watch and stepped up to board membership. He attended quite a few board meetings and really put in the hard yards at Neighbourhood Watch Board level.
He and his wife do a fair amount of travel as they are retirees. They are part of the grey nomad army at times, and so Kevin has had to step down from board membership because of his travel commitments to visit family around Australia. My thanks go to Kevin for the significant effort he made in Neighbourhood Watch. He is a great man for fair and democratic processes, and he really was a clarion call within the Neighbourhood Watch group about what is a fair and democratic way to approach the very community-spirited band of residents who are the heart and soul of the Neighbourhood Watch committees from throughout the Territory. Kevin, thank you for taking on a task that I know you were a bit reticent to do, but you did it extremely well. We are very proud of you and hope you enjoy your travels with your lovely wife, Rita.
I acknowledge a wonderful celebration last week. On Saturday night, the Catholic community of Karama gathered and celebrated the 20th birthday of O’Loughlin College. It is a fantastic Catholic college and it was quite amazing to see its growth over time. They had a great photo display there of the school at its various stages of growth. When they opened 20 years ago, they had a cohort of about 90 students. They are expecting in the vicinity of 700 to 800 students next year with the advent of middle schools and the Grade 7s moving up from Holy Spirit and Holy Family and other local primary schools.
The college has really gone from strength to strength. There have been great principals over the years. I sat next to their first principal, Ian Hunter who, with his lovely wife, came up for the occasion, and it was lovely to meet him. It was really nice to see that Gary Griffiths was over from Nguiu. He was a principal at O’Loughlin and now runs the school at Nguiu. It was great to see him and his lovely wife, Cathy. Lester Lemke is the principal of the school now. I have to say Lester is a dynamic school principal. He has a history of having been at St John’s and was the Deputy Principal at Darwin High School for some years, and has an interesting blend of the private Catholic and public school experience. He has been a dynamic, driving force in organising the move to middle schools for O’Loughlin College. It has been a real pleasure to work with Lester. I am a huge fan of the genuine concern he shows the students of the school, the care and the way he works with the teachers and the administrative staff. He has been a leader in the school community in creating stronger links with the junior school on the campus, Holy Family School. In that sense, he has been ably assisted by the new Principal at Holy Family School, Marty Ogle, who is a very gentle man but a man of vision and great energy. Certainly, those schools are looking forward to an exciting middle schools introduction next year.
On the subject of middle schools, I pay tribute to the hard work being done by Russell Legg at Sanderson High School. Sanderson High School, as Russell is fond of pointing out to me, will have a whole new school cohort next year. It will be very interesting to see the way the school dynamics change with Years 7s, 8s and 9s there. Russell is well known to parents in the area. He was Principal at Malak Primary School for some years. Having come from a primary feeder school into Sanderson High, he has a real appreciation of the pastoral care in which the Years 7s, 8s and 9s need to be enveloped to make the middle school as successful as it can be.
I am very confident about Sanderson High being an exceptional middle school next year because Russell has put in a huge effort, both in positioning the school well for the change to middle school but, importantly, working with the feeder primary schools in the area. He has a good working relationship with Marg Fenbury at Karama and Bill Armstrong at Manunda. It is really encouraging to see the way the school principals are pulling together and planning for the introduction of middle schools. They are all strong capable schools. Paul Nyhuis, who is the new Principal at Malak Primary, has significant middle school experience, having come from a middle school system in the US and operated successfully at Kormilda College before he took up the leadership at Malak Primary.
In education options within my electorate in the northern suburbs, we are extremely well blessed both with the dynamic leadership I am seeing at the public school and the very progressive leadership I am seeing within the Catholic school system. To showcase the various schools in the community and to start parents’ minds thinking about middle schools, I am hosting a Malak Fun Day next weekend. There will be schools with displays, students performing and we will have the people who make up Malak village, for example, the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory.
I must also thank the team at Browns Mart. They have set up a community arts project at Malak. To Bon Ramilo and his team, thank you for coming into the Malak village, as I like to call it, where we have a range of non-government organisations providing services directly to the community at Malak. They will all be coming out and be a part of the community celebrations, but there will be a core focus on middle schools and the opportunities and choices the parents will be making pretty well now because enrolments are flowing thick and fast around the school communities across the northern suburbs.
To all those people who get in there and do the hard work, thank you very much. I feel very privileged as local member to work closely with you. I know they do not hesitate to call me or e-mail me if anything is happening that they need any assistance with. I am starting to lose track of the number of donations I make towards sausages for sizzles. The local childcare centres have me on constant tap now for either a donation towards a jumping castle or sausages for sizzles for their fundraisers. It is one of the wonderful aspects of being a local member; to be able to support the community-based efforts that occur within our neighbourhood.
Karama and Malak have a nice demographic mix of people who are in public housing and looking for better opportunities in life, young families who have just bought into their first home, as well as the more established families that have been in the suburb since it was first developed more than 20 years ago, and who are fascinating to listen to about how they have seen it develop over the years. We have a nice cohort of senior citizens, and the women and men of the Malak Seniors Group have had a lot of good times and will continue to have good times. They came here to Parliament House to celebrate Seniors Month. I hosted a lunch for them out on Speaker’s Green and they were absolutely thrilled. It was the first time that they have had a lunch hosted for them at Parliament House. We had a beautiful range of meals for them and they got stuck into the wine and had a great time. They are looking forward to next year’s Seniors Month, actually. Each year, I have to think of something else for them. They have had excursions to see crocodiles and all manner of activities over the years. I confess it is getting tougher, but they are full of bright suggestions and good ideas, so I look forward to next year’s Seniors Month.
I want to thank Merilyn Krink who organises the Malak Seniors Group. She does a great job with her daughter assisting her. It is unpaid, volunteer work. She is there every week, organising and serving meals to a group of our seniors. They do not just come from the area of Malak; they come from right across the northern suburbs. Merilyn is a very generous soul, and is a real example to the rest of us of how personally rewarding it can be to contribute to your community and the welfare of our senior citizens.
I am under a bit of a pressure; they want me to put on a pink party again. They do like my annual fundraiser for Dragons Abreast. I have told them that we will be having it. It is going to be a bit later in the year than we normally have it, but the seniors love the pink party because they have access to a significant wine tasting, and they really do enjoy their wine tasting. It is a highlight on their social calendar each year. I have promised them that the pink party will be on again this year. It will be the third year in a row. Like every other year, the proceeds will go to Dragons Abreast.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I first extend congratulations - and I am sure it is on behalf of all members of the Chamber - to the member for Greatorex who will be married this weekend. He is to be married in Alice Springs and I am sure I join with all honourable members to wish him all the very best on his marriage.
Dr Burns: Hear, hear! All the best.
Ms Lawrie: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: After his first two weeks in parliament, he will come back with a band of gold on his finger at the next sittings in October.
Tonight, my aim is to conclude the overview of my time in Taiwan, and that which has been learnt from the trip and what was confirmed through observations that have been followed up since then.
As I said last night, the fascinating and complex political nature of affairs as they surround Taiwan are a good feel for a greater insight into foreign affairs and, more importantly and topically, a better opportunity to understand China because no insight or understanding of China, which has fascinated commentators for years, is complete without an understanding of Taiwan.
Last night, I was telling the history, particularly from 1949 when the last remaining Nationalists fled across the strait to Taiwan, taking with them nearly a million refugees. That was a stalemate: Mao Zedong and the Communists on the mainland established the People’s Republic of China, and the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek on Taiwan. The plan of the Communists was never completely satisfied because the Nationalists remained with their eyes back on the mainland.
Time has moved on, but what happened in Taiwan is that Chiang Kai-shek maintained martial law in Taiwan. I thought that Chiang Kai-shek and the Chinese all went across to Taiwan and that was that, but there was a thriving and very complex and interesting society in Taiwan at that time. It was not initially a Chinese colony. There were the Austronesian language groups there, the Aboriginal and original inhabitants of Taiwan, with its history back with the Portuguese and Dutch. The influx of refugees under Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists - Taiwan was under Nationalist control prior to that, but in 1949 when they all moved across to Taiwan - was a terrible time for Taiwan. With that influx of soldiers who had been fighting against the Communists for so many years, Chiang Kai-shek had complete and total control over Taiwan, and it was brutal at times. That is something I did not know. We often look at Mao Zedong and his totalitarian rule over China under the Communists; it was the same on Taiwan. The only thing that distinguished them was the fact that they were totally opposed politically, but in every other respect they were the same in their dealing with the people. Both were totalitarian states.
Power was transferred from Chiang Kai-shek to his son, Chiang Ching-kuo but, under the reign of the son of Chiang Kai-shek, there began a move to political reform. The Kuomintang, which was the political face of the Nationalists, began to move towards political reform and decided to go down the path of democratisation.
The first and partial lift of martial law allowed for the first time development of a semi-open society. When the first elections where held, an opposing party won the election for the first time in 50 years, and the first President was Lee Teng-hui. That full and open election was in March 2000. The Kuomintang is still a very strong political force there; they are like the conservatives. The Blue Party, the Democratic Progressive Party, the DPP, still holds power today after the second election.
The Taiwanese are very proud of their democracy. Their parliament is incredibly robust. We have exchanges here; the Taiwanese laugh about the robustness of debate within their Chamber, so much so there have been assaults when people get so angry in holding their points of view. They are very proud of it because they see it as democracy in action, even though it is quite robust and a little embarrassing at times. They are so proud of democracy and the fact that, as a nation, they have moved towards a position where they have a parliament, unlike the giant neighbour that threatens them, which has not moved down the path of political reform, although they have moved on the path of economic reform, way behind Taiwan. In respect of political reform, Taiwan has runs on the board, and mainland China, the People’s Republic of China, does not.
I do not intend to spend too much time referring in detail to the human rights concerns that exist in China - and they are significant. We have this history sitting behind the scenes with political reform in recent times, but the underlying issue of unresolved grievance between the Communists and the Nationalists affecting and influencing current policy is evident today. It has resulted in an interesting political position for the rest of the world because, behind China’s strength, lobbying and arguments, some of which are sound, sits an unresolved historic grievance which has influenced current policy.
By way of background, without going too far into it, the Australian government’s policy towards Taiwan is based on a joint communiqu of 21 December 1972 between Australia and the People’s Republic of China. Under the terms of that communiqu, Australia recognises the government of the People’s Republic of China as China’s sole legal government, and acknowledges the position of the Chinese government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China. That is a position which Taiwan does not accept, but is now the official position which the Australian government has endorsed.
Australia, therefore, does not accept that the authorities in Taiwan, who claim to be the Republic of China, have the status of a national government. This policy has been adhered to by Australian governments since 1972. Prior to that, there was an unusual situation where Taiwan was regarded as the official government of China, which is a fascinating psychological and political manifestation of that historic position. At that point, both effectively were dictatorships but, since that time, Taiwan has moved on along the path of political reform which opens up all sorts of possibilities.
What does that mean for the Northern Territory? What sort of practical dealings can we have in the face of the joint communiqu of 21 December 1972? Interestingly, there is great trade and liaison between Australia and Taiwan; it is quite permissible. There are certain protocols that must be observed at the national level, but government business enterprises and other commercial and independent agencies may deal freely with Taiwan on commercial matters.
This is what I observed in my initial analysis of Taiwan, and why I am attracted to Taiwan. I am attracted to the political issues and finding my own principled position of where I stand on that matter. However, I found that when it comes to state and territory governments, they are in a unique position. Since contact between state and territory governments and Taiwan do not, in principle, touch on issues of national sovereignty, they can exercise flexibility in how they conduct their unofficial relations with Taiwan. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is able to provide practical advice to state and territory governments on managing China/Taiwan issues that may arise from time to time.
If anyone has an interest in China or Taiwan, I encourage them to pursue it. It is very interesting because it provides great insights into how foreign affairs are conducted and it gives you insights into how the affairs within our region work. That issue has its influence right across all of our trading partners. The Territory has plenty of opportunities because Taiwan, especially at present, is overshadowed by the larger economies of its neighbours, particularly mainland China and Japan. It does, nonetheless, boast a dynamic, middle income, regional economy with many leading high-edge sectors. It has such potential that it considers its economy to be under-performing at its current growth rate of 4.5%. In fact, Taiwan’s economy is stronger, more diverse, more technologically advanced and more important than many Australians realise. It is an ideal, long-term trading partner for Australia and Australian companies, offering many opportunities as its economy moves towards full maturity and greater prosperity.
If I have enough time, I will talk about some of the local opportunities but, broadly speaking, Taiwan offers tremendous opportunities for the Territory. It is, as the Territory often describes itself, a niche market. We try to take on China and, in fact, China is making its approaches to the Territory. Taiwan, I argue, is like a niche market that we could relate to. It is very robust and very diverse. We are resource rich and that is one of the reasons they invited me. They did not know much about the Northern Territory and were very interested to learn about what the Territory could offer in resources. One of reasons was an opportunity for education and indigenous learning particularly, but I will go onto that if I have sufficient time.
In summary, in economic opportunities, with Taiwan’s economic structure, the level of development, the opportunity it offers, it is very different from China. Compared with China, the investment climate in Taiwan is relatively low risk. The operating environment for business in Taiwan is sound and the government is continuing to implement laws to improve it. It is very important for anyone who has had any dealings with economies and businesses outside Australia. It is a secure working environment. The financial sector has seen considerable liberalisation over the past few years. Taiwan has a well-developed legal and regulatory system and the Taiwan government has enacted a number of laws ensuring the protection of intellectual property rights.
I urge any Territory business and the Territory government to consider ways by which we can seek opportunity for trade benefits between the Territory and Taiwan. One that is being explored and will be developed is links between Charles Darwin University and Fu-Jen University in Taipei. They visited here nearly a year ago. I had the opportunity to visit them whilst I was over there. Dialogue has continued between Charles Darwin and Fu-Jen Universities. I look forward to bringing further reports as to how the link between the universities progresses because there is great interest on the Taiwan side and they are considering formalising their links with Charles Darwin University.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about an issue in my electorate; namely the recent signing of the 99-year lease on the Tiwi Islands. This has been quite a long saga of what people deem to be negotiations and consultations on the island. Particularly from the land council’s perspective, and others, the Tiwis have always wanted to be the first to enter into this brave new world of 99-year leases.
When it was first mooted about two years ago, there were many fears held by traditional owners and other groups on Tiwi at the thought of handing over what is their ownership of their country for 100 years - you might as well say 100 years despite the lease being a 99-year one.
Over this time, I have seen a lot of courage that you normally would not see among my people, particularly the women who have stood up and questioned the process and how negotiations have happened. For the first time, women, who normally would not have been involved in these processes, were coming forward and grappling with the concept. For a long time, everyone accepted that the Tiwi Land Council was the authority on land and negotiations for land so, for years, no one questioned the projects and development that the Tiwi Land Council entered into. That certainly changed over the last one or two years, with emerging young leaders who could see that many of these projects had been fraught with problems.
They questioned them, and I have seen the aftermath of many meetings when people have been threatened and totally intimidated. Non-indigenous people who have lived over there for a long time, non-Tiwis, were taken into rooms and told that they were not to provide any advice or talk to Tiwis in relation to these 99-year leases. They were threatened that their contracts would be revoked and they would be sent off the island. The two years of this project have been fraught.
For me, as a Tiwi person, it has been quite an emotional rollercoaster. I was brought up by a very strong Tiwi mother with the belief that Tiwi are one people, one language and there is never any dispute about whether you are Tiwi or not; if you fit in to a skin group, that is your right and inheritance so there has never been any dispute. In the last two years, the issue of the 99-year lease has certainly divided my people like no other issue has ever divided us. It has been quite sad to watch the divisions that have been slowly creeping in among some of the men from the land council versus some of the young leaders, with women caught in between.
No one is disputing that in our communities, we have to change things, that we can no longer stay in the same rut and not have progress in communities. I have said very clearly that I am not against development per se or the communities moving forward but, when you see a project that has been fraught with problems and the process is so wrong that it excludes people, as the local member and a Tiwi, I have every right to question. Like many of the women, my questions have been dismissed and not listened to.
Out of all of this there has been one, I suppose, traditional owner, Adam Kerinaiua, who has been questioning that. I take my hat off to Kilapawu Puruntatameri, who is one of the most senior female traditional owners from the Mantiyupwigroup who, despite some of her people signing the first agreement to go ahead with the 99-year lease, could see that this was problematic and resisted proceeding with the signing until she was satisfied that all of her questions had been answered by the Commonwealth and the Tiwi Land Council to the extent that she would feel comfortable signing away her rights as a traditional owner for 99 years.
Kilapawu is not a stupid woman. This is a woman who was the principal of the school over there for many years. She is very well educated, went to Monash University and is a qualified teacher. She tried to work through this process but, not being able to get the basic answers to questions that were being asked by people, she was never comfortable with the signing of the lease. Even today, when the land council signed the agreement, the questions that Kilapawu and many of the Tiwi people have about the 99-year lease are left unanswered.
It is disappointing. It is sad when you have a federal minister who is prepared to sign an agreement when he knows that this project has been fraught for many years and contradicts everything that he has said about this intervention. I said to Mal Brough over many meetings on the Tiwi Islands - where he has called my people the trailblazers - that this is an island that has the highest suicide rate in Australia, four times the national average, where sexual abuse is rife and there is evidence of that, and where there are real issues with alcohol abuse in the community. He misses an opportunity to try to get a proper agreement in place that puts the responsibility back on the community to deal with some of the fundamental issues that are crippling that community.
Entering into a 99-year lease and opening that community up and saying we are open for business for all and sundry is not going to deal with the underlying issues that are in that community. The Tiwis know that there are problems. A lot of the women want to see change, but not in the way that is being proposed by the Tiwi Land Council or the federal government.
Today, we saw the signing of that lease. It is unfortunate that they have gone ahead without full approval or agreement by all the traditional owners. I question and wonder why it is that the most significant agreement for the Tiwis - and the first ever 99-year lease that has been signed in the Northern Territory on ALRA land - was signed in a community away from the very community that will be affected. Why was that lease signed today? The chairman of the land council was unaware that the signing was happening today. That is another question. Why were the majority or a number of land council men who were questioned and asked about the signing of the lease not present at that meeting, nor did they have any knowledge of the lease being signed today?
There are a number of questions as to why the lease was signed today, away from Nguiu when the majority of the Mantiyupwi, who are the traditional owners of Nguiu, were not present at all at the signing of the lease. These are questions that need to be answered. I said today that I would be writing to the Chairman of the Tiwi Land Council and to all members to seek a meeting with the land council to ascertain information in relation to that.
The complex nature of the leasing proposal required clear explanation of the issues, and that has never been done. Whatever legal information was given to the Tiwis, there was never any funding given for Tiwi interpreters to be able to explain to people what those processes are. The federal government funded the land council to put in place a process to enable this dissemination and breakdown of the information. That has never been carried out to date. The Commonwealth agency that has been doing all the negotiations and all the media releases, that have gone out congratulating the land council and the Tiwi people, make a mockery of democracy. People are entitled to have a say and some input to the process. My heart goes out to all of the women, particularly, who have questioned this proposal, who have stood united against this happening and whose voices have been lost once again.
This is just a typical day in communities, and nothing much has changed. Women’s voices are lost amongst the greed of men and the need for these blokes to pat themselves on the back and say that they have done a wonderful job.
However, having said that, if this is what the traditional owners want, I wish them all the best. There are going to be many divisions for many years to come. I do not think everyone is 100% supportive of this. I will be raising my issues with the land council in the hope that we are still able to work through them. The land council seriously needs to look at itself internally because every project that they have ever put there hands on has been fraught with problems. This is something that the federal government has failed to address over time. I hope Mal Brough wakes up before it is too late.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 6/7 Wagaman Primary School students, accompanied by Margaret McPherson, who are participating in the Parliament of Wizards as a part of Celebrating Democracy Week. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome. May I say what a beautiful uniform it is.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITIONS
Fogg Dam Monsoon Forest Boardwalk
Fogg Dam Monsoon Forest Boardwalk
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 1445 petitioners taken over a two-week period praying that the funding be approved to replace the Fogg Dam monsoon forest boardwalk so it can reopen in 2007. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of Standing Orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory,
We the undersigned respectfully ask that government honour a sign at the monsoon forest walk at Fogg Dam Conservation Reserve which states: ‘Sorry, walk closed. The walk will be reopened in 2007 after extensive maintenance to the boardwalk. Sorry for any inconvenience’.
The boardwalk, the most spectacular part of the walk, was damaged by fires in 2003 and 2005 and has been removed. The monsoon forest walk is a key attraction at Fogg Dam because of its diversity of flora and habitat for rainbow pittas. Visitors, many of whom are international, express disappointment that the boardwalk is closed. As construction of the boardwalk is only possible at the end of the Dry Season, funding for its replacement to reopen in 2007 is needed urgently. Otherwise the boardwalk will not open until the end of 2008 or at the earliest 2009.
- Your petitioners humbly pray that parliament approve funding to replace the Fogg Dam monsoon forest boardwalk so it can reopen in 2007, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table photos of the boardwalk as it was before it was destroyed and as it is now.
Leave granted.
Promotion of Darwin City
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with Standing Orders from 772 petitioners relating to the promotion of Darwin city. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- Petition to Darwin City Councillors for promotion of Darwin city.
This is a petition from concerned Darwin City shop traders and customers. The object of this petition is to notify the council of the desperate need for promotion of Darwin city to encourage more people to come into the city and thereby boost sales, service and trade in the city area. The city could be a vibrant and successful shopping and service precinct with the correct promotional advertising and direction.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Events for Young Territorians
Events for Young Territorians
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, one of the main priorities when we won government in 2001 was to give young Territorians the chance to experience events they previously had to travel south to attend, such as AFL matches, top-level netball, basketball and international test cricket. We wanted to develop our very own high-quality music festival and get the best bands available to play, and that is how BassintheDust and BassintheGrass concerts came into being.
We wanted these concerts to be accessible and appropriate to our under 18s who cannot attend nightclubs or other licensed premises. With this in mind, we have always tried to keep ticket prices down at a reasonable cost. So $45 for up to 11 hours of entertainment is pretty good value for money and, judging by the success of the events, I think Territorians agree.
Four years on, BassintheDust and BassintheGrass are two of the biggest and most exciting events on our calendar and they are getting more and more popular by the year.
The recent BassintheGrass concert in Darwin saw around 7000 people passing through the Amphitheatre gates and that is regarded as venue capacity. That is double what it was for the inaugural event held in 2003.
This year’s BassintheDust is set to be the best ever. Its first home was the Alice Springs Convention Centre but, since 2005, Anzac Oval has hosted Central Australia’s premier music festival. This change of venue, together with the quality of the bands, has seen crowd numbers increase dramatically. The first BassintheDust had 913 young Centralians attend. Last year, the figure had grown to an impressive 2300, which tells you something about how Centralians have taken to BassintheDust. You can get to see some very interesting sights at BassintheDust, Madam Speaker, as you know - some of our senior politicians in the mosh pit.
Mr Mills: Shame!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, that record may not last for long when you consider the line up this year. Can I say that Madam Speaker is very impressive in the mosh pit!
The record may not last for long when you consider the line-up for this year, and I hope you are back in the mosh pit. We have managed to persuade Jet to back their highly successful BassintheGrass appearance in Darwin. They were enormously successful here. Those talented Western Australians, The Waifs, will be there too as part of the national tour to promote their soon-to-be-released album. Throw in TZU behind Crimson Eyes, Low Rider Mammal and a number of local acts, and you have a line-up that is sure to strike a chord with the people of Central Australia.
As most parents know, we enforce a disciplined but friendly environment for all 11 hours of the festival, with alcohol-free time running from 12 noon to 5 pm. The annual cost of staging BassintheDust has grown to $300 000. We contribute $150 000, with the rest being made up through sponsorship and gate receipts, but our investment in this event spreads far and wide.
Local contractors and service providers are used exclusively where possible, and the benefits to the local business sector and the Central Australian economy are significant. For example, a concert like this means we have to hire shading, toilet blocks, fencing, cleaning and waste disposal, security, lighting towers, generator sets and various consumer products. We use ticket agents, booking shops, accommodation houses and restaurants. It is great for business and great for the economy.
I thank Paul Cattermole and his team at NT Major Events Company for an amazing job in organising and growing both BassintheDust and BassintheGrass over the past four years. For BassintheDust, I thank the Alice Springs Town Council for their cooperation. It has sometimes been difficult along the way, but we have reached a good cooperative arrangement and, of course, in Darwin, Darwin City Council.
To all those gearing up for the festival, have a great time. I commend this report to the House and to our young guests. I hope that you get a chance to go to BassintheGrass. I am sure some of you have been already.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her report this morning. It is really important to provide as much activity and events like this for young people. The really important thing is that we demonstrate that they can have a wonderful experience without alcohol. I was very pleased to read in the paper today that there is consideration of banning smoking. I am all in favour of having a smoke-free and alcohol-free environment for young people to have great fun and listen to fantastic music with their friends.
As the Chief Minister said, it is an opportunity, especially for Central Australia, to have an economic boost for Alice Springs. We would love to see something on a smaller scale supported in the regions. In Katherine, we have the Katherine Country Music Muster which a lot of the young ones come along and experience. I wish the events every success, which is obvious by the increasing numbers attending each year.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am glad we have sorted out the problems with the Alice Springs Town Council over the venue. Obviously, Anzac Hill is the venue it should be held and the increased numbers prove that. Let us hope we do not have any grizzles and gripes from our town council who seem to carry on a little about rubbish and noise and God knows what. They should be getting behind this. I am interested in how much they contribute to this event, Chief Minister, because it is a great event.
I am pleased that you are saying that as far as possible, local businesses are used. I know there was some concern about the stage and sound system going to an interstate firm, so I presume that may have been rectified this year. Perhaps you could tell me about that.
I know it is great to have Jet, but I am sorry, I do not know who Jet is, but I am sure they are going to be good.
Mr Wood: It’s John, Paul, George and Ringo.
Mrs BRAHAM: If it has Madam Speaker up mushing or dancing, it must be a good thing for sure. The kids in Alice Springs do deserve things like this. Too often, we put them down and they are blamed for all sorts of things, so it is a real positive thing that the government is doing by putting on BassintheDust.
It shows that you do care and that you are willing to spend some money on the young people of our town. If there is any message that goes out, we should say to young people: ‘Yes, this is for you. Show us that you can enjoy it in a sensible way. Have a good time but make sure that you do not go to extremes in your behaviour’. Chief Minister, let us hope this continues as an annual event. It is well worthwhile.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. There is no question of this not continuing. We have seen both BassintheDust and BassintheGrass grow and be more sustainable over the four years. When you look at the growth in attendance, particularly in Alice Springs where we were very concerned for a couple of years that the numbers were low, we have found the right venue. The issues over the venue have been absolutely sorted out, and I say thank you to Alice Springs Town Council; I think we have a good cooperative arrangement. These events are now embedded in the calendar for young Territorians and people genuinely look forward to them.
I was delighted with BassintheGrass when, for numbers of weeks before it, teenagers were painting T-shirts, looking at how they will coordinate, and they look fantastic when they go. The same happens with BassintheDust.
I am sorry if you do not know about Jet. If you want any more information about Jet, speak to the member for Wanguri who is passionate. Considering they build on the foundations of The Beatles and Stones, I am disappointed you do not know more about them. They will be great.
National Child Protection Week
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, National Child Protection Week is held in September every year, kicking off this year on Sunday the 2nd. The Northern Territory program for the week is coordinated by NAPCAN Northern Territory, the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, Northern Territory Branch.
NAPCAN is a non-profit, volunteer-based organisation whose aim is to prevent abuse and neglect of children by inspiring all community members to take responsibility for children’s wellbeing. On Monday morning, it will be my great pleasure to attend the NAPCAN breakfast with my colleague, the minister for Education, where I will presenting a Children’s Champion Award.
Child Protection Week sees a range of activities, events, training and forums across the Northern Territory, all based on this year’s theme of making your community a safer and friendlier place for children. This accords with NAPCAN’s vision, which is that every Australian community is child-friendly.
An important part of Child Protection Week in the Territory is the awarding of $30 000 worth of grants funded by my agency of Family and Community Services. These competitive small grants to a maximum of $1000 are available to communities and community groups to conduct activities or events that work to prevent child abuse and neglect. To date, there have been 15 successful grant applications from across the Northern Territory. Activities and events include a healthy living and lifestyle disco dance party for young people at Ntaria, protective behaviour programs for mothers and children at the Darwin Aboriginal and Islander Women’s Shelter, family fun days at the Alice Springs and Darwin Correctional Centres, and the creation of a set of indigenous-inspired marionettes for use in delivering health promotion and lifestyle messages throughout the Top End.
Other successful applicants are: Dawn House; the Top End Division of General Practitioners; Palmerston Safe Communities; Good Beginnings in Katherine; Alice Springs Women’s Shelter; Crisis Accommodation at Gove; the Salvation Army Flying Padre; FAST, which is the Family and Schools Together; Playgroup NT; and Yipirinya School Council. Madam Speaker, I congratulate all of the applicants of the Child Protection Week grants for their commitment to this critical area of our society.
I take this opportunity to commend NAPCAN for its vision, commitment and contribution to the wellbeing of our children. The sort of work this organisation does as it quietly goes about its ongoing daily business is largely overlooked in the current climate of dramatic intervention. NAPCAN is establishing itself as a voice in support of child-friendly communities, for the wellbeing of children and the prevention of child abuse and neglect. Its community approach challenges the commonly promoted view that only parents carry the sole responsibility for child safety and wellbeing.
The Care and Protection of Children Bill I introduced last week picks up this theme. The bill explicitly states:
- … society as a whole has a responsibility in safeguarding the wellbeing of children and in supporting families in fulfilling their roles in relation to children.
I am certain members of this House will support this view. Successful solutions to the complex and endemic social problems of child abuse and neglect can only be found by working in partnership with communities. The role of all of us in framing children’s behaviour and influencing the causes of child abuse and neglect is very starkly portrayed in an advertisement campaign currently being run by NAPCAN. The TV advertisement is called ‘Children See, Children Do’. The advertisement is not currently being shown in the Northern Territory, which is something I am working to change. However, I urge members to look at it on the NAPCAN website. It is confronting and emotional, and makes the point so clearly that child abuse is everyone’s business and the solution is the responsibility of all across the generations.
This government has provided substantial growth to the child protection budget and, last week, the Chief Minister announced an additional $79m in funding focused on keeping children safe in the Closing the Gap package. These are essential measures, but it is also essential that all members of our community play a part in keeping children safe. Child Protection Week is a timely reminder that we all need to keep a lookout for our kids in our community.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. I am interested, minister, that the NAPCAN advertisement is not being shown in the Territory. I am glad to hear that you are doing what you can to ensure that it does show in the Territory; it should. It may well be the case - and I am sure you have turned your mind to this - that perhaps it will require an injection of government funding to ensure that Territorians see that advertisement. In my view, that would be money very well spent.
Child Protection Week is always an interesting week. As the minister said, there are a range of activities. Perhaps next week, more so than ever before, Child Protection Week will have the attention of more Territorians than it has had in the past for very obvious reasons. I hope that the message gets through to every Territorian that the protection of our children is vital. There is no doubt about that. All of us need to do more.
I note the minister referred to the new Community Welfare Bill. I am continuing to make my way through that bill and I look forward to debating it in October. It is an opportunity, in light of the minister’s comments, for urging government generally to give some consideration to the one-stop-shop concept of mobile units, particularly in the bush, having everything from counselling, forensic police, welfare worker facilities all in the one place. That is a worthwhile thing to consider, in particular, the specialist sexual assault courts area - and I will say it again - something I think the government should look at.
I wish everyone well for next week and thank NAPCAN for its ongoing efforts over a very long period of time in this area. Thank you, minister, for bringing on this report.
Northern Territory Indigenous Music Awards
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, yesterday the member for Braitling noted that I did not mention the Northern Territory Indigenous Music Awards. Not only was she not listening yesterday, but she did not attend the awards. Therefore, I am happy to report to her and, indeed, the whole of parliament on this fantastic event that happened on Saturday.
Yet again, the Indigenous Music Awards was a fantastic event, as I am sure you will agree, Madam Speaker, as you where seen dancing to Nabarlek. The awards are now cemented as one of the leading events in the national music calendar, attended by heavyweights from the industry. Those last Saturday included well-known Australian performers, Sony Music, APRA, AIR and the Wantok Music Foundation.
All of the awards are judged by people at the top of their profession nationally. Already, just from Saturday, Territory performers have been offered interstate dates down south, and we are hopeful of international gigs to follow. There is absolutely no doubt that the awards and the national focus they have is reaping direct benefits for the industry. For this, we really must thank Music NT, as well as the crew from Agentur who put the night together.
I must say that this year’s awards were particularly pleasing because of the overwhelming success of performers from my own seat of Arafura. Nabarlek Band from Manmoyi outstation in my electorate, as I have mentioned, was the standout success on the night receiving five awards: Album of the Year for Manmoyi Radio, People’s Choice for Song of Country Award, Film Clip of the Year, Artwork and Design of the Year, while Terrah Guymala, the front man and principal songwriter of Nabarlek, won Song of the Year.
For me, there were three absolute highlights of the night. The first, without a doubt, was the wonderful performance by Mandawuy and Gurrumull Yunupingu, accompanied on Yidaki by Nicky Yunupingu. It was absolutely electrifying.
The second standout performance of the night was the GR Burarrawanga memorial concert as a tribute to the memory of this late great singer of the Warumpi Band. It featured many past members and family of this great groundbreaking band. Also, the women and men dancers from his home island of Galiwinku captivated the audience. A highlight of the memorial was having Shellie Morris, Jessica Mauboy and Leah Flanagan joining Warumpi for a very moving rendition of My Island Home.
Before anyone else accuses me of politicising the evening, I inform members of the Assembly unable to attend last Saturday night that the family of the late singer gave us all the honour of allowing vision and words from him to be shown to the whole crowd, and this was the third great moment of the night. In that statement, the late GR Burarrawanga made an impassioned statement about the need to hold on to land rights and culture - no more, no less than what I and a number of other speakers said on the night.
It was fabulous to see Leah Flanagan win the inaugural GR Burarrawanga Memorial Award presented by the Chief Minister. She is a wonderful young woman and very aware of the legacy left to her and other young performers by the late great Warumpi Band singer. The $5000 package she was awarded as Emerging Act will be of great assistance in her career.
Quickly, Madam Speaker, the list of winners include: Act of the Year, Jessica Mauboy; School Band of the Year, Crazy Boyz and the Frontstreet Girls; Traditional Music Awards were the Kenbi Dancers and the Wurrurrumi Kun-Borrk, songs from western Arnhem Land by Kevin Djimarr; Special Contribution Awards 2007 to Paul ‘Djolpa’ McKenzie and CAAMA’s Steven Tranter; Hall of Fame Top End Artist went to Aunty Betty Fisher; and the Hall of Fame Central Artist, presented by minister Elliot McAdam, was Barry Benning. Madam Speaker, it was a wonderful night for all involved.
__________________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Katherine, I draw honourable members’ attention to the presence in the gallery of members of the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation, UNESCO, participants in the Memory of the World who are visiting Parliament House for a meeting. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report this morning. I had absolutely no intention of politicising it, minister. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the function because, as you know, there are many functions at this time of the year. You have to try to spread yourself across as many functions as possible. I was not invited, anyway. I was not invited, as usual.
However, I did listen last night to the minister talk about how wonderful the event was, and I have no doubt that it was. Recognising the indigenous talent that we have in the Northern Territory is extremely important. I thank the minister for her report, and if she would be so kind as to organise an invitation for us for next year, we would be delighted to put it in our calendar and make sure that we come.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine, and you are right, there are a lot of festivals at this time of the year. We all try to get to as many of them so that we enjoy the smorgasbord of cultural events that the Indigenous Music Awards presents for everyone. Music is at the heart of our culture. That was the theme of the night and people certainly made that statement very clear. I will certainly ensure, member for Katherine, that you and the member for Braitling, if she is here next year, get an invitation and maybe join me in the mosh pit for the great dancing!
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages –
Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill (Serial 113)
Pass Bill through all Stages –
Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill (Serial 113)
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill (Serial 113) passing all stages at these sittings.
As members would be aware, the Commonwealth recently passed its Northern Territory Response Act 2007 in relation to alcohol on urgency. I am advised that offences under the legislation commence on 15 September 2007. The Northern Territory government is committed to supporting and cooperating with the Commonwealth in its efforts to minimise the harmful effects of alcohol on Aboriginal Territorians. I am sure all members of this House are of the same view.
Following the urgent passage of the Commonwealth bill, it was necessary for the Northern Territory to pass its own legislation to both complement and ensure the workability of the Commonwealth’s new law before its commencement on 15 September. Given the Territory has responsibility for enforcing the Australian government’s legislation in this matter, it is essential to ensure that we are adequately placed to respond as quickly as possible to any alcohol-related problems across the Territory. As I said in my second reading speech, these reforms empower the minister to respond urgently to liquor-related harm in any Territory community.
Currently, the Liquor Act requires matters of this nature to be dealt with by way of a statutory process through the Liquor Commission. This process can, at times, be protracted. To ensure the workability of the Commonwealth’s measures, we must be able to respond to problems as quickly as possible, and I believe that this is in everyone’s interest. It was, obviously, necessary to ascertain the detail of the Commonwealth legislation before enacting our own complementary measures. That is why we are moving to pass our complementary legislation on urgency.
As I have already stated, we are committed to working with the Commonwealth to minimise the harmful impact of alcohol on Aboriginal Territorians. I hope that all members of this House will support this action.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, our concern goes to the fact that this is going through on urgency. We would approach it with a better frame of mind if we were advised as to what level of consultation was embarked upon by this government before we go along with this. We have a part to play in legislation.
We have had the opportunity for a briefing and we do appreciate that. However, there are many other agencies involved in this. It is a community issue. I am concerned about the reactive nature of this response to a very serious matter. At least comfort us with some advice as to what level of community, agency or stakeholder consultation has been embarked upon before we go along with this because we certainly want to address the causes and the effect of excessive alcohol consumption.
We do acknowledge that you, through this legislation, are gaining greater power. We understand the problem. Some of us are on the Substance Abuse committee and have had a close inspection of the nature of this problem. However, in ensuring frameworks that we can live with as a community, please advise what level of stakeholder consultation and input there has been before we can go along with this comfortably.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is a question of justifying urgency again. It is a knee-jerk reaction to what the Commonwealth has done. Will these powers that the minister is taking on be long-term? Are they going to be reviewed at any time? Have you consulted with the licensing industry? What are their comments in relation to your sudden grab of power? No one denies that we have a problem with alcohol, but we are concerned at the way this is being rushed through without people in the community fully understanding what is going on.
Minister, can you give us some idea of why, other than the fact that it is a reaction to the federal government’s legislation? How have you consulted? How are you going to get the message out there? Why should we support urgency?
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, this government is very careful about the use of urgency in this House …
Mrs Braham: Oh, come on! You do it all the time.
Mr STIRLING: Very careful. Very careful about the use of urgency in this House, given that we are a one-Chamber parliament, and there is no house of review to go over the legislation that we pass. The normal democratic process would allow legislation to lie on the Table for at least 28 days and, in the vast majority of cases, this is what the government does.
In relation to the question about urgency and what consultation has taken place, did the member for Blain ask the Commonwealth government before they passed their legislation just a few weeks ago what level of consultation occurred with the indigenous communities in the Northern Territory; what level of consultation occurred with licensees in the Northern Territory; what level of consultation occurred with the minister responsible in the Northern Territory; and what level of consultation occurred with the Northern Territory government - full stop? The answer is zero - zero!
It is okay for his mates, for his Liberal Party bosses in Canberra, to get up and pass whatever draconian legislation they like with one day of discussion and debate in the Senate! How hypocritical can you be to rail against this government for urgency when what we are doing, despite our reservations about the urgency and the haste with which the federal government passed their legislation, is our darnedest to keep up with them in complementary legislation, given that their legislation takes effect on 15 September 2007. How would it be if we had these inconsistencies between Northern Territory legislation and this hastily pushed through legislation in Canberra?
It is a bit cute, member for Blain, to ask why there is need for urgency. Not one word - not one word - from them about the urgency by the federal government in relation to their emergency legislation rammed through both Houses in the most disgraceful fashion when it comes to consultation. I happen to know that the minister met with key stakeholders over the past week in relation to consultation, but that is up to him to advise you and the House as to how far, given the time constraints put on us by the federal government, and how deep that consultative process has run. However, you are a bit cute and a bit hypocritical, to say the least.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is a bit rich of the Attorney-General to berate people who are …
Mr Stirling: Not a word from you, either. Not a word from you!
Mr WOOD: … members …
Mr Mills: An abusive thug.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order Madam Speaker! I would like the comment ‘useless thug’ to be withdrawn as unparliamentary.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, it was ‘abusive thug’. I do withdraw.
Mr Stirling: Thank you.
Mr WOOD: I am not here to debate the federal government intervention at this stage, because I am standing here as a member for the Northern Territory debating a bill that has been proposed by a minister in this House on urgency. It may well be …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: It may well be that I will support the urgency, minister. However, we are debating whether it should be urgent, and we on this side are being accused by the Attorney-General, like last time when we were having the protected areas legislation, of basically supporting the death of people by alcohol, etcetera. Great claims made that by delaying this, we would be responsible for death and abuse. That is really lowering the reason that we are here, lowering the seriousness of the debate and making this debate petty.
Getting back to the object of this debate, the minister has proposed this legislation. He has explained why he would like to put it on urgency, and we are entitled to ask the minister various questions without being accused of doing something immoral or causing the end of the world.
Minister, we had a good briefing from your department about the legislation, and it is obvious there are some good reasons why you need this power. We are beholden to ask whether the people affected by this legislation - and I know that alcohol is a serious problem in the Northern Territory, and if people think that if I ask about the licensing people, that means I support the rivers of grog, I do not! The reality is that licences are legal in the Northern Territory. People who own licences are entitled to own licences. They are given to them by the government.
I ask the minister: what consultation has occurred with those people who hold licences? That is the Hotels Association and the liquor industry. Have they had time to look at the minister’s powers? You have major powers. Section 33A(a), ‘Minister’s powers to determine additional licence conditions’. You have fairly substantial powers over a licence, there is no doubt about that. It is not unreasonable for me, as a member of this parliament, to ask: have you had consultation? What sort of feedback did you get? Was the feedback reasonable? Did you consider any changes to what you were doing? Is the issue of general and public restricted areas a topic we should have been discussing in the community?
Again, I understand that because of the federal government intervention, sometimes these things could not happen simply because the alcohol legislation is going to come in about mid-September. What you are trying to do is ensure that there are no unforeseen problems with Mr Brough’s legislation; that it could not be put through using the normal processes of the Liquor Commission. I am not sure whether this is part of the urgency debate or debate on the bill, but why could the Liquor Commission not use its powers to do exactly what you are doing and, therefore, keep the process as we know it and not give you these vast powers?
Finally, minister, if it is urgent, what do you see as the finality of this amendment? I presume that you regard it as the federal government does: it is an urgent requirement to deal with a particular issue. I gather the federal government’s laws will run for five years. I might be wrong. Will your amendment have a sunset clause along the same lines or will these powers be permanent?
Madam Speaker, that is what I want to ask the minister because this is major legislation. It gives the minister very widespread powers that he normally would not have. I would have thought that when a minister wants those sorts of powers, the community and those people affected, like industry and Aboriginal people who a lot of these sorts of bills are aimed at, should at least be given adequate time to debate these things.
Notwithstanding that, and even though I am not a great supporter of urgent legislation, from the briefing I received, I will probably get an answer saying that these are necessary changes and they could not be done by the next sitting of parliament. At the moment, I am willing to say I support the urgency, but I would like to hear the answers to those questions.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. The issues that were raised are valid, and I will try to address them. The case that I made in my speech leading into this urgency debate outlines basically why we will be debating this bill on urgency.
Essentially, as I am advised, the Commonwealth legislation comes into force on 15 September. There are no sittings between now and then, and it is very important for our legislation to complement the Commonwealth legislation and be workable.
We have tried to work with the Commonwealth at officer level to try to make as much of their Emergency Response Bill harmonise and complement our Northern Territory bill. I praise our officers in Racing, Gaming and Licensing and officers at the Commonwealth level who worked together long and hard to try to bring some complementarity to this legislation.
On the issue of consultation, there was, obviously, quite a lot of consultation between government agencies on this issue; but with the community as a whole, obviously not. There has been very little consultation in that regard. I have had conversations with members of the AHA and foreshadowed that we would introduce legislation. I also foreshadowed to them that, as minister, having ministerial powers is a lot of responsibility.
I know from my time as Minister for Lands and Planning, I had certain powers regarding interim development control orders. I think I exercised that once. I know that the checks and balances in the exercising of ministerial power - it is not something to be taken lightly and, in my book, the less you do it, the better. Obviously, with a minister having powers without avenue for appeal is a very serious matter. There are safeguards. The minister has to table his decision within six sitting days and I imagine if there was something very controversial, there would be discussion in this parliament. Also, there is capacity in the bill for the minister to delegate to the Licensing Commissioner to hear matters and then give advice to the minister, which is a similar situation to what exists within the Planning Act. I see an element of public and industry consultation for those sorts of measures where the Licensing Commission could hold hearings, take submissions and give advice to the minister.
The bottom line is that there are going to be situations where the minister has to act rapidly in the interests of harm minimisation and, to some extent, public order. That is why these powers are in the bill. It is all about that issue, particularly given that everyone acknowledges that with the changes to the Commonwealth act, there will be movement of people from one area to another, and there could be growth in problems outside a restricted area declared by the Commonwealth law. It could be that people move to another area adjacent or whatever, and it then behoves the Northern Territory minister to try to address issues that may arise around that. I do not think there has been any argument from any side in this discussion about the fact that there is going to be a likely exodus of people and knock-on effects that will occur.
One question was: how long does the minister expect to hold these powers? The review of the Liquor Act has been delayed somewhat by the Commonwealth intervention and legislation, but I would like to see a review of those ministerial powers as part of the review of the Liquor Act and consultation about that. Then I would like to see whatever comes out of that codified within the new Liquor Act. We are still hopeful of consultation moving forward in the latter part of this year, but it may be delayed into next year. I see that as a process to give the opposition, industry, the community, time to comment on the minister’s powers and for there to be some debate in this parliament on those issues.
Madam Speaker, I hope I have covered most of the issues that have been raised. I believe there is a valid case for moving this on urgency, particularly given the 15 September deadline and the need to make our legislation complementary, in addition to the workability aspect, particularly since the Territory will have the responsibility of enforcing Commonwealth law. We need to be prepared. We need to move with the Commonwealth and, therefore, I commend to this Assembly that we accept this motion of urgency.
Motion agreed to.
DISASTERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 115)
(Serial 115)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Disasters Amendment Bill amends the Disasters Act as in force at 18 March 2003. The amendment is to enable the special powers to enforce cleanup to come into effect once a cyclone watch has been announced, rather than when a cyclone warning has been announced. This amendment is designed to give the Northern Territory Emergency Services the power to effectively prepare for an approaching cyclone.
As members will be aware, a large part of the Northern Territory’s population lives in communities which can be directly threatened by cyclones. Experience has shown that flying debris is one of the biggest threats faced in a cyclone. It is, therefore, important that anything which might become debris is cleaned up as at cyclone approaches. In the vast majority of cases, Territorians respond to this problem well, cleaning up their properties prior to the cyclone season each year and again when cyclones directly threaten. Unfortunately, there are always instances where people do not do the right thing, putting their community at risk. It is important that NT Emergency Services have the power to deal with these individuals appropriately.
At present, regional and local counter-disaster controllers can order cleanup when a cyclone warning is declared, or 24 hours before a cyclone is expected to strike. Recent history with Cyclone Monica suggests that this is insufficient time. Consequently, this amendment provides them with special powers to enforce cleanup from when a cyclone watch is declared, or 48 hours before a cyclone is expected to strike.
Amendments have also been made to review penalty provisions under the act. A separate penalty has been included for a breach of section 44 of the act, which includes offences such assaulting or obstructing a person exercising powers under the act. The penalty under section 45 for a general breach of the provision of the act has also been increased significantly. The original penalty for a breach of the act was set in 1982 and is inadequate to reflect current times. The increased penalty provisions will ensure that NT Emergency Service workers are adequately protected and help ensure that people and bodies corporate do the right thing in an emergency or disaster.
Madam Speaker, many Territorians enjoy a tremendous tropical lifestyle, which is the envy of the rest of Australia. However, for those who reside near the coast, with this tropical lifestyle comes the unavoidable risk posed by cyclones. It is important these risks be minimised to the maximum possible extent and this means providing the Northern Territory Emergency Services with the necessary tools.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through All Stages –
Local Government Amendment Bill (Serial 101)
Pass Bill through All Stages –
Local Government Amendment Bill (Serial 101)
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders suspended as would permit the Local Government Amendment Bill (Serial 101) passing through all stages at this sitting.
I well understand honourable members’ reluctance in principle to support this urgency motion, but this is an important and necessary amendment to the Local Government Act allowing for the orderly development of new local government of the Northern Territory.
Honourable members will be aware that my original intention was to introduce this legislation at the last sittings but, on reflection, I decided that I would like further discussion with key stakeholders through the Local Government Advisory Board.
I am glad I took that step, and I thank the members of the advisory board right across the Territory for their commitment to local government reform, and their assistance in developing legislation to assist with new local government for the Territory.
This government does not seek to hide from members of the Legislative Assembly the details of our proposed legislation or its intent. In fact, a briefing was offered and accepted by the opposition and Independent members, and no additional information or briefings have been sought since the bill was presented last week.
Members should now be fully aware of the nature and intended effect of the legislation, and that its specific purpose is to enhance my ability as the minister responsible for local government to ensure a smooth and orderly transition to the Northern Territory’s new scheme for local government being developed with our key stakeholders. It is not, as I emphasised, the new Local Government Act that is being developed as part of the local government reform. An exposure draft for the new act will be available within two months, and that bill will be introduced into parliament later this year for debate early next year.
There has been some criticism in recent days suggesting that the government is in some way attempting to ram through this legislation without adequate consultation. I assure members that nothing could be further from the truth. Key local government stakeholders taking part in meetings of the Local Government Advisory Board are fully aware of its purpose and our intent to pass this legislation in the August sitting. In particular, the bill has been discussed in detail at three meetings of the advisory board. I am proud to say that over 300 Territorians from all walks of life are actively involved in the advisory board and the transitional committees.
The advisory board has met on six occasions, with a series of further meetings scheduled before July 2008. All legislation associated with the new local government has been, and will continue to be, discussed in detail at these meetings. The transitional committees established in each of the proposed new shires have also been meeting regularly, with about 31 meetings held until now.
The Chair of the Local Government Advisory Board, Mr Pat Dodson, has attended over 50 meetings throughout communities, engaging with members about the new shire reforms. As the minister, I am taking an active part in the consultations. I have visited over 30 communities …
Mrs Braham: Stranger in the House, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause, minister. Please remove yourself from the Chamber. Minister, please continue.
Mr McADAM: As I said, Madam Speaker, I have taken part in active consultation. I have visited about 30 communities and attended about 100 meetings, listening and participating in discussion about local government reform, and I will continue to be active. I will continue to participate, talking directly to all Territorians about the benefits of our local government reform and responding to concerns that may be raised.
This detailed and ongoing work with our key stakeholders demonstrates this government’s commitment to active consultation. The Local Government Advisory Board, the key stakeholder forum, and local transitional committees, will continue to have a central place in the ongoing reform process.
The timetable for local government reform requires passage of these amendments in this sittings to enable the administrative structure of the new shires to be created, CEOs and corporate services managers to be employed, bank accounts to be established, establishment of business management information technology and communication systems, and preparations to be made for the employment of shire staff. These are necessary amendments needed to facilitate an orderly transition to the establishment of the new shires in advance of them becoming fully operational on 1 July 2008.
Madam Speaker, effectively what I am saying is that this is very important legislation. I deferred this legislation from the June sittings because of my concerns about the need for consultation. I have duly addressed some of the concerns that arose from the advisory board and others who have spoken to me about it. This bill is absolutely necessary. The legislation is essentially part of a process, a time frame to ensure that the new shire councils become fully operational in July, with elections in October 2008.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, our concern is that there has not been enough detail in this proposal. There has not been enough consultation with stakeholders. We believe that there is no reason whatsoever that this needs to go through today on urgency. The minister could not provide any satisfactory reasons at a meeting on Monday at Berry Springs. We do not see any need for this to be rushed through. We want it to be consulted with Territorians. In fact, at the meeting on Monday, the crowd even turned against the minister. That is how dissatisfied they were with his responses. As a result, Madam Speaker, we oppose this going through on urgency.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also appose the rushing through of this legislation. The government is sending out the wrong message. I have presented two or three petitions to this House from people in Litchfield Shire. They were reflections of two public meetings where similar motions were passed asking the government to slow down this process until we have seen a full economic analysis of what the results of these changes will be.
There has been no slow down. The message that the minister is sending out to those people is that he is not going to do what they asked us, but is going to rush this bill through on urgency - a bill that has not been out into the community for people to discuss. The advisory board is not the community. The advisory board is a select group of people who give advice to the minister in theory after they have been given advice by a transition committee. I do not believe that the transition committee has debated this issue, at least not from reading the minutes.
This urgency debate is going to work against the government trying to bring people along with these reforms. It was clearly stated at the meeting at Berry Springs that people are against reform. I do not say I am against reform. However, if the process is not correct and people do not understand what is going on and you do not bring along the community then, please, do not ask why people are opposing these changes.
Madam Speaker, if you look at the reasons the minister wants this legislation to go through, you have to ask: who set this process in place? This is the timetable that the department proposed. I imagine someone in the department decided this will be the process: it goes from such and such a month to such and such a month over a couple of years. It was decided by someone - who I do not know, but my feeling is someone in the department has been pushing this. There has been no consultation about the timetable; similarly with the boundaries.
The government decided there would be nine shires - no consultation, no discussion about whether that is an inappropriate number. It will happen. Not only will it happen, from then on all this will happen according to this timetable, and we will not deviate. That is not the right way to bring people along. I do not know who put this process into place. I do not believe it was the minister; I believe it was the department and the CEO. I have concerns about whether this process is driven by someone’s concept of change. The same person had problems as a CEO in Alice Springs. In fact, large numbers of people resigned from the Alice Springs Council when that CEO, who I believe is the person behind this, was there because they were upset about the rate of change and the lack of involvement of staff. In fact, I have a letter here from some of those people who resigned. This letter goes back to a letter to the Chief Minister ...
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Very explicitly, the question before the Chair is a motion for urgency to allow the bill to pass all stages at this sittings. The member for Nelson is now straying off into an attack and slur on a public servant that has absolutely nothing to do with the question before the Chair. I urge caution on the member for Nelson in attacking public servants. He has privilege in this Chamber, but I urge him to use it wisely. That is in relation to the letter he was about to read. However, I believe that it is totally inappropriate, given the question that we have before the Chair, and I urge that the member come back to addressing the question as opposed to what he is about to do, which is attack individual public servants. That is not related to the question that is currently before the Chair.
Mr WOOD: May I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Nelson, briefly.
Mr WOOD: No, I do not agree with the member for Wanguri. My object was not to slur the personality of the CEO to whom I referred. I am arguing whether that person is competent to do what is happening here …
Mr Henderson: It has nothing to do with this!
Mr WOOD: … based on …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: May I finish? I also believe that, in the case of what happened in Alice Springs where people complained about the rate of change, that is partly reflecting what is happening here ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business, I have made a decision on this. In relation to the motion itself, the comments that you are making are not relevant, member for Nelson. I ask you to continue only on the motion. I also remind you of standing orders. Pursuant to those standing orders, I remind you that, when you are making personal comments about people who are not members of parliament and who have no right of reply, you do so very carefully.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minister argues on urgency that by doing this now, he will have created fully-fledged new councils by the 1 July 2008. These transitional arrangements will give him that power. The 1 July 2008 is another 10 months or so away. The timetable for legislative processes to amend the Local Government Act, according to this, goes to 14 March next year. There is adequate time for that to occur.
The other purpose of this bill is to convert the association councils performing local government functions from the Associations Act to the Local Government Act. We have plenty of time to do that; we have up to 14 March, so there is no need for urgency. The minister also said that he has to deal properly through restructuring orders to ensure that we do not have unnecessary elections. Under section 24 of the existing Local Government Act, which is headed ‘Minister may do certain things in relation to elections’, it says:
- (1) Where an act required by or under this Act to be done on or before a specified day or within a specified time is not done, the Minister may, whether or not the specified day is past or the specified time has expired, extend the time for doing that act, or cause that act to be done, in order that the holding of an election is not impeded.
The minister already has powers to hold off elections in those areas. Therefore, he does not need urgency with this bill.
The minister’s argument - which he put this morning, at the meeting at Berry Springs, and on Tuesday when there was a question - was:
- Up to June, I received correspondence; I had approaches from people who asked me to defer the bill because they wanted some further time to be able to consider it. Now, it is for that reason that I deferred it in June to put it through in this sitting and, as I said, we have in place a reform timetable that enables me to deal with a range of administrative issues in the context of the new reform …
Minister, you have had a few people talk to you. You then decided that you would defer introduction of that bill and then bring it to this parliament for an urgency debate. You are saying to us as members of this parliament: ‘Well, I spoke to some people outside of parliament; but the people inside parliament I will not give due consideration to’.
We also need to look at these changes. The urgency is not required, as I have just demonstrated. The urgency says to members of parliament: ‘You are partly irrelevant in this debate. I have spoken to an advisory board and some people out there, and they are fine with it, and so I will rush it through at this sittings’.
That views us with contempt. We need to look at this carefully. This legislation has very wide powers which we will discuss at the time. Those powers should have been given adequate time for consultation amongst ourselves. I refer to the opposition and the two Independents, and the broader community, not just an advisory board appointed by the minister. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, this should not be passed on urgency.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I support much of what the member for Nelson had to say as to the reasons why he and the opposition do not support this urgency motion. I note what the member for Nhulunbuy said before in relation to the previous motion for urgency to amend the Liquor Act. The outburst we saw is at odds with the position that we have in relation to this bill. I say that because we do not see that there are compelling reasons for urgency. The member for Nhulunbuy said, in essence, that the government treats urgency in a very circumspect and careful way, as it and any parliament should. We believe that urgency is being abused in this instance.
I listened carefully to what the minister had to say. I have also listened to others who have spoken. Minister, with the greatest of respect, there is not a need for urgency. I was not at the meeting on Monday night, but I heard about it from a number of people - including a colleague - who do not work in this building. The depth of hostility and animosity was very deep and probably unprecedented when it comes to any reform vaguely of this nature. The reforms are sweeping, therefore, all Territorians should be encouraged to know as much about them as possible.
We had a bill introduced into the parliament last week. Our fellow Territorians, minister, for the most part, have not seen the very bill which you want us to debate. That is unfair and unfortunate to say the least.
I note that the member for Karama said this week in the context of another debate:
- Do not impose something on a people without at least giving them a chance to have their say in whether or not they want it.
That was on 28 August 2007. There is a glaring inconsistency in what the member for Nhulunbuy had to say in an earlier debate, in what the member for Karama had to say in an earlier debate - but wait! There are more inconsistencies. I have a copy of Labor’s Good Government policy, which I have said before and I will say it again I understand no longer exists on the Labor Party’s website. There are a few things that I will put to government in our attempts, valiant as they are, to persuade the government from pushing on and ramming through with these reforms.
After the covering page of that document, under the heading Good Government, it says:
- Governments must behave responsibly, transparently and to high standards.
The then Opposition Leader, the member for Fannie Bay, talked about ensuring transparency and accountability. There were references to the previous government. The then Opposition Leader asserted that our system - that is our democratic system in the Northern Territory - was not open, nor was it accountable and that democracy was reduced as a result. The then Opposition Leader said on page 6 of that document:
- Government by executive virtually rules the Territory now.
Never a truer word was said, given the existing situation. Local government is something that every member in this House knows in terms of its importance and the role it plays in local communities. All of us, as local members, have people coming into our offices, talking to us about local government matters. It affects most people in the Northern Territory on a daily, weekly or certainly a monthly basis.
To ram through these reforms without letting our fellow Territorians look at, let alone understand, legislation that we are now debating is absolutely disgraceful. Whilst I do not have any doubt that the government will reject our pleas, I say to the minister that he does so at his own peril. We do not share this government’s view that Territorians are stupid. We do not share this government’s view ‘Do not worry, let us push it through now because by the time the election is upon us in 2009, they will have forgotten’. Oh, no they will not.
I can tell you that the calls, faxes, e-mails to my office here and in Alice Springs - and I am sure those of my colleagues, the Independents and probably, if truth be known, offices of members of government - have been very significant in the depth of feeling, the hostility and the numbers.
This is running hot, Madam Speaker, and this government does a great disservice to itself but, more importantly, the people of the Northern Territory, by pressing on and insisting that this matter be dealt with on urgency. We strongly oppose that move, and we oppose it for the reasons I and others have outlined.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to members opposite speaking against the motion on urgency from the Minister for Local Government.
I reiterate that, as a government, we do not use the urgency provisions lightly or recklessly or in any way on a regular basis. My colleague, the Minister for Local Government, very clearly outlined that, in the time line that has been committed to for the reform of local government - which I do believe every single one of us in here believes needs to happen - this bill should have been introduced in the House in the June sittings.
At the time, the minister pulled the bill to allow for further consultation with affected parties on the requirements to introduce this legislation as another step along the way to reform and a new Local Government Act. Therefore, in fact, there has been additional consultation from what was initially proposed. Through the structures that have been created in the move towards a new act, the Local Government Advisory Board has met and considered this legislation a number of times, as have transitional committees and people who are key stakeholders in regard to the reforms that are being proposed.
This is not being rammed through without any exposure to the people of the Northern Territory and, directly, the people who are affected. Of course, there are going to people who oppose this. It does not matter what legislation is proposed, you are never going to find 100% of the population of the Northern Territory will support it. However, there has been significant additional consultation.
This bill is transitional. As the minister said in his speech supporting the motion, the full bill to replace the existing Local Government Act will be put out to the people of the Northern Territory as an exposure draft, a draft bill that people will be able to see and comment on, and make comments back to the minister before the minister brings a full bill back to this House that will be considered in the appropriate way. This is a step along the way.
Speaking to some of the comments that were made by the three speakers to date, the member for Greatorex said there was not enough detail. The member for Nelson essentially said the same thing, as did the Leader of the Opposition. On the matter of detail - and this is why there are crocodile tears being cried today by members opposite - it is my understanding that the Independents and the opposition were provided with a full briefing on the detail of this bill on Monday last week, before it was introduced to the House on Wednesday. On Monday last week, they had a full detailed briefing of the bill ...
Mr Wood: We did not have the bill.
Mrs Miller: We had not seen the bill.
Mr Wood: That’s a bit backward.
Mr HENDERSON: You were provided with a briefing.
Mr Wood: Yes, but we did not see the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The bill was introduced on Wednesday and tabled in this House. If members were doing their jobs properly and were sincere in their comments, as opposed to playing politics, they knew that - as they did last week, 15 days ago on Monday last week - we would be bringing on this bill on urgency today. If members opposite genuinely wanted more detail, more understanding, had specific questions as opposed to opposing the bill totally …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is now talking about the content of the bill. This is about urgency. Why is the minister pushing this through?
Mr HENDERSON: I am not talking about the content of the bill at all.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, I ask you to contain your comments to the debate.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely. I am containing my comments to the comments that were made by the opposition as to why they do not support the bill. They are saying they did not have enough detail. If they were sincere in their comments, as opposed to playing politics with this - and I understand that they are going to play politics with it and whip up the people who are opposed to the reforms - they would have come back and sought further information, put questions through to the minister’s office, sought more detail, and they have not done that.
They have had over a week, 15 days since the briefing, to seek further detail. That has not occurred. That is why the comments made by the member for Nelson in particular, who is out in the community, the great protector, the great oracle on local government - he has no vision; all he is doing is white-anting from day one any reform that the government seeks to put through. If he was sincere …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is a load of garbage.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: You could not even run a rubbish tip.
Mr Wood: You would not even give us a block of land for it!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Order! I do not have much of a voice today, honourable members, so I will be using the gavel a lot more. Member for Nelson, resume your seat. There is no point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: Regarding the issue about the processes of this parliament and the responsibilities that we all have to question legislation, to be across legislation when it is voted on, to try to amend legislation to make it better - particularly for the Independents and the members of the opposition - if they had genuine concerns about this bill as opposed to the reform program, they would have sought more detail, asked more questions, and sought follow-up briefings on the points they claim they did not have enough detail on. They did not do that, so it is crocodile tears and playing politics.
The member for Nelson talked about trying to bring people along. Actions speak louder than words and, from day one, the great guru of local government, the oracle for local government in the Northern Territory, has done nothing but try to white-ant the reforms. As I said, actions speak louder than words in regard to trying to bring people along.
I do not believe that the urgency motion is being abused in this instance because this is a step along the way. On the new act that will establish the new shires across the Northern Territory, there will be full and comprehensive consultation. My colleague has committed to an exposure draft bill that will go out for full consultation to the people of the Northern Territory. Feedback will come back to advise the minister and his Cabinet colleagues. The bill that will be presented will advise parliament on the construct of the new Local Government Act and the creation of the shires across the Northern Territory.
This bill is just a step along the way. It has been deferred from the June sittings to this sittings, 30 August. Members opposite had a briefing on this bill 15 days ago, and the bill itself was presented in the parliament last Wednesday. Not one single point of clarification, question or point of detail has gone back to the minister’s office for further information. The members opposite do not support the reforms, they do not support the reform agenda …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the minister is going to say that, he should put up or shut up. If he is going to say that, show us the proof.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, resume your seat.
Mr Wood: Well, he is saying that all the time.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, if you feel that you have been misrepresented, you can approach me to make a personal explanation later. Otherwise, resume your seat.
Mr HENDERSON: They do not support the reforms. There has not been one word of support for the process, the path that we have gone down or the time frames. They are just playing politics. We accept that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The statement just made was completely false, ‘not one single word’. There are plenty or words that contradict exactly what the minister is saying.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, there is no point of order but, if you feel that there has been misrepresented, you can approach me to make a personal explanation.
Mr HENDERSON: I will conclude very shortly. Members opposite had time to understand or question the details in the bill that will be debated later today, knowing that we were going to bring this on urgency on the last day of the sittings fortnight - not ramming it through in the first week - to allow members opposite to fully get their heads around the detail of the bill. The offer was made through the minister, who is very genuine in his support for regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory. In fact, he is absolutely passionate about achieving better lives and better outcomes for people in regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory. If members opposite were genuine and passionate about the same things, they would have approached the minister’s office with specific questions on points of detail that they claim they have not had the chance to understand.
Madam Speaker, they have failed in their duty of questioning and scrutinising this legislation. They are playing politics. This is a step along the way. It is a sensible bill. It has been deferred from June. I urge members to support the motion.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, we are not against reforms. We are all aware that there needs to be reform. I would have thought there is enough uncertainty in the bush at the moment with the federal government interference, if I can call it that, without causing more uncertainty by this minister. What is four weeks? Why not wait until October to ensure we have all digested what you are talking about; that people in the communities have digested what you are talking about? Four weeks is the usual process in this House. The usual process in this House is to introduce a bill and leave it on the Table so that members can absorb it.
It is all very well for the member for Wanguri to say that we had briefing but, at the time, we were not given a copy of the bill. Therefore, although we had a briefing, we were not sure of the detail and what the content was.
I remind ministers on that side that you have half a dozen staff and a whole department to inform you about what is going on. I am not crying poor, but the Independent members have one person to do all the legislation that you are pushing through this sittings. We do our best. We try hard to get across the bills coming before us, but when you throw them on urgency, you make a double workload. If the member for Nhulunbuy tells us we are not doing our job; he would not be able to do it with the limited resources that we have. If he wants us to do it better, then government, give us more resources so we that we can get across things more adequately. Let us face it: you have departments and minders to inform you. So let us not go down that line of saying we are not doing our job. We are. We try very hard to raise things in this House that are relevant.
The relevance of this is that you are pushing through this bill and there are no exceptional circumstances for you to do it. If there are, the minister has not spelled them out. There are no exceptional circumstances that I can see why we should have this bill rammed through today.
Madam Speaker, this will be the 12th item of legislation that this government has put through on urgency this term, since June 2005. The 12th piece, yet the member for Nhulunbuy claimed they only do it occasionally on urgency. If you do your mathematics, 12 since June 2005 is a lot. It is a lot and most of it is unnecessary. The member for Nhulunbuy must realise that you are pushing through legislation unnecessarily on urgency, when urgency was meant to be for exceptional circumstances. It was meant to be for that word ‘urgency’.
This bill is not urgent, minister. You know that you can wait until October. You know it will give people more time to absorb it and more messages to get out there. Your reforms are still being questioned by some communities because they do not have adequate information.
This bill gives you a lot of power. I am not debating whether you should have them or not. I am not debating whether reforms are not necessary in the bill. What I am saying to you is that I have not being convinced that you have exceptional circumstances to put this through. I am not convinced that this government, in the climate of today out there in communities, can justify having this bill pushed through. This is just another something that is being imposed upon communities when, to be honest, they do not really need it at the moment.
Most of all, members of government must realise that, to be fair to all the members of this parliament, you should give us time to study these bills, ensure we can do our consultation with the people we need to, ensure that you give us all the information rather than give us a briefing before we get a copy of the bill. For goodness sake! How many more items of legislation are you going to be pushing through on urgency in this term?
Mr Stirling: Very few, Loraine.
Mrs BRAHAM: Oh, come on! Twelve already - 12 items; this will be the 12th. That is a lot. That is a lot, whether you would like to admit it or not, particularly when it is unnecessary. Madam Speaker, no, I do not think we should support this urgency. I ask the minister to reconsider his decision ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: Stop mumbling! Minister, reconsider this decision to go ahead.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: Are you mumbling again, member for Nhulunbuy? Stop it! Reconsider the motion and defer it; just defer it. It is as simple as that.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments. I will pick up on the comments by the member for Braitling. She said to wait four weeks. You need to remember back to 1999, member for Braitling, when you were the very minister who introduced a range of reforms. Where are they, member for Braitling? They are not here, are they? This is the very point we are in ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: You did not do anything when you were minister, the CLP did not do anything when they were in power. For two decades we waited for reform and nothing happened! You did not do a damn …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The reforms I put through were not done on urgency. They were of a voluntary nature and I said …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, there is no point of order. Resume your seat. Member for Daly, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr KNIGHT: In 1999, Madam Speaker, we had the member for Braitling in the CLP government - the CLP government. They talked about discussion papers they had been talking about for decades. Decades! What happened? Nothing! They talked and talked and talked, and nothing happened! Focus for change - nothing happened. The next step - nothing happened; they dithered. They dithered on reform. They did not do a thing …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: They dithered on reform, and they say there should not be urgency. There should be a lot of urgency, member for Braitling and CLP members, because you dropped the ball. You dropped the ball! It is down to you that there are problems in the bush with local government. It is the CLP that set up councils with 20 people! Twenty signatures on a page made a council. That is why we have problems in the bush with local government reform. You knew about it two decades ago, and you did not do a damn thing about it! That is why we are here now. That is why we are here now; it is because of you!
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is unparliamentary.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, member for Daly, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Mrs Braham: Syd Mark II.
Mr KNIGHT: I take that as a compliment.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: I will pick up on a few of the comments by the member for Braitling. She said we cannot leave it as it is. We cannot leave it as it is. This was in 1999! We had Tim Baldwin saying that it had to be done: ‘We have to meet the challenge. We have to build on work of my predecessors’. He was the former minister, and he had predecessors who started this reform, and what did they do? They did absolutely nothing!
The member for Nelson said this came out of the blue! It has been coming for decades, it has not happened, and this government has enough guts to do something about it, and do something about it properly, member for Nelson. You sit there with crocodile tears saying this is all too new. You know that reform has to happen. You have admitted that. The new member for Greatorex has also admitted that reform is necessary, but this is just the talk of the CLP ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, please pause. Would you contain your comments to the motion, which is about the urgency?
Mr KNIGHT: I am saying, Madam Speaker, that there is a definite need for urgency because it has been talked about and talked about for decades by the CLP, and they just did not have guts nor the brains to implement it. It has been at the cost of the communities. The new member for Greatorex cries crocodile tears for these people. He has been to one meeting, and where was it, member for Greatorex? Was it – you said yesterday – Bees Creek? That is somewhere out in the rural area, is it not? It was actually Berry Springs, member for Greatorex. Get it right! Get to know your portfolio and get to know the Northern Territory.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s motion on urgency and inform the House what I have been told by my constituents in Macdonnell. I want to thank the minister for going out and informing my electorate.
I had the opportunity, when there were problems at the very beginning of the reform, of the minister coming out to one of my communities. At a meeting at Mt Liebig, we had over 100 people from Kintore, Papunya, Haasts Bluff, and Mt Liebig who addressed all their issues to the minister, and they encouraged the minister to bring this on.
My electorate of Macdonnell, and that first shire, the southern shire, has said to the minister: bring it on and bring it on today. This gives them an opportunity, and I congratulate the minister for being so bold. I congratulate you, minister, for setting up the transitional committees. Those committees have been out informing people. I really want to take this opportunity to say that this bill needs to be passed today on urgency, and I support you, minister, in everything that you are doing with local government reform.
It gives us, as the Territory, the opportunity to think outside the square. Instead of Papunya thinking about Papunya and Kintore thinking about Kintore and Haasts Bluff thinking about Haasts Bluff, this allows them to think for the whole shire, and what they can do between the Queensland border, South Australian border and Western Australia border in my electorate. It broadens their capacity to think wider about how to have better governance structures and how they look at economic development, not just in their little communities, but throughout the whole region in the shire. I stand here to support the member for Barkly, the Minister for Local Government, in the initiatives that he is taking to bring this bill forward.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the core issue being reform, I believe all members stand on the side of the necessity for reform. The question here is the path we take to achieve that reform. The question we have before us is: should we proceed on urgency or not? I am opposed to the necessity for urgency because if we are going to impart a new system that is going to bring about the reform, and all the virtuous things that the members opposite believe it will bring, you need to bring the people with you, otherwise you are imposing something else upon them. Then you are left with an immense responsibility, after raising expectations, as to whether you can deliver.
You are delivering at the grassroots. You cannot take those people with you if we, as members of this parliament, do not have the adequate time or respect paid unto us, enabling us to get an understanding of exactly what decisions we are making on behalf of those we represent - then our duty has not been done.
It is a very sad day when we have members defending their decision, and they dredge back. They reach not so far back, and they take their arguments from times past when such terrible things occurred. Then they said: ‘Well, it was bad in the past so that, therefore, justifies our bad decision today’.
You cannot have it both ways. If you were so offended by what occurred in the past, why replicate it today, if that is the case? If, as the member for Wanguri says, they were sincere; if you were sincere, if you were genuine, if you genuinely digested what it is that so grieves you about the past - that you would now not get over it but then do unto others as they did unto you. It is a weird position you have; totally inconsistent, like you are bent out of shape about something that happened in the past and, to make you feel a little better, you do the same today.
You are arguing for urgency. I oppose urgency. It is wrong for the very reasons that you were so offended by such things that may have occurred in the past. That was the strength of your argument in the past. If that is your consistent argument, it is wrong today, it was wrong in the past. I believe it might well be. I sat here for a short time in government, as did the member for Wanguri. I observed those times.
I was wondering whether there was going to be a change. What I have seen in six years is a morphing into the very thing that you once despised - completely. You are arguing this, running out these words as though it does not matter. Why does it not matter? You have 19 members. You are not leading, you are being led. You are implementing something on which you have not convinced the majority. You have convinced some, those who will go along meekly and mildly, but the majority have not been sold on this. They desperately want to be brought in. By having it through on urgency, you are further retarding the capacity of bringing people along with you so that we can have the benefits that you believe we can have from a reform process. It is opposed.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I am sorry I raised the question about a former Attorney-General in the CLP who was a frequent user of urgency motions. When I put it to him one time - and it was well before the member for Blain’s time in this Chamber - he said: ‘Well, it is because I am Attorney-General and I pass a lot of laws’. I am the Attorney-General now and we avoid the use of urgency at all times where we can.
I listened closely to the input from all members in this debate. I have to say that the only person opposed to urgency that I was taken with was the member for Braitling and the views she put about the difficulties Independents, in particular, have in getting across legislation on an urgent basis. I accept that, notwithstanding that the Independents have access to a far greater level of resourcing than they ever had at all under previous governments. There was no support under previous governments.
I want to make it clear that we do not do this simply because a former CLP Attorney-General who was fond of using urgency. We do this because the important part of this legislation lies in the restructuring orders. It is necessary to have those restructuring orders in place to allow the minister to utilise those measures in the bill for recruitment, and setting up the shell and the structure for the future, in order for the whole transition and process to have reform of local government in place by about the middle of next year.
If it does not pass today, it is October before we are back in here, and it would be post-October before the restructuring powers - and I admit they are considerable powers awarded to the minister under this legislation, but I know the minister very well and they will not be abused. In fact, there will be regular reporting to Cabinet at any time those powers are used. Knowing the minister as I do, before they are used it will be checked through government as to why and how and the necessity for those powers to be used.
Notwithstanding the sympathetic hearing I give to the member for Braitling, there are other broader, wider and deeper issues. There is a real necessity for the minister to have the ability to utilise the restructuring orders to put in place the transition measures, the shell around the future, so that reform will take place next year. Notwithstanding that, I ask the member for Braitling at least to take that into account.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to respond to all the speakers. Clearly, there are some very different points of view on the need for this bill to go through on urgency.
I had every intention of introducing this bill in June of this year. As I indicated, there were some concerns along the lines of: ‘Minister, just defer it so we can take some further information and have a look at some of the details’. It is for that reason that I did it - the only reason why I did it. It is for that reason it is before the House now.
It is also very important to understand that people talk about detail in respect of this bill which, effectively, is an enabling or a transitional bill to local government reform by July of next year. Effectively, it allows me to do two things. Number one, it allows me to be able to transfer effectively around 22 councils from the Associations Act under the Local Government Act. Member for Nelson, you raised the issue of whether I had the capacity to do that. Well, I do not and that is why I am doing it, because I want to be able to defer elections and a whole range of other issues as we transfer the associations into the new Local Government Act.
The other thing it allows me to do is restructure. Effectively, it will allow me to be able to, upon advice from the advisory board and the transitional committees - and as I have indicated to you previously, I do have the capacity to be able to listen to people outside that, to take their points of view as I did in respect of the deferring this bill in June. It will allow me to define the boundaries. It will allow me to put in place the business information systems. It will allow me, for instance, to be able to move to the prescribed councils which effectively are all very critical components of the process of arriving at a new model.
Without exception in this House, there would not be one person who would deny the fact that we need to move to a new model of local government or, indeed, some form of government in the bush. I have said it in this House a hundred times before, and if necessary I will say it a million times into the future: this is so important in bringing a framework that allows better levels of accountability, management, practices, principles and administration - all those sort of things we talk about.
The member for Blain said: ‘In times past, in times past’. Well, quite frankly, I do not give a damn about times past. This government …
Mr Conlan: What about the member for Daly? He cares. He cares about times past.
Mr McADAM: I beg your pardon?
Mrs Miller: The member for Daly cares about times past.
Mr McADAM: We have an opportunity here as a parliament to put in place a model, not only for indigenous communities but for non-indigenous communities, that is going to provide certainty into the future. If you want to sit back and ignore all those issues that have occurred in the past surrounding communities, both indigenous and non-indigenous, the local government models …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McADAM: … then do so. The point I am trying to make is that it is for this reason that we do have a time frame in place and, as a government, we are committed to achieving local government reform. This is but one step in the process. As I said previously, there have been six or seven advisory board meetings, there have been 31 transitional committees consisting of something like 300-odd people; Patrick Dodson, the Chair, has visited 50-odd communities, I have visited 30-odd communities. There are levels of consultation out there.
When you go through such a reform that is under consideration now, it is difficult. We have never said that it is going to be easy. It is going to be an absolute challenge and that is where we should be coming from. I am very happy to take on board all the concerns. This bill will be the beginning of a process which is going to arrive at something which we can all be proud of in the future.
I have absolutely no doubt that there is going to be a bit of pain along the way, but that is what governments are elected to do. Governments are elected to ensure that we leave a legacy for people in the regions that will make them so much better off in the future. I have no doubt about that and I am sure the member for Nelson has no doubt about that. Equally, it applies to the members for Braitling and Greatorex. We all have the responsibility. Madam Speaker, this motion on urgency is for the reasons I have described.
Motion agreed to.
LAW REFORM (DUST DISEASES) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 116)
(Serial 116)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act so as to allow damages for pain and suffering, mental and bodily harm and curtailment of expectation of life, better described as general damages, to survive the death of a claimant of a dust disease-related claim if the claim is afoot at the time of the deceased’s death.
This bill will also amend the Limitation Act. The Limitation Act governs the period within which claims must be made in the Northern Territory. The community is well aware of the suffering faced by those who have contracted dust disease-related illnesses. Diagnosis of dust-related diseases can come 10 to 20 years after exposure and, sadly, often result in death soon after diagnosis. This fact, combined with the rapid onset of symptoms, puts these claimants in the difficult position of requiring speedy resolution of their legal claims to protect their entitlements. This is not always possible and, as a result, claimant’s families, who have often already carried the burden of primary care, only receive low level compensation payments and face high legal costs if the claimant dies prior to the determination of the claim.
The purpose of the bill is to amend two acts to ensure victims and their families receive access to fair compensation. The bill achieves this objective in two ways: first, by ensuring access to fair compensation by allowing general damages for claims commenced prior to death to continue after the death of the claimant; and second, by abolishing the limitation period within which a claim can be made.
The usual limitation period for common law claims in tort is three years unless, pursuant to section 44 of the Limitation Act, a fact material to the case is discovered after the limitation period has expired. In this case, an extension of time can be sought. However, the argument as to whether the claim warrants an extension of time can be lengthy and increase legal costs unnecessarily. To make the position abundantly clear and eliminate the need for legal argument on the matter, this bill removes any limitation period for dust disease-related claims.
The second component of the bill relates to the availability of criminal damages after death. Currently dust disease-related claims, like other common law tort claims, are governed by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Section 5 of that act currently provides that should a person die before their claim is determined, then the damages recoverable by the estate of the decease person do not include damages for pain and suffering, bodily or mental harm or the curtailment of expectation of life which, together, are known as general damages. In other words, general damages do not survive the plaintiff’s death.
The object of the bill is to remove this restriction regarding general damages for dust-related diseases claims; that is, damages for pain and suffering, bodily and mental harm and loss or curtailment of expectation of life will be recoverable by the estate of the deceased where the action remains undetermined.
Similar legislative amendments have occurred in other jurisdictions. This bill is intended to achieve consistency with other states regarding dust-related claims but, most importantly, it will ease some of the worries of claimants, ease the burden on their families and, potentially, speed up claims so they are finalised while the plaintiff is still alive.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
LIQUOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 113)
(Serial 113)
Continued from 22 August 2007.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, in the initial stages of this, there was a request for urgency. Matters were raised by the opposition which, basically, referred to being advised of the work that had been undertaken to ensure there had been proper coordination with the agencies that would be directly responsible for carriage of the changes that are proposed in the legislation. I am somewhat encouraged by the response of the minister to those inquiries. They were genuine inquiries, something not understood, perhaps, in the reactive sense and the response by the Deputy Chief Minister. However, I do appreciate your response, minister, because we know that these are difficult times and we have been placed in an extraordinary position.
There seem to be two factors combining to create an environment in which there is a need for unusual action. One is what can only be referred to as an increased community awareness that we, as a community, have a problem with alcohol. More and more, we are becoming aware that it is something that all of us must respond to in one way or another. There is that on one side, and then the Little Children are Sacred report, which was the foundation of the response of federal government. That has required a response on the other side. Those two factors’ intentions have resulted in this bill.
I am not entirely comfortable, and I am sure the minister is of the same mind. It would be better if we were in a position where we could negotiate ourselves through this difficult period without the pressure of contemporary circumstances, but we do not have the luxury. It is for that reason, without articulating in detail the concerns that I and the opposition hold, we do not intend to oppose the bill. This intervention is a response to the broader intervention, and both are to respond to a problem.
There may be problems that arise from the nature of the powers that are now transferred to the minister, which are extraordinary. I choose to work with government in a cooperative way as far as possible to identify the problems and try to seek a solution because I am part of community groups that are concerned and trying to work through our own solutions in our own way. The reason I asked the question about proper briefing of stakeholders is because I am involved at a different level, not only in the parliament with regards to legislation, but on the ground, as other members are.
It is important that those who are concerned and are working - some as volunteers on the ground - are properly brought into this, otherwise we will have some satisfaction that there has been a legislative change made and it will not be able to be carried all the way through to effect a result, ultimately, to the benefit of those who are vulnerable.
That was nature of my questions. I was dismayed by the response from one your colleagues but, nonetheless, I will leave it at that. You will not be opposed by this side of the House; rather, you will have our support. Notwithstanding there are areas that we could go into and raise points of political difference and the like, we will leave it as it is. We will do the best we can to work through this so that we can find a meaningful solution for the benefit of those for whom we are attempting to make things better.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, we said a lot of things earlier today about the urgency of this legislation and why we felt it should not go through on urgency, but now we are talking about the legislation itself. Minister, you are going to have enormous powers. I believe you are a genuine person and that you certainly would not abuse those powers. However, it is almost scary what you are going to be taking on, and it is a reaction to the federal government, to fit in with what they are doing. I certainly believe government-on-government intervention is not a good thing. We should have been able to do a lot of these things ourselves without federal government intervention. I understand that we have an alcohol problem. We have tried many restrictions in the past. Sometimes they have not worked; sometimes they have.
I am still not clear in my mind whether this government believes that indigenous people should drink. Regardless of saying that we have problems with alcohol in both societies, the federal government is targeting indigenous communities. This bill is targeting indigenous town camps. If we believe that indigenous people have the same rights as the rest of Australians to drink alcohol, then we are not really setting in place scenarios where that can happen. All we are doing is placing them in situations where the only place they can drink is in a public drinking place, or a social club. They cannot drink in their own homes in town camps; they cannot drink out on communities. We do not want them to drink in public houses in many of the towns because they cause disturbance. I have to say, minister, the introduction of the ‘No grog. Restricted area’ sign has been taken up by many people in Darwin and in Alice Springs, and that is a good thing for the safety of the tenants who have them.
What are we trying to achieve? What are we saying to indigenous people? How are we allowing them to join mainstream Australia or be part of a community if we are making it so difficult for them to ever to learn to live with alcohol? That is a catchphrase, I know, we have used in the past. Do you not think in some way we have to be a little more proactive rather than impose restriction upon restriction to make sure that these people, who are not the heavy drinkers, do learn to drink sensibly?
Sure, I am with you and everyone else about the people who abuse alcohol. I guess we do not want to get into that debate, because we know how difficult that is. Would you explain how you think we can say to indigenous people that alcohol can be part of their life safely, the same way as it is for you and for me? How are they going to do it?
I notice that the Licensing Commissioner now has to be answerable to the federal minister. That must be a worry to you. It must be a worry that the Licensing Commissioner now can go direct to the federal minister. Surely, that is not the way our Territory - and I guess he is an independent officer - public servants have to act. Minister, with what you are introducing, do you believe photo IDs are going to be the answer to solving the problem of people who purchase large quantities of alcohol? How are tourism operators going to get around this, for one thing? How are they going to purchase large quantities of alcohol to take out on their trips? Wholesale, perhaps, or are there going to be provisions about purchasing from a wholesaler? How are you going to allow these tourism operators, as we mentioned the other day, who want to go to Rainbow Valley or somewhere and cater for tourists they might have overnight around the campfire? Will they need a permit? When is all this detail going to come out so they can at least start preparing?
I spoke to a contractor the other day who said he was off to one of the remote communities, and he said: ‘I cannot take a beer any more’, whereas in the past many of the remote communities did give permission to the contractors to have a beer after work, because people on those remote communities know how important it is to ensure that contractors keep going there. How will you get around that situation? Those contractors who go out work hard. I am thinking of the electricians or the people who look after generators and what have you. They are not the ones who cause problems on the communities. We do not want the ones who build houses to suddenly say: ‘We are not going out there any more. I am going to be out there for three or four weeks on end and I cannot even have a beer’. What are you going to do about that, minister? Will you issue permits to those people?
We talked about book-up when we were having the briefing, and it is a very wise that you have said people cannot use book-up if they are purchasing alcohol. How will you police it? Something like vouchers given to people to use in supermarkets, so they will not be abused and used for alcohol? It is a good idea that people are given vouchers and not given cash, particularly aged people, because sure as eggs if they are given cash it is often taken from them. However, if they are given vouchers, is there some way of preventing those vouchers from being abused and used for alcohol? Even with this legislation, there seems to be a means for you to fix some of these problems that we have had in the past. I am interested in whether you are going to take on some of these problems that we already have to make life a bit better.
On the other hand, how are you going to make life such that Aboriginal people will think they are part of mainstream and not that they are being ostracised and isolated? I realise that you think rivers of grog cause many problems out in communities, but you cannot say that all Aborigines are drunks and abuse people. We have to get away from that. There is an image we are creating if we say no grog at all. Let us face it: there are white people who live on communities as well, such as police, teachers and essential services guys. They are not going to be allowed to drink either, although they, at least, know when they come into town, they can probably stay with friends and drink. We know prohibition does not necessarily work. How do you know that these restrictions will work? We have to start doing something to fix the problem in a way where there is not injury to people, but there is a sensible way of living.
The interesting part will be how you respond to the problems in our society. It will be interesting to see what this legislation does to enable you to make life better, to make a difference. If it is purely legislation for more restrictions, I do not see a good result. In anything we do, having restrictions certainly will not help people. Let us face it: there are many people who probably do not need help.
I am a little like the member for Blain. We have talked through so many issues over time. This bill is only for a five-year period - is that right?
Dr Burns: The Commonwealth legislation is.
Mrs BRAHAM: The Commonwealth is for five years. Yours may go on or you could review it in time because you may not need to have these very restrictive powers as time goes by. Minister, I hope you have some effect on what is a problem in communities. I just hope the effect will be a good outcome, not just restrictions, restrictions, restrictions.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I support the minister and his bill. I agree with the member for Braitling. It is not about Aboriginal people. Most Aboriginal people do not drink and, in my experience, it is not Aboriginal people who cause havoc. Any person who consumes excess alcohol has the same potential to create havoc. I have seen that in the city and in my electorate at Casuarina. I congratulate the minister. I know that extreme situations require very prompt and, sometimes, unconventional action or reaction and it is very wise that the minister has brought this bill to the House.
I support his proposal to change the situation with book-up. I was always opposed to book-up. I oppose buying alcohol on book-up. As a matter of fact, I oppose book-up in a city situation. I cannot understand why people would be forced to surrender their PIN numbers and card to a city retailer and be trapped for the rest of their life into going somewhere and buying food that is either out of date, or twice or three times as expensive as the local supermarket. If I had my way, and I have always lobbied for it, I would completely remove book-up from a city situation.
I am very happy with what the minister has done here. If you go to a shop and you have a licence, you cannot have book-up in your premises. I know why. In the past, people booked up alcohol under the pretence they are buying other goods, or very easily they booked up money taken out of the till, then turned around and bought alcohol with this money, which is absolutely incredible. I find it difficult to understand that these are the people who are in most need to utilise every single penny of their welfare payment to buy food for themselves and their families. These are the people who are trapped by people who use book-up to keep them enslaved in their small premises. I strongly support the minister in this action.
I also support the minister for declaring special restricted areas. I have a vested interest, as do many other members around town. You probably have parks in your area that occasionally or frequently become drinking places for itinerants. They move away from the liquor store, open the cask and start drinking sessions, sometimes starting 12 midday and finishing at 2 am or 3 am. As a result, first of all, none of the residents can use the park, and second, in the middle of the night, they start having their drunken fights and everything else. We all witness them. Recently, I wrote to the residents in my electorate, people living around Johnston Park, asking them if they agree or disagree with me approaching the Darwin City Council to declare Johnston Park as a dry area because people have had enough. The response was overwhelming. I have written to the council, but I think now I will ignore writing to the council and will probably write direct to the minister, providing all the information and the signatures I have received from local residents asking to declare this park as a restricted or dry area.
I support the minister imposing special conditions on licensees. We have seen the results of restricting alcohol. I was in Borroloola recently. The local hotel had lost its licence. People were allowed to purchase only certain quantities of takeaway alcohol, light or mid-strength beer, and the advice I had from local residents is that Borroloola was a totally different place. No domestic violence, no violence at night, no drunken brawls; it was a different place. We have seen the same thing happening in other areas.
Groote Eylandt is a very good example. Under the introduction of restrictions by our government there, not only have we seen a reduction of domestic violence and a reduction of brawls, but we have seen a significant improvement of the lives of the Aboriginal people in the area. We were there for Community Cabinet, sitting outside the small heritage church at Alyangula, and one of the local people told us that last year, we would not have been able to sit out in the open as we did because people were drunk, walking around with machetes, and fighting each other. Since the restriction of alcohol, things have changed completely.
Before the introduction of the permit system in Alyangula, indigenous employees at GEMCO had sickies running at 7.1%. The current sickie average is 2.4% sick leave. You have seen an immediate reduction of about three times in sick leave. The simple reason is because they do not wake up with a hangover. Before, they did not wake up at all to go to work. We immediately have a significant change, and congratulations are in order for that.
I am very strong on civil liberties, but sometimes, as I said before, an extreme situation requires extreme action. Stopping and checking a vehicle for carrying liquor in restricted areas without a warrant, while I might not like it, I endorse strongly because these are people who make money from the misery of other people, their fellow Territorians. They stock their cars with alcohol, which they buy at a very cheap price at some retail outlet, and then sell it for three, four, five times the price in some of the communities. I am aware there was a case in Casuarina where at 6 o’clock in the morning, a taxi would arrive outside the Casuarina Village, open the boot and sell casks of wine for $50, $60 and $70. This information was provided to the police to deal with. I find it disgusting that these people will make money from the misery of others.
The power for suspending, reworking and varying permits is necessary. The minister has to be able to react quickly and effectively. Sometimes, he will have to throw the book at the people who are not doing the right thing. If we are going to reduce the harm from alcohol, not only to the people who drink it excessively, because it is only a small number of people – if you look at who is actually drinking, they are the same people you will see in Nightcliff, Casuarina, and Jingili, but they are rotating around. Every time you close one outlet, these people will move into another place and they start the same cycle again; the cycle of self-harm, damaging the neighbourhood because they cause the problems and fights. I have seen women bashed, and kids running around naked, semi-naked or hungry because people just ignore them. I am not referring to Aboriginal people; I have seen white people doing exactly the same. I have seen white people rolling drunk. I have seen white men exploiting Aboriginal women because of alcohol.
I congratulate the minister for bringing this bill to the House. I did not intend to speak for long. You well know my feelings on this issue, and I look forward to the passage of this bill.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, this discussion on liquor has come about because there is a very small number of people in the Northern Territory who cannot handle their liquor. There is another lot who decided that they are going to make money out of it at the expense of the health and wellbeing of others.
I am supportive of this legislation, minister, but I will speak about some aspects that I find a little worrying. One of the things that has become quite confusing for the general public throughout the Northern Territory is the overlapping of what is federal legislation and what is Northern Territory legislation. Why can there not be an overarching framework that makes it clear for people out there exactly what legislation is? Why can it not be simplified? It is becoming quite confusing and it is fragmented. An opportunity was missed earlier when you were introducing legislation for dry towns, saying that each town and community could make up their own mind about what responsibilities they were going to accept and have their own plans of management.
That has not been terribly effective because, instead of it being implemented for dry towns right throughout the Northern Territory, some communities were quick to take up the legislation and some were not. As a result of that, when those did get their act together, the problem moved somewhere else. That is why we have the rolling stone effect happening around the Territory where the problem has just been moved from one area to another. It would have been so much easier to have it implemented right across the Northern Territory. In light of what has happened, the reports that have been handed down, it probably would have been a darn good idea.
I have looked at the Port Augusta example of a dry town. I know that Port Augusta has really significantly improved. They have commissioned a scientific report to ensure that they were given the right information about how successful Port Augusta is. I do not believe that has been released yet, but I was interested to talk to them about the difference it has made to their town since it was declared dry.
The other aspect of that is where did a lot of those people go? I know that some of them may have gone over a hill, some of them went to Coober Pedy and some came further on up to the Northern Territory. That is the rolling stone effect I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, the only way we are going to be able to deal with that is to be really tough. Unfortunately, government needs to implement tough restrictions in all the towns.
I speak for Katherine and I felt it was a bit slow coming on board with introducing and applying for dry town status, and then it was a little piecemeal. But now, thank goodness, they have decided to apply for the whole town to be dry, and I am very supportive of that. Those people who still want to have a social drink can do so, but what we are doing is ensuring that the abuse of alcohol is not carried out in public places and around the town, making it very difficult for a lot of the families who live there.
You talked about not allowing book-up. I was a licensee for 11 years. In the whole of that time, I was never allowed to book-up. It was part of the liquor laws, and my rules and regulations for running Red Gum Tourist Park where I was not allowed to book-up. I would not have dreamt of booking up alcohol. I am a little confused as to why you have said this bill will prohibit takeaway licensees from accepting book-up as a form of payment. To my understanding, that has always been the case. As far as I knew, that was always how I had to run my business. I was never allowed to have book-up, and I certainly did not keep cards. Cards, to me, are just a piece of plastic. Most times if someone had a card, it did not work when they tried to withdraw money, so plastic cards certainly were not kept.
It is a pity that there are other businesses that you cannot ban this in apart from liquor outlets, minister, because I am well aware that there are a lot of businesses that do hold plastic cards and PIN numbers. That is a grave injustice to the people they hold them for because it holds them to ransom. They seem to be totally and permanently committed to leaving that card at that particular store. It is a shame because it certainly makes it difficult for them to learn how to balance their money and their fortnightly payments ...
Mr Knight: The Bucking Bull.
Mrs MILLER: Perfect example. That is one, and there are plenty of others that are like it, and I do not agree with it at all.
The member for Braitling talked about two aspects that are of great concern to me as well. Are there going to be permits available for tourism operators who work and travel across indigenous land? Will they be able to get a permit? They are not carrying a busload of drunks; they are likely to sit down and have a wine with their meal at night, which I do not see any harm in doing. The same thing applies at Uluru. The same thing would apply when people are having their drink watching the Rock at sunset. I have done that myself and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was perfectly sober, but it was very nice just to have a glass of champagne watching the sunset at Uluru. I do not believe that it would be a very good image to send to the tourism industry.
Everyone is aware that we have some very serious alcohol problems on indigenous land – a very serious problem. However, we should not be detrimental to the tourism industry which contributes so much to our economy. The Minister for Tourism is going to deliver a statement on tourism some time this afternoon telling us how wonderful tourism is. We do not want to detract from the tourism industry.
I have had a lot of concern expressed about civil contractors working in restricted areas. I have had two people come to see me in my office in the last three weeks whose workers have told them: ‘Mate, if we cannot have a beer at the end of the day, we are not working with you. We are just not going out there’. When one of the contractors goes to work on restricted areas and Aboriginal land, he never, ever had his campsite near the town, wherever he is. He is going out very shortly and he is going to be about 45 km away from the town. My office made some inquiries to see if he could apply for an exemption, and he was told that, under the new federal legislation, he could not apply for a permit to be able to take alcohol for his half dozen workers to have a beer at the end of the day. That is going to present a huge problem. He is just one contractor. There are several of them around Katherine, plenty of then working throughout the Northern Territory on restricted land who do not abuse alcohol at all. However, they do like their workers to have a beer after they have worked in hot, tropical conditions all day, had their shower and had their meal. I would like to know if the minister can tell me what is going to happen in that area.
I do not have any time for grog runners at all, and the tougher you can be, as far as I am concerned, the better. That applies to any vehicle taking alcohol into a restricted area. I was told by a taxi operator that taxi drivers are not allowed to physically search bags or any sort of freight that they have on board their taxi when it goes into a restricted area. Is that true? I am not aware that that is true. In an instance where one driver did ask his passenger if he had alcohol on board and he said, ‘Yes, one bottle’, the driver said, ‘Get rid of it’, which he did. However, he also had another bottle in the bottom of his bag underneath a lot of clothing. He was stopped on entering an indigenous community and had his cab confiscated. The person who had the alcohol in his bag went on home and the taxi driver lost his vehicle, which is his means of employment. He was without it for quite a while. When I spoke to him, it was over two weeks before he was able to even contemplate getting his vehicle back. Could you please clarify that for me? I would not be very happy if I suspected that there was alcohol on board a vehicle that I was taking into a community. I would not want to go there; I would want to know.
Walking in the morning in Katherine which, unfortunately in the last few months I have not done enough of, is quite an eye opener because there are casks that seem to come out from underneath bushes. I do not know where they come from, but there is always a supply of alcohol, even early in the morning. I have not been able to ascertain whether they have had it stashed somewhere, or someone is providing it for them. I really look forward to the part of the bill that will give you powers to really clamp down on grog runners and those who are taking advantage becoming law.
I seek clarification on the couple of issues I raised, minister. I would really like to see some consistency in the way the legislation is being implemented by both the federal and Territory governments. You should not go back in time because history does not always work, but the history did in this particular case: the Living With Alcohol program from the 1990s worked well. I have not had one person tell me that it was a terrible program. As a matter of fact, it has been the other way around. They have said to me it worked so well.
We all know the reasons why it is no longer here, but its goal was what we are all looking for now. I will read from it:
- The Northern Territory government has endorsed a national policy aim to minimise alcohol-related harm across Australia. Indicators of alcohol-related harm show the levels and the costs suffered by the Territory to be unacceptably high.
Our initial goal is therefore to progressively reduce the levels of measurable alcohol-related harm which we experience, so that by the year 2000 …
And this is going back into the mid-1990s, do not forget:
- … they are no greater than the national level.
We have fallen way behind that, and it is really upsetting. Maybe, if that program was still in place, we may not be at quite such a bad place as we are now. There are some aspects of the Living With Alcohol program that would be wise for us to look at; for example, all the things about culture, control, care, harm reduction - all the things that we are talking about now. Sometimes, there are things from the past that have worked well and we are wise not to throw the baby out with bath water. It would be wise to revisit some of those areas.
Minister, I am very supportive of this amendment, and I look forward to listening to other speakers.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. Much of what I wanted to say I said during the urgency debate. I have some concerns. When the minister spoke during the urgency debate, he admitted that there had been very little consultation with the industry. That concerns me, not because I am here promoting the liquor industry, but the liquor industry is a legal part of our society and it is approved by the government. Therefore, I would have thought that with such major changes under section 33AA, it would have been good to hear from the minister any responses from the Northern Territory liquor industry or the AHA as to what they thought about these powers.
I know that the minister will use these powers carefully, because I know the minister, but you may not always be the minister. This legislation passes from one minister to the next, so we have to look at this legislation on its merits. It would be good if the minister could allay some of the concerns arising from his statement during the urgency debate that he had very little contact with the industry. I wonder whether, over the luncheon adjournment, he had any feedback. The minister not only has the power to determine additional licence conditions; he has widespread power over many aspects, such as when a premises is open, the type of liquor that can be sold, the amount of liquor that can be sold, the ID required and the keeping of records. They are all powers a Liquor Commissioner would normally have and would go through a more open process. The minister now has the power to do that on his own. I understand the minister will have to report back to parliament and, if it was unfair, there would certainly be debate in the media. However, the community consultation part of this amendment is lacking.
Again, I realise it has to go through on urgency, but using the same argument as the member for Wanguri used earlier, we had 15 days to find all these things out. You had 15 days to get comment from the industry because it went up last week and it is being debated now. I am hoping this bill does not go through and we find a major flaw in it that the industry will find detrimental. Even though some of these restrictions are meant to be detrimental, it may have been something that was not foreseen by those who put this bill together.
I do not agree with the member for Katherine on the issues of contractors and tourism operators on Aboriginal land. It may not be within your power to effect any change to that because it is more related to the intervention by the federal government, but we have to be careful as we are dealing with someone’s land. Whilst there might be some issues in relation to the tourism industry, and there will be matters that contractors will be concerned about, we are dealing with people who own that land. If permits are to be given to those people, then the people who own the land should have the majority say in whether they can or cannot.
We put restrictions on people on private land. The government puts restrictions on whether you can take a dog into a national park. It is not uncommon for us, as owners of land, to restrict what people can or cannot do. If I try to take the perspective of an Aboriginal person and we had no drinking in our community, the federal government had made all these statements about rivers of grog and the problems with alcohol, and then, on our piece of land, we have some people drinking. I am just an ordinary person in the community, and I say: ‘The government has told us no more grog here, and yet over here there are some people who are allowed to drink’. There may be good reason why people should be allowed to drink over there, but should the other side of the argument be that us non-owners of the land, if we wish to participate on that land, have to give a little in relation to what the rules are?
We have to be careful that we do not forget those people who own land. If people were to come on our land - and we might make the rules that you cannot bring a dog because we have wildlife – and we said: ‘We do not allow grog here because we do not drink and we prefer not to have it’, people would make the choice of whether they want to go in or not.
Some people might say that would unduly affect the tourism industry, for instance. If I was coming to the Northern Territory from overseas or interstate, wanting to enjoy an experience on Aboriginal land, if I was sincere, I would be willing to accept some of those rules.
It is a two-way street. ‘Yes, I am allowing you onto my land, but there are some conditions. You cannot go over here, for instance, because that is a men’s site. We do not want you going over there because there is a small community that is not involved in tourism, and we would rather you did not drink because our community has a drink ban on it and it sends the wrong message if you allow one group of people to drink and we do not drink’. That would be them-and-us based on race.
In relation to contractors, I fully understand what the member for Katherine is saying, but it may be that when contracts are awarded, if there are contracts at places where there is no drinking, it is simply stated up-front. You are, basically, declaring it before contractors have a chance to tender to say that these are the conditions. From memory - and I cannot give you exact times and dates - I recall this on some of the communities I worked at. It was not always, but there would have been restrictions on what the contractors could have brought in. It did not say they could not drink outside the community but, unless they had permission from the people there, they could not drink.
It is a difficult issue, member for Katherine, I realise that, but again …
Mrs Miller: You have to get contractors to go out there.
Mr WOOD: Yes, and one could argue that if you want the work, you have to accept the conditions. Perhaps the issue that you are talking about needs to be thought through with the government, with the Aboriginal community, and with contractors to see whether you can come up with some sort of an arrangement where that could happen. It may be, as I said, if you put your argument, member for Katherine, to the people who own the land, you may come up with exactly what you are after. I am not trying to preach to you, but be careful that when speaking about this issue, we do not forget the people who own the land. They own the land and they should have a fair say in what is happening.
I believe you could solve the problems. Most Aboriginal people, when you explain the situation to them, are probably pretty fair and reasonable. When we are talking about these issues, we must remember that we have a federal government that has made some major statements about alcohol on Aboriginal communities. It has certainly cracked the whip on the amounts of alcohol, or whether alcohol can be consumed at all on some of these communities. It can look a little hypocritical if we then allow other people to come on to those communities and drink, not so much from our point of view, but from the point of view of the people who own the land.
I raise those issues as part of this debate. I would be interested to know if the minister could say whether the matters raised by the members for Braitling and Katherine are within his bailiwick or are they really completely outside what we can do? Are they a matter that we should take up with the minister, Mal Brough?
Madam Speaker, to sum up, whilst I fully understand why the minister needs these powers, if we are not careful, we can shift the problem from A to B with these changes, and we need some strict control over B.
The only other matter is the question of whether you have had any consultation with neighbouring states. For instance, if we declare large areas of the Territory dry, or the Commonwealth declares them, and you bring in your special purpose restricted areas, what effect will it have on places like Kununurra, Camooweal and Marla Bore? Have you had any negotiations with neighbouring states in relation to what the effects will be? As most people know, when people are desperate for a drink, they will travel long distances to get that drink. I am interested to know whether you think there could be any ramifications from both Territory and Commonwealth legislation on neighbouring states in relation to this matter.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s, first, urgency motion and the legislation itself. The legislation is needed at this point in time in the history of the Northern Territory. Tough situations deserve tough responses, and I believe it is time for this legislation to complement or work alongside the federal legislation. It does what the federal government says their actions do not do. They say they want to get tough on grog, but their actions do not really achieve that. Their so-called ban on alcohol really is superfluous because most of the communities they have specified are dry anyway. The three cartons of beer takeaway law is a bit strange, and I will talk about that later.
The urgency is required. This issue has been around for a long time. It has been talked about, we have had parliamentary committees, and there has been a whole range of inquiries. We all know that there is too much grog out there, it is getting into the wrong hands, there are too many outlets, there is too much consumption and a whole range of things. I take the points raised by the members for Katherine and Nelson that the problem does move around.
Personally, I would like the minister to target behaviour, and I know he is on this track anyway. We need to target irresponsible drinking. We can quarantine an area, we can do certain things, we can do something with outlets, but it is about irresponsible behaviour. There are a lot of responsible drinkers, both indigenous and non-indigenous in the same community as irresponsible drinkers. In the longer run, as a society, we need to target irresponsible drinking. I believe this idEye system being proposed for Katherine is well on that track; it targets irresponsibility. It says if you misbehave, the penalties will apply to you. If you do not misbehave, if you drink responsibly, nothing will happen. It is a voluntary system, as the demerit points system is; you do not have to be part of it. If you stick to being responsible and live by the rules of the community, and have respect for one another, you will not be penalised.
Alcohol is the single biggest threat to Northern Territory society. It disrupts families and communities, and it draws so much money out of personal incomes, households and the budgets of governments. We spend huge amounts of money on our police force, our health system, our education system and our child protection system, and most of the work that they do is alcohol-related. A huge proportion of the Northern Territory budget, which is taxpayers’ money, our money, is being spent curbing irresponsible drinking behaviour. If we can get that under control, and reduce it by 50%, 75%, it means that is 50% of the budget, and 50% of the workload of the departments and 50% of their budgets. Instead of putting on more police, more Accident and Emergency nurses, more nutrition workers, more teachers for children who are falling behind at school because of problems at home, and more child protection workers, we can actually do a lot more positive things. We can improve education out into the community with better facilities, better infrastructure. We can do a lot more if we stop spending money on the downside. We need to kerb this alcohol problem into the future.
The legislation has a range of measures. They give the minister a lot of power, but he needs that power to be able to go into a situation with a licensed premises, and take control of a situation because things flair up. He needs to be able to move in quickly. In Katherine about five or six years ago, Kirby’s lost their licence for three days and it was the quietest you have ever seen that end of town. It was so peaceful. We have floods in Katherine, as people well know, and the town is so peaceful when it floods. Floods are a terrible thing, but I tell you what: the community was so quiet and peaceful because all the outlets …
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: I tell you what: there is responsible public and there is irresponsible public. I remember during the last floods, when there was water still in the main street, I boated into town from East Side to get into my office. Walking down the main street in a foot of water was this bloke with a carton of beer, heading back across the bridge to Kalano. I thought: ‘Where on earth has he got that from?’ I went up the street a bit further and the bottle shop had opened. A state of emergency was declared in Katherine, and the bottle shop had opened. There are some very irresponsible publicans out there. This is where the minister can obviously use his powers to curb those problems.
I support the minister’s legislation. It is putting everyone on notice. Publicans need to realise that the community is fed up with this problem and they have to get on board and be part of a solution. They have to realise that you cannot sell a heap of alcohol without there being a problem. It is about being part of the solution. It is part of our society that everyone likes a drink, but it is to no one’s interest whatsoever - the individual, family, society or the publican - for people to be given too much or get out of control. Publicans need to be part of the solution and work with the government and other organisations to come up with ways of targeting irresponsible drinking.
We know it is only 5% or so of the population. It is a very small pocket. In Katherine, they talk about 100 problem drinkers. Katherine gets its name from 100 problem drinkers. If we target those individuals for their own good and for their family’s good, we will fix their lives and we will fix the town. If we can do that across the Territory, it will be a win for not only individuals in the current generation, but generations in the future. Minister, congratulations on your bill, and I look forward to working with you to implement it.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members for their contributions, which have been very thoughtful. I certainly appreciate the support from the opposition and Independents. I will endeavour to answer the questions that have been asked by each speaker. Some of them have themes and I will try to address those themes as I proceed.
To preface this closing part of the debate, I emphasise, as I did in my second reading speech, that we are a government that has taken steps in relation to alcohol abuse in the Territory and we are prepared to take more. These steps represent a large a large stride and it is a way forward. I flag for the Assembly that we are prepared to take more steps. I said earlier today in debate on the urgency motion that there is a review of the Liquor Act, and we are ready to go out to public consultation on that - or nearly ready since the Commonwealth intervention and, of course, the laws that were passed very recently. There is a further opportunity for the Northern Territory community and this Northern Territory parliament to participate in taking more steps in relation to alcohol because it is such a vitally important issue.
As the member for Daly pointed out, the cost of alcohol in lives, misery and services in the Northern Territory is immense - absolutely immense. Our per capita consumption of alcohol is on average at least twice the Australian average. In some parts of the Territory, it is almost three times the Australian average. My first profession was as a pharmacist and, as students, we did a subject called pharmacology. We learnt the dose effect curve: the higher the dose, the greater the effect. So it is with alcohol. In small doses, in convivial companionship, people enjoying themselves, it is okay. However, in higher doses, the trouble starts: social disruption and the aggravation and then people’s health is affected, families falling apart, etcetera.
As a strategy, we have to look at reducing the amount people drink and, as has been pointed out in the debate, if you are talking about Aboriginal people, there are a lot of Aboriginal people who do not drink. I know a few in this Assembly who do not touch a drop of the stuff. However, there are some people, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who imbibe too much. Unfortunately, what we see in a lot of our regional centres and in Darwin is a very visible problem of Aboriginal people and alcohol. Let us not forget some of the scenes down here in Mitchell Street. We cannot lose sight of that fact, either, but today we are talking about a more global strategy.
My sister lived in the Territory in the 1960s and 1970s. She was a teacher in the more remote parts of the Barkly and Katherine. She is a Ted Egan fan. I remember her bringing a record back to Brisbane, where we lived, and one of the songs was:
- We have got some bloody good drinkers in the Northern Territory
From Darwin down to Alice Springs,
they are always on a spree
I thought: ‘That sounds like a pretty good place, with everyone having a good time’. The point I am making is that there is a hard drinking culture embedded in the Territory. It was a badge of honour at one time. I still like Ted’s song; it is a good song. However, we have reached a point where we have to take strong action to redress the issues we face.
To recap the major elements of this bill, it gives: the minister power to impose a new category of declaration, which is a Special Restricted Area; ministerial power to impose special licence conditions; ministerial power to impose a liquor supply plan; improvement to the return of seized vehicle provisions; increased search powers related to grog running; and prohibits licensees with takeaway licence from accepting book-up as a payment for goods unless exempted.
It is very important to remember the definition of book-up, which is essentially keeping someone’s plastic credit card and their PIN number. We are not talking about a line of credit that many people have with their local shop; we are talking about this very specific practice of book-up.
I turn first to the member for Blain who acknowledged that we are in very difficult times. In fact, he said we are in an extraordinary position and we need to respond to a problem. There was certainly agreement about that. He talked about the alcohol problems and another precipitating factor, the Wild/Anderson report in which the authors talked about the ‘rivers of grog’ in the Northern Territory and the need to address that.
I was certainly heartened when the member for Blain said whilst there might be reservations about some elements of this legislation, in principle the opposition did not oppose it. I welcome that support from the opposition.
A number of speakers, including the member for Blain, said that I acknowledged this morning that there has been little or no consultation with industry in relation to this and asked what I am going to do to rectify that. I can assure this House that we do have a communication strategy ready to roll out to the community and licensees, and we will be engaging with them about these measures. It is a very valid point. I think it was the member for Nelson who said we did not go out for consultation. There are some times when governments do have to act to set down policy parameters. The federal government has done that and the Northern Territory government has also done that in relation to these matters.
I listened very carefully to the member for Braitling. She raised quite a number of important issues. She talked about the responsibility of a minister having the types of powers that are part of this bill. I agree with you, member for Braitling. As I said this morning, those powers should be used with wisdom and very sparingly. I can assure this House that I will not be using the powers unnecessarily or without thought. Using power sparingly is always the best way to go. I can also assure this House that if there is a situation where urgent action is required, I will act in accordance with this legislation in the interests of the community. That is the sort of criteria that I am going to use in respect of these powers.
The member for Braitling has reservations about government-to-government intervention and any interventions that do not really engage with communities, and I certainly agree that is a valid point. I point out to the member for Braitling that what this government has proposed with Closing the Gap, is to engage with communities. We want to work with Aboriginal people and Aboriginal communities saying: ‘We are here. We have the resources, we have a plan, but we want to engage with you’ because, as the Chief Minister said in relation to Closing the Gap, Aboriginal people have to take that step. Governments cannot do everything, and that is why we are looking to engage with Aboriginal leadership to take those steps, and that is vitally important, member for Braitling.
You posed the question that we are bringing in all these different interventions and restrictions, and was there a base question about whether we believe that Aboriginal people should drink? I can say to the Assembly that Aboriginal people, of course, are citizens of Australia, and they have rights. However, balanced with that, the Wild/Anderson report really found a major problem in relation to alcohol and its nexus with child abuse, and it is incumbent on government to act on that. It is not a pleasure to do it, member for Braitling; we do that with a lot of thought. It is a difficult thing to do, but it is something that we have had to do.
You talked about restricting people to only drinking in certain places in more or less controlled environments. What we have seen in the Territory is the major problem with alcohol abuse and the effects that flow out of that really come about through uncontrolled drinking. When people get takeaway, they take it somewhere and then trouble brews when people get drunk. Usually, when people are drinking on licensed premises, it is a controlled drinking environment and, basically, there are differences between the two. I would like to see people, if they do want to drink, drinking in controlled environments and learning to drink in that way.
You talked, I thought very eloquently, about all these measures, and the bottom line should be making life better for Aboriginal people and communities. I certainly concur with you there. What I have seen is that drunks are often centre stage. They are noisy, they are aggressive, they just take over everything, and the non-drinkers, the family groups, particularly the women and children, are pushed to one side and the drunks have centre stage. What we have to do is take away the alcohol, take the drunks away from centre stage so families, once again, can reinstitute family, community and cultural controls - normal family processes. The alcohol is just feeding into this cauldron, and no one is getting any rest, no one can assert normal family controls, whether it is over spouses or even over children. Taking the alcohol away is going to give people some breathing space; an opportunity to really institute some normal social controls. That is certainly my hope about making life better.
As part of Closing the Gap, government has certainly flagged up education campaigns. Also, regarding alcohol rehabilitation and early intervention, I certainly believe that is the way to go to make life better. I know as a researcher, when I was researching into the health effects of kava when I was with the Menzies School of Health Research in East Arnhem, I went through all the hospital files in Gove District Hospital and you could see some people on the slippery slope. They would present in A&E, and it would just get worse - broken bones, all the rest of it. Then you looked on the front and, of course, it said deceased. I always thought if there was more early intervention for those people, that that terrible cost could be averted. We have to look at rehabilitation and early intervention services, and I am confident that, through Closing the Gap, we are going to be doing that for those who are afflicted by alcohol.
The member for Braitling also raised the issue of whether the Liquor Commission would be under the direct control of the Commonwealth minister. The advice I have had, member for Braitling, is that the Commonwealth minister can ask or direct the Liquor Commission to provide him with information but beyond that, I believe the Liquor Commission still can operate autonomously within the Northern Territory.
You raised issues about tourism operators and contractors, as did the member for Katherine. It is an important issue, and it does point to some areas of difference that we, as a government, have with the Commonwealth. I said in the urgency debate that, generally, we are trying to cooperate with the Commonwealth and really integrate with and complement their legislation. However, I have to say we certainly do not agree with the 1350 ml purchase of alcohol and people recording their names and showing ID. We implore minister Brough to work with the industry to find a better way to achieve his policy outcome. The industry is suggesting that there be a dollar nexus to that system. If it stays at the 1350 ml, it becomes overly complex.
In a meeting I had with the AHA, one of their members told me that there are eight x 1031 combinations of alcohol products that could make up 1350 ml. Now, eight x 106 is eight million, so I do not know how many million, million, million eight x 1031 is, but it is a hell of a big number. Once again, I call on minister Brough to reconsider this 1350 ml.
Likewise for tourism operators; there is a whole range of tourist places that are going to be affected. You mentioned the sunset viewing. I understand there is a whole range of places within Arnhem Land and Central Australia. I have written to minister Brough in the last day or so and asked him to reconsider the 1350 ml. I have also raised the issue of the impact on the tourism industry and asked him to reconsider that.
Another issue I have asked him to reconsider relates to the Daly River. Probably four weeks ago, I raised the issue of the Daly and pointed out that the Commonwealth’s laws would prohibit people from having a drink while they were fishing on the Daly River. Minister Brough, to his credit, replied and said that he had fixed that. However, this week I have received legal advice from the Department of Justice that it is not fixed and, generally, it will be illegal for people to drink on the Daly River when they are fishing. I have written to minister Brough about that also, and I hope that minister Brough can fix it because I know there are going to be lots of people at the Barra National and the Barra Classic next year who are not going to be too happy about that. We would like to work through those issues with minister Brough.
In relation to contractors, I tend to agree with the members for Katherine and Braitling. I would like to work through those issues as well. You asked about specific permits and whether I have the power to issue permits to those contractors. I do not, member for Braitling. The situation as it is now, under the Commonwealth legislation, is that the Northern Territory Licensing Commission is undertaking a complete review of all alcohol permits throughout the Territory. They will be submitting that to minister Brough’s task force, which is headed by Sue Gordon, with recommendations, I would say. However, the final decision in relation to that will be with the Commonwealth task force. I ask members on the other side to really lobby the Commonwealth to ensure there is some sense in all of this.
I understand what the member for Nelson was saying. I can see that there could be tensions there if a group of people living in close proximity to another can drink and some cannot. That could create tensions,. However, there are ways, through discussion, consultation and engagement, we can work through those issues. I know that there a lot of people who work out on communities - police, teachers, health workers, etcetera – and some of them might find it a bit hard if they cannot have a drink. I know there are lots of communities where they cannot have a drink and people are happy with that but, generally speaking, it could be an inhibitory factor to the very difficult job of recruiting people on to remote communities. It is something that we need to think about.
Regarding the issue of the vouchers that you raised, member for Braitling, I am advised that that is really a Commonwealth matter. Our provisions relating to book-up simply relate to the plastic cards and keeping of PIN numbers. I am not really sure how the Commonwealth’s arrangements with Centrelink payments are going to work, but that could be another issue that we take up with the Commonwealth.
You asked about my powers and I have made it plain that through the review of the Liquor Act, we need to have a discussion about those in the very near future. As has been noted, the life of the Commonwealth legislation is five years.
The member for Casuarina raised the issue of book-up and how that has impacted adversely in his electorate, as it has in some areas in mine. We are proposing changes there but, once again, I emphasise that we are talking about book-up, the keeping of cards and PIN numbers; we are not talking about a line of credit for people.
He also talked about Borroloola where there were licence conditions imposed. In fact, the licence was taken away from the hotel and the other liquor outlet was quite happy to have conditions on the sale of takeaway. Both the members for Daly and Casuarina talked about the positive effects when alcohol is not available on a community. The member for Braitling asked about making life better, and we heard a couple of stories where life is made instantly better when alcohol availability has decreased.
A few speakers talked about grog runners, and the importance of coming down hard on them. Certainly, in this legislation there is capacity for police to randomly search vehicles; there are increased police powers in that regard. That complements the very severe penalties that the Commonwealth is imposing on grog runners. Most people would agree that those severe penalties are warranted. We are doing our part by giving police more power to search vehicles in a random fashion.
The member for Katherine expressed some concern about the overlap of federal legislation with some of the measures that are being implemented in this legislation. All I can say to the member for Katherine is we have worked very hard with the Commonwealth to ensure that the two suites of legislation dovetail and that there is integration. Obviously, we are in discussion with the Commonwealth about a communications strategy about all these changes. We need to nail that down in the very near future because we really only have until 15 September.
The member for Katherine talked about the rolling stone effect. I have not heard that one before, member for Katherine, but I think it is quite apt. As I said in the urgency debate this morning, everyone acknowledges that there is a displacement effect and there is going to be increased displacement as the Commonwealth measures come in. That is even more reason why the minister needs to hold these powers: so that we can address issues as they arise on a place-by-place basis. It does make it very difficult, though. You did ask whether we had spoken with South Australia and Western Australia. The short answer, member for Katherine, is no, but it is a very good point that you have raised. I have taken it on board and will be communicating with my counterparts in those states as well.
You talked about the regime of book-up. I am advised that a code of conduct and a protocol was instituted in 2004 about book-up for licensed premises. This has been codified in law and taken one step further, in that anyone with a liquor licence cannot sell general merchandise as well and take book-up. People have to make a choice in the business about whether they want to retain a liquor licence and general merchandise. If that is what they want to do, there will be no no-book. If they want to have general merchandise and no liquor licence, they can have book-up.
I dealt with the issue of tourism operators earlier and the process by which Racing, Gaming and Licensing will be interacting with the task force over permits.
On the issue of taxi drivers searching customers, I do not think drivers have a legal power to search. I am advised that under Northern Territory legislation that it is a defence for someone if they can prove that they did not know someone had grog in a bag, but I am not sure about the Commonwealth legislation. It is something that needs to be clarified with the Commonwealth.
You talked about the success of the Living with Alcohol program. I agree with you; it was a very successful program. It was a shame that the High Court found that it was a tax, and we suffered a knock-on from a High Court decision. I am a believer that the discounts in price for heavy beer versus light beer and heavy alcohol products was an incentive for people not to drink such heavy alcohol and reduced overall alcohol consumption. It did have a positive effect, and the revenue from the wine cask levy was able to fund education programs and so on. We do not have the ability to levy a tax, but it is something we could take up with the Commonwealth once the dust has settled. It is a very good suggestion.
The member for Nelson asked about consultation with industry, and I think I have talked about that. He talked about section 33AA and the powers. As I outlined in the urgency debate earlier today, there is capacity for the Liquor Commission to hold hearings and make recommendations to the minister on changes in licence conditions or liquor supply plans. However, there is still always a capacity, member for Nelson, for the minister to act in a very direct way. All I can say to you about the consultation and the way government has moved on this is that it was a decision of government to move policy this way. I give the undertaking that we will be engaging with industry about the implementation.
I have tried to deal with the difficult issue you raised about contractors or other workers on Aboriginal land. It is a difficult issue, and you had a very good point. I do not have an easy answer for it, but it should be a matter for negotiation.
The member for Daly said tough situations demand tough responses. He also acknowledged the need for urgency in this matter and said we should be targeting irresponsible drinking. He touched on how alcohol misuse impacts heavily on the Northern Territory budget. He said that industry needs to be part of the solution, and I agree with that, but we all have to be part of the solution.
As the Chief Minister said when she spoke about Closing the Gap, Aboriginal people have to step forward, too. Governments can only do so much, whether it is the federal or Territory government. They can only do so much. Aboriginal leaders and people need to step forward. We all need to engage and address the problem so that we can move on.
As I said in my maiden speech in 2001, part of the reason I am here and what I am committed to is unlocking and realising the vast cultural, economic and social potential of the Northern Territory. Grog is holding us back. Grog is hurting us. Grog is causing all sorts of problems. I mentioned Mitchell Street, and that is a problem we have to address. We all have to work together on that. Alice Springs has similar problems around Melanka and other places. We have to work together on those problems. We cannot say: ‘This group has the problem; we do not have a problem’. We do have a problem.
Following the Wild/Anderson report citing rivers of grog, we really to have to take tough action. This bill is part of it. As I said, there is a further review of our Liquor Act coming in the next few months. It will be out for consultation. There will be a consultative process around that. I am sure, given the very thoughtful offerings of members opposite, there will be a lot of debate and many good ideas to come forward. It is very important for us to keep on taking steps in this regard.
With that, I thank members for their contributions, and I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: I call the member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, I will not be keeping the House up any longer than necessary. The two issues I wish to raise relate to extra clauses, if that is something the government will agree to. They may not, of course. I am sure how an extra clause attached to this bill would be handled by you, that is all.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I will put the question on taking the bill as a whole.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I have two items, and perhaps I should have discussed them more before you gave your second reading response. There are two areas of concern. One is a period of review. This is a special bill with special powers. What I am suggesting is that that there be a clause at the end which, basically, says there must be a review every 12 months, and a report of that review be brought back to the House. As we have agreed, the minister has far-reaching powers. I wondered whether you agree that there needs to be provision for a review of this bill?
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, I appreciate what the member for Nelson is saying. This is an extraordinary bill with extraordinary powers in an extraordinary circumstance. As you have said, this is the first time you have raised it with me. I do not believe I can accept your amendment to the bill. However, I will give an undertaking on behalf of this government that when the Commonwealth legislation lapses, we will have a review of these elements of the legislation. I give you that undertaking from the floor of parliament, but I am not prepared to take it as a formal amendment to the bill.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I accept that, although, because it is such a strong bill, a review every 12 months gives not only us, but the people that it affects, an opportunity to see how it is going and comment on it so that if the bill needs some sort of amendment, you obviously have the information required to make that amendment.
Following on from that, minister, if you are looking at a review at the end of this legislation, should there not be a clause which gives some notification of when this bill will cease to exist and your powers will not exist any more?
Dr BURNS: As far as I understand, member for Nelson, this bill really flows out of the Commonwealth legislation, and they have given a five-year time frame for that legislation. I am not sure whether it is actually in their bill or not. Because the two acts work together, I think they are linked and, in that regard, our bill is contingent on their act.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, that is exactly what I am saying: if you had a clause which linked the conclusion of this bill to the cessation of the federal government’s bill, that at least would give people some idea that this is not a permanent power that you will continue to have. The way the bill is written, you could have these powers for a long time.
I thought that, perhaps at the end, the bill could have had a cessation date to alleviate anyone’s fears that these powers would continue beyond the intervention period.
Dr BURNS: Mr Chairman, once again, to reiterate the undertaking I have given you, member for Nelson, on behalf of government, we are prepared to review this bill when the Commonwealth act is no longer in existence.
Second, I have already flagged that there will be a review of the Liquor Act within the next six months, or probably a bit longer given that some of these developments are pushing that time frame out. You would have an opportunity to propose that as part of that review. I do not feel inclined to accept this amendment as it stands from the floor of parliament. I have given you adequate undertakings, first about a review when the Commonwealth legislation lapses, and the capacity for you to have input during the review of our Liquor Act over the next six months.
Bill, as a whole, agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 101)
(Serial 101)
Continued from 22 August 2007.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about local government reform. During the McArthur River Mine debate, which had people crossing the floor because of the abuse of process this government engaged in, the shadow for mines, the member for Katherine, discussed the issue …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: What prompted the CLP to support the government on that occasion was the direct and obvious threat to 1000 jobs in the Northern Territory. No such imperative exists today ...
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The legislation that is before the House deals with the Local Government Act. I ask that you rule that the member for Greatorex direct his comments to the legislation that is before the Chair, not a bill that passed through this House when he was not here.
Mr CONLAN: I am getting to that, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you could, member for Greatorex, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: No such imperative exists today. In fact, the only imperative that may exist in this argument that is relied upon by the minister, is stating that he cannot hold over elections from existing councils until 1 July 2008. It appears that there are only a couple of councils that will be affected if this matter is not dealt with on urgency and, if that were true, then we on this side would be prepared to support urgency to make that possible, but that is not what this bill is limited to.
This bill casts a much wider net than that simple objective. That net extends to a timetable, rather than simply trying to suspend a couple of council elections.
This bill is designed to empower the minister to ensure that the amalgamations go ahead on 1 July 2008. The question is: is this reasonable? By demanding urgency, the minister is signalling that there is a matter of such serious and urgent public importance that the democratic systems that underpin this House, and the voters who put us all here, are set aside and ignored so that this matter can be dealt with.
Where is the urgent and serious matter that so inspires the minister to call for the suspension of full public review through the normal process? Why is this matter so important that the electors of the Territory can be pushed aside by this parliament?
The astonishing thing is that this bill was in the possession of the minister prior to the June sitting. This means that there was never a need for urgency. This matter could have been placed on the table at that time and proper public scrutiny could have been brought to bear upon the content of this bill. There has been no public scrutiny whatsoever. There has been a mere weekend pass, if you will, and soon this bill that no one got to see prior to last week will pass into law with enormous criticism coming from all quarters. Never has this government attempted to pass a more unpopular item of legislation. There have been speed limits, demerit points and pool fencing, and they had some form of public support from some quarters, but this has been universally decried.
It has been decried not for its content, but because of the steps that this government is taking to ram it down people’s throats ...
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: There is a corresponding law in this House at the moment, that seeks to protect children in a more comprehensive way than the existing legislation. Considering the range and scope of the issue of child protection in the Northern Territory at the moment, I can understand that bill being presented on urgency. It is there to protect the children of the Northern Territory. The Minister for Community Services has sought no such urgency because the processes of review are so important.
Compare that to what this bill is trying to achieve and ask yourself: how can the holding over of a few council elections be more important than child protection in the eyes of this government? The answer is that the government is trying to avoid political heat over the local government issue. How can this minister come into this place and demand urgency when he has been anything but urgent in presenting the bill?
The minister has spoken of the need to reform local government in the Northern Territory. We, on this side of the House, accept that there is need for local government reform. We accept it, but it demands a genuine, proper attempt to consult with people about how that reform should proceed. That is not what has occurred. What has occurred is that the government has made a decision and now they are trying to push it upon a very reluctant public.
The minister, in his second reading speech, talked of an advisory board that is advising him on needs of interest groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Minerals Council of the Northern Territory and the Cattlemen’s Association. They were all cited as having input into the process. Perhaps the minister would care to explain using the names of those organisations when all three had roundly and comprehensively slammed the minister and the minister’s approach for what is going on with this legislation. The Cattlemen’s Association, as I understand it, walked away from the advisory board because of the government’s steadfast pigheadedness on this issue. Minister, a bit of advice: if you have an advisory board, it might be worth listening to their advice.
The government is running education campaigns run by that good, old chestnut, SOCOM. Good old SOCOM. They are also degenerating into screaming matches. Public meeting after public meeting is being attended by people expressing their frustration, anger and dismay at what is happening. The message must be getting through to the minister. You would think the message would be getting through. I find it impossible to believe that the member for Goyder has not reported to the minister about the depth of anger in his electorate. I know he went to a public meeting not so long ago and was basically told to just sit down and shut up when he tried to sell the propaganda line of the government. Despite this, in the second reading speech the minister said:
- I am pleased to report that the implementation of the reform of local government is proceeding reasonably well.
‘Proceeding reasonably well,’ he said, smiling in the face of adversity. On Monday evening, I went to a meeting at Berry Springs to listen to what the people of the Litchfield Shire thought about the changes. I was staggered at the anger. The minister could offer the people there no comfort whatsoever. They asked simple questions about rates and the minister could not answer. They asked the minister to slow down, but he refused. They asked the minister again and again and again what the urgency was, and all the minister could say was: ‘Because it is my time line’.
I remind members of words uttered by the minister on 27 June 2007 during estimates. He said:
- As a result of the new model, we believe there is a greater capacity in terms of also being able to raise money because we are talking about rates here.
‘A greater capacity in terms of also being able to raise money because we are talking about rates here.’ He was sitting on the bill we are debating right now, and he was reporting to estimates that this is a rates chase.
It is worth remembering that the government’s income annually is more than 50% higher than it was when they took office. The rivers of gold have far exceeded the wildest expectations of Treasury every year since the new taxation system was introduced. That taxation system was passionately resisted by this government when they formed opposition.
Nevertheless, there has been no saving by this government. There has been a ballooning of wages, a problem so serious that the Auditor-General, in his February 2006 report, saw fit to criticise government for one hundred …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Once again, this is a bill about local government reform. It is not a bill in regards to the government’s financial position or what the Auditor-General has to say about the government’s financial position. This is very specific legislation about local government. The member opposite has not spoken once about the detail of the bill and I urge you to get him back to the subject.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, there is usually a degree of latitude. There is no point of order, but try to contain your remarks to the bill, please.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There has been no saving by this government. There has been a ballooning of wages, problems so serious, and I will say it again, the Auditor-General in his February 2006 report, saw fit to criticise government for a $120m blow-out. There has been annual over-expenditure across portfolios by government ever since coming to power.
Year in, year out, increases in locally-raised taxes and GST income have saved the government from deficit positions. Now, the minister says that Territorians need to be taxed even more. One may remember a few years ago when times were leaner, previous Australian governments tried to engage in a process called cost shifting. We heard the Chief Minister complaining in here the other day that the Territory is paying 61% of Royal Darwin Hospital costs when it should be 50:50 with government. That is a direct legacy of that approach.
The government is continuing to look around for sources of income, for other people’s money to offset its expenditure, and that is what this is all about. This government wants to rate cattle stations. The question is: why? They provide all their own services, they impose no demands on the Northern Territory other than a demand for decent roads, and they have an industry that generates some $300m each and every year for the Northern Territory - and they pay rent. That rent was doubled the moment this government came to office and, because it is calculated on UCV in recent times, has absolutely skyrocketed. Now, the government wants to impose rates on this industry that will be aligned to UCV of the properties.
There will be enclaves of non-rateable areas such as Yulara and Nhulunbuy. These company towns will not be rated and will be excised from local government areas. Why? Because they provide their own services. So do cattle stations. What about the promise made nine years ago that the ALP would return local government to residents of Yulara? Now that opportunity exists and the ALP has sought to sidestep those people completely. There is simply no consistency in the minister’s approach. He is picking winners and losers as it suits him.
Litchfield Shire is a glowing example. They have some $5m in surplus in their bank account and a lot of that is thanks to the member for Nelson ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: That shire will be abolished and its replacement is going to have to look after poor performers such as Belyuen and the Cox Peninsula. Rates will go up, and the Chamber of Commerce has said that, as for residents of Darwin, as a result of the wash-over effect, that will be in excess of $200 every year.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Greatorex, particularly in his capacity as a shadow minister, has an obligation to be accurate with his facts. We know that the Town Clerk of Darwin has said it will be $1 increase. He is making these figures up. As a shadow minister, he wants to be very careful about what he says in here. He is not on the radio now, Mr Deputy Speaker. He owes a debt to the people of the Territory to get his facts right.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, member for Katherine.
Mrs MILLER: Yes, could we just get on with this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, instead of listening to a response from the member for Sanderson?
Mr Kiely: Oh, sit down, Fay.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Every member has a right to raise a point of order. There is no point of order, but the member for Greatorex will obviously live and die by his comments.
Mr Kiely: $1.
Mr Henderson: $1.03, actually.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the extraordinary powers the minister is demanding this House give him.
After four days of scrutiny, this bill will give him the power to issue restructuring orders, and these orders empower the minister to, among other things, abolish a council. The former CLP government abolished the Yulara Council, and the Australian Labor Party screamed from the hill tops. Now this government will abolish over 60 councils and they do not want more than a week’s public debate on the whole issue.
You can understand if people are given to some sort of cynicism, and being a little cynical about this whole process being engaged in by the Minister for Local Government. It is all being done for no other purpose than to keep up with the minister’s agenda. As he said, it is about a time line, and that time line is 1 July 2008. The reason that date is so important, obviously, is because the government wants to have the first shire elections in October 2008. It is beyond me, and many on this side of the House, why the transition is going to take so long. We all know that the Northern Territory Electoral Commission is capable of throwing an election together rather quickly. You have to ask yourself: what is so important about getting all this up in a hurry? The reason is that there will be an election in 2009. This government wants to put as much distance between itself and the next Territory election because they know how damaging this will be to them.
The federal government have taken over councils that have formed most of the problems in the Northern Territory, and they will not be handing control of those back for another five years. That should be the time line; if not five years, then perhaps two or three or four years. What is the hurry? These could be properly bedded down and made operational through a process of full consultation with all Territorians and all stakeholders, and launched when the federal government return those councils to the Territory’s jurisdiction.
The current arbitrary time line is simply for the sake of the department’s convenience and the government’s electoral chances. It has nothing to do with common sense. This has everything to do with raising taxes, as quoted by the minister - taxes on Territorians and cost shifting to local government. They are doing it in a fashion that will be at least damaging to the chances of an ALP victory in 2009.
This government owes it to the people of the Northern Territory to slow down. This process is nothing more than riding roughshod over the people of the Territory, and other attempts to impose it have been resoundingly rejected. The experience of the people who live in the Western MacDonnells, for example, in Alice Springs, is a clear example of opposition to this, and you would have thought that the minister would have learned from that. People swore at the minister, they cursed him and finally, while the minister was trying to talk to the crowd, they walked out en masse. The political cowardice of sitting on the legislation and then pushing it through on urgency is reprehensible.
I draw your attention to a comment by the Leader of Government Business this morning, when he said, and I have it from the Daily Hansard:
- … as a government, we do not use the urgency provisions lightly or recklessly or in any way on a regular basis …
I will say that again.
- … we do not use the urgency provisions lightly or recklessly or in any way on a regular basis …
Well, perhaps not on a regular basis, but they are certainly doing it this time. The CLP does not support this bill.
_______________________
Explanation of Speech
Explanation of Speech
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to clarify something I said in the urgency debate this morning.
I have been assured by the minister that my comments in relation to who was driving this legislation, implying that it is his department and not the minister, were incorrect. He said he is the architect behind these changes and has the support of Cabinet. I accept that and, if I have a criticism, that is where I will aim it.
My reference to the CEO related to a previous time when I was comparing an issue some years ago with the current issue in the context of the way the local government reform process was initiated and being pushed along. The minister has, as I said, assured me that he is the one behind this push.
I, therefore, apologise to employees and the CEO of the department for any personal offence.
Minister, I should also say there will be times when politicians must be free to criticise departments, especially if we disagree with the way they carry out their responsibilities given to them by the minister. That is part of our job. The question of how that is done without being seen as attacking someone personally can be difficult. That was not my intention this morning.
_____________________
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now address the issues before us. We have a bill on urgency that gives the minister a lot of power. That, to me, reflects poorly on the government. I have been accused by the member for Wanguri of never supporting this. He is saying I have not given support for the model that the government is proposing. I am not saying everything in the model is bad. He, basically, said that if I do not support their model, then I am against it. I have said, on a number of occasions that I support reform of local government; it is needed. However, the fine print - and some of it is not that fine - is my concern.
It is interesting that we have a bill going through today on urgency which gives carte blanche power to the minister. As I said in the previous debate, I know this minister will use the powers in this bill wisely. However, he may not be the minister in the future. This bill does not have a sunset clause. Whilst I may have faith in this particular minister, who knows what we might get? The member for Sanderson could be minister one day and …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: This is the kind of bill the member for Sanderson would love. It is funny because, as I said, this is Celebrating Democracy Week. Here we are celebrating the public participation in the democratic process, and we are rushing a bill through without the public - not the advisory board, the public - having a great say about a bill which takes a lot of power away from the public because it puts so much power in the hands of the minister.
My concerns go back a fair way. There are lots of reasons why the government wanted to introduce amalgamations and reform. Many of those I agree with. One of the problems I have is that much of what has been said about the reasons for reform basically apply to Aboriginal communities where it has been said many times that quite a number of these councils are dysfunctional. Of course, what has happened in that broad sweeping approach is that it has picked up places like Litchfield Shire which, as a council, is quite viable. That is one area you have made a mistake. You have said the federal government supports it, Mal Brough and Tim Lloyd support it. That is correct; they have written letters supporting the principle of amalgamation. They have not said: ‘Yes, that is right and that is right; we agree with this, this and this’. No, they have just said they support in principle the Territory government’s attempt to have amalgamation.
Where do we move from there? We then get a timetable and map that shows nine shires. We are told that there will only be nine shires in an area that is one-sixth the size of Australia. Even if you were to look at the issues about amalgamation in Queensland, you would see that nowhere in that state do you have such an expansion of the boundaries of local government into single local government units. Even though Queensland is losing a considerable number of its councils - and some of those are quite small, especially on the south-east coast - if you look through the guts of Queensland, many of those local governments have not changed, but they are nowhere near as big as the proposed Barkly Shire or the one that goes through Ti Tree or the Alice Springs region. They are huge proposed shires. They are as big as Victoria in length. In the case of the Central Desert Shire, Yuendumu to Tobermorey Station is the equivalent from Darwin to Tennant Creek.
Has there been, or was there, any chance for us to debate the merits of that? None. Yet I have a number of papers here that have been released in recent times. One from February 2007 was An Analysis of the New Perspective on Amalgamation in Australian Local Government by Brian Dollery and Joel Byrnes of the School of Economics, University of New England, and Lin Crase from the School of Business at La Trobe University. This extract will give you an idea of what the paper is about:
- Local government has always been the favoured policy instrument for Australian state and territory governments intent on improving the operational efficiency of local councils. This policy consensus has flown against the mounting evidence from Australia and abroad that council consolidation is not only largely ineffectual in reducing costs, but also generates significant unintended negative consequences. Despite the recent wave of compulsory amalgamations in New South Wales there are at last significant signs that the erstwhile consensus on the desirability of local council amalgamation appears to have evaporated. This paper considers the deliberations of various recent reports into Australian local government on structural reform and demonstrates that a sea change in opinion on amalgamation has indeed occurred.
They go through various amalgamations throughout Australia and look at whether they were successful or not. Their conclusion is that big is not necessarily better. They say that there are other models whereby you can work on more regional, voluntary agreements and they appear to be a better type of local government.
Whether you agree or disagree with me is beside the point. What I am getting at is that nowhere in the community was there the ability for any of us to debate whether we should be going for super shires, medium-size shires or small shires. We were not involved in the process so it is hard to say on one hand that you are against it. I am not against the principle, but I never had a chance to have a decent say in the size and the type of shires that the government is proposing.
There was another report, Is Bigger Better? Towards a Model Process for Local Government Structural Reform, by the Australian Institute of Urban Studies in 1999. It was written by Angus Witherby, Brian Dollery, Martin Auster and Neil Marshall. They looked at the cost-effectiveness of having larger and bigger shires. What I am saying is that we should have been part of the formal debate process. We did not have that opportunity. This is where the reform agenda got off on the wrong foot.
Again, as I said - lo and behold! - this timetable came up with very little input. It is set in concrete. I presented three petitions to parliament in relation to this. They came from motions passed at the Girraween Primary School meeting and the Taminmin High School meeting. The petitions read:
- We the residents of Litchfield Shire request that the NT government delay the implementation of its planned amalgamation of the Litchfield Shire Council and the development of a new super-council until these changes are fully costed and the residents adequately consulted.
The government has said no. That is very disappointing because I think, at the Berry Springs meeting, Mr Laurence Ah Toy asked exactly that. He framed it in a non-threatening way because he said: ‘We support a reform process, but without knowing what the ramifications of this reform process are, we cannot come along with the government and support the process because we do not know what we are being asked to support. We do not know the cost, and what the governance principles will be. We do not have that information’. There has been meeting after meeting where people have not been given that information.
The minister said that in 10 days from the Berry Springs meeting, there will be some business plans. I hope there is a series of options and not just one business plan because there is word going around that we will only see one. I hope we see all the options. People are saying that they have asked the government to slow down and, today, the government is running a bill on urgency. People are saying that the government is not taking much notice at all.
You might argue that this has to be urgent, and I am not going to get into that debate again, but it is sending out the wrong message. People were not involved in any discussion about this bill. The advisory board represents a pretty broad range of people, and there are not a lot of local government people represented, except from a departmental point of view ...
Mr McAdam: What about LGANT?
Mr WOOD: No, LGANT is only represented by one. I said before the advisory board should have more feet-on-the-ground people like CEOs and works supervisors, the people who have to deal with issues like roads, which are a big issue for local government.
Minister, people do have concerns and I hope we will have plenty of time to look at them. They are concerned about UCV. In nearly all the papers I have, a flat rate does not get much of a mention. Even when you are looking at options for cattle stations, there is no option for a cattle station at a flat rate; most papers cite UCV. I know people can argue that UCV can be manipulated by the process to come up with something similar to the flat rate, but many of us disagree with the principle of raising money for local government using a system based on the value of the land. I know many local governments throughout Australia do that, but the one thing Litchfield Shire residents feel is that is not the way they want to go. They do not want to have their rates based on that; they want them based on what is the cost of running the council. You divide that by the number of blocks and you have an answer. Simplistic? Maybe. It has its problems, yes. It is administratively easy to carry out, and for 22 years, it has not done a bad job.
Another area that concerns many people is what the core functions of the new council will be. Most Litchfield people are happy with the core functions they have, but the government has the power to add core functions to the system. The government is going to hand over 1500 km of roads. There has been lots of talk about funding from the Commonwealth and, maybe, some from the Northern Territory government, but people in the rural area would like to see a very watertight promise that the money will actually be there. Not might be there, but actually be there.
That is a summary of some of the issues that concern people. If those issue were dealt with earlier than this stage, not nine months after this timetable commenced, some of the angst that people have at these meetings might have been reduced. People are not going to accept changes to local government if they are unsure of the consequences of those changes.
Minister, in relation to matters covered in this bill, I am concerned that you have extraordinary powers. What is missing is community involvement. Generally speaking, when a community government was established under the existing act, there were proposals within that act which, for instance, if someone had an application to have a community government council, they would inform the residents, fix a time and place for the meeting of those residents, explain to the residents the purpose of the application, and endeavour to ascertain the opinions of the residents. What I am saying is that in our existing act, there is room for community involvement in what is happening. We are taking that away. I know this is a transitional process, but we are taking it away and giving the minister lots of power ...
Mr McAdam: No, no. You do not understand.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, look, minister, if I am wrong, I will hear you in response. The restructuring orders are the minister’s powers, and they are pretty wide-reaching powers. I ask the minister about Part 2A, Re-structuring Orders, proposed section 28A(2)(e):
- (e) convert a municipal council into a community government council or a community government council into a municipal council;
Considering that we are scrapping community government councils altogether, I wonder why we would be converting a municipal council into a community government council. It seems to be something that will not happen.
At what stage exactly will the elected members on a council, say, in the case of Litchfield, finish as councillors? I am not clear on the date that they will finish being the elected members. I gather there is a manager set up at some stage for a certain period, but I hope the presently elected members will have their powers preserved to the very end, until the new council is elected. I do not think people are going to be too happy seeing their council run by a manager, and we do not know where that manager might come from, especially as we have a good council at present ...
Mr Henderson: You think so?
Mr WOOD: I live there, member for Wanguri.
Mr Henderson: They cannot even run a rubbish dump.
Mr WOOD: I will pick up that interjection. The minister well knows that any land for municipal purposes, such as rubbish dumps, is set by the local government. It is made available by the Northern Territory government. Litchfield’s dumps were all on Territory government land. Litchfield tried many times to get some land at Sunday Creek and that land was not made available ...
Ms Scrymgour: No. Gerry, we went through all that. You know that those discussions with Litchfield Shire Council, everything went wrong with planning and the dump.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Arafura!
Mr WOOD: I responded to the interjection, which was the same old interjection.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and I am trying to stop those interjections. If you could return to the bill, please.
Mr Henderson: It is true. It is all being dumped in Darwin.
Mr WOOD: It is not true. Why did you not give us Sunday Creek?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, continue your remarks to the bill.
Mr WOOD: Another issue that concerns me is proposed section 28B, Effect of Order:
- (1) A re-structuring order operates to the exclusion of any inconsistent provision of this Act.
Whatever is in this bill, even if it does not fit within the guidelines of the Local Government Act, overrides it, and that is a pretty wide-reaching power. We should be trying to ensure that these changes fit within our existing act. Although it gives the minister power to do certain things, we should be trying to maintain consistency with the act, not allowing for any inconsistency.
The other matter that concerns me is that I would have expected a sunset clause to be in this act. If any act should have had a sunset clause, this should be the act because, if this act were to continue, even when local government was established, the minister still has the power to drop in and say: ‘Your council is abolished. We are going to split you up. We do not like the look of your wards’. Even though the minister might say that is not the intent, there should be some requirement that at a certain date - and this should be written on the timetable - this bill will cease. The idea of a sunset clause should be taken on.
One question that has caused some concern amongst councillors in Litchfield Shire is: is the real reason for this the dissolution of Litchfield Shire? This was raised at a meeting at Cox Peninsula. I said to people at that meeting that the reason the government wanted to close Litchfield Shire down was because it was not viable into the future. When I said that at the Cox Peninsula meeting, the member for Goyder said it was a lie. I must remind the member for Goyder that on 13 February 2007, the Minister for Local Government, in reply to a question, said:
- … Litchfield Shire is probably not viable into the future ...
Mr McAdam: It is true, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: From your point of view, minister, it may be true. From the people’s point of view, we have had no statistical, financial or governance information to prove that. It is very difficult for me to listen to the minister saying that when we know that Litchfield has more than doubled in population in 20 years and is part of extraordinary growth in the Northern Territory. Its growth is probably second to Palmerston, it has very high land values and is developing quite quickly. You only have to look at Coolalinga and the other side of the road where there is an application to develop more of Coolalinga. You would have to say its potential as a growth area is quite phenomenal.
However, you must keep in mind that that council and the people there want to keep the basic core functions. They do not want to have the aged-care centre, the childcare centre, the companion dog, da de da de da. I am even concerned about where the library might end up in our little part of the world. I am not sure, but there are rumours around that the Taminmin Library might be either fully or partly a function of Litchfield. I do not know, but that is the rumour going around. I heard it when I was done there recently.
When people do not know the facts, they are going to jack up about what the government is trying to do. If the government said to me Litchfield Shire is not viable in the future, I would expect them to show me those reasons. I expect the people in Litchfield to be given a chance to evaluate the government’s reasoning, to put it up to test. We lost our shire manager because of this. He resigned after being there since the beginning; he just could not take it. He said: ‘Enough was enough’. He said when people said that it is not viable: ‘I ran a good council. We kept our costs to a minimum, our staff to a minimum’. There are only about 11 staff. How many other councils have 11 staff for a population of 17 000 people? We created new methods of doing things, like the local road act and infrastructure development levy. We had voluntary management groups running all our reserves. All those things were designed to bring community together and to keep the costs down.
I put my concerns partly because the bill has come before us today, rushed, which is a problem, partly because it is one of the few opportunities we have had to debate some of the real core issues in this local government reform, and partly because there are many questions that the public have not had answered. Even though people on the other side of the House are saying, ‘You are against it’, I am with the people in the Litchfield Shire who say: ‘Yes, we know local government needs reform. We would be happy to consider what that reform is about, but until we know the information and judge whether, for instance, what rates are to be, or have some idea, why would anybody put their hand up and say: “Yes, beaut”?’ Those matters have not come to the public yet and I do not think anyone in government can expect people just to give a big hurrah and move on.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave it at that. The message that has gone out today with this bill being rushed through will be seen by people in the Litchfield Shire as a slap in the face. Not a slap in the face that they are necessarily against transition legislation, but a slap in the face because the legislation has been rushed through. I have already given the reasons why I do not think it has to be rushed through. I am interested in the minister’s response as to why section 24 of the Local Government Act cannot change the dates of the elections.
People see it as a slap in the face considering that they passed motions at two meetings and they filled in three petitions asking the government to slow the process down. We are so attached to this little map; it is like this is the be-all and end-all. Unfortunately, if government does not have a little room to move, people get pretty upset. I hope the government will slow the process down. I hope we will get adequate time to look at these business plans. Unfortunately, the way this bill has been presented without adequate community consultation, I certainly will not be supporting it
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this amendment bill but, in doing so, I emphasise the point that will certainly be made by all members on this side of the Chamber. This is not the big-bang change to the system of local government that the minister has been working so hard on. It is preparatory legislation; it is about transition and process, something that the opposition and the Independent member for Nelson fail to understand. It is about getting ready for what will be one of the great reforms carried out by this government.
We are not there yet. As the minister has made perfectly clear - and I have heard him over many months talking throughout our various electorates and through the media where we have had discussions - there is much work to be done. No one is saying that this is the end of the road. This is the transition bill that will allow the minister to go forward.
There are two aspects of this amendment bill I will discuss briefly: the issue of avoiding unnecessary elections; and the conversion of associations to the status of community government councils under the current Local Government Act. I emphasise what we are talking about are transitional arrangements to allow Territorians to ease into the reform process so that they can hire CEOs for the new shires and work alongside them in developing shires that will achieve the outcomes we are looking for. One of those key transition processes is to allow the Local Government Minister to waive the need for existing local governments to go to an election before next October when elections for the new shire structure will happen for the first time.
In my electorate, that will involve the councils at Gunbalanya, Minjilang, Warrawi and the Tiwi Islands Local Government. In effect, for these councils, it will be business as usual, but it will be more than that. The continuity allowed by this process will allow all existing councils - and I emphasise all - to work together as they move towards the reformed local government structures due to be enacted in the middle of next year. It would have been deeply unfair for the electors of Minjilang, Gunbalanya, Maningrida, Warrawi and the Tiwi Islands if they were not to enjoy the same continuity in discussions and negotiations as other towns and communities in the region.
More than that, it will allow each of the towns and communities that will form the new shire structure uninterrupted access to the process of working with the new CEOs who will transition each of those towns and communities towards general shire elections next October. I thank the minister for this provision. It is an important one and is welcomed by towns and communities affected.
The second area I wish to briefly comment on is about the need for a smooth process in getting to the new shire structure. One of the ongoing problems affecting local government in the Territory for many years is that not all groups carrying out local government functions, especially in remote areas, are, in fact, constituted as such under the Local Government Act. This was noted decades ago by the CLP when they established the community government council provisions of the Local Government Act. Over the years, there have been problems associated with this for successive Local Government Ministers.
In short, associations established under the Territory’s Associations Act, as well as under the federal associations and councils act, undertake local government functions and, over the last two decades, have evolved into being recognised as such under both federal and territory funding arrangements. A key problem with this is that the Northern Territory Local Government Minister has not had sufficient powers over such associations regarding direction and regulation of their work.
In the transition to the new shire structure, it will be critical for the minister to be allowed careful management of the process over all existing bodies with local government functions, not just the ones established under the Local Government Act. Of course, during this period, the associations will retain their corporate identity, but will assist with stability and enable quick intervention if any mismanagement occurs during the transition period.
Again, these provisions of the amendment bill we are considering today are designed to provide fairness and transparency for all involved in the process. All bodies performing local government functions will be subject to the same provisions but, more importantly, will have access to the same levels of negotiation and discussion. In my electorate, this will allow associations such as in Maningrida, Minjilang and Warruwi the same privileges and responsibilities as all the other places in the Northern Territory.
I do not agree at all with the Prime Minister or his intervention, and we know that the federal government has supported the local government reforms. The federal minister has had a lot of discussion with our Minister for Local Government about the need for local government reforms. Here are some words from the Prime Minister when he was here yesterday. It is a message that he gave to indigenous Territorians, but it is a message for everyone through all of these shires. The Prime Minister said:
- I have made it very clear to councils and any other communities in the Northern Territory that we have a special aim: their future can only be as part of the mainstream of the Australian community. Unless they can get a share of the bounty of this great and prosperous country, their future will be bleak. The motivation behind …
He was talking about the intervention:
- … is to ensure that this happens. We are not here to take anyone’s land or push anyone around.
This transition bill is not about pushing anyone around; it is a transitional bill which outlines a process. There is a lot of positive thought around this. I know there have been concerns, member for Nelson, and I have heard some of those concerns from the Litchfield Shire. However, it is a brave new world. We all need to move into the mainstream. That is where the future is. It is about streamlining the systems. I have seen the benefits of having a streamlined and centralised system. This local government reform is important. It needs to happen.
Minister, I fully support the amendments that you are proposing. It is not about giving the minister carte blanche. It is needed. It is necessary that the minister has the power to be able to determine boundaries through this transition period. There has been a lot of consultation, and the member for Nelson, I know, has been participating in some of those consultations - not all of them. I must say that it is on the head of every member in this House to provide and take that responsibility in getting out to our electorates and talking to our constituents about these reforms. You have known about these reforms for some time. The CLP member for Greatorex and others, are a bit cute when they stand in this House and say that this is all being rushed through when the CLP did this same exercise, which is where the Tiwi Island Local Government came from. This was done under the CLP, no different ...
Mr Wood: That was not a great attempt. I did not support that one.
Mrs Braham: I did!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Well, member for Nelson, you can give yourself a big pat on the back and a gold star for being consistent. However, he also needs to get a life and realise we are now in the 21st century and people have to move on. Regarding Litchfield Shire sitting separately from everyone else, the reality is that they will not be ...
Members interjecting.
Mr WARREN: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51 refers to members being disruptive. As members of this House know, I wear hearing aids and I cannot hear what the minister is saying. I ask that you rule and bring the House back to order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please cease the interjections so the member for Goyder can hear the valuable contribution by the member for Arafura.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Deputy Speaker, maybe I have pressed some buttons and they are getting a bit excited over the other side. It was the CLP who started these reforms. The member for Greatorex needs to do some history lessons here and, perhaps, he needs to take a walk down memory lane, have a look at the exercise in which the CLP undertook the reforms. I was over on the islands a couple of times when the then CLP Minister for Local Government was pushing this through, and they were talking about the Tiwi Islands local government transition from the separate councils to one super shire on the Tiwi Islands. The hypocrisy of these members! They get on the pulpit and bang the table, holier than thou, preaching to people about the transparency and good governance. This is the joke of the clowns over there, where they …
Mr Wood: You are not baiting anyone by your comments.
Mr Mills: You are very provocative.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am not being provocative, member for Blain.
Members interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I do not think I was being provocative at all.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please direct your comments through the Chair, and contain them to the bill.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will wind up soon. The amendments in the bill are fantastic. There are problems, and we are not denying that there have been problems in our remote communities. There has been a lot of consultation. In my electorate, I know that particularly in the west Arnhem area, people have been talking about these reforms for over two years. WCARA, the West Central Arnhem Regional Authority, as a group - which included Minjilang, Warruwi, Gunbalanya, Jabiru, the whole of Cobourg - has been talking about coming together under one super shire for the last couple of years. They are probably further down the track than most of the other regions. However, I do not think that they should be penalised and held up because Litchfield has a problem.
Member for Nelson, you have a responsibility, as does the member for Goyder, that information going to residents, ratepayers and people in those communities is correct; that you do not stretch the truth, so to speak, and incite a lot of grief and stir up a whole lot of anxieties in people. Most people do not like change. We recognise that change is always a big thing. However, it needs to happen. Minister, I applaud you and look forward to the passage of this bill.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been provoked to speak. I make this clear: I do not think there is anyone in this House who rejects the destination, where we want to be; it is road we are taking to get there that is the point.
I have nothing but admiration for the member for Nelson who has tirelessly worked to ensure that people who are having this reform done unto them are informed as to what is occurring. The saddest part of all this is we only have four members of the opposition and two Independent members. You sit over there and belt us up and make snide comments, and have a great old time and laugh about this. It makes me wonder what goes on behind the scenes ...
Mrs Braham: Wait until I speak. What will he say then?
Mr MILLS: Yes. Anyway, it is all very well to have this strange rhetoric which almost takes us close to having war crimes tribunals of crimes that occurred in the past. Put that aside; it is how we get to where we all we want to go. I was not in the CLP for 27 years, sitting there as Chief Minister or whatever. I just happened to turn up on this side of the political equation. I am going to stay here, I can tell you that because I am not attracted to the other side, not for a second ...
Ms Lawrie: Oh, that is good. It is mutual.
Mr MILLS: That is good because the roles are going to be reversed, and I am certainly looking forward to speaking to you when you are in opposition ...
Ms Lawrie: If you are around. They say that you are going to leave your seat, Terry. That is the local goss.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs Braham: Do not provoke him, I want to talk.
Ms Lawrie: Well, he raised it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Karama, member for Braitling!
Mr MILLS: I am trying my very best, Mr Deputy Speaker, not to be distracted …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am trying to help you as much as I can, member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, and I appreciate that support. We do want to get there. There was that desire in …
Ms Scrymgour: Well, just agree with it and sit down.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Arafura!
Mr MILLS: There was that resolve, implemented by former government. This government has chosen to proceed towards that goal in a manner which has caused concern amongst those who are going to have the reform implemented upon them. That is the concern; it is the process to get there.
Why I am particularly provoked to speak is because, embedded in the tail end of the comments from the former speaker was this ‘going around and spreading misinformation and stirring the folks up’. I have heard that come through a few channels. There was a time when the rumour was circulating that something significant was going to occur that was going to change the way that people conducted their community business regarding local governance. Then some details started coming out in a leaked manner. It was unclear; people were concerned. If we had been completely motivated politically, we could have made hay during that time. A joint response by an Independent member and a member of the opposition to do something that was not occurring was to convene a public meeting and to provide government the opportunity to explain to people who were getting pretty antsy what was going on.
The member for Daly was there. I received a phone call from someone on the fifth floor saying: ‘We want to have that meeting conducted in a manner that does not get out of control’. I chaired that meeting and that was the purpose of it; to ensure that people had the opportunity to ask questions. I made sure it did not get out of control. I played a responsible role. Others would back me up on that. It did not use it to exploit a political advantage. It was an opportunity to have information passed out. I could have easily stirred that crowd up. One of the participants and the joint organiser was the member for Nelson. We played a responsible role to ensure that information went out because it was not occurring.
We are in the terrible position now, where the folk who still want to be a part of this have asked for very specific information to be presented to them so that they can be a part of it. It is not going to be all sweet and rosy. I know that over there they love to manage these events so that everyone starts singing Kumbaya and we all march off toward this great goal. It is not going to happen that way. There will always be people who will resist change, but you have to do it in a way that you respect those upon whom you are implementing the change. That has not occurred.
Some of these characters over there have finally been dragged out and they are starting to run their little meeting at 5 o’clock in the afternoon for the rural folk so they can say: ‘We have consulted’. It is the same management technique of this government, which is very adept at managing public relations exercises rather than real, gutsy reform that takes courage. What they do when things get a bit hot, just as we saw with the middle schools implementation, is make a decision and lock it in. ‘That is the decision, that is the goal. How are we going to do that? We are going to call up Sheila’. Sheila comes in and she manages it through and creates this impression that we are all being consulted. We are all jolly good fellows; we are all having a go at having buy-in. It is a con. The decision is made, locked in. ‘You come up from Melbourne, we will pay you a few bucks. Come and entertain the folk with the greatest …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Earlier today, we had a comment about making allegations against people who could not defend themselves in this House. Even though we are covered by privilege here, we need to respect the rights of a well-founded, well-run and very legitimate organisation. To say that they take part in any con is very derogatory. I urge the shadow minister to be very careful with the language he uses.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member for Blain is well aware that public servants and private consultants do not have the right of reply in this House. You should choose to either continue the remarks or, like the member for Nelson, give an explanation of your speech. It is up to you, member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: Unbelievable! Okay, we will back it off a notch and we will say that a highly-paid consultant is employed; a gun for hire is recruited. You bring them up from down south …
Mr Wood: Hypothetically.
Mr MILLS: Perhaps. You bring them, wheel them out and organise the gatherings. If you had the capacity to see things from the other side of the equation - and you have obviously gone through a re-education program whereby parts of your judgment was altered so that everything seems fine. However, I can see it, others can see it. You cannot pull the wool over the eyes of those who went to some of those community consultation exercises, which were almost like community re-education programs. They can see it as plain as day.
They can see that a decision has been made and let us create the impression that we are being consulted. Consulted on what? We have been brought in and told: ‘Do not worry; it is a bit of fun and games, an exercise to create that impression, tick that box, community consulted and get back to where we are going’. No change. People do not like that. All that is going to occur is that you may be more acutely aware of the responsibility you are taking upon yourselves in this decision. Take a playground analogy. We all know the little fat kid - sorry, I should not …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Well, it is up to you, member for Blain. There are not many schoolchildren who listen to this debate or read the …
Mr MILLS: All right, it may be offensive to those who are listening who are.
All right. There is the playground bully and then a much larger playground produces a much more robust bully. Let us say it is from the federal parliament and they come and bully someone in the smaller playground, say in the Territory parliament. They are outraged. They squeal in horror that they have been bullied, and they whimper and they sob, and they whinge and they moan at the injustice of being bullied by this big, awful monster of a person who has come and dared to intimidate and belittle them and override them ...
Mr Wood: It’s Matthew!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr Kiely: The simplicity of your analogy is matched only by the strength of your bloody ignorance!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, honourable members! Wait, please, member for Blain. I remind you all of Standing Order 51 and that I will be placing members on warnings from now on. Member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. Once this person has received this level of bullying and is so deeply and acutely offended by it, they run the very same approach in their own playground. There is a terrible inconsistency here. We have run this line in a couple of debates during this sittings and members opposite refuse to see it. Others can. I think some can see it, but will not acknowledge it.
There seems to be one scream of outrage and horror when there has been intervention by the federal government. It is completely justified if you override the wishes and desires of those in legitimate organisations representing their constituents, and you say it is justified and in their best interests. If you look at that analogy, which you found so crass, offensive and difficult to understand, member for Sanderson, you might see that there is a terrible inconsistency.
No one denies – and I will say it again for fear of being misrepresented and misunderstood – that we all want to get to the same place, but there are, as expressed at public meetings in which I have been involved and other meetings I have held, some baseline questions that people need to ask. They need to know that answers have been forthcoming and that they can be a part of the process. I do not expect for a minute that there is going to be a magic moment when everyone says: ‘That is a relief. It is going to be good’, and off we go. That will not happen, but there is a deficiency created by a lack of information which is then interpreted as a lack of respect, and that will make it difficult in the future.
You will not always be in government; rest assured on that one. Others will have the responsibility of dealing with the legacy as a result of this process that has been unleashed through your own decision-making. It is quite clear. I can see, others may not, that the timing of this is contingent upon a Territory election. You want to get the unpleasant stuff out of the way. The same thing happened with middle schools. You get it out of the way so you can get far enough away from the next Territory election so that it is bedded down and easier to manage. You are weighing up some political risks. I can see that. It is quite plain.
It is for those reasons that I cannot support it. There are words games that will be played and misrepresentations. That does not mean we do not support the reform; it is the path you have taken to get to that position that will not be supported. I will not be a part of it, nor will the opposition.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, first I thank the transition committees, the people who come out of the communities and hold these meetings to talk about the issues; for their dedication to see change in the future direction of local government and the advisory committee chaired by Pat Dodson. I thank those people for their commitment to direct this reform and inform people what is going on with them.
The local government reforms are an absolutely essential step in the development of the Northern Territory. Who can deny that? It is absolutely necessary that we have change, and new challenges are always scary. As people, as Territorians, we have to stand up and support change. In the past, we have spoken about administration in communities.
When you have a look in my electorate, there is 20 minutes between Haasts Bluff and Papunya, an hour between Papunya and Mt Liebig and an hour-and-a-half to Kintore. There are four communities in that proximity that have four different accountants and auditors. This is about cost saving and future direction to encourage people to think more on a regional basis rather than their individual community, and it is to leave something solid for the younger generation so that we have that one place where all the administration is done, and there is comfort in leaving security for the younger generation having a more secure and better community.
As many of you in this Chamber know, many of our communities are in crisis, and have always been in crisis. For 27 years, the opposition spoke about it. I was an administrator in one of those communities in Papunya, and I certainly had the opportunity of talking to the member for Braitling when she was the Local Government Minister, and the former member for Greatorex when he was the Minister for Local Government about all these issues. I waited for some 15 years to see the reform back then because we supported it.
It is essential that our government is able to demonstrate leadership in improving the lives of people living in the bush and, for that matter, all people throughout the Northern Territory. This is about driving us as Territorians; it is not about division. It is about encouraging us to believe in a better future not just for indigenous people, but for all Territorians. That is the message that we need to send out to people who are fearful or who think that they have not been consulted. I want to give my 100% support to this minister, to the advisory board and the transitional committees for the information that they have put out in my region. I have certainly been a witness to that.
The Local Government Minister has continued to show committed and strong leadership, and has demonstrated the guts to take the next step in local government reform. He has certainly shown that this does take guts. I congratulate the minister for giving us, as Territorians, the opportunity to have a new future, to ensure that we travel down this path. Any path that is new, as I said earlier, can be feared in terms of its future. The minister has shown real leadership here.
The minister has a clear vision for positioning the Territory into the future. He has shown that by setting up the transitional committees to talk to people on the ground, and the advisory body to ensure that there is that inter-agency link to the transitional committees to ensure that the message is getting out. We know that we have very poor service delivery and increasing inequity, particularly in the bush, and we want to ensure that there is a difference now. As the member for Arafura said, this is about taking us as people forward and, if there are inequities in certain parts of the Territory, we need to ensure that shift and change the focus of that inequity.
I am very disappointed to hear the member for Nelson not supporting the reforms. This really does need bipartisan support. I urge members opposite and the member for Nelson to ensure that there is bipartisan support because this is really about the future directions for good governance, good administration and for the future of us as Territorians. If we can make a difference in this situation, then a lot of things will change.
There has been an extensive consultation process involved in all the communities with the key stakeholders throughout the Northern Territory. I have been witness to the minister and the chair of the advisory board coming out to a community when there were concerns raised. As soon as the minister got the message that there were concerns, he was out there. We had a barbecue and the meeting lasted five hours. If the minister was not really interested in informing people, it would have fly in, hello, goodbye and gone. However, the minister committed to answering all the questions from all those different people in all those communities about how they can move forward. Certainly, my people have had that fear, too, but that fear has been allayed because of the consultation process and the fact that their own people are involved in the transitional committees. There have been nominations from grassroots, from all our communities, and those people have taken the messages back.
Madam Speaker, the bill before us today will allow the minister to continue to demonstrate his leadership in positioning the establishment of the new shires by 1 July 2008. The consultation process will be over a period of 18 months and involve all communities and the public. This consultation process allowed for by the minister shows the rest of the country how real local government reform should be conducted. I welcome the reform. I welcome the bill. I look forward to the new Local Government Act and the continuing excellent work of the advisory board chaired by Mr Pat Dodson, and the considerable input and commitment of the shire transition committees as we move to 1 July 2008. I congratulate the minister and commend the bill to the House.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am one of the few people left from the CLP government who can say it is a pretty tough road the minister has embarked upon.
The member for Daly said I did nothing. That is not true. In 1999, I introduced reform to local government with a lot of support from LGANT and other communities. This government needs to remember they took over government in 2001. Anything that I initiated was passed on to them.
We did have some amalgamations on a voluntary basis. Ask departmental staff how hard it is to maintain that momentum with all those councils out there; how hard it is to keep them operating on the right track and to keep them interested and involved. It is a most difficult task.
The first amalgamation we had was at Anmatjere in the Ti Tree area. They had a previous local government association with the town, so there had been a bit of history working together. However, they are probably the one group that I would say to the minister will be able to embrace this new shire because they have already had experience of it. They are the ones that took it on before and tried to make it work as well as they could. If he is going to start anywhere, start with where you will achieve success so you can go on. The Tiwi Islands amalgamated to have the Tiwi Community Council. There are other groups that formed after I left that particular portfolio and this government took over. Regardless of the member for Daly thinking that nothing happened, we did try. Perhaps we took a too soft an approach by saying: ‘Do it on a voluntary basis’.
No matter what you do, you are going to need a huge amount of resources to maintain the councils. I know that is going to be a problem.
- It is the responsibility of the Territory to establish and maintain a framework that allows local government to operate effectively and efficiently. Local government should have the ability to deliver strong community representation and leadership. It must be able to deliver services in an efficient, effective and accountable manner, and it should have a decision-making structure that is seen to be credible, legitimate and culturally relevant.
Local government should be able to access sufficient resources to fund the delivery of services that constituents require. It must also be able to employ competent, qualified and ethical staff who will act on the decisions of the council. Such a system as this does not happen by chance. It requires the careful construction of a framework which must be reflected in legislation.
Do members opposite agree with that? I am sure they would. They were the remarks I made in this House in 1999. They could almost be a reflection of the words of this minister who is going through the whole process. Let us not kid ourselves that this is an easy process; it is not.
I quote from the previous Labor minister, Jack Ah Kit, who went further, claiming that it was almost impossible to find a functional Aboriginal community anywhere in the Northern Territory. In attempting to explain the apparent failure to build effective local government on Aboriginal communities, he also noted that skilled and dedicated council staff are extremely difficult to recruit and retain in remote communities. What is going to change? That is going to be part of your problem: to get the right people to do these jobs. It is going to be so difficult to maintain them, ensure they can relate to their people and get the job done. It is not something that is new. What is new is the fact that this is being pushed through fairly quickly.
I noticed there was a letter in the Alice Springs News this week from Roy Chisholm, who is President of the Cattlemen’s Association, basically saying to slow down. Slow down. That is the message I am hearing from everyone. I look at this map, minister, and it concerns me. Look at this central area down here, from the eastern border to the western border. You and I know that the communities on the east are cohesive, have a good work ethic, do not have a lot of the problems that other communities have, and are mainly Arrernte people, whereas the people on this side are Pitjantjatjara, Pintubi, Luritja, and often do not get along with each other. Yet, we were told in our briefing that these boundaries had been selected carefully to reflect the cultural aspects of these groups. I am not quite sure how the people on this side will possibly be able to relate to the people on this side. I am not sure how a shire council will be able to cover the aspirations of all those people.
It is a bit like this one here. The area of the Barkly is larger than Victoria, but look at this one. You have Alpurrurulam all the way over here and you have other communities over here. Are you trying to tell me that those boundaries were based on culturally appropriate community lines? To me, it would have been common sense to have a shire on the eastern side of the highway and a shire on the western side. Then you would have been putting planned groups together, but to try to amalgamate them across like that, in my opinion, is making the task even more difficult. I would like the minister to tell me on what basis he did that. You cannot say they all belong to the same clans or tribes because they do not. You know as well as I do that there are some pretty hostile relationships on this side to that side. Why did you not look at doing that? Why did you not look at putting the eastern groups together and the western blocks together? It would have made more sense.
I am pleased that you have left Alice Springs Town Council alone. I am not sure how you personally feel about the Tennant Creek Town Council and its amalgamation in this. We all know the Mayor of Tennant Creek resigned recently and I think it was a little in disgust at what was happening. Are the people of Tennant Creek really going to be able to coordinate all the activities of the people in that shire? That is going to be extremely difficult. I will just show the people in the gallery so they understand what I am talking about. That is a shire; that is a shire. That is huge suites of land in the Territory for anyone to manage, particularly when they are culturally inappropriate.
Minister, in your reply can you justify why you did that and why you cannot rethink it? Why can you not stop and rethink the boundaries that you have drawn up? In the briefing, we were told they were done with a lot of consultation, but I cannot see it. I think you are asking for trouble. You are just making it a lot harder than it needs to be.
If you thought amalgamation was good, minister, was there any particular reason you did not amalgamate Palmerston and Darwin? Would that have not have made a sensible amalgamation and economy of scale, or did you think it was best to leave Palmerston on its own as you have done with Tennant Creek? I guess that is good.
We heard a spray from the member for Blain about consultants, but I say thank goodness you did have consultants and did not leave it entirely up to the department because they probably need a fresh look from someone who could stand aside and grasp it in a different way. As you know, the member for Nelson implied this morning that there was one member who had a narrow, blinkered outlook on this approach. I will not go there.
The main argument today has been about rushing through this legislation. My main argument is: why have you broken up the boundaries in this way? I do not think they are workable. You and I should not kid ourselves: this is a difficult process. In five years time, will people stand in this House and beat you around the head for what has not happened? That is a possibility. You can have all the goodwill in the world, but you will need a massive number of staff and qualified people to make these shires work. I am interested to hear your responses.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support this local government transition bill. I do not intend to demean debate by responding to personal and incorrect attacks on myself, the member for Daly, the Minister for Local Government and other members on this side of the House. That is all I will say on that matter because it demeans those who prosecute that kind of attack and undermines the legitimacy of their arguments.
This bill is critical to ensuring the smooth transition to the new local government arrangements. There are two parts to the bill: the first allowing restructuring orders, giving the minister powers to set the framework for the new local government; and the second to allow the transfer of the current association councils to the new shire structures.
This is not the proposed new Local Government Act, and I make that very clear. It is essential that the new councils be established, boundaries set and unnecessary elections deferred. It also enables existing councils to continue to participate in the transitional arrangements leading up to 1 July 2008. Despite what the opposition keeps saying, this process is not being rushed. We are 10 months into a 20-month process, which has allowed for considerable consultation and negotiations.
We are now at the halfway mark and the time is right to facilitate the move to the next stage of the process. Unlike other states, 20 months is a long time to develop this process and plenty of time for engagement in that process. We are halfway there and the time is ripe now.
Let us not be confused: this is not the proposed new Local Government Act, as I said. It is anticipated that the new act will be available as an exposure draft within the next month and will be debated early in the new year. Those on the other side of the House speak as though these bills are one and the same. I state again that they are not. The opposition harps on about slowing the local government reform process down. In fact, the member for Greatorex suggested the other day that we hold off this reform for five years. I noticed in the House today it was two, three, four, years – whatever – to allow the federal government intervention to run its course.
His mate, the member for Solomon, has suggested that federal intervention should be for 99 years. How long should we wait? We have a very indecisive opposition. The time is right now. Clearly, neither parliamentarian understands that the two processes are not independent. In fact, the federal government is supportive of reforming local government in the NT. Not only have they clearly stated that, but they have financially supported our reform process.
The member for Nelson spoke of what he called in-principle support by ministers Lloyd, Brough and the Prime Minister. I read a quote from the Prime Minister, who reportedly said in today’s Northern Territory News:
The arguments in favour of amalgamation are that it would produce more genuine council areas.
Clearly, he is very decisive on that perspective.
Local government reform is the business of the Northern Territory government, and we have to get on with it. The Northern Territory needs to move to a new system of local government that can take us forward for the next 50 years at least. People have talked about the reasons for change for the last 15 years. The Martin Labor government, unlike the CLP opposition, is taking a responsible position in improving the delivery of local government services across the Northern Territory.
The CLP wants to link local government reform to their federal government intervention. The CLP flippantly wants to sell out our Territory to their Canberra-based federal mates, who also want to take over significant aspects of our Territory lifestyle. The federal government also wants to force a uranium waste dump on us.
Madam Speaker, the CLP just do not get it. Let me state it loud and clear: this is not the proposed new Local Government Act. This is an ancillary act that will allow the transition process to take place in a smooth and managed manner. I will make it even clearer: this bill allows the administrative matters of the transition process to take place, such as the movement of association councils to the Local Government Act, deferral of unnecessary existing council elections, and the appointment of senior staff to begin. Again, I repeat: this is not the proposed new Local Government Act.
The CLP opposition keeps sledging the process by claiming this is about giving unprecedented powers to the Minister for Local Government, again scaremongering, when they know quite well that it simply and specifically gives the minister the necessary legislative powers to facilitate the transition process. Again I stress this is not the new Local Government Act.
This bill will allow the establishment of prospective new shires; that is, it will be the conduit that allows the sensible and eminently logical process of rationalising 62 regional local government bodies into nine regional shires and four municipal councils covering most of the Territory. This bill will allow the employment of senior staff, the CEO and corporate service managers of each shire. It will allow the purchase of stationery and a Common Seal, the establishment of bank accounts and accounts with suppliers. It will also ensure the establishment of business systems, IT and communications networks. Furthermore, it will allow the establishment of shire headquarters to be coordinated across the Territory. It will allow the new CEO to engage closely with current staff and elected members of existing councils across each shire. It will allow the smooth implementation of the shires’ strategic plans. Without the passage of this transitional bill, a new CEO would be unable to implement the planning processes and procedures essential to the reform. Those on the other side of the House know this quite well. This bill will also allow the corporate services managers time to arrange the transition of existing council staff and recruitment of new staff.
This process is not being rushed. Over 20 months has been allowed for consultation and negotiation. Most importantly, consultation at all levels is continuing. This consultation is happening between councils within the nine transitional committees, significant stakeholders at the advisory board level, which includes the Australian government at all stages, and between government service providers and interdepartmental committees of both the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth.
The second section of this bill relates to the 22 association councils. Amendments in relation to these councils include minor administrative changes such as notifying the regularity of meetings. To date, these councils have been permitted to deliver local government services without being fully covered by the provisions of the Local Government Act, and this is not tenable. Initially, these local government bodies will be required to nominate an area of service delivery, as is the case for municipal and community government councils. For these councils, this area will simply be defined as a radius to cover the existing community in addition to any roads or outstations currently serviced by the council. For all intents and purposes, the operation of these association councils will continue unchanged until the new shires are established.
Apart from the definition of their service area, the council’s name and status will remain exactly the same. One minor change will be that the regularity of meetings will be noted in an updated constitution, which will be tabled in the Assembly the near future by the minister.
As I said, these amendments are to facilitate the smooth transition to the new shires. They will allow planning to continue to give new senior staff the opportunity to become familiar with the communities and the people with whom they will work after 1 July 2008. This will ensure that there are arrangements in place for the implementation of strategic plans and for service deliveries in the new shires. These are plans, the product of the work of the transitional committees, councils and community members that will form the basis of the new Local Government Act. Let me repeat for those on the opposite side of the House: this is not the proposed new Local Government Act; this is an ancillary act to allow the transition process to take place in a smooth and managed manner.
Madam Speaker, I conclude with a commendation of the Local Government Minister, and urge parliament to pass this important legislation so that the transition process can proceed unimpeded by a poorly prosecuted opposition.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate. Obviously, it is a very passionate issue, one on which people have different points of view.
There is one thing I was very encouraged by, and that is the fact that, without exception in this House, there is recognition that local government reform needs to occur. It is fair to say that that was a common theme. The issues arising are about how we get there.
I appreciate the remarks made by the member for Braitling; she was a minister in a previous government. She has had some experience in respect of this process. I acknowledge the fact that I, as the minister, am very much aware of the difficulties that lie ahead; the need to engage people and to ensure that the processes are adhered to. Member for Braitling, what you said is important. It is something I acknowledge in the context of how we get there because, as you said, you tried a different approach. We are trying this approach, and the bottom line is we always have to have the capacity to learn, to listen and to be able to get there because this is very important reform.
There were some common themes from the opposition and Independents. I am not going to address every particular point that members raised, but there was some commonality. One of the issues was around the consultation process and how we establish mechanisms of the process.
I want to make something clear about the advisory board. Most members in this House would be aware that the exercise was to try to ensure major stakeholders across the Northern Territory were represented on the advisory board, which would advise me, as the minister, on a range of very important issues and milestones to get there. This included organisations such as the NT Cattlemen’s Association because they have a major interest and, effectively, they reside in regional Australia where these reforms are going to impact. That is equally so in respect of the mining industry because, again, they are in regional areas. These reforms impact on the NT Chamber of Commerce equally; businesses, not only in regard to the major municipalities, but businesses right across the Northern Territory.
Cabinet deliberately made the decision to involve these organisations. We also involved people from LGANT who have a long and distinguished history in local government in the Northern Territory. We involved the Commonwealth government because they are a major player in the provision of services out there. We put the land councils on the board because their constituents are affected as well, and we appointed people from the communities themselves - people who have had a long history in local government so there are people from their own communities who can provide input into this process.
The first point I want to make is that the advisory board, I believe, is pretty well balanced and has the capacity to provide advice. They are also very passionate and committed. That is why you have a difference on the advisory board. If you have the Cattlemen’s Association or the Chamber or the Minerals Council having a point of view, that is fine. We respect that and we will listen to their points of view. The important point I want to make is that probably from meeting one, there was disengagement on the part of three of the major industry bodies. I was always under the impression that they said to me: ‘We will re-engage when we get around to talking about some of the major issues’.
There are two major issues for them. One is the impact upon their respective industries, and the other one, which is an important one, is impact on the economy. That is where we are getting to at this important stage in some of the planning. For that reason, they are going to re-engage in the process and that is very important.
It is equally so in regard to the transitional committees. There are up to 300 people right across the Northern Territory involved in this process and a lot of those people live in communities. They are CEOs of existing councils, both indigenous and non-indigenous. They are people who are committed, pretty passionate, want to see a change, want to see a difference and are contributing. I thank them very much for their ongoing contribution.
I indicated earlier the number of communities that I have visited. Pat Dodson and I have probably visited close to 100-odd communities, both indigenous and non-indigenous, throughout the Northern Territory. We have engaged in meetings right across those communities. A whole range of issues have been discussed. To suggest that consultation is lacking is a little unfair and, in a way it is a bit of a slight on the people out there who are working very hard. The other common theme to come from the opposition and Independents is the time line. This government really makes no apologies for the time line because we all acknowledge and recognise the sometimes precarious position of some of the communities out in the bush and, indeed, some of the communities closer to the major regional centres.
We had to provide some leadership for people to know exactly where we were going to go: (1) that there was going to be local government reform; and (2) these were the time lines we were going to meet regarding the outcome. For that reason, it is providing leadership to the people of the Northern Territory, the people who live out in the bush. That is why I pay great tribute to members on this side of the House who assisted me in putting this matter to Cabinet.
I come now to some other issues. I know the member for Greatorex is new to this issue. He has not been involved, and we can forgive him for that. I know that he has not visited a lot of communities other than the public meeting he attended the other night. He can be forgiven for not fully understanding what this bill seeks to do. I think I am right when I say he indicated that he did not believe that there are many community government councils that require deferral of their elections as a result of all of this. To correct the record, one thing you learn in this House, no matter who you are, is that you always try to get your facts right. There are something like 22 councils that fall into this category. I will have the capacity under this enabling legislation to defer those elections because there are at considerable cost. I have already been able to defer six elections under the existing act, which I can do for a three-month period. Now, under this enabling legislation, I can defer others.
Another issue he raised was cost shifting or the fact that there is a perception - and why shouldn’t there be given the history of government and their relationship with local government regarding any government wanting to cost shift onto local government? I am very conscious of that, very aware of it. We have an intergovernmental agreement with LGANT. An agreement is an agreement, and it is certainly not my intention to deliberately in any way cost shift, be it into roads or any area, because I am very conscious of the fact that this is an evolving process and you do not go putting cost burdens on to the shires as they go forward.
The member for Nelson’s contribution was very good. He and I have some very clear differences regarding the process, but I know that he is supportive of reform. We differ on how you get there. There are some points that I want to make, and I think I addressed them in the context of no consultation. He referred to Professor Dollery and said there were concerns about the amalgamations of councils. It is important to understand that the same professor supports our position, in part, of what we are trying to do. Therefore, there is a different perspective in respect of his comments.
The member of Nelson raised the issue of flat rates. Sure, that is what has happened in Litchfield over a very long time. That is the one that they want to live with. My position is that we will present a set of options to the transitional committee which will include a configuration of rating options, including flat rating options or configuration of UCV or a UCV differential. We will be presenting those to the transitional committee. I would expect them to provide me with advice which is fair and equitable. That is something I have been saying all along. To allay the fears of the member for Nelson, I believe that, once given the information, community concerns will be allayed.
In respect of comments by the members for Nelson and Greatorex, they were all centered around Litchfield. I appreciate that, given the history of the member for Nelson’s involvement in that area. As I said before, however, this is bigger than Litchfield. This is the Northern Territory we are talking about. Whatever we do in the proposed Top End Shire is indicative of what we will do across the Northern Territory. Of course, each shire will be different, but I hope that provides some comfort to the member for Nelson.
Member for Nelson, you talked about a sunset clause. I am happy to look at that at some stage in the future. This is the sort of reform in which we need to be constantly engaged. As the minister, I will certainly do that. I am prepared to have a look at a review of the act. I cannot say when. It will certainly be after the time that shire councils are in place, which would have to be two to three years’ time. I am happy to have a look at that to ensure that it is still relevant and determine whether or not these powers are still required, so I am quite happy to do that.
To the member for Blain, what more can I say? I know he chaired a public meeting. He said he did it without fear or favour and that is very important. He talked about consultation. I have made my point about the number of consultations that have occurred right across the Northern Territory and in that Top End Shire. We know that we are not going to be patted on the back and praised at all these public meetings, but the important thing is to get out there engaging people and listening to their views.
I want to assure the member for Blain that there has been a rather comprehensive consultative process going on. He might have a point of view about the timing of it, which is his right, but as I have always said this reform is so critically important to the wellbeing of people right throughout the Northern Territory, and that is the reason why we have put in place time lines. I believe that addresses some of the concerns of the member for Blain.
The member for Braitling made some comments about the shires being too big. She used Tennant Creek as an example, which is my community, and implied that Tennant Creek would not be able to provide services out to the communities. Of course they cannot, and they will not. Tennant Creek may well be an administrative hub but, effectively, what will remain in those communities within those shires will be infrastructure, assets and vehicles. There will still be a great requirement on the part of existing communities to have all those services that they have now. The big difference is going to be that you will not have duplication of the administrative and the management sides - things like insurance and having five or six bulldozers across a shire.
To make the point clear to the member for Braitling: this is not a centralised model as such. It is centralised in the context of administrative, business information systems, communications and technology. Yes, there are more efficiencies in having a centralised shire. In service provision, the goal, aims and objectives, I have made it clear that it is not a case of wanting to absorb those resources and expertise back into the regional model, because I have seen where that has not worked. The idea here is to have a hub and to ensure that the services remain.
The member for Braitling referred to the Central Desert Shire and said that communities there, because of their cultural differences, may not be able to get on, which could potentially make this fail, and that people do not want to be part of one shire for cultural reasons or different ethics on each side of the highway. I not sure what she means by that, but I have been out with the member for Macdonnell. In the main, it is in her electorate. We have spoken to people at Titjikala, Aputula, Mt Liebig and Harts Range.
The transitional committees, those different groups from the different communities, have worked closely. They see the benefits in this reform. More importantly, they believe they can work together. Therefore, I want to allay the fears of the member of Braitling. I have been out with the person in question who is responsible for the area. I am very confident people will have the capacity to work together to get efficiencies and better coordination - all those things to which these reforms aspire.
On the same point, it is important to understand that it is a fact that in the old ATSIC Regional Council - and I am not saying this reflects the nature of its charter - people across the Barkly, Katherine and Central Desert areas worked together. People could see what the benefits would be and could share a vision for their place. This adds to it.
To members on the government side, thank you for your support of this amendment. The member for Arafura spoke passionately because of her long association with the Tiwi exercise and her long involvement in community organisations and people on the ground. She said it is important these reforms occur. She quoted what the Prime Minister had to say. I will not go into all the details. However, he said: ‘I made it very clear to the council, I will do to any other community in the Northern Territory, we have to have a special aim’. You know what I am referring to in respect of that quote. What he is saying is that indigenous people should have the same level of service and share the same aspirations as other Australians. That is one of the reasons we have introduced this reform. The Prime Minister, in the Northern Territory News this morning, said the arguments in favour of amalgamation are that they will produce more genuine council areas. Thank you, member for Arafura, for your contribution.
The member for Macdonnell has lived in the communities. She was born in a community. She knows what happens in communities. She is aware of all the heartbreak, the lack of services and the lack of commitment of governments, and she knows that people are denied opportunities that are so cherished by other Australians. It is fair to say that the member for Macdonnell shares this vision of being fair dinkum for the first time. Let us treat people out there in the communities as we would any other Australian. Let us aspire to provide services out there. We know it is not going to happen overnight but, if we have this framework in place, we can provide people with a far greater opportunity, far greater certainty, better management practice principles and, more importantly, a form of governance which is recognised by all levels of government because it occurs elsewhere.
Whilst we are talking about local government reform - I do not have it in front of me - but as part of the Connect Australia funding, the Department of Local Government made an application to Connect Australia in respect of improved communication information services to the new regional shires. Only a few hours ago, the federal minister for Communications, Senator Helen Coonan, announced a $6.4m package for the regional communities in the context of local government reform in improving business, information and communication systems. This is evidence that governments are looking to invest in it and that is great news. I pay tribute to all the people in my agency who put the submission together and who were successful in securing the $6.4m.
The member for Macdonnell began by paying tribute to the transitional committees and the advisory board. I share that sentiment. Those people have given up a lot of their time, some people on a voluntary basis. Some people are paid, but the majority on the transitional committees are people who do not get paid and are working very hard to achieve these reforms. I share the appreciation of the member for Macdonnell in regards to all those people out there who are on the ground, not worrying about the politics here in town, and working together to try to secure an outcome. This is not only indigenous people, but non-indigenous people as well. That was a very important point.
The member for Goyder made some important points and they are worth repeating. Who knows when the federal election will be? All indications thus far are that the federal government has indicated it is supportive of this reform. We have had discussions with the opposition minister for Indigenous Affairs in respect of local government and again, there is support. It is bipartisan in a way, which really augurs well for the future.
Madam Speaker, I hope that I have done justice to the contributions by members. I thank each of them for their contribution. I fully realise and understand we are on a difficult road to achieve some of these outcomes.
There have been comments made about this bill effectively giving me powers to bring about the local government reform. I accept that. It is based on advice that we have received. I want to give this assurance: I will be very vigilant in the way I act in respect of enabling legislation, the restructuring orders and the transfer of associations into the Local Government Act. I will do everything I possibly can to ensure that I continue to consult with the transitional committees and advisory board. I will continue to remain open to suggestions, ideas and recommendations from any member of the public, from industry bodies and from members on both sides of this House.
I am acutely aware of the responsibilities thrust on my shoulders on behalf of government. I want you to know that I will be vigilant in the context of exercising the powers in this bill ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77, to allow my colleague to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McADAM: I will be brief, Madam Speaker. I wish to pay tribute and extend my thanks and appreciation to all staff in my office and all the people involved in the Department of Local Government. These things do not just happen; people put in hard work, effort, dedication and commitment. I thank them. I thank my colleagues on this side of the House. I thank the opposition and Independent members and reiterate my thanks to the advisory board and transitional committees.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr McADAM (Local Government)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Tourism
Tourism
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I wish to update the House on progress in the tourism sector. Tourism continues to prosper and is poised for further growth. Tourism is worth over $1.5bn to the Territory economy and directly employs 12 845 Territorians, or 13.5% of the Territory workforce. Over the past year, we have seen positive results to support this.
In March 2005, Tourism NT embarked on a new marketing strategy, the successful Share Our Story campaign. It was met with a significant degree of cynicism by the opposition and some in industry, and other self-proclaimed experts. Two years on, the strategy has delivered and is paying a very impressive return on investment, with tourism visitor numbers well up compared with previous years.
In the year ended March 2007, the National Visitor Survey indicates that the Territory received more than 341 000 holiday visitors who stayed an average of 9.7 nights, a total of 3.3 million nights, an increase of 25%, with an overall expenditure by interstate visitors totalling $884m. The International Visitor Survey tells us that 335 000 international holiday visitors came to the Territory in the year ended March 2007, up 3.7% compared with the previous year.
Not only were there more international holidaymakers, they stayed longer and spent more on their trip. Overall expenditure to the Territory increased by 13% to $372m, and holiday nights increased by 17% to 2.3 million nights. That is direct expenditure into the Territory economy. It is pleasing to see that both domestic and international holidaymakers are staying longer in the Territory, an area in which we are outperforming the rest of Australia.
The Martin government has invested significantly in major infrastructure which will help to underpin the Territory’s economic future and provide the basis for future growth in our burgeoning tourism industry. The cornerstone of this investment is the Darwin waterfront development. This is a massive project and one of which I am proud to say government is determined to see through to completion. We are beginning to see the project quickly move from vision to reality. In total, the waterfront development will provide a wider economic benefit of $350m. Construction alone is expected to boost the NT gross state product by a further $154m over 14 years.
Local workers will also benefit, as the project contracts include an 85% local content target. Approximately 1000 jobs will be created in the construction phase of Stage 1 of the project. A wide range of skilled workers will be employed, including project and site managers, foremen and supervisors, carpenters, bricklayers, scaffolders, concreters, steel and plaster fixers, painters and electricians.
The Darwin convention centre and new cruise ship terminal, which are part of the waterfront development, are two good examples of how this investment by the Martin government will have direct and long-lasting benefits to the tourism industry. It is expected that the convention centre alone will generate an additional $193m in tourism spending over 20 years, with an accompanying increase in gross state product of $139m over the same period. The Darwin convention centre is expected to create 160 tourism jobs for Territorians by the fourth year of its operation, growing to over 200 new jobs by the 10th year.
For the record, the waterfront development is expected to cost government about $149m. The private sector will pay for the rest of the project and, as the Chief Minister said in the House today, the Territory taxpayer is only paying 14% of this project. The government’s careful management means that there will be an increase in returns from apartment sales, a direct result of our decision to lock in our returns to final sale prices. The waterfront development will be a major catalyst for a range of new businesses to emerge, which will significantly increase the range of employment opportunities for Territorians in retail, hospitality and other service-based industries.
Jobs will be available in a wide range of areas, including wait staff, bar staff, duty managers, chefs and kitchen hands, in-house accounts and front reception. The wave lagoon facility will be a great new recreational activity for kids and families, and is an excellent addition to the attractions for visitors to the Top End.
Research undertaken by Tourism NT over many years indicates that the youth market, backpackers and visiting families to Darwin, want a facility of this kind and the government is delivering it. Similarly, al fresco cafs and restaurants in the vicinity of the convention centre will provide new dining options for locals and visitors alike, and will complement the many established business in Darwin and cater for the increased demand.
Coupled with the Alice Springs Convention Centre and various other conference facilities in Darwin and Alice Springs, the new Darwin convention centre will be a world-class facility and place the Territory in an excellent position to capture a greater share of the lucrative business tourism market. The business tourism sector is showing positive signs, with the number of events across the Territory up from 28 in 2005-06 to 34 in 2006-07, which is an increase of 21%. The estimated economic impact of these events is around $6.37m, an increase of $2.41m compared with the previous year.
During the last financial year, Tourism NT bid for 74 events to be held in the Territory, winning over half of them. In fact, there are 52 events to be held between 2007 and 2010. These events should inject around $15.4m into the local economy, with four events for Uluru, 24 events for both Darwin and Alice Springs and another 40 events up to 2010 still to be negotiated.
Business tourism is big business, but it is also very competitive, particularly in our neighbouring Asian region. Some rival destinations are even offering cash incentives to secure business and this makes the job of attracting conventions to the Territory more challenging.
Our strategy of levering the emotional pull of the Northern Territory whilst providing world-class conference facilities and ensuring value for money experiences will go a long way to meeting this challenge, as will the improved domestic and international aviation links, plus the progress that has been made in increasing the supply of quality accommodation available in Darwin. These developments are critical to meet the projected increase in demand associated with the convention centre. I am pleased to advise that private developers are currently constructing over 800 new hotel rooms which will be coming online between now and the middle of 2009.
The Saville Pandanus, the most visible development at this stage, will see more than 260 new rooms coming online in 2008, with new accommodation at the waterfront opening in 2009. Medina Serviced Apartments and Vibe Hotel will deliver an additional 241 rooms. The Chief Minister was at the first concrete pour for those hotels today. This is great news for the tourism industry because it provides some new and refreshing accommodation options and expands the range of products available to meet the needs of the leisure market.
The Top End is increasingly recognised as a significant cruise destination, and this will be further underlined when the new cruise terminal in the waterfront precinct is opened in the second half of 2008. As many of you are aware, work has already started at the site of the cruise ship passenger terminal, which will be located on the hard stand area adjacent to Fort Hill Wharf. The new terminal will provide an improved arrival experience for cruise visitors, whilst meeting current international security requirements.
In 2007, 35 large cruise ships and 13 smaller cruise ships are expected to visit Darwin, which represents the largest number of visiting cruise ships on record. The $4.5m cruise ship terminal will help attract even more cruise ships to the city in future years by providing better passenger facilities and a more visually friendly drop-off and pick-up point compared with what Darwin has offered in the past.
The previously industrial-looking Fort Hill Wharf will be transformed into a modern, landscaped, mixed-use extension of the city. Visitors will have direct access to all of the new facilities that are being developed at the waterfront precinct. The building will feature contemporary architectural styling that will convey a welcoming, tropical image to visitors. The initial building footprint is 960 m2 of enclosed airconditioned space, including passenger queuing, Immigration, Customs, Quarantine and baggage collection areas. A covered walkway will link the terminal building with Fort Hill Wharf.
As Tourism Minister, I am convinced that government’s investment in the waterfront development will add significantly to the range of tourism offerings available in the Top End, enticing even more visitors to the Territory’s capital, Darwin, especially during the shoulder season.
Earlier today, I had the great pleasure of launching the 2007 Destination Darwin marketing campaign under the Share Our Story program. The five-week campaign, which promotes Darwin as a vibrant harbour city full of colourful characters, has an investment value of over $1.2m. This campaign aims to further extend shoulder season travel beyond the traditional visitor season of June to September, and reminds people that Darwin is a destination in its own right, offering great experiences as well as access to our world-renowned natural and cultural icons. Results from previous Darwin campaigns already indicate that we have a receptive audience to our Darwin positioning, and have set a benchmark from which we can build an even stronger preference and interest in travelling to our northern capital.
On Tuesday, the Martin government announced its plan, Creating Darwin’s Future, to build a better Darwin. Its centrepiece, a World War II museum, is a much-needed tourist attraction, long identified as a point of difference and one which will increase travel, length of stay, and visitor spend. Other initiatives under the plan, such as the World War II heritage trail, a ribbon of green around Darwin Peninsula, a revitalised Esplanade, developing better entry points, a covered pedestrian walkway linking the waterfront and Smith Street, and much more will add to the appeal of the destination and enhance the visitor experience. A truly tropical, vibrant harbour city is in the making, one which will become a must-see destination on very visitor’s itinerary.
Cruise Down Under, Australia’s peak marketing body for cruise shipping, is having its annual convention in Darwin this week. Two international speakers will share their knowledge of industry trends, opportunities, and how best to cater for this market. A recent report commissioned by Cruise Down Under found that in the last financial year, 2006-07, the total expenditure from domestic international passengers and crew across Australia is estimated at just under $220m. The direct and indirect economic contribution is estimated to be $376m and supports a total of 1891 jobs. Expenditure in the Territory was estimated to be $9.8m, which was on a par with Western Australia and Tasmania. The direct and indirect economic contribution is estimated at $18m and supports a total of 85 jobs. This shows that the cruise industry has a significant flow-on effect for the broader Northern Territory economy. I was very pleased to welcome 90 delegates to that conference to a reception at Parliament House last night.
We expect that Darwin will enjoy a bumper cruise season in 2007-08. I am pleased to report that a number of new cruise liners have committed to Darwin for the 2007-08 season, including Star Cruises, Oceania Cruises and Swan Hellenic, plus the magnificent Sapphire Princess will be returning to Darwin for the third time. The Orion, Coral Princess and Oceanic Princess also home port in Darwin during the cruise season which means there is more potential for cruise passengers to fly to Darwin or to travel here on The Ghan. They are also more likely to take tours around the Territory before or after their cruise which, obviously, benefits the tourism industry.
We know that many cruise passengers are interested in taking side trips to areas outside the CBD and port precincts, so I encourage tourism operators to think seriously about how they can develop touring products and experiences catering to this market in line with the projected increase in demand. The fact that the Cruise Down Under conference is held in Darwin this year speaks volumes about the strategic importance of the Northern Territory to Australia’s cruising future. This is truly an exciting period for the tourism industry. I know that many tour operators are developing products that will appeal to the conference and cruise markets.
The House has already heard, from my ministerial report last week, about the advances in our aviation capacity and the importance of aviation access to achieve tourism growth. As I stated then, we have seen a steady growth in both international and domestic capacity and passenger numbers at both Darwin and Alice Springs Airports. However, it is important we do not become complacent in attracting new services or keeping our current services. Earlier this year, I was approached by airlines and the Northern Territory airports regarding the heavy impost of Australian government security charges on NT airports and, in particular, those imposed on Alice Springs Airport. These costs are levied by our airports on the ticket prices of all airline passengers using services to that region. Put simply, when airlines assess the likely fares required to operate to the Northern Territory inclusive of taxes and security charges, the Northern Territory is not competitive against destinations of similar travel times.
No one would argue against the importance of aviation security in this country. Maintaining high security standards is critical in maintaining travellers’ confidence and ensuring Australia’s reputation as a safe country for visitors and residents alike. However, the main point I made, both in my letter to the federal Transport minister and in a comprehensive paper to my colleagues that I presented at the Tourism Minister’s Council in Canberra this month, was that the current security pricing regime discriminates against small, low-volume airports that pay a proportionately higher cost for these services. I argued that this has the impact of limiting growth to regional centres and appears to counter other Australian government policies that aim to expand air services to regional airports, and has the effect of reducing the dispersal of tourists around this country.
When we consider Alice Springs specifically, due to the strategic defence facilities in that region, this airport has been placed in the top security category along with major capital cities around the country. As a result, the costs per head are already higher than the larger competitor airports. The federal Tourism minister agreed that Alice Springs airport appeared to be an anomaly within Australia owing to its top tier security rating. This anomaly made it ineligible to apply for the $15.4m infrastructure package made available to the country’s 26 regional airports. It was agreed at the Tourism Ministers’ Council that a request be made to the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services that Alice Springs be given special consideration to cover the cost for the upgrade of security facilities. Jointly with the federal minister for Tourism, I wrote to the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I am hopeful this request will be given every consideration so that Alice Springs residents and visitors alike are not unfairly disadvantaged and expected to pay higher ticket prices into the future. These higher prices work against us, especially in the domestic market, and reduce our ability to attract visitors.
So what about the future? Reports from the Tourism Forecasting Committee and the Territory’s own forecasting panel predict international visitation will remain strong with good growth in inbound visitor numbers in 2007-08. There are a number of challenges facing our industry over the next few years and we cannot become complacent. The Tourism Forecasting Council predicts that outbound travel by Australians will continue to be stronger over the coming years and domestic travel within Australia. This is because of Australians’ increasing propensity to travel overseas coupled with the strong Australian dollar and future expansion of low cost airlines, Jetstar, Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways, to overseas destinations. This trend is likely to impact negatively on domestic tourism, with total visitor nights across Australia expected to decrease by 3.5% nationally per year over the next six years.
On the up side, however, there are a number of aviation developments on the horizon which will help to soften the impact. As you are all aware, Tiger Airways will enter the Australian market later this year. Virgin Blue, Qantas and Jetstar are also ramping up their capacity over the next few years. As I have previously mentioned, the Territory will be a significant beneficiary of these developments with the resulting competition and lower fares making our destinations even more enticing to visit.
Supported by the successful Share Our Story marketing campaign, many more visitors from the southern states are expected to take the plunge and holiday in the Territory. This is expected to result in an injection of almost $900m a year by 2008-09 by interstate visitors.
ABS figures for the March quarter indicate that the Northern Territory showed the highest growth in demand for hotels, motels, guest houses and serviced apartments compared with the rest of the country. This is despite the March quarter typically being a quiet period for the Territory. This is great news for the thousands of Territorians employed in the tourism industry because it means year-round employment opportunities for them and proves that our strategy of extending the tourism season is working.
On the international front, the relatively high value of the Australian dollar in relation to the Japanese yen, the growth in air capacity between Japan and China and other structural issues in the Japanese market continue to present a challenge to the entire tourism industry. In comparison to some destinations on Australia’s east coast, the Territory is doing better than the other states. Our strategy is working to align with the National Action Plan, but also explore avenues through which the Territory can maintain its position in the market.
In May 2007 was the first charter from Japan to Darwin, including a connecting journey by The Ghan to Alice Springs. This was part of a series of charters that have been undertaken over the past few years as part of our aviation and marketing strategy in the Japan market. Tourism NT continues to work closely with JAL and Japanese wholesalers to continue this successful program into the future.
In fact, Tourism NT is currently negotiating with Japan Airlines and major Japanese wholesalers regarding the possibility of additional charters over the New Year period. Tourism NT and Territory operators are also levering off the $12m world heritage campaign in Japan, with Tourism Australia, airline partners and wholesalers to be launched later this year. This campaign will present new and compelling reasons to visit Australia and focus on the single strongest experience: world heritage. I have no doubt that the Northern Territory with its two world heritage national parks, Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta, will feature strongly in the campaign.
The American market will also be a challenge over the next few years because of the issues with the US economy related to the sub-prime housing market. The recent increase in the Australian dollar compared to the US dollar means that a holiday in Australia is more expensive than it has been in the past. The possible entry of Virgin Blue on the Pacific route will help to increase competition and, hopefully, place downward pressure on airfares. Our strategy in the US market is very targeted, focusing on niche segments in educational travel such as alumni groups, universities and associations. This approach allows us to obtain maximum reach and cut through in this highly competitive market.
Tourism NT will also continue to focus on attracting more UK and European visitors to the Territory. These visitors have a greater propensity to travel to a number of Territory regions and spend up big whilst they are here. These challenges remind us of the constant need to keep focused on the job and continuously work on strategies and innovative programs to keep a step ahead of the game. I have no doubt that these markets will continue to perform well over coming years.
The Internet is now the primary avenue that many of our international markets use to source for planning and booking holidays. Tourism NT has invested heavily over the past 18 months to develop a number of foreign language consumer websites. Our international consumer website, Australia’s Outback at travelnt.com is now available in German, French, Italian, Chinese, with a redeveloped Japanese website about to be completed and work under way on the Korean language translation.
The Territory has experienced strong economic growth over the past few years, demonstrated by our low unemployment level, demand for residential property and growth in the retail sector. Tourism is also a significant contributor to our economy and it is important that we ensure it is sustainable over the longer term. As I have said previously, the outlook is good but there are challenges ahead. It is time to reflect on where we have been and determine how the industry and government can best work together to continue to make the difference.
My agency is currently in the final stages of developing the next five-year strategic plan for the tourism industry. The strategic plan, whilst building on the last one, will provide clear vision and direction for the industry over the coming years. It will assist government and industry to seize opportunities and address potential threats. I am sure that the plan will provide the necessary catalyst to move the industry forward over the next five years.
Past shocks have reinforced the importance of direct and efficient aviation links to the development of not only the tourism industry, but freight and business generally. Key to the expansion of aviation in the Territory is the development of a suitable strategy providing direction to the industry. This is exactly what we are doing by developing the next three-year Northern Territory Aviation Strategy. Through the strategy, we will continue to develop new aviation links and work with airlines to develop tourism opportunities and provide direction to the industry in key areas of domestic and international air access, regional air access and freight and aviation support industry.
We will also continue to undertake the crucial task of maintaining and developing relationships with those airlines who already service the Northern Territory. I am proud that this government has demonstrated such a strong commitment to the Territory’s tourism and aviation industries, and that it continues to recognise the importance of tourism to the economy. I look forward to continuing to work with industry and to implementing the five-year tourism strategic plan and the aviation strategy to deliver increasingly positive and economic outcomes and more jobs for Territorians.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement tonight. I am happy to hear that tourism does continue to prosper in the Northern Territory. A quick glance at some of the figures in the minister’s statement demonstrates how important the industry is to the Northern Territory. I believe $1.5bn dollars was the figure quoted, so it is a lot of money and a lot to the Northern Territory economy.
After a couple of slower seasons which I know we have had over the last couple of years, it is good to see numbers increasing and, importantly, that people are staying with us longer. They are not just coming here more often, but they are spending more nights here as well, so that is promising.
The convention centre was mentioned by the minister. The Alice Springs Convention Centre, as you know, minister, is a leading facility for conventions in the Northern Territory and continues to provide world-class convention facilities for those people coming to the Centre. I hope that, with the completion of the Darwin convention centre, together they will provide greater scope for the convention market in the Northern Territory and not take away from each other. I know there were some concerns in Alice Springs, but let us hope that these two convention centres can work together and provide great world-class convention facilities for those coming to the Northern Territory.
The waterfront had a great run in the minister’s statement and, hopefully, as the minister predicts, it will increase employment opportunities for those already living in the Northern Territory and for those considering a move to the Northern Territory. Hopefully, once it is completed with the restaurants, bars, retail outlets and the like, it will encourage people to come to Darwin and bring with them their skills base to the Territory.
Aviation was highlighted in the minister’s statement. Aviation, reiterating your ministerial report last week, does play a vital role in the Northern Territory. It always has and, no doubt, always will, by virtue of the vastness of the Northern Territory. We rely on air travel greatly. It has opened up the Northern Territory, not just to Territorians, but to the rest of Australia and the world. Again, as I said in my response to the minister’s report last week, I hope the government will continue to push for affordable air services in and out of the Northern Territory. Alice Springs and Darwin have great jet air services and facilities and, while no one expects Katherine or Tennant Creek to have quite that standard of terminal facilities, it would be good to explore some improved services for those towns. I know that Tennant Creek is concerned about the lack of air services.
The minister mentioned Japanese charters. There was not a lot in the statement about Japanese services into Alice Springs. The few that we have had in recent years were very successful, bringing in 300-odd Japanese tourists. I think we had a couple over the course of a year. I am not sure how many we have had overall, but I know they were very successful, most welcome by local businesses and tour operators such as Ooraminna and the like. I would like to see those further explored, but it is great to hear that the Territory will benefit from Japanese charters.
Alice Springs supports any new service that comes to the town. We do not want the same fate as happened with Virgin Blue a couple of years ago. I know the previous minister worked hard to get that into Alice Springs and, unfortunately, it was not overly patronised and so they pulled out. Hopefully, we might see them back again; we might see Jetstar and Tiger Airways as well. I do hope that the people of the Centre support any further air services into Alice Springs.
There was not a lot in the statement about the drive market in the Territory. Of course, the grey nomads are everywhere at this time of year; you cannot miss them on the highway. They also provide a great source of income for the Northern Territory. Part of that $1.5bn is a result of the grey nomad tourist traffic. I hope the minister will continue to provide services for the drive market by way of rest stops, barbecue areas and free camping sites along the side of the road. There is nothing like taking a drive up the track and pulling over, camping in many of the spots and discovering some of the great history of the Northern Territory. I know that is why a lot of the grey nomads do that …
Mr Wood: Whistle Duck Creek at Davenport Range.
Mr CONLAN: It is a great spot. That is a big part of the tourism trade in the Northern Territory, and I hope the minister will continue to consider that.
There was a lot of focus on the Top End in this report, and not a lot on the regional tourism market. I hope the minister will place a strong focus on regional tourism. The minister did mention the Share Our Story advertising campaign, and said it had attracted a bit of criticism and flak around the place. He said that it is working, and that is great to hear. It is great to hear that that very expensive campaign is working and, as a result of some of the figures, we have to admit it is. That is a great thing; it is always good to see these things working and generating the income and results they were designed for.
In Share Our Story, there are a lot of landscapes, vast red deserts, waterfalls, and the great scenery we have in the Northern Territory, which is very important. However, I would like to see more exploring of the townships of the Northern Territory; that is, Alice Springs, Katherine, and Nhulunbuy - shots around the streets showing some of the restaurants and bars, and people enjoying those parts of the Territory. We see a lot of focus on what to do in Darwin, which is fantastic, but we do not see as much emphasis on other towns. It would be good to consider that down the track, minister.
I welcome the minister’s efforts in limiting ticket prices. It is a big concern for the Alice Springs Airport to limit those price hikes due to the uniqueness of that airport.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement this evening. It is pleasing to see that tourism is going ahead in the Northern Territory.
Debate adjourned.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Housing Affordability for First
Homebuyers in the NT
Housing Affordability for First
Homebuyers in the NT
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Speaker has received the following letter from the member for Nelson:
- Dear Madam Speaker,
In accordance with Standing Order 94, I intend to raise, on Thursday 30 August, a matter of public importance; the issue of housing affordability for first homebuyers in the Northern Territory.
Yours sincerely,
Gerry Wood, MLA.
Is the proposed discussion supported?
Mr Stirling: Hang on.
- Mrs Braham: Four of us.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need four.
Mrs Braham: Four, you need four.
Mr Wood: Including the mover.
Mr Stirling: Five.
Mrs Braham: Four.
Mr Stirling: When did it change?
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: I will support it, but it is five.
Mrs Braham: No, it is not, it is four.
Mr Stirling: It is five; it has always been five.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Five? Okay. It is supported.
Mr Stirling: That is what I said: you do not have the numbers.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I thought I would never get there, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We were going to enter into an other debate there.
Mr WOOD: Yes, we will have that debate later.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise this matter of public importance, which relates to home affordability for first homebuyers in the Northern Territory. I have restricted it to this, although there are other people in our community who find it difficult to buy houses in our major towns and rural centres.
The National Platform and Constitution of the ALP says under Chapter 2, A Strong Economy for a Fair Society, Principle 4:
- Labor is committed to providing:
• the opportunity for all Australians to have a reasonable standard of living sufficient to enable them and their families to live with dignity;
• a society where no one need live in poverty …
I should note an article by ACOSS today that says:
- A new Australia Fair report shows that the number of Australians living in poverty has increased over the past 10 years. Using an international poverty line of 50% of median income, the numbers increased from 7.6% to 9.9% of the population between 1994 and 2004, or nearly 2 million Australians.
To some extent, they are some of the people that I am talking about. The ALP National Platform and Constitution also says that Labor is committed to providing:
- • equity in the housing sector, overcoming Australia's housing affordability crisis in both the ownership and rental markets …
These are fine words. We have had a number of debates about this in the House. The government will say that that is exactly what we are doing, but you are only sticking up for some of the people of the Northern Territory and that section who are now struggling. They are the battlers, the first homeowners, the single income families, the single mums or dads trying to raise a family.
I raise this matter of public importance because I believe the right to own a house in the Northern Territory should be something that all people, if they wish, should be able to achieve. Unfortunately, there are some in our society who will never be able to attain that goal unless this government does something to help. By that help, I do not mean keeping people in debt for the rest of their lives; I mean making land available for those people who cannot get into the market, specifically first homeowners. This has come home to me very much lately because my daughter came back to live with me because of the high cost of rent in Palmerston. She is a single income mum with three children who found it difficult to keep up the rent payments. She then looked to purchase some land in the rural area and she could not find land cheap enough to build a house and still obtain a loan. It was way out of her reach.
She is not alone. Look at an article in the NT News on 1 August 2007, headed ‘HIA Wants Cheap Land for First Home Owners’, which reads:
- Twenty percent of the new Palmerston suburb of Bellamack should be sold at a reduced price to first home buyers to ease the housing crisis, the Housing Industry Association said yesterday.
Over the last year, the number of first home buyers has fallen from 26% of the market to less than 15%, HIA NT manager Graham Kemp said.
The NT Government is expected to call for tenders next month to develop the 700-lot suburb Bellamack, and is spending $7m on headworks at the site.
The land release is intended to help relieve the land shortage in the Darwin-Palmerston region.
But Mr Kemp called for some of the land to be sold at a reduced rate to first home buyers as high prices and a shortage of land have forced them out of the market.
Mr Kemp said while the Bellamack land release helped, it was not enough.
‘It is critical that the NT Government doesn't rest on its laurels with that development, and puts a plan in progress for ongoing development of land’.
The Territory Construction Association last week also called on the NT government to release more land to improve home affordability.
Construction Association spokesman Craig O'Halloran said the NT housing crisis made it tough to attract skilled workers.
Planning minister Delia Lawrie said while the NT government provided help to first home buyers through the HomeNorth scheme and stamp duty rebates, it rejected wholesale land release policies.
‘(The policies) could lead to a double hit - families paying higher mortgage payments on properties that are decreasing in value’, she said.
Ms Lawrie said land was being released at a sensible rate to encourage growth and maintain affordability.
As well as that, the Treasurer said in his media release in relation to Budget 2007 that homebuyers were the big winners. He said in that media release that the current median price for Darwin was $370 000 and Palmerston $342 500. Then I looked up the figures from the Northern Territory government’s own website called The Territory. It has a section called Land and Property which says for the March quarter of 2007 - and this is a list of median house prices from the Real Estate Institute - inner Darwin $605 000; northern suburbs $401 000; Palmerston $375 000; and my part of the world, Darwin rural, $440 000. It also mentions weekly rent, which is worth noting: inner Darwin $480; northern suburbs $410; Palmerston $360. That gives you an indication of what young people have to face at present.
The Treasurer said that those who pay stamp duty when buying their first home or unit will only do so if their property is worth more than $350 000. The median prices from the Real Estate Institute are well above $350 000. I realise that is a median price but, looking through the real estate pages in the paper on Saturday, the majority of houses are above those median prices and there are not many below it. If they are below it, I am not sure where they are. If you look through the paper, there is Colliers, Howard Springs, my own area, $589 000 for a three-bedroom house. At Woodroffe, $499 000, which is a four-bedroom house; Alawa, there is a chance in Alawa, $242 000. Land at Fairway Waters, the last block at Fairway Waters, is $228 000. Where are you going to get the money to build a house if the land is worth $228 000? There is vacant land at Rosebery for $175 000, and another block of land at Rosebery for $170 000. If you look at Herbert in the rural area, a two hectare block is $215 000 to $220 000 without a bore, and $227 000 with a bore, and you are a fair way out of town. Another at Rosebery is for $439 000, and Alawa for $380 000. The list goes on.
Although you do find a few houses and some units, if we are looking at places for first homeowners with a couple of kids, unless you want to live in a unit, there is not a lot of room to go elsewhere.
I am trying to highlight that there are people who will not be able to secure loans and, if they can, the way the government has now set it up, they will either have to have a loan for a long time or they will have to ask the government to take a percentage of their property. That might be okay, but you have to remember that the portion the government owns goes up and up, and they have to pay for that after they have paid their share. Do we really need to go down this path? Must we do this? Don’t we have a responsibility in a place as big as the Territory, one-sixth the size of Australia, to look for alternative ways of allowing our young people who do not have large incomes to find a place to live?
Beyond Reach, a workforce housing crisis in the making by the Residential Development Council, which is a division of the Property Council of Australia, came in the mail a couple of weeks ago. I know the Attorney-General has had a few words to say about it, but it raises a couple of issues. It looks at a range of employment and compares that around Australia to see where you can buy a place. The first page says: ‘Primary school teacher and administrative assistant,’ and goes through each state and has an annual gross income estimate. A primary school teacher in the Northern Territory earning $57 180 and an administrative assistant would earn about $37 099. Their total income would be about $94 000, and they would have problems getting a mortgage for the house, so it would be okay for a unit and they could rent a house and rent a unit.
Then you go to the police officer, the single income family, and he would be on a wage somewhere between $40 000 and the high $50 000, so they have it here in the Northern Territory that he would earn $58 387. According to these figures, he would be using up to 59% of his income if he tried to buy a house, so he is not in the market, and 45% if he wanted to try to buy a unit. He would also need 30% of his income if he was to rent a house, but he would manage a unit using 25% of his wage. That is a fairly typical one. That is not a poor person, but it is a single income person.
If we have a look at a couple others, there is a sole public servant in their late 20s on a gross annual income of between the high $50 000 to low $60 000, so he is up there on a high classification, perhaps would earn $61 241. I am quoting from the Residential Development Council’s book. He could not afford to buy a house. He could not afford to buy a unit. He could rent a house, and he could rent a unit. A single income full-time childcare worker in their late 20s earns between $26 000 and $37 500 per annum. In the Northern Territory, it was estimated that $30 066, and there is no hope of buying a house. They would have to use 114% of their money to buy a house, 88% for a unit, and they cannot afford to rent a house or a unit. That is the reality.
There are people out there who can buy houses, but there are also people who, if they do get a loan, are in debt for the rest of their life, and there was another group of people who simply cannot afford it. I have met many people who are saying: ‘My daughter is trying to buy a house, but they are staying with us because they cannot find a place’.
We need to use some initiative. We are at a crisis stage in the Northern Territory. If people cannot afford to buy a house, and if we have waiting lists for public housing of 29 months for a one-bedroom house - and I do not have the figures for the two-bedroom and three-bedroom, but I know it was up in that area - it is a long wait. Government has to look at new ways of doing things.
I will read what the Property Council says about possible solutions. Some of these are not applicable to the Territory, but the one area that might be is a fairer funding of infrastructure. I thought this was interesting and might be worth the government thinking about it:
- The Property Council, along with numerous other leading industry bodies, has long advocated the disciplined use of public debt to fund essential infrastructure.
This approach:
• spreads the infrastructure burden across the entire community (which benefits from it);
• spreads the burden across several generations (not just today’s home buyers) as infrastructure is inter-generational;
• is funded at a lower economic and social cost than the alternative (forcing home buyers to pay for the debt through their mortgage).
What I gather they are saying is we will not add the full cost of infrastructure on those people who first buy their house. We will manage it so that cost can be spread over a generation or two. I thought that is worth looking at.
Another interesting matter was highlighted on ABC news the other day is the Salisbury Council. Regarding Salisbury Council, I am quoting from Adelaide Now, which reads:
- Salisbury Council said it has been inundated with calls about its plan to give away hundreds of blocks of prime residential land ...
Ms Lawrie: You do not like shared equity.
Mr WOOD: Pardon?
Ms Lawrie: You did not want shared equity previously. Salisbury is based on shared equity.
Mr WOOD: Hang on.
- The Advertiser revealed the council’s support for the plan which means new home buyers will only pay for the cost of a new house and not the land, to be developed on existing council land.
The home owners would only pay the council for their share of the property once it is onsold.
- State Housing minister, Jay Wetherill, said he has been urging councils to come up with similar plans to help ease the housing affordability crisis.
Salisbury Mayor Tony Zappia said the scheme was designed to help first home buyers struggling to enter the market and elderly people wanting to move into a new home.
Mr Zappia, also the Labor candidate for the federal seat of Makin, said the plan meant everybody comes out with a return on their investment.
‘Salisbury Council owns a substantial amount of land which is surplus to our needs and can be developed for residential purposes’.
‘It is possible there could be several hundred houses built under this proposal’.
That is worth considering.
Ms Lawrie: Shared equity is what it is, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Yes, well that is if ...
Ms Lawrie: You said shared equity is not fair.
Mr WOOD: Yes. That is if …
Mr Stirling: Yes, it is.
Mr WOOD: No. You are comparing HomeNorth, I presume, that has been …
Ms Lawrie: No, no. The Salisbury model is a shared equity model.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, I am not going to debate it now. I am saying it is a model that has some merit in our debate.
The simplest model is the one where you own the land. You simply own the land and you can retain that land. When development applications come in, you can say to the developer: ‘A section of that land or a percentage of that …’ - and I am not talking about flooding the market. Every time I have brought this up, you keep saying: ‘Oh, you are flooding the market; the market will go backwards’. We have to realise that there is a percentage of people out there for whom the government has a responsibility. They cannot afford the market. That is exactly what Beyond Reach says. If you look through the papers, you cannot tell me that everyone can afford a house ...
Ms Lawrie: No argument.
Mr WOOD: I am saying the government has not done enough. It is hanging around worried about the market. It is releasing land at its own pace when it should be looking at developing land specifically for first homeowners, where all you pay for, as the government, is the cost of the infrastructure that is going in. The blocks of land are not part of the auction deal when the land comes up for sale, so you can retain those blocks and cover the cost of the infrastructure plus a small margin.
I do not believe that that would be much more than $50 000 or $60 000 today. Land was being sold in Palmerston about a year or so ago for about $75 000 or $80 000. All of a sudden it is up to $140 000 to $170 000. I do not believe infrastructure has gone up that much. There may be some change, but not that much. People I have spoken to have said the market has taken the price right away.
I am asking government: why can you not go down this path of specifically retaining land for that purpose? You can put a covenant on the blocks saying people cannot sell them for, say, 10 years, they must build within two years and, if they have to sell earlier, they can only sell back to the government ...
Ms Lawrie: You are going to love Bellamack when it is announced, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I wait while people like my daughter cannot afford to buy. Do not forget that Bellamack is not the only place in the world. I have said before there is land in the rural area. You mentioned in debate recently, minister, that the land belongs to the Commonwealth. That might be the case ...
Ms Lawrie: Around Darwin.
Mr WOOD: I am not denying that, but there is a lot of land that belongs to the government. If you have problems with the Commonwealth, have a look at your own land.
When I asked about the rural area, minister, you said we would have to provide infrastructure and services to go with it. Of course, but I would not have proposed the idea if I did not know the services were right next door to the land I am referring to. The forestry land has power and water. In fact, they upgraded the water line to that area about six or seven years ago. The government has the ability to open up some rural land for rural subdivision. Again, nothing has happened.
I have mums and dads saying to me - and if they were not saying it to me I would not be here today: ‘My daughter is at home. She has looked for a house and she cannot afford it’. My family is staying with me. They either have to go way down the track or live in a unit. The reality is a lot of people are not that well off. We live in a society where some people are very well off. We also live in a fairly expensive part of the world; the cost of living is higher here than probably other places, so it is difficult for people to get into the market. The government has to do something. All I have heard is that the market will be flooded. It is in here; it is in other statements the minister has made. What I am proposing to the government is that they release some land for first homeowners. The housing association is telling you there are problems with it, the construction …
Ms Lawrie: Gerry, you will run out of time.
Mr WOOD: … the construction association is telling you there are problems …
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock.
Mr WOOD: It looks nice! Did it run out? I did not see it.
Ms Lawrie: Yes.
Mr MILLS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the …
Ms Lawrie: You cannot after …
Mr Kiely: You cannot; it is already finished.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, I ask the government to consider what I have proposed.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the member for Nelson for raising this important matter in the parliament. It has been the subject of some discussion during the parliamentary sittings fortnight. It has certainly been a matter of discussion that I have been involved in for some close on two years now.
Fundamentally, we do not have a total argument here, member for Nelson. I will disagree on some aspects of what you have said but, on many aspects, I agree. Is there a necessity for land release that provides for a component of affordable land or affordable land and house packages? Is there a need for that in the greater Darwin area? Absolutely, there is. I am not sure how many times I have to repeat this, but I will say it again for the sake of this MPI. The Bellamack subdivision will contain affordable housing ...
Mr Wood: Housing. You are looking at land and house packages.
Ms LAWRIE: ‘Affordable housing’ is a description of land that someone can purchase at an affordable rate and then build on, or it could, indeed, be a land and house package. Okay? I am also on the record, publicly on radio, as saying Bellamack will include proposals which entice developers to meet the government’s requirements there rather than we say proscriptively ‘Thou shalt do thus’.
Salisbury is one model, but there are other models around Australia of delivering affordable housing and the developers are all aware of them. My agency is certainly aware of them because it has done its research. The government is aware of them. There are a range of tools that can be used, whether it is shared equity models, or a ballot model for first homebuyers where the land is actually given them for free. There is a whole gamut of tools used around Australia to turn off lots under the umbrella of affordable housing. I am not going to be proscriptive, but I will say on the record that Bellamack will include affordable housing.
There is a need for social housing. You said, in your daughter’s scenario, she can put her name down on the public housing list, but she has to wait. Social housing, public housing will also be a component of Bellamack. Bellamack will represent a subdivision model that we have never seen in the Territory. It will be contemporary and designed to meet a range of marketplace needs without distorting the market.
When I say beware of flooding the market, there is a very real reason behind that. You used the example of your daughter and I will use an example of someone I know. She is the single mother of five children. They bought their house in the northern suburbs some years ago. That is that person’s wealth. That is that person’s asset. They have no cash wealth. She is a single mother of five kids with an ageing parent. She will use their only wealth, which is their family home, their asset, to change their living circumstances; that is, sell and purchase elsewhere, to care for her ageing mother. What I will not do to all of those battlers across the northern suburbs - the member for Blain describes them as wealthy, and I invite you to come out and have a tour around my electorate of Karama …
Mr Mills: Are wealthy?
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely. In a media release, you said Darwin is for the wealthy. There are a whole lot of battlers out there right across the northern suburbs of Darwin and Palmerston whose wealth is in their asset. What they have done through the years of a buoyant economy, from when we have really seen our economy turn upwards from about 2003 in growth, is use the appreciating value of their asset to increase their mortgage to put more value in their home.
They are absolutely tied to the value of that asset in terms of their wellbeing. If we devalue their assets, particularly equity, mortgages will be foreclosed. That is the reality of what we will do to families; we will be turning them of their homes. I have said it before and I will say it again: there is a fine line that governments have to walk in turn-off of the supply end of the housing market.
You talked about homes and you disparaged units, which is interesting. When I attended the Rudd Housing Affordability Summit …
Mr Wood: Disparaged them for families.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, for families; you disparaged units for families. When I attended the Rudd Housing Affordability Summit in Canberra, there were a range of stakeholders: developers, real estate experts, housing modelling experts from the United Kingdom, and different experts from around Australia. One of the developers asked why it is that government intervention and bureaucracy have made it harder for us to have a range of options in the marketplace which are affordable for people.
They quoted the era of the 1950s and 1960s and the growth of Australia’s cities where you had the unit above a shop. They said: ‘In my day, someone wanting to get their first place would buy into a unit above a shop. Its value would grow, and then they would buy into a townhouse, or a unit, or a house’. There are steps that people can naturally take, entering into a housing market, and we should not discount the role units play in that.
Member for Nelson, you used the description of a family in units, but there are vast cities across Europe where families live in units.
Mr Wood: We are in the tropics, not in Europe.
Ms LAWRIE: I have lived in parts of Asia in a unit, surrounded by families living in units. I had my babies in Darwin in a unit. Do you want a high-rise unit, or do you want a unit complex with six units in it? They are the choices you start to make about where you want your young family in a unit. However, it is purchasing into the market at the value you can afford to purchase in - that is, the value at which you can afford to service your mortgage - that is a good entry into the market. That is cyclically and actually what occurs.
The great Australian dream of ‘I want my 800 m block and a big southern-style home’ is setting people up to fail. Families who go under in mortgage stress have overextended themselves when they have purchased. We have to be careful not to set people up to fail.
I make no apology for the fact that the market in the Territory today is a direct result of the Territory’s strong economy. When the economy is down, prices are down, and that is wealth in real terms for Territory families. Do we have to keep an eye on the Territorian families who have raised children and want to buy a house? Yes. My sister has been looking for a house to purchase. You need to have a balance in the marketplace where you still have some affordable options, but you are not devaluing the family asset.
We have a growing population and that, in itself puts pressure on availability. While property prices have risen in recent years, interestingly enough, Darwin remains the second most affordable capital city behind Canberra, and the Territory has the highest percentage of first homebuyers in the property market. You can scoff at that, but they are real statistics.
In relation to residential land, our land releases are an important aspect of the property market. Uncontrolled land release from the government would absolutely lead to a declining market, and with the nine Howard government interest rate rises in a row, the last thing homeowners need right now is the value of their property declining. The government has sensible land release strategies across the Territory.
It is this government that has cut stamp duty. It is this government that has expanded the HomeNorth scheme. The stamp duty threshold has been lifted to $350 000. That means 85% of first homebuyers will not pay stamp duty. That is a real leg-up for them when they are entering the market.
The revamped HomeNorth scheme has been significantly improved. For families with children, we have raised the threshold to $70 000. There is not a single government scheme anywhere else in Australia with an income threshold that high. It is recognised around Australia as the most progressive government-sponsored first homebuyer scheme in Australia. Others are looking at what we are doing and saying it is a good model.
The property value limit is now 85% of the average-priced house. As the Treasurer has explained before in discussion in this Chamber, that means the scheme can move with the market ...
Mr Wood: But people are in debt for longer.
Ms LAWRIE: The fairness of the scheme retains its currency. The member for Nelson says but you are in debt for longer. Welcome to reality, member for Nelson. I bought into the market in Darwin four years ago now, and I am in debt for 30 years ...
Mr Wood: I have just finished paying my debt, but that is right, yours is longer than mine and it is going to get worse.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, and my parents who bought into the market in Darwin in the 1960s were not facing debt for that period ...
Mr Wood: Well, that is what this debate is about, to try to change that.
Ms LAWRIE: You want us to completely distort the whole housing loan market and devalue people’s property. It is bizarre ...
Mr Wood: No, these people cannot get into the market. They are the ones I am talking about.
Ms LAWRIE: HomeNorth has introduced more than 1000 people to home ownership in the last couple of years. You are saying we are a government that is not helping first homebuyers enter the market when we have helped more than 1000 people. You can scoff, but it is a pretty big number, more than 1000 people ...
Mr Wood: I did not scoff. Do not jump to conclusions; I just opened my mouth.
Ms LAWRIE: Government has formulated regular forums with the stakeholders, the Real Estate Institute, the Housing Industry Association, the Property Council and the Territory Construction Association. They have all delivered the same message to government: you need to release more land ...
Mr Wood: And cheaper.
Ms LAWRIE: The message you are delivering is the message the CLP …
Mr Wood: It is there, HIA, the Construction Association.
Ms LAWRIE: What I will point out in the debate today is they delivered that message a year ago ...
Mr Wood: First of the eighth, there it is. That is this year.
Ms LAWRIE: That is your example, but in discussions I was having, it was a year ago. A year ago, I said to them: ‘I have brought forward the Bellamack release’. They said: ‘Thank God’. Bellamack was not scheduled for release until 2008. I brought it forward by a year.
When I was made the Minister for Planning and Lands, I asked the agency when Bellamack was scheduled for release. It was 2008. I asked the earliest time we could release it, and the answer was if they work like the clappers, mid-2007. I said: ‘Then it is mid-2007 that we will release it’. The discussion you are having now is a discussion I was having 18 months ago. It takes that length of time to get …
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: You say that is the problem, and I guess it is a level of ignorance as to understanding that you have to identify what the capital works requirements are. You get costings from capital works requirements. Your information comes from several government agencies in that regard. You have to go through and put the funding into the budget. We did. There was $7m in the budget announced in May. You then have to look at how you are going to do your subdivision. That is critically important to delivering things such as affordable lots within the subdivision. If you just put it out to the market, which is the history of subdivisions from government in the Territory, you will not deliver your affordable housing component.
We could have done what previous governments have always done in the Territory, which is just release the land to developers. We are not doing that this time because we want to address the need in the marketplace without distorting the market.
An announcement on the release of Bellamack will be made shortly, but it will include approximately 650 and, potentially, 700 lots. As I have said time and again, there will be a component of this release that will include public housing and homes or land for first homebuyers, guaranteed. The things you are calling for are absolutely locked in to the Bellamack release ...
Mr Mills: This year?
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely.
Mr Mills: On the market?
Ms LAWRIE: Expressions of interest, yes. The market will then determine how quickly it can turn it off. I am hopeful that we will see lots being turned off - I do not want to distort it, but there are developers who are ready and our infrastructure is able to be turned off quickly, too. It will be tighter and quicker than most subdivision turn-offs because we have done all the preparatory work.
In the greater Darwin area, because we have been talking about Palmerston and the Bellamack release - and I pick up your point; let us not just look at this release, but at future releases. You were at the DCA meeting where we had the Palmerston East plan up. Clearly, as a government, we are saying: ‘Yes, we are turning off Bellamack, but we need to start the work now for future land releases’. I had a lot more to say ...
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I draw the member for Karama’s attention to the time.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to give a briefing, Gerry.
Mr Wood: All right, thanks.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That red light does not seem to be going off. Did it go off? I did not see it. Member for Blain.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this very important matter. It appears that it is going to be a chat, and there will be locked in positions.
This is a matter of such importance that it goes way beyond the discussions about the distortion of markets. It is, in fact, distorting our future and our society, altering the way we manage our capital, storing up debt today, which will be passed on to the future, ensuring that there are many who will simply not get into the marketplace.
We can stay within the parameters and try to find solutions within the paradigm, but I put it to you, for a government of great reformers which talked about doing brave and visionary things with the shire amalgamation, there are some visionary approaches that can be taken with this problem. The Labor Party’s slogan of Building a Better Territory …
Ms Lawrie: And the CLP never would have, Terry.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: We have an opportunity. Quite seriously, we have an opportunity to really build the Territory because the units around town are being rented out at high rents. Think of this: sometimes there are young professionals who put their money together so that they can pay the rent. They do not mind living in town but, if given the option of affordable land on the urban fringe where they could put up some bricks and mortar, not only would they take their good wages that they are getting at the moment for tradesmen and the like in the Territory, they would dream of a future in the Northern Territory. They would think of raising kids here. They would be making very different decisions.
Because there is such demand all around the country for affordable land, we really have a chance to break that and do something that others are not doing. It is possible; this is not pie-in-the-sky. There will, hopefully, come a time when those who are held back by the existing paradigm can be set free by changing the way we view the potential we have in the Territory, and particularly our land asset.
There are impediments to the release of land undoubtedly, but those impediments can be properly understood and removed.
I was flying into Alice Springs when I was the Leader of the Opposition a couple of years back and I knew that when I was to land, I was to field questions related to the issue that was very topical at that time in Alice Springs; that was shortage of land. People wanted to expand, develop and so on and there was a shortage of land. There were negotiations going on that had been going on for some time. It was quite a complex matter. I was getting my head into the complexities of all the negotiations that were going on between traditional owners, government, different agencies, developers, and it really was quite complex.
As I was fielding the range of options in my head as I was coming into Alice Springs, I looked out the window and I just laughed. It was just like this joy come over me. I thought: ‘Why are we worried about a land shortage?’ Out the window of the plane, I spotted land everywhere. It gave me a completely different take on this. There are, obviously, problems with the release of land, but we are blessed with plenty of land, tonnes of potential, people wanting to move to the Territory and stake their claim on this piece of earth. We could do something. We need to get a clearer idea of what the impediments are, and then find a solution of how we can dismantle and remove them, or reduce their impact. That is possible. You just have to look at it in a way where you are seeking to find an answer to a problem rather than describing the problem and saying, ‘That is it’, and living inside the problem and saying, ‘If you release more land, you will distort the market’. Bunkum! I do not believe that; the age-old maxim of supply and demand must be in balance.
If you take another position in that argument and say: ‘We must protect the existing values so we cannot release’, you must let it flow. People will not take up that which they cannot afford to take up, or they do not want to take up. The demand will match the supply. Developers need to get out further than they are at the moment. Why are they not out further than they are at the moment? Why is demand so pressured not just in Darwin, but right around this country?
There is a reason for that. It is not a peculiarly Darwin problem. It is a national problem and there are reasons. Why on earth would this country have such a problem where supply is so short and demand has been exacerbated to the point that current generation, young people like my daughter and her new husband, and my son, on their forward plans is this flickering, almost fading and disappearing, dream of owning a house. It is just so far out. When I was their age, my wife and I were thinking it was such a reality; it was right in front of us. Things have changed right around the country; it is not just in Darwin.
Consider why it is such an important issue. It is because not only has economic implications and consequences, but social ones. Because we have land, we can find ways of ensuring there is adequate supply, and it will address into the future both economic and, more importantly, social consequences. Robert Menzies, in 1942, described the importance of home ownership. The material home, he said, represents the concrete expression of saving for a home of our own.
Advanced socialists may rage against private property, even whilst they acquire it, but one of the best instincts in us is that which induces us to have one little piece of earth with a house and a garden which is ours, to which we can withdraw, be among our friends, and no stranger may come against our will ...
Mr Stirling: Is that why you are taking the blackfellas’ country from them?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: For more than 50 years, the average Australian was able to buy their first home on the average wage. For more than 50 years, the median house price was around three times the median household income. It was possible; it was a realisable dream. Now, 50 years later, that dream has become so remote. In many of our capital cities, it is six times the median income, and up to eight or nine times in some other cities. The dream is becoming an impossible one.
The consequences of that, both socially and economically, are that the demand that places on a family to service a debt that is now far greater than it was for the past 50 years means that they both must work; they must spend less time with their children; and they must work longer hours. They have to put their children into childcare generally; they are spending much more of their working life at work and less with their family and community. It has that social consequence. It also has an economic consequence because the money is going to the mortgage rather than saving and passing on an asset to the future. We are now considering passing on debt to the next generation.
Once upon a time, land was about 25% of the total cost of a house. Now it is 60%. In the 1970s, from my reading, there was a decision made by governments when land was in plentiful supply and market forces operated with greater freedom, that it would be a good idea to get some structure around land and they formed land banks. The purpose of those land banks was to ensure that there was a plentiful supply of land at an affordable price. That was the central motive of government, to ensure that there was a plentiful supply and it could be afforded, because they understood how important home ownership was; the social and economic benefits of home ownership so that people could realise that dream.
Over time, and more pronounced in recent times, the emphasis has changed. Now, the central purpose of government is not to ensure a plentiful supply at an affordable price. Now, the central emphasis is to maximise the financial returns of government, to control the process for economic benefit to government. This is clearly demonstrated right around the country and here in the Territory no less. Own-source revenue to government since 2001, largely as a result of stamp duties from families saving their money to invest in that dream, has increased by 80% to the Territory government. That is a result of stamp duty. I would much prefer to find a way where that money could stay with that family so it could be invested and benefit that family rather than the quantum flowing to government. That is an 80% increase of own-source revenue.
You can see that the emphasis has changed and that is demonstrated where the language is that we cannot distort the market and we have to go through all the careful process. At the bottom of this is an artificial land scarcity. There is no land scarcity. The supply of land has been choked by excessive processes and a lack of will, from government’s point of view, to release the land because they are enjoying the revenue that is raised from the increased value of land and those transactions and the stamp duty therein.
Why has there been such a reduction in supply - not just in the Territory; it is the same disease right around the country? Because there have been increased restrictions. There has been an increase in planning regulations and the effective zoning has locked it up. The process is now grinding down so slowly that pressure is falling upon those who are trying to get into the market, and putting up almost an impossible wall of debt that they have to climb. We see smaller blocks and units. We wonder about the obesity epidemic, yet we have kids who have nowhere to play. We have kids in childcare. Parents just do not have the time to spend with their families because the whole process is grinding along so slowly. We have plenty of anecdotal evidence and reports to say how slowly this process is working. There are ways of solving this, and those matters will largely deal with the …
Mrs MILLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77 to allow the member to conclude his remarks.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, I say no. It is unprecedented. There are set time limits of 20 and 15 minutes respectively.
Mr MILLS: All right. Just to keep things sweet, thank you very much for your support. I was going to say there are solutions. However, I have been unable to outline them, but they rely on a change of attitude and courage in the form of a government leadership.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to the House for my lack of knowledge of contemporary standing orders. For 15 years, as a member in this Chamber, I well knew the rule about getting a matter of public importance up, and the number in support was five, because in opposition for 11 years, we always had to have five of our seven. There was one occasion when, despite our best efforts, we could only muster four, and we lost the opportunity to put our matter of public importance. I was caught out with four rising and, wrongly, asking where the fifth was. I thank the Deputy Clerk for pointing me to the amendment put, and obviously carried, by the Standing Orders Committee on 29 November 2005.
I take it that was recognition of the outcome of the 2005 election and that it would be unfair of the opposition to have to rely on the support of an Independent in order to get up a matter of public importance. I do apologise to the House. I do understand the standing order for a matter of public importance now requires four, including the mover, where it was once five, including the mover.
I touch on one issue that the member for Blain raised, which was Menzies referring to what it meant to people regarding the great Australian dream of owning that bit of Australia, the block and the house, and the efforts he made in his time as Prime Minister to ensure that as many Australians as was possible could attain that dream.
That same rich Liberal philosophy would be useful today when you see one group of Australians in this country - and I refer to the traditional owners of this country - who have a depth of knowledge, passion, longing, understanding and relationship with the land that far surpasses even the 25th generation of white Australian who may have had the family farm and property from the time they came to Australia. It far surpasses any of that relationship with the land.
We have a Liberal government today dispossessing those same traditional owners of their land in terms of ownership for a period of five years. I did not think I would ever say publicly ‘Long live Menzies’, but it is a pity Prime Minister Menzies was not there today because he could not, on the one hand, express that passion for home ownership and the importance of it to Australians whilst, at the same time, dispossessing traditional owners of the ownership of their country, albeit for a period of five years.
It is an important ambition. It is a part of the fabric of our society. It is one of the issues in the Northern Territory where we have had such low rates of home ownership in our history compared with the rest of Australia, and why we are so keen to do so much about it.
I am pleased to report that the Territory remains, in the figures just released by the Real Estate Institute, the second most affordable jurisdiction in Australia. There is only the ACT in front of us, but we are well above all other states and the Australian average in affordability. The order goes ACT, NT - and forget the rest because they are so far behind. In the June quarter 2007, home loan affordability actually increased in the Territory by 2.3%, in stark contrast with the rest of Australia which decreased by 4.2%. That is the second quarter we have seen that increase, albeit if you go back 12 months and take it month-to-month over 12 months, you will see in the Northern Territory that home loan affordability has actually decreased because of the movement in the market over that time. However, in the June quarter 2007, we have moved back in to improving affordability against the ground lost over the previous 12 months and a bit more.
I am proud of the work that this government has done to help many Territorians, young people and families, fulfil the aspiration of home ownership. Under the Martin government’s strong economic management, the Territory economy has taken off. We have worked hard to create the environment of growth and prosperity that we currently enjoy. The employment figures show if you want a job in the Territory, you can get one. The property market, of course, is reflecting that strong economic growth and I am certain it is welcomed by Territorians who own their own home and who see their equity increasing on a weekly basis. The fact that we have remained the second most affordable jurisdiction for housing demonstrates the hard work that this government has put in to allow first homebuyers, those on low incomes, and families to get into the market.
The member for Nelson should be aware, of course, of the Martin government’s comprehensive plan to help Territorians own their own home. Since 2001, we have drastically reduced the stamp duty for first homebuyers; we have broadened HomeNorth to focus on families; we have released land in Palmerston and Alice Springs with areas reserved for first homebuyers; and we are releasing land in Bellamack with a comprehensive roll-out into the future to ensure we do not suffer the same land availability squeeze being felt in other parts of the country.
What do these policies do? By lifting that stamp duty threshold to $350 000, it means 85% of first homebuyers do not pay stamp duty. That is $15 312 straight off the purchase price. That is $15 312 the first homebuyer does not have to find for the government and it goes a long way for first homebuyers. Other ministers and I have received comments saying: ‘It was a big relief. It helped us out in the first few months of the biggest purchase of our lives’.
For the record, we have made significant improvements to the HomeNorth scheme. We have lifted the income threshold to $70 000 for families with children to ensure we keep pace with the market. The property value limit is 85% of the average-priced house. In Darwin and Palmerston, the new limit is $310 000. We have lifted the government equity to $70 000 and, most importantly, we have kept the 2% deposit and a $10 000 interest-free loan to get people started on setting up a home.
HomeNorth has enabled almost 1000 people to buy their first home since 2004. It is the most generous scheme in Australia. Buying a home, we recognise, is the most major purchase that most of us will ever make in our lives. Our reforms tip the balance for many young people to get into the market.
I heard the members for Nelson and Blain talking about the price of houses. It is not the only way to get into the market. Part of the effectiveness of HomeNorth is that it has allowed people to get into units, start paying them off, establish equity in the property (1) by repayments and (2) by the rising market. It does not take that long in a rapidly rising property market for them to go the commercial market and say: ‘This is what we have done under HomeNorth’. This is why the banks are keen fans of HomeNorth because it allows people to get in the market, albeit it with a unit, they get that equity and get going in the market and they get the growth of the property value around them. Within a reasonably short time, they are off to the commercial sector to say they want to renegotiate a new loan: ‘I want to sell my unit and go into a house’. The banks say: ‘Thank you very much. Here is a customer who, but for HomeNorth, would not have been here’. The bankers of Darwin encourage me to revamp HomeNorth and to keep it alive.
In a media release of 16 July, the member for Araluen and the CLP’s candidate for Greatorex unveiled a policy regarding the government’s HomeNorth shared equity loan scheme. They suggested removing the price cap on houses and the income cap on loans and increasing the maximum government equity to 40%. To quote from their release:
- These changes would be introduced in Alice Springs for 12 months and their effectiveness assessed.
The CLP opposition wants to remove the price and income cap for Alice Springs. What a surprise that would be! So it does not matter what your income is - $50 000, $500 000, or $3m a year - under the CLP opposition policy, you would get HomeNorth. That does not strike me as the best thought-out, costed or strategically targeted housing policy you are likely to come across. HomeNorth is not about helping millionaires and the top end of the market buy houses with $1m-plus price tags. It is, and should be, about getting those people who cannot quite make it into the property market, the helping hand to get them over the line. As I have said, the banks certainly appreciate what HomeNorth does.
The Martin government’s forward looking land release programs are also striking the right balance between demand and the threat of over supply set out clearly by the Minister for Planning and Lands. I will not go into that detail again. What she and I have done over the last 12 months is bring the key stakeholders from the property development market and sector together and showed them with comprehensive briefings and maps where the government is going in land release for residential and industrial property. We are keen to continue those stakeholder groups because people have gone away with a much clearer picture of where things are up to.
Bellamack has the capacity for 600 blocks; Mt John Valley has strong capacity, and land there will be reserved for the first homebuyer. If the opposition were genuinely keen to help first homebuyers, they would take themselves off to the federal government and urge them to listen to their own back bench - that is, the federal government’s backbench - and double the first homeowner grant to $14 000.
I want to turn briefly to the issue of supposed free land offers, which was raised by the member for Nelson as a remedy for land prices. I saw this mentioned again recently in newspapers proposed by the Salisbury Council in South Australia. It is incompletely incorrect, of course, to label such schemes give-aways or gifts because, more accurately, it involves providing the land with no initial outlay which is, therefore, a form of shared equity scheme so it is a value to be repaid on sale.
The Territory, of course, already has a shared equity scheme available to first homebuyers and low income earners but, with this more extreme proposal, there could be real problems for owners when there has been a substantial increase in the value of the land. It would substantially decrease the proportion of equity the homeowner has in their property. The Northern Territory Treasury has advised me it is unclear how such a program would impact on land values elsewhere in the Territory. The question of how blocks would be allocated would be very difficult and could create resentment both amongst current landholders and those who miss out. That is the problem when you get into those cute sorts of schemes. Introduction of any such scheme would likely require amendment to the First Home Owner Grant Act. Such an amendment needs to be agreed to by all the states, territories and the Australian government and would also require amending the Stamp Duty Act.
Home ownership is something that all young people and families should aspire to. Nothing has changed in all the years since Menzies made the home ownership statement. Nothing has changed at all. It is a genuine aspiration and we should do whatever we can to help people achieve it, but it is not always easy.
We will continue our efforts to provide the economic opportunities and assistance necessary to help Territorians achieve this goal. As tough as it is out there, the last quarter has shown that we are turning around home affordability. As it is decreasing across Australia, home affordability is again increasing in the Northern Territory. There should be no surprise about that. The Northern Territory historically is counter-cyclical with national movement. If home affordability began to improve markedly across the rest of Australia, the reverse occurs; we would probably be losing our way in home affordability. At the moment, the figures are going with us. We have lost ground over the last 12 or 18 months, but the last two quarters are showing that turnaround again.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 9 October 2007 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I will speak about a beloved friend, a great mother and wife and a respected professional: Pam Gollow, who died on 18 August 2007 in Townsville where she was travelling with her husband.
Pam was a dear friend, and it was with great sadness that we received a text message from her husband, Adam, to advise us that while they were travelling, she suffered a brain haemorrhage in Townsville. She was hospitalised in Townsville and, a couple of days later, we received another text message to advise that her condition had deteriorated to such an extent that Adam asked me to help send the kids to Townsville.
Pam Gollow, nee McPherson, was born in Sydney. Her mother was Joyce and her father was Hugh. She was the second eldest in a family of 10, and she grew up in Carlton near Coongarra, where the family house still is. She went to school at Morefield Girls High. She joined the workforce as a bank teller and then worked developing photos for Agfa.
In the mid-1970s, she left Australia with her best friend Rachel on a ship heading for England to earn enough money to travel around Europe. She travelled to Israel and, while she was in Israel, she met her husband, Adam, in 1979 in a kibbutz. Then she travelled to Greece and returned to Perth, Australia in 1980.
She started working in a photo laboratory, but it did not take long to realise that was not her life ambition. She wanted to do something else, working in the health area. She took the mature-age exams and was accepted into Science at the Western Australia Institute of Technology, or WAIT, in 1982. WAIT is now known as Curtin University.
She worked part-time and studied full-time for the next four years. She completed a Bachelor of Applied Science in Nutrition and Food Science in 1984 and a Graduate Diploma of Dietetics in 1985. She finished near the top of her year. In 1985, she married Adam and later started at the Royal Perth Hospital as a Clinical Dietician. They have two kids, Conor, who was born in 1987; and Jess, who was born in 1989.
Pam Gollow was a very good friend. She was the first person I met when I studied at WAIT. We met in a biology class in February 1993. We were both examining organs found in animals and trying to identify them, and work through biology was quite difficult for both of us. While we were studying biology, we started talking about our pasts, and she was very excited to find out that I had come from Greece just a few months before. She brought her packet of photographs from Greece to show me.
At the same time, unbeknown to me, she studied with my wife, Margaret, and other professionals, Sue Gough and Sue Carruthers. They all attended the same class and, as Margaret said, Pam was well known for her gentle personality, for being friendly and helpful and because she was one of the few dieticians and nutritionists who did not have an eating disorder or follow any eating fads.
Of course, after we graduated from university, we all went our own ways. Margaret and I made our way up to Darwin. One day, Margaret received a telephone call from one of her friends to say that Pam was coming to Darwin to work for the Health Department at the hospital. It was in January or February 1994 when Margaret invited Pam and her husband Adam to come to our house in Coconut Grove. Of course, you can imagine my surprise when I opened the door and Pam was standing there. My first question was: ‘What are you doing here?’ Of course, the same question was asked by Pam, leaving our spouses very puzzled because we had to do some quick explaining to tell them how it was that we knew each other. It was very interesting. After that, we met each other very often, spent quite a bit of time together and enjoyed some really good times. Pam was a very friendly person, a very genuine person, with a great sense of humour.
She worked at the Health Department where she earned the respect of her colleagues. She was also a character. I remember very well that one day we went to their house to a party. We arrived a bit early and found Pam using the leaf blower in reverse to blow dry the dog before the party.
She was also very selfless. She insisted on taking home our son Alexander for a night just before our second son Michael was born. Poor Alexander was left scarred because Adam, Pam’s husband, was yelling at the kids. I also remember Pam and Adam coming to our parties. Adam always wanted to leave early because he wanted to get up very early in the morning to walk the dogs, pulling Pam, who did not want to go, with him. We spent some great times together.
I remember Pam and Adam and his father and mother and Margaret and I having Greek Easter together. The difference was that Margaret is Catholic, I am Greek, Pam was Anglican, Adam and his father are Jewish and his mother is Church of England. It was a very interesting Easter, but we all enjoyed it.
I well recall Pam’s 50th birthday at the Trailer Boat Club. It was a beautiful afternoon, one of those wonderful Dry Season afternoons. As we were watching the sun go down, I turned around and I said to Pam and Adam, jokingly: ‘There is another beautiful sunset brought to you by the first Labor government in the Territory’. Adam looked at it and said: ‘What is next - naked girls?’. Believe it or not, that was the exact moment that a topless girl chose to cross in front of us at the Trailer Boat Club. Adam’s jaw hit the floor and Pam laughed her head off. It was one of those jovial moments that you cannot forget.
Pam was also very courageous. In a tragic accident at home, she lost one of her eyes while they were gardening. She never complained. She went through all the tests, all the examinations. She accepted that she had lost her eye and moved on with a glass eye. The only time we heard her saying something about that disability was when she asked Margaret one day to pour some boiling water in a cup of tea because she was sick and tired of miscalculating and burning herself.
It was with great sadness that we learnt that Pam died. She was a lovely person. Adam organised a small gathering last Sunday at the Cullen Bay foreshore. He invited some friends to get together, remember Pam and have a few drinks. The ‘few friends’ evolved into a huge crowd about 250 to 300 people who came to celebrate Pam’s life, to remember her, and say goodbye with a flower and a glass of wine. Some people spoke about Pam. Everyone was very moved, including her mother, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and others who went to remember the wonderful person who was Pam Gollow.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about a few events that have occurred or are about to occur in the rural area.
Last Saturday, as the member for Goyder would recall, we had Poets Day at the Taminmin High School Library. It was a very successful day. We had two-and-a-half hours of poetry. Some people might find that a bit boring, but everyone who attended found it terrific. It was not just poetry; there was literature read and songs sung. It was organised by Sandra Parker, who organises it every year. Poets day has got bigger and bigger. I was tempted to read one of my poems into the Parliamentary Record, but on second thoughts, I might leave it until another day.
I thank the staff of Taminmin High School Library, Iris, in particular, and Marinda. They not only allowed the Taminmin High School Library to be used, they also participated, with Iris playing the trombone and Marinda playing the bongo drums and singing. It was a wonderful day. Many seniors attended. They either participated or sat and enjoyed a cup of tea and some biscuits and sandwiches. It is a day that is getting bigger and bigger.
We have a great addition to the Howard Springs area with the opening of the new Arafura Medical Centre. It is another one of the medical centres own by Lionel and Pat Crompton. Looking at the number of people who are now attending that surgery, you would certainly say that it has been needed as more and more people come into the area. At the moment, they only have one doctor but, as time goes on, there will be more and more people using that clinic. Lionel and Pat Crompton own a number of these medical clinics throughout the suburbs and the rural area. It is of great benefit to rural people.
Speaking of medicine, we had a debate about oncology the other night. In that debate, I raised the issue of oncology in relation to Lucas Heights. The member for Sanderson was very interested in what I said and he did some research. He is correct; the oncology unit is not connected to Lucas Heights, it is radiology. I stand corrected by the member for Sanderson and thank him for that research. Of course, we do need isotopes from Lucas Heights for our radiology department at Royal Darwin Hospital.
An interesting new asset to our community is a set of cricket nets that have been built by the school council at Girraween Primary School. I was asked to open them and, in this case, I did it with an opening bowl, attempting to bowl out the Principal of Girraween Primary School, Mrs Bredhauer, who was not bowled out; she whacked the ball a mile. It was a good occasion. All the children from the school came down to see the opening of the nets, and there were two members of the school council, Troy and Simon, who have been very involved in building those cricket nets. They are a great asset to the school. If you have never been there, Girraween Primary School is a fantastic school. It has great facilities - basketball courts, netball courts, a football ground and now it has these new cricket nets which enables everyone at the school to learn to play cricket.
I was invited to open a little business in the rural area called The Black Anvil run by a gentleman called Ken Moody. He makes wrought iron products such as candle holders and plant holders, mosquito coil holders, and he is now making rocking chairs and ornamental bicycles you can put in the garden. There is no limit to what he is doing. He is even putting some chooks together for me on a wrought iron frame. I wish Ken all the best. He worked in sheet metal for many years and now he has gone out on his own in the Humpty Doo area. If you are looking for some of the products that he makes, you can go to Coolalinga Markets every Saturday and see what he does.
A number of schools are coming up for their anniversary. One last week was Bees Creek School. The member for Goyder and I were there. They had their 10th birthday. Peter Collins, the past president, was there. Unfortunately, Peter has suffered a number of strokes over the last couple of years which has made his vision very poor, but he attended that night. The member for Goyder, I think, presented the school with a large cake which Peter Collins cut. Peter then unveiled a water fountain with his name on it which is there for everyone to see.
Peter is one of those marvellous people who is loved by all parents and students who have come in contact with him. It is unfortunate that he had the stroke. That would leave most people a bit depressed, staying at home and not doing much, but not Peter. He is back working with DEET and he is up and running again. The 10th anniversary of Bees Creek School was a great occasion,.
There are a couple of other schools that are coming up for anniversaries. Howard Springs School is coming up for its 30th anniversary this week, and Berry Springs School is coming up soon as well. I congratulate both those schools on their anniversaries. They will both have great celebrations and they have a proud history. Of course, being 30 years old, those schools have former students as parents who are bringing their children to those schools.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, community safety in Palmerston is a key priority for me and this government, which has recruited and trained more police than any previous Territory government. It continues that drive to ensure police can do their job properly. I work as closely as I can with police and residents in Palmerston to help identify hot spots and nip emerging issues in the bud. I was shocked by a recent CLP media release calling for police to be taken from their duties in Palmerston and elsewhere and relocated to Alice Springs. I understand that the media release was deliberately not circulated outside Alice Springs, and it is no wonder when you read it.
It was doubly surprising, given the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has criticised government for not giving enough resources to policing in Palmerston. I wonder whether the member for Blain has told his constituents his party is in favour of removing police from Palmerston to Alice Springs. Maybe the CLP members are now saying that they were wrong in their criticism and, in their opinion, Palmerston is, in fact, so safe it can afford to lose police resources. I strongly disagree with the CLP position. This government has already put extra police in Palmerston. My message to the minister is that more police in Palmerston would greatly assist the command in its fight against crime, not fewer. The CLP proposal would put at risk the safety of people in Palmerston. I am not prepared to allow that. This government will not allow it.
Mrs Sharon Young is the Education Coordinator with the Parliamentary Relations and Education Unit. Sharon is a teacher of six years experience and, as part of Celebrating Democracy Week, is conducting Parliament of Birds and Parliament of Wizards programs for primary school students in the Chan Building. In addition, she has conducted tours for senior students from secondary schools. Over 400 students from 10 schools have participated in the programs. The sessions have proved to be so popular with schools that the unit will now run a similar program in September and October, and is proposing to conduct regular parliamentary education programs in the Chan Building throughout the school year in 2008. Sharon has been assisted by Phyllis Mitchell and new Legislative Assembly trainee, Debbie Mitchell.
We have all seen the kids come and sit in the public gallery. A few of us have gone up there to speak with the children. They absolutely love the program and it is a great credit to Sharon, Phyllis and Debbie.
Last weekend, there were quite a few events happening. On Saturday 25, I had the great pleasure of attending the Palmerston City Schools Community Day. The member for Drysdale spoke about the community day last night and I fully agree with what he said. I particularly enjoyed the performances by the Palmelody Choir and Bakewell School Choir. There was also a fine performance by some young ladies from the Palmerston High School Dance Troupe.
Palmerston schools and their communities are putting a great deal of energy into Palmerston education, providing the people of Palmerston and surrounding areas with the best education possible. I commend them and thank them for their great efforts.
The Special Education Centre at Palmerston High had a stall on the day. The stall was selling Student Creations cards produced in their Enterprise Education program, designed to develop students’ work skills. A planning process for 2008 determined that the centre’s primary outcome for students is the highest level of independence possible for post-school life, either in work or positive recreation time.
The Enterprise Education program is central to the work the centre does with students as it teaches valuable pre-work skills. The program is completely self-funded and all profits go back into the program to sustain it. Students are involved at every step of the process from manufacture through to marketing. Alfred’s, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, and the Sticky Beak Caf are three businesses stocking their cards. Locals also support the students with regular purchases; I bought a few on the weekend. Christmas is on the way. Fellow members, place your card orders now and the centre guarantees delivery by November. Contact Frankie Maclean, the head of the Special Education Centre, through the Palmerston High School to arrange your order today. Buy in bulk and save even more. I ask members to support the students of the Special Education Centre as they are fantastic.
One of Darwin and Palmerston’s brilliant festivals is the Filipino community’s Barrio Festival. Congratulations to John Rivas and the other members of the community who put long hours into organising the event. I also want to thank Celcie who was in charge of the bar and made sure all of us bar staff got our breaks and something to eat. I had a lot of fun, even though we were extremely busy keeping patrons supplied with drinks, including the iconic San Miguel. There were many queries during the night about where people could buy San Miguel. I do not the answer; however, if anyone does, please let me know.
Working at the Barrio meant I was somewhat late for the Shine Girls event run by the Palm City Church in Palmerston. This is a great initiative building up the confidence of young ladies. I am proud to support this important local event, and congratulate Tracey Lilly and her team who put it together.
Another major event in Palmerston recently was the Asia-Pacific Tang Soo Do karate titles, which were held at the Palmerston Recreation Centre. The host was the Northern Territory Tang Soo Do Karate Academy of which Sharon Kimberley is master. This sort of event is now possible in Palmerston because of the recreation centre. It is a first-class facility, and the karate titles were a first-class event. Congratulations to Sharon and her team who put it together.
I attended on Friday night to watch the black belts perform their open hand and weapon forms. I then attended the opening ceremony on Saturday morning, and stayed to watch a little of the events afterwards. Sharon has run her academy for many years. She also teaches short courses at Palmerston High School specifically for young girls, training them in self-defence. Sharon is a consummate businesswoman. The Tang Soo Do Academy is as much a part of Palmerston as the water tower. I know it sounds like a funny comparison, but both are synonymous with Palmerston.
Art Libien recently celebrated his 60th birthday. Art is a wonderful man and very generous with his time in the community and the classroom. His family are long-term residents of Palmerston and have seen the city grow around them. Happy birthday, Art; I hope it was a good one. I could not get there, but would love to have been there for your 60th birthday celebrations. One of the great things about being a politician is that it brings you into contact with people who give tremendously to their community, and Art is one of those.
Danila Dilba and the YMCA are a couple of organisations that are also part of the social fabric. They recently had a Youth Awareness Activity Day. Activities included touch Rugby, basketball, a pool competition and barbecue. It was a pleasure to support this event and the young people of Palmerston who were part of it.
I cannot believe federal minister Nigel Scullion’s decision to put the YMCA’s drop-in centre funding at risk. The YMCA works closely with young people. So often we read bad news stories about young people, and here is a program which has had a huge positive effect over a long period of time. It is beyond comprehension anyone would put its operation at risk.
The Prime Minister and others talk about not giving handouts. Well, the drop-in centre is not a handout, it is a hand up for many youths in Palmerston. It is a chance for them to be off the streets, out of trouble and in the company of positive role models like Michael McLean. I implore, I beg, the federal government to give the YMCA the funding it needs to run the drop-in centre properly. The Northern Territory government has funded the YMCA to allow it to continue its work, and I just want to see the federal government put its contribution back in.
I would like to make mention of Cazalys’ distribution of funds to its member sports clubs. It was an excellent night, and Ray Norman certainly looks like he enjoys giving the money away. This year, Cazalys is supporting clubs by purchasing balls for the club in exchange for having the Cazalys logo on them. Whether it is footballs, netballs, soccer balls, Cazalys will come to the party and support the club. That type of equipment assistance is vital to our local clubs to make it that little easier for them to do what they do best; that is, provide sporting activities for our youth.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like the House to note a special landmark award for the Kenbi Dancers of Belyuen in my electorate of Goyder.
Last Saturday night, at the 4th Northern Territory Indigenous Music Awards, the Kenbi Dancers shared the award for Contribution to Indigenous Music with Wurrurrumi Kun-Borrk. The joint award was all about recognising their ongoing commitment to the performance of traditional music and dance. This was a wonderful accolade for this terrific indigenous and cultural dance group.
The Kenbi Dancers range in age from a teenage lad to one of their song men and dancers who is still very active at 64 years of age. In fact, the Kenbi Dancers were an important feature of the recent Darwin Festival. This festival has been recognised as the best so far. The Kenbi Dancers performed at the launch of the festival program, opened by the Deputy Chief Minister, Hon Syd Stirling in early July. They were also one of the featured dance groups during the nine nights of traditional Aboriginal dance held each evening at the Star Shell in the Botanic Gardens. The award they received builds on their great history as a dance troupe which holds the record for longest performance history of any similar group in Northern Territory.
As a group, they have been performing since the early 1980s. As well as regular performances at the Mandorah Hotel, they have been showcasing their talent at many events in Darwin. The Kenbi Dancers have often been acknowledged as the Aboriginal face of Darwin by tourists and locals alike. They contribute greatly to the tourism of this region. Last Saturday’s award was well deserved, and I extend my warmest congratulations to each and every member of the group, and their manager, Steve Brown. Long may you keep dancing.
I had the great fortune to attend the wedding and reception of my great mate, Lucio Matarazzo and his beautiful wife, Catherine, on 27 July 2007. The wedding was held at St Mary’s Catholic Cathedral in Darwin and, incidentally, it was also the Darwin Show Day public holiday. It was a beautiful and fine Dry Season day, with clear blue skies and bright sunshine. It was a very moving ceremony and an excellent day to start a long and prosperous marriage indeed.
Lucio is a Darwinite through and through. He was born in Darwin and is a very well known and liked Darwin-based union official for the Australian Services Union. In fact, he has been the face of the ASU in Darwin for the past 17 years.
Catherine arrived in Darwin in 2000 and fell in love with our beautiful city and, of course, subsequently fell in love with Lucio. Catherine Dash, as was her maiden name, originally hailed from New South Wales and is a very well admired and respected public servant. Catherine was heavily involved in preparing the recent legislation at departmental level for the driver demerit points legislation. It should be noted that many lives will be saved because of this important legislation. In her earlier years in Darwin, Catherine worked as a ministerial adviser for my colleague, Hon Kon Vatskalis MLA.
Lucio and Catherine were married in the company of 95 of their family and close friends. Lucio’s parents, Mr Alfonzo Michael Matarazzo and Mrs Lina Matarazzo, who are now retired, came from Adelaide for the wedding. Alfonzo is no stranger to Darwin. He first came to Darwin in 1956, and was a successful, long-term Darwin-based floor sander, along with brother, Maurice Matarazzo, who still lives in Stuart Park.
Catherine’s parents, Keith and Janet Dash, travelled from Sydney to Darwin to be at Catherine and Lucio’s wedding. Keith and Janet were successful scientists prior to retirement. Keith worked at the CSIRO and Janet as a university lecturer.
Lucio’s brother from Alice Springs, Dr Gus Matarazzo and his wife Mary, and their children, Michael Matarazzo and his partner Debbie, and Paul and Lana Matarazzo all attended. Lucio’s brother, Gus, is a well-respected and successful doctor, who has been practising in Alice Springs since 1981. Among Lucio’s numerous relatives and friends who attended the wedding were his Uncle Maurice and Aunty Carmela Matarazzo. His Aunty Carmela sang a wonderful solo rendition of Ave Maria at the cathedral. Their sons, Peter and Robert Matarazzo and their families and six children also attended. Lucio’s cousin Peter is a well-established floor sander in Darwin. His partner, Robyn On, is a member of the long-term Territorian On family who owned the famous Charlie On’s Parap Road store in the past. Incidentally, Lucio’s cousin Peter and family live across the road from Lucio and Catherine in Stokes Street, Parap.
Lucio’s other cousin, Robert Matarazzo and his wife Sarah and their children also attended. Robert is a well-known accountant in Darwin. Special mention must go to Lucio’s other dear uncle, Uncle Mario and Aunty Eleanora Matarazzo. Lucio’s Aunty Eleanora created a wonderful floral arrangement at the church altar for the wedding day. Also, their children and families attended, including Lucio’s cousin, Felix Matarazzo and his wife Enza. Felix is the current President of the Darwin Italian Club. Also in attendance were Lucio’s other cousins, Gus Matarazzo and his wife Grace, and his cousin Nick Matarazzo, who lives in Darwin, and his cousin, Anna Matarazzo, who travelled here from Brisbane. Felix and Enza’s daughter, Ellie, was in Lucio’s and Catherine’s bridal party.
Catherine’s brother, Andrew Dash and his wife, Susie, and their three children also travelled from Brisbane to be at the wedding. Andrew and Susie were the best man and matron of honour in the bridal party, and their five-year-old daughter, Catherine’s niece Samantha, was a flower girl at the wedding. Andrew is a successful engineer in Brisbane.
Other members of Catherine’s family included her four uncles and aunties from her father, Keith’s side of the family; namely Catherine’s Uncle Bob and Aunty Joan Dash, Uncle Alan and Aunty Audrey Dash, Uncle John and Aunty Jan Dash and Uncle David and Aunty Willemien Dash, who all travelled from New South Wales to be here for Catherine’s and Lucio’s wedding.
Catherine’s mother, Janet’s side was well represented with Catherine’s Uncle Bob and Aunty Cecilia and their son and Catherine’s cousin, Mike, who also travelled from New South Wales.
Some of Lucio’s close friends and guests who travelled from intestate included Mr Andrew Dennard and his wife, Helen, from Adelaide. Andrew is the South Australian and Northern Territory Branch Secretary of the Australian Services Union. Also in attendance were Mr Keith Harvey and his wife, Mary, from Melbourne. Keith is the Senior National Industrial Officer form the National Office of the Australian Services Union in Melbourne.
At the cathedral, Lucio and Catherine gave thanks to a long-term Territorian, Jenny Rivett, who played the organ, and her mother, Mrs Pat Palmer, who also sang at their wedding. Both Jenny and Pat are members of the well-known Palmer family, which includes Pat’s son and former minister in the NT Assembly, Mr Mick Palmer.
After the wedding, we all moved to the wedding reception at Furlanos in Parap. At the reception, Lucio and Catherine gave special thanks to Father John Kelliher who was the celebrant who officiated at their St Mary’s Catholic Cathedral wedding. All agreed Father Kelliher performed the marriage with dignity and made it all the more enjoyable and memorable for all of us who were there.
A highlight of the reception was the spectacular lion dance performance by Mr Nathan Tam and other lion dancers from the Chung Wah Society and Darwin’s Chinese community.
Lucio and Catherine also wanted me to pass on their great thanks to Mr Alan Peckham from Uptown Entertainment who officiated as the DJ and MC at the reception; Mrs Margaret Black from Furlanos Reception Centre in Fannie Bay; Ms Colette Mann and her staff who did the catering for the reception; and Mrs Rachael De Virgilio from Rachael’s Design a Cake, who made the 1.6 m wedding cake in the shape of a church. Rachael is the daughter of former long-term Territorian Peter Chambers who is a past Electrical Trades Union official in Darwin. Peter was one of Lucio’s union mentors and is a long-time mate of both Lucio and I. Last but not least, Lucio and Catherine also gave special thanks to Chantelle the Fairy who entertained and kept approximately 20 children of guests happy with her face painting, story telling and balloon blowing at Furlanos.
Many members of this parliament know Lucio and Catherine personally, and I am sure all members of the House join with me in wishing Lucio and Catherine a very long, happy and prosperous marriage.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to put on public record my deepest sympathies and condolences to Audrey, her children and grandchildren for the loss of her dear friend and a man who worked in Aboriginal Affairs for many years, Michael ‘Mick’ Ivory, who was born in Townsville in 1926 and passed away in August 2007.
He was a real Territory treasure. He worked for years in Aboriginal communities such as Maningrida and was head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs when I started work at the age of 17 in Alice Springs. He taught many of us work ethics when we first entered the public service. There was a few of us Aboriginal girls who worked for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs back then – Peggy McMasters, Sandy and Vera Ah Chee. All I can say is that he was like a father to us within the department. He encouraged us to make sure that we worked hard - we worked in Births, Deaths and Marriages - and he offered us all the promotions and made us realise that life is not easy; that you have to work to get the things that you want. That is certainly something that he helped us achieve. I extend my condolences to Audrey and children.
I also want to talk about a lady who passed away recently at Santa Teresa who was a real family woman and committed herself to helping her family and the whole community. She worked for Medical Services and she was a real healer. I am talking about Agnes Palmer who was on renal dialysis. She also had breast cancer, but never spread the message that she was sick herself. She always gave so much to other people in grief, sorrow and pain, tried to help the community recover from the crisis that we see in our Aboriginal communities, and encourage them to strive to help themselves and send their children to school. I extend my condolences to the Palmer family of Santa Teresa.
I place on the public record my condolences to the member for Arnhem and her family. She and her family have been blessed by her dear mother who was so loving and gracious to her daughters, sons and grandchildren, but also to the community of Borroloola. Standing here tonight, I can imagine her sitting up there on the right hand side of the gallery when we were debating the McArthur River bill. This lady really taught us to walk in truth during very hard times. She gave us that encouragement and the blessing to make the right decisions. I want to say to the member for Arnhem what a great loss she was, not only to her family, but also to other members. I certainly extend this condolence to her on behalf of my people at Papunya, Mt Liebig, Kintore and Haasts Bluff.
I want to talk about the nurses, police, EOs and shop managers on communities who, during very hard times in the last seven weeks, have helped set up army tents and tried to work with the Commonwealth on the intervention. They have done it very tough. We do not show our appreciation much to these people on the ground. They are the force on the ground in some of these communities. I am grateful that, as the Northern Territory government, we have put extra money into education, police and health. I thank Bob, the local sergeant at Papunya station, who is a wonderful bloke, and Parko, the shop manager, Russell at Harts Range, and Anthony, Sid Ellison, Leo Balry, Phillip Eluca, Roxanne and Theresa.
I make a special mention of Rod and Gail who have worked as trouble shooters in lots of Aboriginal communities. They have worked in places in Western Australia at Balgo, and in the Territory at Yuendumu, Kintore and now at Papunya. They are very lovely people who have gone out of their way to ensure that the minister’s local government reform is well understood within my region, and are the leading force behind encouraging people to do it now because they see opportunities for advancing that region through the reforms. I say a special thank you to Rod and Gail. They are lovely people. Also, to Jane Achuwunga at the Resource Centre at Hermannsburg who has been a real support and encouragement, to Lyn at Harts Range, Harry Scott at Titjikala, and Neville at Finke. Of course, I cannot forget my sister, Dorrie at Mutitjulu, an absolutely wonderful woman who has stuck by our people at Mutitjulu, and Theresa Nipper at Areyonga.
There are a few things I want to put on record, one of which when the Papunya football team beat the Mighty Magpies, the member for Stuart’s team, by five goals last weekend. Up the mighty Eagles! They now have a one week break before they play in the grand final. This weekend is Santa Teresa versus Yuendumu. I would really like Yuendumu to win because that will give me encouragement to barrack for Papunya in the grand final. Last year, I could not barrack because I had two teams from my electorate playing in the grand final, so I had to keep that impartiality and not barrack for either team.
I would like to put on the public record that my son is getting married in Phuket on 7 September. I wanted to say sorry I cannot be there, and hope everything goes well. I also wish my daughter a happy 26th birthday for 27 August.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I want to talk about the wonderful achievements of people in the Johnston electorate.
News just to hand is that two students at Jingili Primary School have been recognised for their efforts in the 2007 Young Territory Author of the Year Awards. I congratulate Jessica Harpur on her Commendation Award and Koal Smith for his Encouragement Award. As we are well aware, literacy is a vital skill in today’s society and it is fantastic that these two young students have taken to writing books while still in primary school. I wish them well in their future endeavours and look forward to hearing about their further accomplishments.
I congratulate and recognise the efforts of some young sports people in the Johnston electorate. Jesse and Billy Browne of Moil have been competing in BMX and Jesse has been awarded a trophy from Satellite City BMX for the two-day Open 2007 six-year-old boys’ Sprocket Rocket. Billy received a medal for competing in the two-day open competition. Congratulations, boys, and well done.
Staying with the young sports stars of Johnston, Hayden Verity has earned himself a medal from the Darwin Dragons Rugby Union Club for participation in the Under 10s, while Jason O’Meara received a medal from the Darwin Hockey Association for playing in the 2007 Under 10 boys premiership winning side. Macon Reily, Billy Browne and Jarod Luis won trophies for their participation in the Darwin Junior Football League competition in the Dockers Under 10s team, and Matthew Wells won the Best and Fairest award for the Darwin Dockers Under 10s team in the Darwin Junior Football League.
I also mention a young sportswoman with exceptional talent, Grace Fuller. Grace has won seven medals in the NT Surf Lifesaving Championships held in Darwin recently. Grace won gold in both the Under 10s beach sprint and beach flags. She was second in the Cameron event, which involves the board, running and swimming, and more running - so plenty of activity in that event. She was second in the 200 m swim and third in the boards and mixed relay. What a fantastic result for a young girl. Keep up the good work, Grace. All these young competitors go to school at Moil Primary School. It is an excellent school with a lot of participation in sport and, of course, academic studies.
I must also mention the great work again being done at Jingili Primary School in raising awareness of the plight of orphaned children in Timor Leste. The Student Representative Council is showing some real imagination in their fundraising. Last year, it was exercise books, the year before shoe boxes filled with school material and, this year, they are collecting balls, any size, any shape, new or old. The SRC has set up a collection point in the foyer of the school, and not only are they advertising in the school newsletter, but they have been writing personal letters to people like me to encourage support. Well done, and I am more than happy, of course, to support them. The balls are collected and the SRC will attempt to have them delivered to Lea Lau School in Timor Leste, although they recognise this might be difficult due to inclement weather in the later part of the year and the ongoing unrest in East Timor. However, I am assured that every effort will be made to get the balls over to Timor Leste for distribution to needy children and schools. I commend the Student Representative Council and, indeed, the Jingili School community for their sustained efforts to create a better life for the orphans and underprivileged children in East Timor.
I also take the opportunity tonight to talk about three women who have recently retired from the Department of Health and Community Services after a total of more than 76 years service between them. The three recent retirees are Leonie Bean, Jennifer Gough and Kaye Rolfe.
Leonie Bean has made a mighty contribution over many years to the Department of Health and Community Services. Leonie was farewelled at the function held at the Gove District Hospital on 16 May this year after 20 years of service. Leonie commenced work in the Maternity Ward of Gove District Hospital in 1986 as an enrolled nurse. During the course of her employment at Gove District Hospital, Leonie worked in the Paediatric Ward, and in the Medical and Surgical Wards before transferring to the Emergency Department and the Specialist Clinics, where she remained until she retired.
In 2000, Leonie was elected to the NT Nurses Board for a period of four years and was endorsed in this role as one of a minority of enrolled nurses. Leonie has always had a very special bond with the Yolgnu people of Eastern Arnhem Land. She is highly regarded by the local people who look to her for support regarding health and personal issues, and she is often asked to attend special ceremonies. Leonie has been adopted into a well know Yolgnu family in Yirrkala, and I am sure members join me in wishing Leonie all the best in retirement.
Similarly, Jennifer Gough has made a mighty contribution, particularly at Royal Darwin Hospital, over many years of service. On 7 June this year, Jennifer retired from Royal Darwin Hospital after more than 20 years of service. Jennifer was engaged as a registered nurse and worked in a range of departments in Royal Darwin Hospital during her employment, including Pathology, Mental Health, Workforce Support, and operating theatres. Over the past six years, Jennifer worked tirelessly, undertaking scouting and scrub duties, but mostly in Anaesthetics.
Jennifer has been a dedicated nurse and a valuable staff member who worked hard to provide high standards of patient care with her drive and enthusiasm, which I am sure will be sorely missed within the hospital. Jennifer was also a campaigner for occupational health and safety and, at one stage, was a member of the Royal Darwin Hospital Occupational Health and Safety Committee. I am sure all members join me tonight in wishing her the best in her retirement.
Another mighty contribution is the one Kaye Rolfe has made to the Department of Health and Community Services. Kaye retired from the department on 10 August after 36 years of service. She commenced as a registered nurse at Royal Darwin Hospital in 1971 in the Intensive Care Unit and worked in various other areas during her time there.
After Cyclone Tracy in 1974, Kaye transferred to the Darwin Community Health Nursing Team. Always conscientious about professional development, she obtained her Midwifery Certificate in 1976 and, subsequently, completed her audiometry training. For the past 23 years, Kaye has been a nurse audiometrist in hearing services in Community Health.
Kaye provided a valuable service to Top End people over this period, and she has been a strong advocate for hearing issues. She has been extensively involved with indigenous health in both urban and remote settings. Kaye has played a supporting role for other audiometrists in the hearing services.
Kaye is an avid animal lover and hopes to support the RSPCA and other agencies during her retirement. She is also a keen walker, and residents of Nakara will have seen her over the years as she pounded the pavement on her 5 km walk every day, I am advised. Kaye is taking long service leave, and will then proceed to retirement.
I thank Leonie, Jennifer and Kaye for their contribution to health services, and wish them long and happy retirements.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker I close, once again, highlighting the achievements of the people in the Johnston electorate, and commending the great contribution over many years from three wonderful ladies to the Department of Health and Community Services.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I congratulate all schools and students involved in the Northern Zone Athletics Carnival at Marrara. It was great to see such strong competition. The students thoroughly enjoyed themselves. It was a friendly competition, and a very successful afternoon put together by the great efforts of Paulina Motlop whom I have known for many years as a PE teacher at Manunda Terrace Primary School. She has recently stepped up to the elevated position of running the physical education competitions across the zone and is doing a magnificent job.
This year, there was an unusual result. Normally, there are two awards given out at the end of the carnival. One is the handicap perpetual award, which is the Delia Lawrie Shield, and the other is the overall winners, which is the Len Kiely Shield. Normally, you do not see the same school taking out both awards. However, it was an exceptional year this year and the little school nestled away in my electorate which punches above its weight consistently – they have taken out a national literacy award in the past, for example - Manunda Terrace Primary School took out both the handicap and overall winners. It was a real feather in the cap of the PE staff at Manunda Terrace Primary. My congratulations go to all of the students who participated. Well done to Bill Armstrong, the principal, who is immensely proud of his students, I am sure, and the dedicated hard-working staff at Manunda.
At Karama, we have a strong sense of community and there is a small, but cohesive, band of people who turn up every month to the Neighbourhood Watch meeting. Marion, the quiet achiever, is the Area Coordinator, and Joe and Heleneare there, solid as a rock, at every meeting. We have organised fun days during some previous years, and last year we had our first information day at the Karama Shopping Centre. Neighbour Watch decided they wanted to repeat the information day so we had a range of store holders providing information to members of the community, and it was very successful. I thank Marion, Joe, and Helene for their enormous efforts. They are residents living out a nice existence in Karama, but they are very community-minded and spirited people - solid, quiet achievers.
I take the time also to thank Kevin Cluley who has been actively involved with his wife, Rita, in Neighbourhood Watch. Kevin is a very quiet, gentle man, a retiree whom I know is very actively involved in his local community. Kevin was encouraged by our local Neighbourhood Watch team to step up to a Neighbourhood Watch Board position. Anyone who knows Kevin knows he is not the sort of person to put himself up like that, but he took on the efforts of our local Neighbourhood Watch and stepped up to board membership. He attended quite a few board meetings and really put in the hard yards at Neighbourhood Watch Board level.
He and his wife do a fair amount of travel as they are retirees. They are part of the grey nomad army at times, and so Kevin has had to step down from board membership because of his travel commitments to visit family around Australia. My thanks go to Kevin for the significant effort he made in Neighbourhood Watch. He is a great man for fair and democratic processes, and he really was a clarion call within the Neighbourhood Watch group about what is a fair and democratic way to approach the very community-spirited band of residents who are the heart and soul of the Neighbourhood Watch committees from throughout the Territory. Kevin, thank you for taking on a task that I know you were a bit reticent to do, but you did it extremely well. We are very proud of you and hope you enjoy your travels with your lovely wife, Rita.
I acknowledge a wonderful celebration last week. On Saturday night, the Catholic community of Karama gathered and celebrated the 20th birthday of O’Loughlin College. It is a fantastic Catholic college and it was quite amazing to see its growth over time. They had a great photo display there of the school at its various stages of growth. When they opened 20 years ago, they had a cohort of about 90 students. They are expecting in the vicinity of 700 to 800 students next year with the advent of middle schools and the Grade 7s moving up from Holy Spirit and Holy Family and other local primary schools.
The college has really gone from strength to strength. There have been great principals over the years. I sat next to their first principal, Ian Hunter who, with his lovely wife, came up for the occasion, and it was lovely to meet him. It was really nice to see that Gary Griffiths was over from Nguiu. He was a principal at O’Loughlin and now runs the school at Nguiu. It was great to see him and his lovely wife, Cathy. Lester Lemke is the principal of the school now. I have to say Lester is a dynamic school principal. He has a history of having been at St John’s and was the Deputy Principal at Darwin High School for some years, and has an interesting blend of the private Catholic and public school experience. He has been a dynamic, driving force in organising the move to middle schools for O’Loughlin College. It has been a real pleasure to work with Lester. I am a huge fan of the genuine concern he shows the students of the school, the care and the way he works with the teachers and the administrative staff. He has been a leader in the school community in creating stronger links with the junior school on the campus, Holy Family School. In that sense, he has been ably assisted by the new Principal at Holy Family School, Marty Ogle, who is a very gentle man but a man of vision and great energy. Certainly, those schools are looking forward to an exciting middle schools introduction next year.
On the subject of middle schools, I pay tribute to the hard work being done by Russell Legg at Sanderson High School. Sanderson High School, as Russell is fond of pointing out to me, will have a whole new school cohort next year. It will be very interesting to see the way the school dynamics change with Years 7s, 8s and 9s there. Russell is well known to parents in the area. He was Principal at Malak Primary School for some years. Having come from a primary feeder school into Sanderson High, he has a real appreciation of the pastoral care in which the Years 7s, 8s and 9s need to be enveloped to make the middle school as successful as it can be.
I am very confident about Sanderson High being an exceptional middle school next year because Russell has put in a huge effort, both in positioning the school well for the change to middle school but, importantly, working with the feeder primary schools in the area. He has a good working relationship with Marg Fenbury at Karama and Bill Armstrong at Manunda. It is really encouraging to see the way the school principals are pulling together and planning for the introduction of middle schools. They are all strong capable schools. Paul Nyhuis, who is the new Principal at Malak Primary, has significant middle school experience, having come from a middle school system in the US and operated successfully at Kormilda College before he took up the leadership at Malak Primary.
In education options within my electorate in the northern suburbs, we are extremely well blessed both with the dynamic leadership I am seeing at the public school and the very progressive leadership I am seeing within the Catholic school system. To showcase the various schools in the community and to start parents’ minds thinking about middle schools, I am hosting a Malak Fun Day next weekend. There will be schools with displays, students performing and we will have the people who make up Malak village, for example, the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory.
I must also thank the team at Browns Mart. They have set up a community arts project at Malak. To Bon Ramilo and his team, thank you for coming into the Malak village, as I like to call it, where we have a range of non-government organisations providing services directly to the community at Malak. They will all be coming out and be a part of the community celebrations, but there will be a core focus on middle schools and the opportunities and choices the parents will be making pretty well now because enrolments are flowing thick and fast around the school communities across the northern suburbs.
To all those people who get in there and do the hard work, thank you very much. I feel very privileged as local member to work closely with you. I know they do not hesitate to call me or e-mail me if anything is happening that they need any assistance with. I am starting to lose track of the number of donations I make towards sausages for sizzles. The local childcare centres have me on constant tap now for either a donation towards a jumping castle or sausages for sizzles for their fundraisers. It is one of the wonderful aspects of being a local member; to be able to support the community-based efforts that occur within our neighbourhood.
Karama and Malak have a nice demographic mix of people who are in public housing and looking for better opportunities in life, young families who have just bought into their first home, as well as the more established families that have been in the suburb since it was first developed more than 20 years ago, and who are fascinating to listen to about how they have seen it develop over the years. We have a nice cohort of senior citizens, and the women and men of the Malak Seniors Group have had a lot of good times and will continue to have good times. They came here to Parliament House to celebrate Seniors Month. I hosted a lunch for them out on Speaker’s Green and they were absolutely thrilled. It was the first time that they have had a lunch hosted for them at Parliament House. We had a beautiful range of meals for them and they got stuck into the wine and had a great time. They are looking forward to next year’s Seniors Month, actually. Each year, I have to think of something else for them. They have had excursions to see crocodiles and all manner of activities over the years. I confess it is getting tougher, but they are full of bright suggestions and good ideas, so I look forward to next year’s Seniors Month.
I want to thank Merilyn Krink who organises the Malak Seniors Group. She does a great job with her daughter assisting her. It is unpaid, volunteer work. She is there every week, organising and serving meals to a group of our seniors. They do not just come from the area of Malak; they come from right across the northern suburbs. Merilyn is a very generous soul, and is a real example to the rest of us of how personally rewarding it can be to contribute to your community and the welfare of our senior citizens.
I am under a bit of a pressure; they want me to put on a pink party again. They do like my annual fundraiser for Dragons Abreast. I have told them that we will be having it. It is going to be a bit later in the year than we normally have it, but the seniors love the pink party because they have access to a significant wine tasting, and they really do enjoy their wine tasting. It is a highlight on their social calendar each year. I have promised them that the pink party will be on again this year. It will be the third year in a row. Like every other year, the proceeds will go to Dragons Abreast.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I first extend congratulations - and I am sure it is on behalf of all members of the Chamber - to the member for Greatorex who will be married this weekend. He is to be married in Alice Springs and I am sure I join with all honourable members to wish him all the very best on his marriage.
Dr Burns: Hear, hear! All the best.
Ms Lawrie: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: After his first two weeks in parliament, he will come back with a band of gold on his finger at the next sittings in October.
Tonight, my aim is to conclude the overview of my time in Taiwan, and that which has been learnt from the trip and what was confirmed through observations that have been followed up since then.
As I said last night, the fascinating and complex political nature of affairs as they surround Taiwan are a good feel for a greater insight into foreign affairs and, more importantly and topically, a better opportunity to understand China because no insight or understanding of China, which has fascinated commentators for years, is complete without an understanding of Taiwan.
Last night, I was telling the history, particularly from 1949 when the last remaining Nationalists fled across the strait to Taiwan, taking with them nearly a million refugees. That was a stalemate: Mao Zedong and the Communists on the mainland established the People’s Republic of China, and the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek on Taiwan. The plan of the Communists was never completely satisfied because the Nationalists remained with their eyes back on the mainland.
Time has moved on, but what happened in Taiwan is that Chiang Kai-shek maintained martial law in Taiwan. I thought that Chiang Kai-shek and the Chinese all went across to Taiwan and that was that, but there was a thriving and very complex and interesting society in Taiwan at that time. It was not initially a Chinese colony. There were the Austronesian language groups there, the Aboriginal and original inhabitants of Taiwan, with its history back with the Portuguese and Dutch. The influx of refugees under Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists - Taiwan was under Nationalist control prior to that, but in 1949 when they all moved across to Taiwan - was a terrible time for Taiwan. With that influx of soldiers who had been fighting against the Communists for so many years, Chiang Kai-shek had complete and total control over Taiwan, and it was brutal at times. That is something I did not know. We often look at Mao Zedong and his totalitarian rule over China under the Communists; it was the same on Taiwan. The only thing that distinguished them was the fact that they were totally opposed politically, but in every other respect they were the same in their dealing with the people. Both were totalitarian states.
Power was transferred from Chiang Kai-shek to his son, Chiang Ching-kuo but, under the reign of the son of Chiang Kai-shek, there began a move to political reform. The Kuomintang, which was the political face of the Nationalists, began to move towards political reform and decided to go down the path of democratisation.
The first and partial lift of martial law allowed for the first time development of a semi-open society. When the first elections where held, an opposing party won the election for the first time in 50 years, and the first President was Lee Teng-hui. That full and open election was in March 2000. The Kuomintang is still a very strong political force there; they are like the conservatives. The Blue Party, the Democratic Progressive Party, the DPP, still holds power today after the second election.
The Taiwanese are very proud of their democracy. Their parliament is incredibly robust. We have exchanges here; the Taiwanese laugh about the robustness of debate within their Chamber, so much so there have been assaults when people get so angry in holding their points of view. They are very proud of it because they see it as democracy in action, even though it is quite robust and a little embarrassing at times. They are so proud of democracy and the fact that, as a nation, they have moved towards a position where they have a parliament, unlike the giant neighbour that threatens them, which has not moved down the path of political reform, although they have moved on the path of economic reform, way behind Taiwan. In respect of political reform, Taiwan has runs on the board, and mainland China, the People’s Republic of China, does not.
I do not intend to spend too much time referring in detail to the human rights concerns that exist in China - and they are significant. We have this history sitting behind the scenes with political reform in recent times, but the underlying issue of unresolved grievance between the Communists and the Nationalists affecting and influencing current policy is evident today. It has resulted in an interesting political position for the rest of the world because, behind China’s strength, lobbying and arguments, some of which are sound, sits an unresolved historic grievance which has influenced current policy.
By way of background, without going too far into it, the Australian government’s policy towards Taiwan is based on a joint communiqu of 21 December 1972 between Australia and the People’s Republic of China. Under the terms of that communiqu, Australia recognises the government of the People’s Republic of China as China’s sole legal government, and acknowledges the position of the Chinese government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China. That is a position which Taiwan does not accept, but is now the official position which the Australian government has endorsed.
Australia, therefore, does not accept that the authorities in Taiwan, who claim to be the Republic of China, have the status of a national government. This policy has been adhered to by Australian governments since 1972. Prior to that, there was an unusual situation where Taiwan was regarded as the official government of China, which is a fascinating psychological and political manifestation of that historic position. At that point, both effectively were dictatorships but, since that time, Taiwan has moved on along the path of political reform which opens up all sorts of possibilities.
What does that mean for the Northern Territory? What sort of practical dealings can we have in the face of the joint communiqu of 21 December 1972? Interestingly, there is great trade and liaison between Australia and Taiwan; it is quite permissible. There are certain protocols that must be observed at the national level, but government business enterprises and other commercial and independent agencies may deal freely with Taiwan on commercial matters.
This is what I observed in my initial analysis of Taiwan, and why I am attracted to Taiwan. I am attracted to the political issues and finding my own principled position of where I stand on that matter. However, I found that when it comes to state and territory governments, they are in a unique position. Since contact between state and territory governments and Taiwan do not, in principle, touch on issues of national sovereignty, they can exercise flexibility in how they conduct their unofficial relations with Taiwan. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is able to provide practical advice to state and territory governments on managing China/Taiwan issues that may arise from time to time.
If anyone has an interest in China or Taiwan, I encourage them to pursue it. It is very interesting because it provides great insights into how foreign affairs are conducted and it gives you insights into how the affairs within our region work. That issue has its influence right across all of our trading partners. The Territory has plenty of opportunities because Taiwan, especially at present, is overshadowed by the larger economies of its neighbours, particularly mainland China and Japan. It does, nonetheless, boast a dynamic, middle income, regional economy with many leading high-edge sectors. It has such potential that it considers its economy to be under-performing at its current growth rate of 4.5%. In fact, Taiwan’s economy is stronger, more diverse, more technologically advanced and more important than many Australians realise. It is an ideal, long-term trading partner for Australia and Australian companies, offering many opportunities as its economy moves towards full maturity and greater prosperity.
If I have enough time, I will talk about some of the local opportunities but, broadly speaking, Taiwan offers tremendous opportunities for the Territory. It is, as the Territory often describes itself, a niche market. We try to take on China and, in fact, China is making its approaches to the Territory. Taiwan, I argue, is like a niche market that we could relate to. It is very robust and very diverse. We are resource rich and that is one of the reasons they invited me. They did not know much about the Northern Territory and were very interested to learn about what the Territory could offer in resources. One of reasons was an opportunity for education and indigenous learning particularly, but I will go onto that if I have sufficient time.
In summary, in economic opportunities, with Taiwan’s economic structure, the level of development, the opportunity it offers, it is very different from China. Compared with China, the investment climate in Taiwan is relatively low risk. The operating environment for business in Taiwan is sound and the government is continuing to implement laws to improve it. It is very important for anyone who has had any dealings with economies and businesses outside Australia. It is a secure working environment. The financial sector has seen considerable liberalisation over the past few years. Taiwan has a well-developed legal and regulatory system and the Taiwan government has enacted a number of laws ensuring the protection of intellectual property rights.
I urge any Territory business and the Territory government to consider ways by which we can seek opportunity for trade benefits between the Territory and Taiwan. One that is being explored and will be developed is links between Charles Darwin University and Fu-Jen University in Taipei. They visited here nearly a year ago. I had the opportunity to visit them whilst I was over there. Dialogue has continued between Charles Darwin and Fu-Jen Universities. I look forward to bringing further reports as to how the link between the universities progresses because there is great interest on the Taiwan side and they are considering formalising their links with Charles Darwin University.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about an issue in my electorate; namely the recent signing of the 99-year lease on the Tiwi Islands. This has been quite a long saga of what people deem to be negotiations and consultations on the island. Particularly from the land council’s perspective, and others, the Tiwis have always wanted to be the first to enter into this brave new world of 99-year leases.
When it was first mooted about two years ago, there were many fears held by traditional owners and other groups on Tiwi at the thought of handing over what is their ownership of their country for 100 years - you might as well say 100 years despite the lease being a 99-year one.
Over this time, I have seen a lot of courage that you normally would not see among my people, particularly the women who have stood up and questioned the process and how negotiations have happened. For the first time, women, who normally would not have been involved in these processes, were coming forward and grappling with the concept. For a long time, everyone accepted that the Tiwi Land Council was the authority on land and negotiations for land so, for years, no one questioned the projects and development that the Tiwi Land Council entered into. That certainly changed over the last one or two years, with emerging young leaders who could see that many of these projects had been fraught with problems.
They questioned them, and I have seen the aftermath of many meetings when people have been threatened and totally intimidated. Non-indigenous people who have lived over there for a long time, non-Tiwis, were taken into rooms and told that they were not to provide any advice or talk to Tiwis in relation to these 99-year leases. They were threatened that their contracts would be revoked and they would be sent off the island. The two years of this project have been fraught.
For me, as a Tiwi person, it has been quite an emotional rollercoaster. I was brought up by a very strong Tiwi mother with the belief that Tiwi are one people, one language and there is never any dispute about whether you are Tiwi or not; if you fit in to a skin group, that is your right and inheritance so there has never been any dispute. In the last two years, the issue of the 99-year lease has certainly divided my people like no other issue has ever divided us. It has been quite sad to watch the divisions that have been slowly creeping in among some of the men from the land council versus some of the young leaders, with women caught in between.
No one is disputing that in our communities, we have to change things, that we can no longer stay in the same rut and not have progress in communities. I have said very clearly that I am not against development per se or the communities moving forward but, when you see a project that has been fraught with problems and the process is so wrong that it excludes people, as the local member and a Tiwi, I have every right to question. Like many of the women, my questions have been dismissed and not listened to.
Out of all of this there has been one, I suppose, traditional owner, Adam Kerinaiua, who has been questioning that. I take my hat off to Kilapawu Puruntatameri, who is one of the most senior female traditional owners from the Mantiyupwigroup who, despite some of her people signing the first agreement to go ahead with the 99-year lease, could see that this was problematic and resisted proceeding with the signing until she was satisfied that all of her questions had been answered by the Commonwealth and the Tiwi Land Council to the extent that she would feel comfortable signing away her rights as a traditional owner for 99 years.
Kilapawu is not a stupid woman. This is a woman who was the principal of the school over there for many years. She is very well educated, went to Monash University and is a qualified teacher. She tried to work through this process but, not being able to get the basic answers to questions that were being asked by people, she was never comfortable with the signing of the lease. Even today, when the land council signed the agreement, the questions that Kilapawu and many of the Tiwi people have about the 99-year lease are left unanswered.
It is disappointing. It is sad when you have a federal minister who is prepared to sign an agreement when he knows that this project has been fraught for many years and contradicts everything that he has said about this intervention. I said to Mal Brough over many meetings on the Tiwi Islands - where he has called my people the trailblazers - that this is an island that has the highest suicide rate in Australia, four times the national average, where sexual abuse is rife and there is evidence of that, and where there are real issues with alcohol abuse in the community. He misses an opportunity to try to get a proper agreement in place that puts the responsibility back on the community to deal with some of the fundamental issues that are crippling that community.
Entering into a 99-year lease and opening that community up and saying we are open for business for all and sundry is not going to deal with the underlying issues that are in that community. The Tiwis know that there are problems. A lot of the women want to see change, but not in the way that is being proposed by the Tiwi Land Council or the federal government.
Today, we saw the signing of that lease. It is unfortunate that they have gone ahead without full approval or agreement by all the traditional owners. I question and wonder why it is that the most significant agreement for the Tiwis - and the first ever 99-year lease that has been signed in the Northern Territory on ALRA land - was signed in a community away from the very community that will be affected. Why was that lease signed today? The chairman of the land council was unaware that the signing was happening today. That is another question. Why were the majority or a number of land council men who were questioned and asked about the signing of the lease not present at that meeting, nor did they have any knowledge of the lease being signed today?
There are a number of questions as to why the lease was signed today, away from Nguiu when the majority of the Mantiyupwi, who are the traditional owners of Nguiu, were not present at all at the signing of the lease. These are questions that need to be answered. I said today that I would be writing to the Chairman of the Tiwi Land Council and to all members to seek a meeting with the land council to ascertain information in relation to that.
The complex nature of the leasing proposal required clear explanation of the issues, and that has never been done. Whatever legal information was given to the Tiwis, there was never any funding given for Tiwi interpreters to be able to explain to people what those processes are. The federal government funded the land council to put in place a process to enable this dissemination and breakdown of the information. That has never been carried out to date. The Commonwealth agency that has been doing all the negotiations and all the media releases, that have gone out congratulating the land council and the Tiwi people, make a mockery of democracy. People are entitled to have a say and some input to the process. My heart goes out to all of the women, particularly, who have questioned this proposal, who have stood united against this happening and whose voices have been lost once again.
This is just a typical day in communities, and nothing much has changed. Women’s voices are lost amongst the greed of men and the need for these blokes to pat themselves on the back and say that they have done a wonderful job.
However, having said that, if this is what the traditional owners want, I wish them all the best. There are going to be many divisions for many years to come. I do not think everyone is 100% supportive of this. I will be raising my issues with the land council in the hope that we are still able to work through them. The land council seriously needs to look at itself internally because every project that they have ever put there hands on has been fraught with problems. This is something that the federal government has failed to address over time. I hope Mal Brough wakes up before it is too late.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016