2008-05-07
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 3 Leanyer Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Fran Selvadurai, who are participating in the Parliament of the Birds. On behalf of honourable members I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KNIGHT (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, last Monday saw the conclusion of yet another magnificent XXXX Gold Alice Springs Cup Carnival with the running of the feature event at Pioneer Park. I was fortunate enough to attend many of the Cup Carnival events during my various trips over the last few weeks to Alice Springs. I can honestly say that Alice Springs really knows how to put on a show.
I attended the Young Guns meeting for a great day of socialising mixed in with some low key punting on the Cleanaway Quality Handicap amongst other races. I was unable to attend the Ladies Day. I am told that it was a fabulous event with spectacular fashions and great food and entertainment. I believe there was actually some racing on that day as well.
Congratulations to trainer, Merv Rumble, jockey, Craig Moon, and the connections of Swepscay, the winner of the Redbank Wines WFA Chief Minister’s Cup.
Last weekend, Alice Springs was the place to be if you are into socialising. The Racing minister’s cocktail party on Friday evening was a huge success. It was a pleasure to be there with the Racing minister to meet many of the locals and visitors to Alice Springs and to absorb the racing fever.
The William Inglis & Son Red Centre Yearling Sale followed and, although the number of the horses up for grabs was down a little on previous years, over $105 000 in total changed hands on the night which was a great effort and a great way to finish off an excellent night.
Saturday’s family fun day was just another highlight and many hundreds of mums, dads and kids enjoyed beautiful weather and great hospitality of the Alice Springs Turf Club, Coleman’s Printing, the Gillen Club and Buslink.
The Lisa Lefoe trained Periduki, a product of the Alice Springs yearling sales, took out the feature, the Lasseters Hotel Casino Pioneer Sprint. Congratulations to Lisa and jockey, Justin Potter, and all the owners on a wonderful and convincing win.
Saturday night was the Alice Springs Cup Ball, a truly magnificent event with over 400 guests. A big crowd of over 2200 people turned up for the Cup Day on Monday. Locals were dressed in their finery and it was a good example of the diversity within the Alice Springs population. The feature event, the XXXX Gold Alice Springs Cup, was won by Tradesmen’s Choice, which was magnificently ridden by Dominic Tourneur.
I acknowledge Alan Rowe again - it was good to catch up with him - who did a great job for Lion Nathan; and to Lion Nathan for supporting the Alice Springs Cup Carnival and the Alice Springs Turf Club. In fact, to all the sponsors: your generous support for racing in the Centre is greatly appreciated by this government, by racing patrons throughout the Territory and by the Alice Springs public.
Thanks to Karen Jones, who worked tirelessly throughout the Cup Carnival to raise money for the Leukaemia Foundation, the chosen charity of the Alice Springs Turf Club. Your commitment and your energy to charitable causes is magnificent. Our community would be all the poorer without people like you.
I congratulate Andrew O’Toole, Carley Plume and Turf Club Chairman, Paul Bain, for a magnificent effort in working the seemingly endless hours to make this such a memorial carnival. It is the dedication of people like this that make Alice Springs such a great place.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the report - the first report for the Minister for Central Australia, I believe, in his new portfolio. Congratulations on that. Yes, it certainly was a great weekend - in fact, a great five-week carnival; the first time the carnival has been held over five weeks, including the Family Fun Day, Food and Wine Day, the Young Guns Day and, of course, the Cup Carnival Day and Ladies Day.
I congratulate my Electorate Officer, Karen Berry, who took out Fashions on the Field that day, Ladies Day ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: She did, she did. It was fantastic.
I am not sure if the minister was at the lunch. I know you may have arrived in the afternoon, but the lunch kicked off the whole weekend on Friday afternoon. That was terrific, too. It was sponsored by XXXX Gold, the Turf Club and Lasseter’s Hotel Casino with Darren Lehman and Kerry O’Keeffe, who always does a fantastic job, who was the guest speaker. Wayne Phillips did a terrific job all weekend as the MC.
As you said, Alan Rowe and the guys from XXXX Gold are very committed to the Alice Springs Turf Club, Pioneer Park, since they won the contract off Foster’s a few years ago. They have been going hammer and tongs turning it into a real event. Pioneer Park, essentially, has become a real place to go for Central Australians. It is an event and a day out these days, rather than a one-off spot to go during Cup Day or the Cup Carnival.
I believe they have about 35 or 36 races a year at Pioneer Park. This year also featured the Greatorex Classic, the first race of the Alice Springs Cup Carnival. They kicked off the whole carnival with the Greatorex Classic. That was won by Gold Magic, which was owned by Ken Rogerson.
All in all, minister, well done - great to see you down there. Congratulations on your first report as Minister for Central Australia. Congratulations to all involved: Andrew O’Toole, the Turf Club, Carley Plume and Alan Rowe from XXXX Gold.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, yes, it was a good weekend. Unfortunately, I was still suffering from the flu so I missed out on it.
The Alice Springs Turf Club is growing, and that is what is important; that it is not stagnant. We need to say commiserations to the member for Nhulunbuy because I believe his horse came seventh. We have to admit that he is still in there plugging away, and that is good news.
It was not just the Cup Carnival that was on at the weekend. We had the Bangtail Muster as well. I hope you managed to get to see a little of that because it is always great. The Teppa Hill Preschool in my electorate took out the float award and we had all those utes that had come from all over the place, including Les Smith’s ute from Kulgera that he brought in. I hate to say this - probably many people in this House are too young to remember the old FJ utes. Still, it does not matter, they were great.
Mr Wood: FJ - no, I cannot remember that.
Mrs BRAHAM: Oh, the fellow behind me seems to think he was too young.
As well as that, the Alice Springs netball team was away competing in Victoria. It is great that they have a representative team from netball. As you know, I am patron of that. We need to say something about netball because over 1000 players are there every Saturday. It must be one of the most represented sports in Alice Springs. You had 2000 people at the races; just come down to the netball courts and you will see 1000 people playing netball, which is great. Perhaps, the minister for Sports might get down there one day to see that.
Alice Springs is alive and doing well; it is buoyant. I believe that people really get behind it and enjoy things such as the Cup Carnival. No, I did not get an invitation to the reception.
Mr KNIGHT (Central Australia): We will make sure that is fixed up next year.
Ms Carney: Will you be around next time?
Mr KNIGHT: I will be there.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I support the member’s comments about the netball, 1050 members there. I was there for the launch of the season and a great rematch for the grand final. It was a great event.
Alice Springs really does punch above its weight. With a population of 30 000 people they really do punch above their weight. The show they put on for the race carnival was very impressive, a great crowd turned up, and the Fashions on the Field were incredible. I would like to thank some people who gave me some good advice over the weekend; I am much wiser for it, but I am much poorer for it: Matt Benson, Marc Loader, Jared Wapper and Crafty who gave me some good advice.
I was really doing quite well with the Cup over the few weeks. I was up quite a bit, but I had to support my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, so I came back about square for the whole weekend. It was a great event for Central Australia.
Mr BONSON (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the Northern Territory Public Sector Trainees and Apprenticeships Program and inform the House of the latest graduation successes.
The NTPS Apprenticeship Program provides approximately 100 government traineeship placements per annum. Government traineeships like this deliver for Territory families and it is about investing in our future.
In January and February, 50 NTPS apprentices completed their traineeships and obtained their qualifications. The program supports diversity and regional employment. Of our recent graduates, 25% are indigenous Territorians; 22% live and work in regional centres; and 92% are under the age of 25. The NTPS Apprenticeship Program achieves an 80% completion rate, with most of the apprentices moving on to good jobs and careers after their traineeship. Of the recent group, around 53% have secured ongoing work with the Northern Territory Public Service; six of them are considering further study; and the remainder have sought employment in the private sector with high success rates.
This group of apprentices has undertaken a diverse range of studies including business (office administration), aquaculture, retail, travel, events management, multimedia, horticulture, conservation and land management, and information technology. The graduating apprentices have spent the past 12 to 36 months doing a mix of on-the-job and off-the-job training.
On 30 January 2008, my predecessor, Elliot McAdam, attended the Darwin graduation ceremony and presented certificates of attainment and qualification to 24 Darwin graduate apprentices. Graduation ceremonies have been held in all major Territory centres to publicly acknowledge the efforts of each apprentice. The youngest graduating trainee was just 16-years-old when he commenced his apprenticeship in information technology. Our oldest trainee will be 39 when she receives her Certificate III in Business (Office Administration).
A highlight of the Darwin ceremony includes reflections from two of the apprentices. They spoke of their personal journey and what the program meant to them. Rory Milner told how he had not expected his placement with the Department of Justice to provide stress, boredom and excitement all in just a single hour. Roy went on to tell how the apprenticeship program has provided him with the motivation to go to university to seek a career in engineering. Samantha Brittain, spoke highly of her work colleagues in all three job rotations within Northern Territory Treasury. She also credited her apprenticeship training for building her confidence in public speaking and for improving her capacity to recognise her strengths.
The announcement of Jobs Plan 3 in 2007 provided continuity for the NTPS Apprenticeship Program. Under Jobs Plan 3, additional focus has been placed on regional and remote employment, including indigenous and disadvantaged Territorians. Around 100 apprenticeship opportunities will be offered each year over the two year program. The Department of Health and Community Services’ Aboriginal Health Worker Program and the Department of Employment, Education and Training’s Indigenous Education Worker Program have successfully created new and sustainable opportunities for local people in remote Territory towns.
The NTPS Apprenticeship Program is being offered again this year. To date, 33 trainees have been employed in remote Territory centres, ranging from Elcho Island and Gapuwiyak, to Hermannsburg and Willowra. NTPS apprenticeships have provided a valuable training ground for Territorians and are a source of future skilled employees for both the public and private sectors.
I acknowledge that the success of this program relies not only on the motivation of the participants themselves, but also on the capacity of the program coordinators. Northern Territory government workplace supervisors, agency early-career coordinators, DCIS Training and Employment programs unit, Regional Training Authorities and the contracted service provider, Group Training Northern Territory, are all integral to the success of the program and their contributions are to be applauded.
The NTPS Apprenticeship Program highlights the contribution of this government to skills development of the Northern Territory through its greatest resource, its people. Madam Speaker, we are a government committed to delivering for Territory families and investing in our future.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report this morning. I hope when all these traineeships are finalised, the regions will significantly benefit. It is especially important for the regions. I note the minister’s report.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on training young people for working in the public service. There is a good opportunity, whether we demolish the prison or put the prison somewhere else, to look at the regions. Having low security prison farms in Katherine and Tennant Creek would open up opportunities for people in those communities to become involved as Community Correctional Officers. There is a program already in place for indigenous people to be involved in Corrections. It would be great to place the low security prison farms or something similar in those regions, especially for employment and for indigenous people who might not have opportunities in those towns unless they move to Darwin or Alice Springs. That is one facet the government should look at. I support any move to have low security prisons in Katherine and Tennant Creek.
Mr BONSON (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I note the observations of the members for Katherine and Nelson. They have a keen interest in employment in remote, rural and regional areas as we do. The Northern Territory Public Service Apprenticeship Graduation Scheme definitely provides this opportunity. As minister, I have seen that the program has the capacity to help increase job opportunities in remote areas. I am committed to informing members of those opportunities. I make that offer to you now: we will provide information relating to the queries you have raised and keep you updated on the potential for Katherine and other regions, and the identification of job opportunities as described by the member for Nelson.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I report on the work being done to attract skilled overseas migrants to live and work here. As all members are aware, there is a skills and labour shortage in the Territory; as there is across the country. Training of Territorians is a key priority of this government.
While the main coordinator of all government action on training is DEET, within my Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development we have the Skilled Migration Services Program. My department works with Territory employers to raise their awareness of the migration options available, to facilitate recruitment of skilled workers from overseas, and the process and procedures they must follow. We also act to raise the profile of the Northern Territory with prospective overseas migrants in key source countries and to encourage them to choose the Northern Territory as their new home.
Last month, the Northern Territory participated in the 2008 Australia Needs Skills Expo in London. This expo specifically targeted skilled overseas people whose occupations had been identified as being in shortage in Australia. Participation in the Australia Needs Skills Expo allowed the Territory to take advantage of the Australia brand and the Commonwealth’s extensive print, radio and electronic marketing of the event. As a result, some 4700 invitations were issued to attend the weekend event. Despite the poor weather conditions that prevailed on the second day of the Expo, over 3300 people attended. All Australian state and territory governments were represented in the 38 exhibitors at the event. Staff were kept very busy answering inquiries and delivering seminars, and took around 200 curriculum vitae from qualified and experienced people interested in employment opportunities in the Territory, several of whom indicated that they had previously visited the Territory.
Following the London Expo, the Territory combined with Tasmania, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory to host a regional migration seminar in the Netherlands. This event was aimed at skilled people from diverse trade and professional working backgrounds, many of whom had secured their visas and were seeking detailed information about settlement in regional areas of Australia.
The Territory’s most recent foray into international migration markets was participation in the Opportunities Australia Expos in South Africa.
I extend my appreciation to the Chamber of Commerce NT and in particular to Mr Greg Bicknell, Executive Officer of the Chamber’s International Business Council, who partnered with our departmental representative to staff the Territory’s display at the expos in Johannesburg and Cape Town. I was pleased to assist the Chamber by covering the cost of Mr Bicknell’s airfare for the events. While this is not the first occasion that officers of the department and industry associations have worked together to promote the Territory at a migration exhibition, it is a first for joint government/Chamber efforts at such events.
Early indications suggest that visitor numbers to the Opportunities Australia Expo in Johannesburg were going to be high when organisers advised that they had stopped pre-registrations. At that time, 9000 visitors were anticipated. However, actual attendance numbers exceeded expectations with more than 11 000 attending the two day expo. The majority of the visitors were educated and work-experienced South Africans. Over the two days our representatives distributed 1000 information packs on the Territory and took in excess of 500 resumes from expo visitors.
The Cape Town expo on the following weekend was smaller. Nevertheless, interest was high with more than 4000 visitors over the two days. Again, our representatives distributed information packs and took a large number of CVs from the expo visitors.
Territory seminars highlighting lifestyle, employment and business opportunities were presented each day of the respective expos in South Africa. The seminars attracted an almost total capacity audience of 1100 people interested in hearing what the Territory has to offer. There has been a substantial increase in inquiries from South Africa since the visit and this interest, coupled with the quality of the training in many of the trades and professions of that country, is likely to produce good outcomes for Territory employers.
Following the expos, the Chamber of Commerce is planning an information session to provide employers with feedback on the events, as well as giving Darwin employers information about the expos and the country’s potential for skilled migration, it is intended for a South African expatriate to talk about her experience of moving to Darwin. The combined efforts of the government and the Chamber of Commerce will continue into the future and will result in more people coming to live and work in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is an important statement in what is a global crisis for skilled labour. It is very important that the Territory is strongly represented at such forums.
However, I ask the minister to comment on another aspect of this issue that has been spoken about at the 2020 summit. Prior to that on Foreign Correspondent there was an excellent report on programs that have been put in place in New Zealand with outreach to the Pacific Islands, and that is a guest worker program. It seems to be working very well in New Zealand and it warrants serious consideration in Australia.
When you think of our regions, one of the deficiencies that we have are workers to work in the service industries, to work in the service stations and hotels, to work in horticulture and agriculture. Within our region we have many who would be grateful to receive an opportunity to participate in that kind of work. We have labour available in the Northern Territory and nationally, but particularly in the Northern Territory.
Whilst our policies that we are implementing to bridge, largely indigenous, Territorians with the skills to be able to take up many of the jobs that are going on in regional Australia and in Darwin, it would be worth looking at the guest worker program. I know Western Australia has strongly lobbied the federal government for some consideration for the program that is in operation in New Zealand. You would only have to travel through the regions and you have probably heard that some of these small businesses are closing for the lack of basic workers, just people who can put their hand up and say ‘I am happy to do the job’. There are people in our region; it is as close to us, almost, as Tennant Creek. They would be, for instance, in Timor. When it comes to horticulture there is a grave shortage of workers. I ask the minister to look at that program.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his contribution. Certainly there is a lack of skills in Australia and in the Territory. We are trying our best to attract people with skills that we need currently in the Territory. There is no way we can train people in a short period of time to address the shortage we have in the industry and the mining industry.
As for the guest workers program, that is controlled by 457 visas. The current and previous governments made it clear that they are looking for skilled workers rather than unskilled workers. It would be interesting to see what the outcome of the current review of the 457 visa will bring. We will support any changes that will bring workers, skilled or semi-skilled, into the Territory, even if it is for a short period of time. We need hands. We are doing our best to train people. Our training program has been really good, with thousands of people currently in apprenticeships and training, and will continue to be so, especially with special focus on the housing program now in indigenous communities.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I call Government Business, I remind you that at 11 am the Leader of the Opposition will be making his reply to the budget. As is the custom, I will be interrupting the member who is on their feet in order that the Leader of the Opposition may make his speech.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Revenue Law Reform (Budget Initiatives) Bill 2008 (Serial 146) and Pay-roll Tax Amendment (Harmonisation) Bill 2008 (Serial 148):
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The bills put in place a package of revenue measures announced as part of the 2008-09 Budget, and implement payroll tax harmonisation measures first announced in March 2007.
The bills propose amendments to the Stamp Duty Act, Taxation Administration Act, First Home Owner Grant Act and Pay-roll Tax Act. The key proposals involve easing the tax and compliance cost burden on Territorians and Territory business by reducing the payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 5.9% from 1 July 2008; reducing from 6 May 2008 the current conveyance stamp duty rates with a new minimum rate of 1.5% and a maximum rate of 4.95% that applies from a property value of $525 000; and introducing from 1 July 2008 payroll tax legislation that is harmonised with every other state and territory in eight key areas.
In relation to the reduction in conveyance stamp duty rates, this is the first overall rate reduction since 1994. It will also result in an increase in the stamp duty First Home Owner Concession from the first $350 000 of a property’s value to the first $385 000. This reduction provides savings to all conveyances that are subject to stamp duty. Based on 2007 data, about 8000 Territory homebuyers, investors and businesses are expected to receive stamp duty savings. More specifically, over 1300 first homebuyers, 1700 other homebuyers, 3400 residential investors, and 1400 commercial property buyers will benefit. Collectively, these changes will save taxpayers $12m in conveyance stamp duty in 2008-09. These changes are proposed to apply to instruments executed on or after 6 May 2008. Purchases secured prior to 6 May 2008 either by a contract or option will not be eligible for the reduced rates.
The government has demonstrated its commitment to reducing the burden of payroll tax on businesses. Over several budgets it has increased the payroll tax exemption threshold from $600 000 to $1.25m, and has also reduced the rate from 6.5% to 6.2%. In line with its 2005 election commitment, this government will further reduce the payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 5.9% with effect from 1 July 2008. This measure will benefit all employers that pay payroll tax in the Territory - nearly 1600 employers at an estimated cost of $7.2m in 2008-09. The proposed harmonisation of payroll tax legislation will streamline administration for all businesses that operate in the Territory, but will provide the greatest benefits to those businesses that also operate interstate.
Although national reforms have been agreed in eight payroll tax areas, the Territory already complies in some respects. I will now provide greater detail of the changes proposed by the Pay-roll Tax Amendment (Harmonisation) Bill 2008.
First, it proposes to tax a living-away-from-home allowance by the amount that exceeds the taxable threshold for fringe benefits tax rather than taxing the full amount of the allowance. Exemptions will also be introduced for motor vehicle and accommodation allowances at standardised rates below which payroll tax will not apply. The bill also proposes to align with other jurisdictions the rules relating to the treatment of employee share schemes and wages for work performed in another country. Greater detail of all changes proposed by both bills is set out in the explanatory statements accompanying the bills.
Several important changes are also proposed to enable the alignment of the grouping of employers for payroll tax purposes. These include adopting rules where direct and indirect interests can be traced through corporations and aggregated to give a controlling interest greater than 50%. These changes would apply to more complex business structures. Currently, the Commissioner of Territory Revenue has a discretion to exclude a member from a payroll tax group where it operates independently of, and is not substantially connected with, the other members of the group. However, this is only available for groupings through discretionary trusts or where the services of employees are shared within the group. The bill widens this exclusion discretion to include group members that have been grouped under any of the revised grouping provisions, other than the grouping of related corporations under the Commonwealth’s Corporations Act.
Finally, the same payroll tax laws as those in New South Wales and Victoria are being adopted for the treatment of termination payments. These laws reflect the Territory’s current treatment of termination payments.
In addition to compliance cost savings delivered by the payroll tax harmonisation measures, Territory businesses are expected to save about $1.7m in payroll tax in 2008-09.
I now turn to the other measures contained in the Revenue Law Reform (Budget Initiatives) Bill 2008 which, unless otherwise indicated, are all proposed to commence from 1 July 2008.
If a deed is not otherwise subject to ad valorem duty, nominal stamp duty of $20 applies. In recognition that taxpayers incur costs in arranging for deeds to be stamped, and that government also incurs costs in processing deeds, the bill proposes to abolish nominal stamp duty on those deeds. However, nominal stamp duty will be retained for deeds that relate to trusts to ensure that valuable transactions do not proceed without stamp duty being paid on them.
This bill also proposes three measures to improve the integrity of the Stamp Duty Act and to minimise the possibility of weaknesses in that act being exploited.
The first measure proposes to treat exploration rights like other mining interests for stamp duty purposes by including them within the definition of land. This addresses the current inequitable stamp duty treatment of such rights. I am disappointed to say that this change also responds to practices to minimise stamp duty by artificially apportioning value that is properly attributed to mining tenements to exploration rights. Curbing these minimisation practices should reduce protracted and expensive valuation and legal disputes, and provide a more equitable treatment of these types of interests.
The bill also provides a stamp duty concession when an exploration licence or exploration retention licence is conveyed pursuant to a farm-in agreement. This concession acknowledges that when a person becomes entitled to acquire an interest in such a licence by contributing to the cost of exploration, it would be inequitable to then assess duty on any increase in value that results from such exploration. Instead, duty will be on the consideration or the value of the exploration licence or exploration retention licence at the time the farm-in agreement is entered into. Furthermore, the grant of new exploration rights, rather than the transfer of existing exploration rights, will remain exempt from stamp duty. Accordingly, this measure is not expected to significantly impact on the level of new exploration in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, a technical shortcoming has been identified in the stamp duty legislation. Doubt exists over the current practice of requiring stamp duty to be paid on the conveyance of a mining tenement before it is entered in the Mining Register. In response, the second measure seeks to rectify this shortcoming by ensuring that stamp duty is paid on an unregistered instrument conveying a mining tenement before it is registered.
The last of these measures ensures that conveyance stamp duty is payable when a person acquires property from a non-discretionary trust as a purchaser rather than in their capacity as a beneficiary of the trust. This corrects an oversight when new taxation administration arrangements were introduced from 1 January 2008. As such, it is appropriate for the proposed amendment to take effect from that date.
The bill proposes several other measures relating to the new Taxation Administration Act. First, it proposes to clarify that revenue-related information can be provided to Northern Territory law enforcement agencies, such as the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is consistent with the explicit disclosure powers previously available to the Commissioner.
The bill also proposes to make it very clear that all members of a group for the purposes of a taxation law are jointly and severally liable for the tax of any group member. This uncertainty was introduced when the new Taxation Administration Act commenced from 1 January 2008 and, as such, it is proposed the amendment take effect from 1 January 2008. This will also minimise the possibility of a group member avoiding a tax liability.
The last of these measures seeks to make minor consequential amendments to update obsolete references in other Territory legislation as a result of the introduction of the new Taxation Administration Act. For example, references to the Commissioner of Taxes will be changed to the Commissioner of Territory Revenue.
I turn now to the final four measures proposed by the bill that make minor changes to the Territory’s home ownership schemes. The First Home Owner Grant Scheme and the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession have very similar eligibility criteria and are administered in tandem. The measures proposed by the bill seek to achieve even greater consistency in the administration of these schemes. The first proposal seeks to align the interest rate and the way in which interest is applied to a First Home Owner Grant debt with that for a First Home Owner Concession debt.
The second proposed change seeks to increase the time in which prosecution for a contravention of the First Home Owner Grant Act may be commenced – from three years to five years from when the alleged offence occurred. Of note is that this change is intended to apply only to offences that are alleged to have been committed on or after 1 July 2008. A five year time period is currently provided for the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession.
The third proposal seeks to ensure that it is an offence under the First Home Owner Grant Act, in all circumstances, where materially false or misleading information is provided. To alleviate concerns that a person may be unjustly prosecuted for providing a misleading document, it is a defence to this offence where the misleading aspect of the document is identified and corrected to the extent the person can reasonably do so. Consistent with contraventions in relation to other taxation laws, further aspects of criminal responsibility are provided for in the Criminal Code. This proposal is similar to the current arrangements for the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession.
The final proposed change seeks to excuse a conveyee from the residence requirements of the First Home Owner Concession or principal place of residence rebate, provided there are special reasons where there are two or more conveyees and at least one will comply with the residence requirements. This is consistent with the intent of the legislation and the way in which the First Home Owner Grant Act operates.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members. I table the explanatory statements to accompany the bills.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill that I have introduced today is the culmination of a huge amount of work done by the Ministerial Council on Energy, or the MCE, at the direction of the Council of Australian Governments to rationalise the regulation of the energy market, principally the gas and electricity markets in Australia. Over the last six years, the MCE has overseen the development of a regulatory structure which will provide nationally coordinated energy market rule making, and enforcement under a single national regulatory arrangement. In June 2004, the Northern Territory signed the Australian Energy Market Agreement, committing the Northern Territory to participate in the national energy regulatory reforms.
The Australian Energy Market Agreement commits the Commonwealth, state and territory governments to establish, and maintain a new national energy market framework. The National Gas (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 will apply a new national gas law as a law of the Northern Territory. The new national gas law was recently introduced as a schedule to the South Australian Applications Act; as South Australia generously acted as lead legislator for the purpose of passing the National Gas Law.
The new National Gas Law reforms the governance arrangements for the third party access regulation of pipeline services by conferring functions and powers on two new national energy bodies. These are the Australian Energy Market Commission, which was established under the South Australian Energy Market Commission Establishment Act 2004; and the Australian Energy Regulator, established under the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974. The National Gas Law also establishes a policy-making role for the Ministerial Council of Energy in the context of gas regulation.
The Australian Energy Regulator will be responsible for gas transmission and distribution regulation in all jurisdictions other than Western Australia, where Western Australia’s Economic Regulation Authority retains this role. The Australian Energy Market Commission will be responsible for rule-making for gas transmission and distribution in all jurisdictions.
As a result of these new regulatory arrangements, the existing Code Registrar and the National Gas Pipelines Advisory Committee are to be abolished and their functions assumed by the Australian Energy Market Commission. The Australian Energy Regulator is the primary regulator under the National Gas Law, and will have enforcement compliance monitoring and economic regulatory functions.
The current national cooperative scheme for the regulation of the natural gas pipeline services came into operation in 1997. The lead legislation was the Gas Pipelines Access (South Australia) Act 1997. There were two Schedules to this act; the first titled ‘Third party access to natural gas pipelines’, and the second ‘National Third Party Access Code for Natural Gas Pipeline Systems (the Gas Code)’. Together these Schedules were referred to as the Gas Pipelines Access Law, and applied to all Australian states and territories and the Commonwealth.
Under the proposed reforms, the new National Gas Law to be brought into force under the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 will be applied in all Australian jurisdictions when they, like us, pass application acts which apply the law to the Territory and all Australian jurisdictions - except Western Australia, which will pass its own mirroring legislation.
An important objective of the Australian Energy Market Agreement is the promotion of the long-term interests of energy consumers and this has been enshrined as a key objective in the National Gas Law. The National Gas objective is to promote effective investment in, and efficient use of, natural gas services for the long-term interests of consumers of natural gas with respect to price, quality, reliability and security of supply of natural gas.
The purpose of the National Gas Law is to establish a framework to ensure the efficient operation of pipeline services, efficient investment, and the effective regulation of gas networks. Consistent with the Australian Energy Market Arrangement, the new National Gas Law has been drafted to reflect the Ministerial Council on Energy’s function to give high level policy direction to the Australian Energy Market Commission in relation to the National Energy Market, rather than engage directly in the day-to-day operation of the energy market or the conduct of regulators.
The National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 will make important governance reforms to gas regulation through separating high level policy direction, economic regulation, rule making, and rule enforcement. The act brings gas access regulations under the jurisdiction of the Australian Energy Market Commission as rule-maker, and the Australian Energy Regulator as the economic regulator and enforcement body. The National Gas Law does not apply economic regulation to pipelines that do not meet the coverage criteria. Any person can apply to bring a pipeline under the regime, or apply for a pipeline to become uncovered at any time, unless the pipeline has been granted a greenfields pipeline incentive.
Access arrangements have been the central feature of pipeline regulation under the Gas Code, and will continue to have this position under the National Gas Law. For those with a more specific interest in gas access arrangements, the National Gas Law requires service providers who are subject to price regulation to submit access arrangements, and revisions to the access arrangements, to the Australian Energy Regulator in accordance with rules. The Australian Energy Regulator is also required to apply an access arrangement during an access dispute.
The processes for submitting, approving and revising access arrangements will be contained in the National Gas Rules - equivalent to regulations - which will allow flexible development through a rule change process. In the Rules, the approval processes for access arrangements will now be subject to clear time limits. The benefits of this are that the approval of access arrangements will be expedited and certainty as to what is expected of all parties has been improved, whereas previously, pipeline development could be held up indefinitely by third party operations.
Of particular relevance to future investment in pipeline development in the Northern Territory, is that the National Gas Law continues a greenfields incentives process that was established in 2006 under the Gas Pipelines Access Law. The greenfields incentive allows a relevant minister to make a no-coverage determination, following a recommendation by the National Competition Council, that is binding for a period of 15 years if a new pipeline does not meet the pipeline coverage criteria. However, the 15-year no-coverage assessment process may not be a sufficiently timely process to provide regulatory certainty for complex international greenfields gas pipeline projects. For this reason, the Ministerial Council on Energy also decided to implement the option of a price regulation exemption, also having effect for 15 years, for international transmission pipelines bringing gas from a source outside Australia.
The National Gas Law also provides an option for light-handed regulation of certain gas pipelines where the access arrangements do not include price or revenue regulation, but simply require that the prices, terms and conditions applying to the pipeline be published.
The preservation of these incentives of the National Gas Law may, in the future, have important ramifications for natural gas developments in the Northern Territory.
This act also makes significant advances in transparency in the market for gas by establishing a Bulletin Board. The purpose of the Bulletin Board is to both facilitate trade in natural gas and markets of natural gas services through the provision of pipeline systems and gas market information, which will become readily available to all interested parties, including the general public. It will also assist in emergency management through the provision of system and market information. The Bulletin Board will also provide a platform for future gas market transparency measures such as a gas market statement of opportunities. While this arrangement will not have an immediate benefit to the Territory, as markets of natural gas developments evolve, it may facilitate domestic gas sales in the Territory.
In closing, I reiterate that this bill applies the National Gas Law, which has been passed by the South Australian parliament as a Schedule to its gas applications legislation, as a law of the Northern Territory. The National Gas (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 is an important regulatory step for the Northern Territory. Its passage will meet the Territory’s commitment to supporting the implementation of the new regulatory arrangements nationally.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the National Gas Law and explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 21 February 2008.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the Local Government Bill, a long-overdue updating of especially important legislation. There has been much debate in this House over the years on the need for efficient, effective and accountable local government for all citizens of the Northern Territory. We are now finally getting close to the time when we will have a long-awaited framework for new local government right across the Territory, so we can get on with the job of working together across all levels of government improving services to our citizens.
It has been intriguing for me to note that in every debate we have had about local government there is not one member of this parliament who has disagreed with the fundamental need to improve local government across the Territory so that it can work, grow and consistently deliver quality services and benefits to all Territorians, especially those in our most disadvantaged communities.
Everyone has agreed on our need to get the third sphere of government: one, better functioning and ready; two, willing and able to foster the social and economic development of the Territory - and I believe that this issue gets lost in all of the debate; and three, equity. I believe all members in this House should be excited to be part of these objectives.
Instead, we have again seen an opposition which is big on the rhetoric of supporting better governance across the Territory and of looking after bush constituents, but light on the real work of working together to build a strong system of local government of which we can all be proud. It has been a complete policy-free zone. At least with our Independent members of parliament, both of whom have a background in local government, it has been possible to have genuine exchange of ideas and debate. We will not necessarily agree, but there is a meeting of minds. In fact, when we look at who is the latest version of Local Government spokesperson for the opposition it could be seen as the member for Nelson.
It would frighten any decent member of a local government body anywhere in the Northern Territory to realise just where the opposition has been when it comes to seriously getting their heads around local government. Thankfully, Territorians, both out bush and those involved in our municipal councils, know what needs to be done and they have put their shoulders to the wheel for many months now, working through the detail and supporting the development of new local government for the Territory.
In my own electorate, this work has been going on for some time. Some of my constituents in the proposed West Arnhem Shire have been working on local government reform for five years now. They know what needs to be done. They are ready and want to move on. They want to see the West Arnhem Shire up and working. What they understand is this: first, the system of local government, established by the CLP in the 1980s, is failing. We just cannot go the way we have been going, and change is not desirable, it is necessary. For too long we have put up with small community councils that are often dysfunctional and almost always financially unviable. Second, local government at a regional level with strong protection for communities and other population centres within a region is the best way to go. It is the best approach because of the economies of scale and the accumulation of skills available at a regional level, and only rarely and sporadically available or possible at the level of a small community. It is the best approach also because it is one that genuinely parallels and echoes traditional Aboriginal political and organisational structures.
I quote the former member for Arnhem, speaking five years ago, almost to the day, to a LGANT conference:
The words from John Ah Kit apply just as strongly today. In retrospect, I thank him for citing the great work of Bawinanga in my own electorate. I am pleased as a member of this government that we are close to the day when all these local people can put into practice the ideas and objectives they have been working on for so long.
On the Tiwi Islands my constituents know better than anyone the complexities of local government and the great challenges local government faces. These challenges include tackling the deficit issues, the accumulated results of many years of underfunding of infrastructure development in our remote communities. They know all about trying to do more with less and the apparently distant goal of strong, sustainable local government.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, I ask you to continue your remarks after Question Time.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the wife of the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs Ros Mills, together with staff from the Leader of the Opposition’s office. On behalf of all honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 6 May 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I deliver the opposition’s response to the budget speech delivered by the Treasurer yesterday.
I have always maintained that the Northern Territory, the place where I have chosen to live and raise a family, has a bright future. The continuing boom in minerals and commodity trading, especially with China, the potential for further sustainable industrial development, and the continuing development of our services sector, point to continuing economic growth.
We desire the Northern Territory to be a land of opportunity and a place to be proud of. This government constantly talks of the Territory lifestyle. They say the Northern Territory has the best lifestyle in Australia. Well, I am sad to say that this so-called lifestyle and reputation that is the envy of the rest of Australia has been copping a bit of stick lately.
Our Territory lifestyle has been tarnished by the neglect and abuse that prompted the Little Children are Sacred report and the subsequent federal intervention. A report, which it must be said that this Labor government was dragged kicking and screaming to undertake and one that they sat on for months. Our reputation has been tarnished by this government’s inability to ensure that it is safe to walk many of our urban streets after dark. This is a reputation tarnished by the stories of towns just passed our border to deal with refugees from the intervention and the antisocial behaviour that those people are bringing with them. This is a reputation tarnished by ineffective minimum gaol sentences, court cases in Alice Springs being held over through equipment failure, teachers striking for a better deal for education, and repeated failures to deliver on promises.
This is a reputation tarnished by the number of drunks that are being locked up in record numbers with over 26 000 protective custodies last year where, in 2000, this was less than 12 000. Territorians want to know whether the Henderson government will actually deliver on the promises or will they be broken again and again and again. Will we have to listen to initiatives announced again and again and again? First, we see the media spin begin with the conception of the idea; second, with the release of the plan; third, media for a tender, then when the consultant comes in to review it because it has taken so long, and then when the tender is finally let, and then when the dozer moves in, and then when the first brick is laid, the first wall, and on and on and on it goes. Of course, if nothing eventuates it is common that this Labor government will simply include it in the next budget. Just ask the commuters on Tiger Brennan Drive, the Territory cancer sufferers and their families, water park users in Alice Springs, and so on. The list grows.
Territorians want real authentic leadership, not empty promises; real leadership of action, not government by media release; leadership for the future, not just for the next election.
How can Territorians be convinced that any promise made in this budget will be delivered?
Consider this government’s form. On 24 August 2006, the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, promised that new laws will shut down gangs; or the 2001 promise of an oncology unit promised again and again, not yet delivered, not even budgeted for; or the promise of whistleblowers legislation since before the 2001 election. Even when the opposition brought a whistleblowers bill before this House it was rejected with the promise that it would be delivered in 2006, but it still has not happened. What about Tiger Brennan Drive - a promise made years ago and now only just begun. Or the promise of a waterfront development that would be delivered with a sound shell, amphitheatre, markets, volleyball courts, and a raft of other public amenities by the end of 2007; or the promise of a waterfront in which the public investment was going to be $100m. Stage 1 alone will now consume at least $150m with a further $63m earmarked for Stage 2. Or a dedicated senior high school in Palmerston, or the Humpty Doo swimming pool, or the Myilly Point redevelopment that was promised last budget speech and still has not started, or the fact that Bellamack is still over a year away from turning blocks off when we have a housing crisis, and we have absolutely no time line for when the Berrimah Farm land will become available.
The nett debt plus employee liability situation is worse - much worse than government promised it would ever be. Our remote education system is in crisis in spite of your promise to fix it. There have been five announcements to introduce geothermal legislation. Nothing has happened in spite of the Chief Minister’s assertion that it is one of ‘the most critical issues facing the Northern Territory’. There is the broken promise to make Glyde Point the centre of gas-based industry - something that the government’s website promoting the Territory still says. There is the reassurance that assault reporting rates are up only because people are reporting more crime, when reporting rates have barely moved.
There is the promise to control growth in the public sector and allowing it to track continually upwards with executive fat cat numbers positively exploding upwards. Yet, despite all these new high-paid executives, this Labor government is spending even more of taxpayers’ money on interstate consultants to write such things as infrastructure plans for the future. Do we not already have departments for that?
What about the ‘poo shooter’ that continues to pump raw sewage into the harbour not 500 m from Lameroo Beach; and the promise to create and independent EPA, but only delivering on an EPA that is simply part of a department? There is still no bypass to Humpty Doo as promised. While we are on that matter, where is the bypass at Girraween you promised in last year’s budget speech? What is there does not go very far. Also, the promise of an upgrade to the area around Wulagi shops has also amounted to nothing.
Our tarnished reputation and a government that is all talk, all media release and no action, is not a Territory that we should aspire to. There have not been many times in our short history since self-government that the Territory has the opportunities that it now has. There is no doubt that Australia and the Northern Territory has been in boom times. Record GST revenue has been returned to the Territory. This means the government has record funding to spend - $1.6bn more than when Labor came to office.
Labor’s record spending is simply the result of record funding from the federal government, not the result of real fiscal planning or responsibility. If there was a degree in spending other people’s money, Labor would get a PhD. If there is record funding coming to government, then the community has the right to expect record spending and record saving. However, all we get is record spending. There is very little by way of money being saved for when things tighten, or for real infrastructure development. This is a government that even received some $300m more than they budgeted for last year. You would reasonably expect some of that would be saved and be available to pay off debt, or address spiralling superannuation debt. But no, this government keeps spending and spending and spending and, before you know it, Labor has overspent by nearly the entire extra amount that it received.
The Treasurer does not understand that a dollar spent on reducing debt saves interest costs. In fact, the surplus is about equal to the money you will get in projected increased revenue from poker machines in 2008-09. That is what we have to show for record money coming in. Would it not be better for the community in the long run, if money being spent on interest is then spent on better services? Many Territorians understand this. If they have a windfall, they pay off the credit card, reduce the home loan, and pay off the car loan before they blow it. They know they save money on interest, a fact this Treasurer does not seem to understand.
Schools, roads and buildings are the bread and butter of government. These are the things the community has the right to expect as a matter of course. They should also see infrastructure, like railways, dams and significant, sustainable, industrial development to pave the way for economic prosperity. They also need to see real programs to address the cost of living - real programs to benefit families, not rebadging old programs as new, or touting federal spending as our government spending.
Government must have a set of principles by which it stands. If government stands for everything, it will fall for anything. Sadly, this is the state we find the current budget and the government in the Northern Territory.
A future government, a Country Liberal Party government that I will lead, will stand on firm principles and address the issues that are threatening the very fabric of our community. These principles include:
the notion that individuals and the community in which they live have both rights and responsibilities;
Only when we have an educated population, one that exercises its community responsibilities as much as its rights, one that has access to real work and a real stake in the economy, can then we begin to talk about a job well done.
Right now, on this very day, there is a great chunk of our adult population sadly revolving through our justice system who cannot read and write, racking up the cost, charges and bed time, but who are going nowhere fast. Where is the money, the detail and determination to address this substantial problem in yesterday’s budget? It is not there, Madam Speaker. This is both an economic and social disgrace continuing to be overseen by this government.
Only when we are free to go about our business with safety, and families are genuinely assisted to deal with the hard stuff such as buying a home, raising kids to respect themselves and others, saving for their kids’ future, being able to afford fuel, groceries and clothes for their families, being able to pay the phone bill, the power bill, the childcare bill, and being able to walk safely in their street, in their suburb, in their town, or in their community, only then will our community fabric improve.
A future Country Liberal Party government will not follow all road markers set out by the Henderson government.
Law and order: the link between poor education, public drunkenness and crime, particularly violent crime, is real, but drunks themselves must be held responsible for their actions. We are long overdue for a genuine approach to zero tolerance in our community.
I do not intend to enter into a lengthy description of the broken windows theory, but if it is understood, then anyone who has had any experience with the term ‘zero tolerance’ knows that it places the burden squarely at the feet of those who upset good order in our community at a street level.
In the year 1999-2000, 11 395 drunks were apprehended in the Territory. By last financial year, that had increased to 26 448. Clearly, it is time to change what we do with drunks in our community. I announce that the next Country Liberal Party government will introduce habitual drunks legislation that will get these people off our streets. Under a Country Liberal Party government, if you are picked up for being drunk three times in a six month period, then you will find yourself in front of a court. That court will have the power to make treatment orders as well as residence orders and other orders that are necessary, and they will be expected to act.
And if these people cannot read, they will be assisted to learn, and if they refuse to attend, they will be made to learn. Any person who breaches an habitual drunks order will be deemed to commit a criminal offence, and, upon sentencing, will serve time so that proper and effective treatment can be brought to bear. There will be no soft options any more.
If people come to town and commit offences, we will expect those people to be charged. We will place them in front of the courts to answer for their activities. This means that under a Country Liberal Party government if you urinate or defecate in our parks, or act in a disorderly way in our public places, you will answer to a magistrate and, as I have indicated, a Country Liberal Party government will expect the magistrates to act.
Territorians have every right to go about their business in a society that is protected by a government that governs for the peace and good order of all Territorians; regardless of their race, their creed, their faith, or cultural background - regardless of anything other than their conduct as citizens in our community.
The Country Liberal Party government will increase our police presence on our streets. We will increase police numbers to 40 officers above what the government has already promised. Those police will be in police cars and on our streets. There will be an extra patrol car in each sector in Darwin. To keep this promise, the Country Liberal Party will commit an extra $8m to the Police budget. We will act in a timely fashion. The courts will be expected to take meaningful action and those offenders will do time. They will do time in youth camps, they will do time in boot camps, they will do time in prison, they will do time serving the community they have offended against and, if needs be, they will do hard time. Offenders will be working hard in a boot camp and serving the community to repay their debt.
Planning is substantially absent from the government’s health focus but not so for a future Country Liberal government. A future Country Liberal government will immediately build an oncology unit and seek to recoup the appropriate amount of funding from the federal government. No more delays for people suffering from cancer. The Country Liberal Party will announce plans to allow our medical staff to better deal with accident and emergency care and not have patients treated in the back of ambulances, all the while preventing that ambulance from getting out to the next emergency. Along with other frontline public service workers, these health workers under a government I lead, will be protected from people who think it is acceptable to assault these hard-working people. A government I will lead will put in place minimum sentences for people who assault health workers. A Country Liberal government will also provide funding for an after hours bulkbilling medical centre in Farrar in Palmerston until the new federal facility is up and running.
We have spoken often about the need to address the issue of housing. This was the message delivered last year by the Country Liberal Party and it remains the message for this year. Last year we said to government that they had better address this issue in a meaningful way. The result is that in the last 12 months they have taken some industrial land and the Berrimah gaol and said that is to be a future residential development. What is apparent from the government’s responses is that they have no idea how to deal with the housing crisis in the Territory. They get credit for the quick-off-the-mark media release and the appearance of taking action. But, let me ask, when the Treasurer said last year first homebuyers are the big winners from the budget, what actually happened? HomeNorth tanked. Increasing house prices have rendered the HomeNorth Scheme inoperable and helped push up rents to higher levels. The Country Liberal Party is a party with a plan to deal with these issues. As has been announced, the Country Liberal Party government would move to establish a policy that offers a $100 000 saving for first homebuyers in the Territory to get into their home and make a start for themselves and their families here in the Northern Territory. This policy would be matched with an accelerated system of land release managed by a joint developer partner called the Territory Housing Land Corporation. This is a system of land release that works as has been proven in areas such as the new Lyons subdivision in Darwin.
A CLP government would be careful to get the balance right so that those people who have invested in homes up until now have their investment protected. To get first homebuyers into their homes, a portion of any new land release will be set aside for new homebuyers and that portion, depending on the nature and the size of the release, would amount to 15% to 20% of the blocks released. Those blocks are to be randomly peppered through the release area. These blocks would be made available for around $100 000 under the market price of the development. There would be some checks and balances, however, and they include qualifications such as the new homebuyer being a Territory resident and, upon completion, the property would have to be the principal place of residence for at least three years. This is an innovative revenue neutral plan to deal with the housing crisis affecting the Territory.
The government will again tinker with the edges of HomeNorth and stamp duty. It failed totally last year and will fail again this year.
Turning to education: when Professor Helen Hughes had the courage to question the government on the results in education, the minister called her ‘facile’ and attacked her for engaging in a ‘flimsy and selective diatribe’. However, nine days later, the Education minister was admitting that our education system was in crisis. Just look at the MAP test results. Rather than responding, the government’s choice has been to pick a fight with the teachers over the EBA and the conditions of employment that they work under in the bush. The Victorian government has exposed just how churlish this approach has been.
Many children do not have parents or role models who can read, write or value an education. We must not let the current generation continue this pattern. Kids must attend school. Under the Country Liberal Party, an Office of Truancy will be established, an SMS service will be started to notify parents when their kids are not at school, and parents who still will not send their kids to school will be prosecuted. Even in bush schools education can be distilled down to the quality of the interaction firstly between teacher and student, and secondly between school and parent.
The full Country Liberal Party education policy will focus on kids attending school and the quality of teaching and learning. I also commit to creating, in Darwin and Alice Springs, a model of mixed childcare, preschool and primary school co-located institutions. Instead of waiting for the wind to blow, the government I lead will lead the federal government in this area and not follow them. This means, from a parent’s perspective, their child or children will be in a seamless environment from childcare to the end of primary school. Initially, five early learning centres will be built at a cost of $3m each. Once up and running, we will build more, and if the federal government ever comes good on their promise, then they can reimburse us.
Also there will be recognition by the Country Liberal Party of the fundraising that is done by so many schools to supplement their incomes. We will raise the fund raising dollar cap from the current $6000 to $15 000.
To assist families: families in Darwin do it tough and a Country Liberal Party that I lead recognises this. Territory residents receive a zone tax rebate every year when they fill in their tax return. If they live in Darwin or Alice Springs, the base amount is $338. If you live in a remote area like Millingimbi the base amount is $1173. The Country Liberal Party will take a firm position and lobby the federal government to double these rebates, putting dollars back into the pockets of Territory families.
Today, I announce as a part of assisting families, the Country Liberal Party will increase the $50 back to school voucher to a $75 back to school voucher. Also, the Country Liberal Party recognises the need for healthy families and so today I announce a further voucher for Territory families. A future Mills government will supply for each and every primary and middle school student in the Territory a further $75 annual sports voucher so that parents can get their kids out there playing sports and participating in healthy activities. It will help to tackle the scourge of children in the modern age, childhood obesity.
While this is a $9m announcement over three years, I will say more about assisting families closer to the election.
The numbers of public servants employed since 2002 has risen from 14 400 to 16 100 in 2007, representing an increase of 12% in five years. This is where much of our extra revenue has gone. This is in no way a criticism of the individual frontline public servants, rather the NT government’s lack of leadership and direction. The experience described by serving police officers, for example, is that the number of steps in processing an arrest has increased substantially, hence more and more time than ever is dedicated to recording statistical information than actual policing.
Under a Country Liberal Party government, there will be reforms so that we can better position the Territory for the future. We will reduce the number of ministers to eight, and we will not have the wasted resources generated when single departments report to three ministers, as is the case under the Henderson government.
We commit to reducing the number of senior public servants, and we will drive a public service who are proud to come to work, who feel rewarded in their work, and who are focused on delivering public services. The Country Liberal Party will look to making savings of over $50m from this process, and it will include reducing the number of political staff on the fifth floor of this building. Further, we will reduce the obscene amount of money spent on political propaganda by this government.
Planning: as it is often said, failing to plan is planning to fail. Nowhere is this more stark than in planning in our harbour. The government, for years to come, will continue to use the harbour as a sewer. New buildings are being constructed and many of them tap into the sewers that drain into our harbour. There is no plan to accelerate remedial work; it is just business as usual.
There is also the issue of future, heavy industrial development. I accept many people have been critical of the position that I have taken, but I do not want to see our harbour become the centre of heavy industry in the Northern Territory. It is not the right place for it, and I will have much more to say about this in weeks to come.
The Country Liberal Party, in 2000 when in government, recognised that the placement of ConocoPhillips in the harbour was a product of necessity because there was nowhere else to put them. However, in response to the construction of that tank, the Country Liberal Party was mindful that the next site for major development needed to be away from the harbour. It was for that reason Glyde Point was identified. The government scoped the development of Glyde Point in the 2002-03 budget. That scoping work must have told government that the site was viable because it remained government policy until a couple of months ago.
The Country Liberal Party and Labor have recognised together that the harbour is the less desirable place to build more gas installations and the associated downstream heavy industry. Over the past seven years, the government has been in a position to develop Glyde Point but, because there was not an immediate customer on the horizon, no work was done. There was no future planning, so, when INPEX arrived on the scene, the government had only one place to offer them - and that was our harbour.
This great place, the Territory, was once a place where governments made decisions for the long term, for the future, and not just for the election-cycle future. The expenditure of a few million dollars each financial year since Labor came to office would have had Glyde Point ready today.
I announce today that the Country Liberal Party will not drop the ball in planning for Darwin, and we will commit $30m in our first year to taking the necessary steps to ensure that heavy industry will be catered for on the Gunn Peninsula. The Country Liberal Party will take steps to keep heavy industry out of the Darwin Harbour. What this issue has demonstrated is that there is now an opportunity to plan for the future of Darwin Harbour properly and we should seize this opportunity and do so with vigour.
I will conclude with our superannuation liability. The Territory’s superannuation liability has far exceeded projections. Other than Tasmania, the Territory is the most poorly positioned jurisdiction in dealing with that debt. Our superannuation obligations have risen steeply under the Labor government. Despite the Chief Minister’s assertions, they continue to grow. Nett debt stands at over $1bn and the interest payments on that debt are at least $300 000 a day. The money handed over paying interest would be better spent on services for Territorians. Our debt will have to be repaid one day. Simply rolling over the debt will cost more and more in interest. The revenue bonanza of the past five years presented a perfect opportunity to reduce the debt liability for future generations. Of course, that means less opportunity to pork barrel today.
Labor has chosen its re-election chances over our kids’ futures. Labor has made a very poor choice for the Territory and the Territory’s future. In the Northern Territory, we must base our decisions in government on principles, not on media spin. Government must do what it says it will do, not break promises.
Madam Speaker, government must plan and provide quality services efficiently and effectively without waste, and not make it up as they go along. Government must be honest and accountable to Territorians, something this government and this budget fails in.
We must educate the uneducated, skill the unskilled, develop our undeveloped potential, plan and invest for the next five, 10, 20 and 50 years, and we must provide safe and affordable places for people to live in. That is what Territorians expect. Territorians expect their governments to plan, to invest and to deliver for the future so that they can get on with living their lives today.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will continue my response.
The new Local Government Bill is contemporary legislation which provides a strong and confident framework for getting on with the job of delivering on community expectations of a long awaited, strong and sustainable system of local government for the Territory as a whole. The legislation will help deliver this in many ways.
The bill contains a Preamble, which establishes the spirit and the tone of the bill, and recognises the important job that local government plays in our day-to-day lives. Importantly, the Preamble acknowledges local government as a distinct and essential sphere of government, but also acknowledges the right and interest of indigenous landowners and native title claimants, key contextual issues largely ignored when local government was being introduced in the 1980s and 1990s.
The local government councils will operate according to principles of good governance, in particular transparency and accountability to ratepayers. To this end, the bill requires councils to have plans in place and available to constituents that spell out how services will be delivered and the council’s financial plan.
Each council will be required to provide an annual report to the minister containing an audited financial statement and an assessment of the council’s performance against the specific performance indicators identified in the municipal/shire plan. The bill also provides for regional management plans, to be developed by the department in conjunction with shire councils, to promote and provide for inter-council cooperation and the development of cooperative arrangements between councils and other organisations.
Another feature is that every council must adopt a code of conduct, and the bill also provides for review of council decisions outside of referral to the judicial process of the local government tribunal.
These are important arrangements ensuring transparency and accountability to ratepayers. There are a number of initiatives that were championed by Elliot McAdam - and I pay tribute to the former Minister for Local Government - including provision for the establishment of local boards. Local boards will help achieve the effective integration and involvement of local communities in the affairs of shire councils. Importantly, local boards will also provide strong support between the local communities, community leaders and their elected council members.
Another initiative relating to the sustainability of new shires is that rates, for the first time, will be applicable for all commercial users of land in the new shires and across all larger Aboriginal communities in the Territory. This has presented a challenge as the department has had to develop a scheme for the treatment of rating on Aboriginal land, and concerns about how rates will be set in the future for those, who until now, have not had to pay rates. Both issues have been dealt with. Rates only apply to Land Trust land, or an Aboriginal community living area, where the land is subject to a lease or licence conferring a right of occupancy, for example, for housing, or where the land is used for a commercial purpose.
The legislation also provides for conditionally rateable land, including land held under a pastoral release or land occupied under a mining tenement. Shires will be required to submit a rating proposal, in accordance with the guidelines to the minister for approval, prior to rating of this land. The treatment of rating in the legislation has been a key interest to many of our key stakeholders. I believe the resulting legislation demonstrates our government’s commitment to listening to people’s concerns but also our expected leadership role to find a pathway that supports sustainable local government and the overall objectives of local government reforms.
Later today, the Minister for Local Government will work through with us a number of amendments to the bill tabled in the last sittings. The amendments reflect government decision making earlier this year to not proceed with the Top End Shire, but they also reflect community feedback, both from local government practitioners and citizens generally, about different parts of the bill. The minister will work through those amendments and I urge bipartisan support for the amendments. The suggestions come from the people, they are well thought out changes reflecting community feedback and, in combination, they all work to ensure that we move to the best system of local government we can create given our demographics, geography and experience of local government.
I congratulate my colleague, the member for Barkly, for creating the platform for this long overdue work. I also congratulate my ministerial colleague, Mr Rob Knight. Since taking up the challenge of local government reform, minister Knight has made a real effort to get about, to talk to people and listen to their views. He is committed to ensuring that the bill reflects people’s practical experience of local government in the Northern Territory. This is demonstrated by his willingness to bring back amendments for us to consider in committee; to ensure we get the best legislation we can to underpin new local government.
This bill will provide Territorians with a new system of local government that will provide real benefits to the bush and to ratepayers, funding agencies and the many commercial entities that do business with local government. This government is delivering on its promise to set up a system of local government to consistently deliver quality services to all Territorians, whether they live in the bush or in larger communities.
Madam SPEAKER: Members I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery, of participants in the Parliament House Public Tour Program. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, as Minister for Indigenous Policy, I welcome the bill as a critical step in creating a new system of effective and efficient local government valued by its constituents. That is a local government that is ready, willing and able to work with government and non-government organisations to help to close the gap on indigenous disadvantage in the Territory, and to maximise investments engendering healthy, happy and sustainable communities. And that is, at the end of the day, about equity. It is about time; it has been long overdue. It is a change and a reform that has been needed for a long time in the bush, in terms of restorative equity. I commend the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a topic that has been discussed for very long time, in both parliament and in the public arena. I am passionate about local government, but I am not so passionate about what has happened over the last year in relation to the development of a reform process for local government. We certainly do need reform and I agree with the member for Arafura, although the difference I have with the government is that if you are to have a reform process you must bring the people along at the beginning, not in the middle and not at the end. Unfortunately, that is where the government has made a mistake.
I look at the local government reform in two packages. There is the geographical part of local government and there is the legislative part of local government. In relation to the geographical part, that is, the numbers of shires and the size of those shires, I will say continually that I believe that those shires are far too big. I will take up some of these issues during the committee stage because I need to ask the minister the basis for the government selecting those areas. There has been talk that those areas were based on population. However, when you look at the populations that other shires in the Territory had as their basis, it does not fit. The word was that 6000 people would make up a shire, yet the Tiwi Island Shire has a population of about 2500, well under the number of people that appear to have been set as the reason for having a shire, whereas the Top End Shire had about 20 000 people combined. On one hand you had a figure that was used as the model, however, there were at least two other areas where that concept did not seem to be used. I have some issues about that.
Even taking one step back, the government decided that that would be the size of the shires. The government decided that Barkly would be 20% bigger than Victoria. That is where the process was flawed. We should have been discussing these particular issues with the community right at the start.
It is difficult for me to believe that if you accept that local government is local, and there is no definition of ‘local’ in the act, and if you believe that local government is about community, which is not mentioned - I can hardly see that mentioned anywhere in anything that has been discussed - but if you believe and I believe that that is very much one of the foundations of good local government then I cannot accept that councils as big as Victoria are local and are about community. I have said this many times.
The Barkly is bigger than Victoria by 20%. That is a lot of country. Alpurrurulam is not related to Elliott. You look at Central Desert. Tobermorey Station is 1000 km from Lajamanu. What is the community? Where are the practicalities in trying to run a council that big? It is not that I am disagreeing with the reform process. Minister Ah Kit stood up in parliament here some time ago and tried to introduce a scheme of local government; he looked at 22 or 26 local governments. He did not look at the few that we have today. I do not think that that program was given enough time to be run with. There were shires; there were groups in our Territory who were coming together as partnerships, who were developing regional councils.
On top of that, when the government says then we should have regional councils, you have enormous areas. If you take the bottom part of the Territory, if you put Barkly, Central Desert and MacDonnell Shires together, you have this enormous land mass. And people who want their roads fixed, their lawns cuts, and their rubbish picked up have to deal with some huge responsibility that I believe is the responsibility of the Northern Territory government.
They should be the key drivers of regional development. Do not put this extra layer of bureaucracy on local government. I take up what the member for Arafura said, that local government is complex. I do not believe it should be complex. That is why I have always supported the model Litchfield Shire had. When I was on Litchfield Shire - I did not start at the very beginning, I came in at the second election - there was a great belief that you do not have to have a bureaucratic-type council to provide services. Yet, if you look at this Local Government Act, you have to have a regional management plan, a strategic plan, a financial plan, a budget, an annual report …
Ms Scrymgour: Why should communities or people not have them?
Mr WOOD: No. What I am saying is you need to keep local government strong, focused and simple. Do not make it complex because its job is not complex. Its job should not be complex. Those core functions do not require a great bureaucratic, administrative requirement to operate them properly. They do not need to do that because you will find that you will spend money on bureaucracy rather than delivering core services. That, I believe, is one of the problems with trying to make local government too bureaucratic. Of course it needs to report back to government, but do not think you are dealing with the Sydney or Brisbane council. In general, you are dealing with rural shire councils that want their basic, core functions delivered. That is what we should be aiming at ...
Ms Scrymgour: What about economic development? And trying …
Mr WOOD: I take up the interjection from the minister, who talked about economic development. That is not a core function of the councils, but that is what you are saying to the people because that is how you are saying you will create jobs. The council will get funding from the Commonwealth, from the NT government and from its rates to provide for those core services. One of the things you will see in the reform documents that the government has put out, is more jobs.
A council on its own receives only X amount of dollars to provide the services to provide employment. If it is to get more money, it has to get it from somewhere else that is not local government. What we are missing in this debate is that local government, by itself, will not create employment more than it can handle itself - in other words, more than its finances enable it to. To create more employment, it will then have to take on those functions which are in the business plans. Therefore, it will have to take on post office agencies, horticulture, and other things that are not core functions of local government.
One of the reasons local government failed is because it did take on all these agencies, and was not properly funded for them. They were not local government core functions. I believe that you are actually saying that, because you have local government: ‘We will provide lots more employment’. No, no, from local government itself you will not, but from other people coming in and saying, ‘Will you be an agent for what we do?’, there might be more employment. However, the local government will not be the employer. The banks or Centrelink might be the employers. The store, if it is Outback Stores, might be the employer, and they might use the council to provide administrative services for those things to operate.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, you say I might have no idea, but local government should be first and foremost delivering local government services. It is no good taking on all these other functions - and there are a lot of functions in here - if the roads are still not maintained, the rubbish is still on the road, and the grass is not cut. That is what concerns me; that we have this great big super picture which, as time goes by, may happen. But, if we lose sight of what local government is about and the delivery of those local government services, and we cloud it with all these other issues about real local jobs and regional service delivery will allow people to get the real jobs in their communities, if they are jobs for local government, they will be there now, because that is what you will be funded for by the Commonwealth, by the NT government and by the rates that you deliver.
That is where there is a misunderstanding in the communities about the role of local government. The government is really setting up regional government. That is what we should be really honest about, because these are huge areas. Local government is not trying to cover one quarter of the Northern Territory; that is regional government. I wonder whether the Territory government is trying to put into operation responsibilities that really are the responsibilities of the Northern Territory government. I wonder at times, are people being told that, for instance - if I was to pull out the MacDonnell, I do not have it here. The Tiwi Islands one would be a good example. If you look in their requirement …
Ms Scrymgour: It is a good plan, Gerry, the Tiwi Island Shire plan.
Mr WOOD: Well, if you look in the Tiwi Islands plan, it talks about the things that councils will have to look at. It says ‘will’ in the plan, although, if you look in the summary that is now on the website, you will see that has changed slightly, and it does not put it in as ‘will’.
If you read the MacDonnell Shire Council document, under Commercial Services it says:
Under Agency Services, it says:
Then it goes on and states that other council services, for instance, ‘will be delivered by the shire: swimming pools’. It does have a section there on ‘may’.
I am saying that there is a danger now, if you are going back to the path where we were before, and why councils started to have problems being financial is they took on roles - it is written down here - that were not being fully funded. I do not have a problem if councils can afford it, but they also have to make sure before they take things on that they are running their core functions efficiently. They do not take on the post office if the road is still full of potholes or the rubbish is still on the road. They get the core functions right. I thought the very argument about this, way back, was that councils were not doing their core function, that they had taken on too many agencies and they were going broke because they had to fund these agencies out of their own pockets.
When you look at these business plans, we seem to be going back down that same path. I will take the example of horticulture. I have spoken about this before. Why would a council take on horticulture? Horticulture, according to you, should be a commercial service. If it is a commercial service, why is it the role of local government? Why is not it the role of an association or a private concern? It is not the role of council to be doing horticulture. Or the community store: why is that the role of a council? I would even argue that it should not be the role of housing. For many years, on Bathurst Island at Nguiu we had the Nguiu Ullintjinni Association, then those housing associations were scrapped under the Tiwi Local Government.
Ms Scrymgour: No, they were not, Gerry. Get better informed.
Mr WOOD: Well, they were amalgamated …
Ms Scrymgour: Bathurst Island Housing Association has always been an entity that is still there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Well, take Milikapiti, which was abandoned and given to local government. That was one of our arguments; they did not want that to happen. What I am saying is: is that a role of local government? Or is the role of local government sticking to its core function of providing roads, providing the land subject to the traditional owners’ approval? That is what their job is. Building houses, I believe, is something the professionals can do. If it is going to be the Housing Commission, let them build the houses, they can employ the people, let them do that. Make the local government do its own thing.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, do you mind if I recognise somebody in the Gallery? Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Ministerial Officers Gallery of Ms Liz McFarlane, former member of staff of the Department of Legislative Assembly. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I am saying that whilst reform is necessary, we need to keep our feet on the ground and not lose sight of what local government is all about.
The minister mentioned local government boards. If you read the act, the local government boards sound very nice. They can be founded if 20 people petition the council, but it has no power. The council can ignore it; the council has to approve the setting up. But it has no teeth. You may as well have a progress association. At least a progress association is not limited to who can be on it. The boards are limited to who can be on them. Whilst they sound good, in reality they have no teeth at all.
Minister, there have been a few issues in relation to a couple of communities. I have not heard anything back from the government in relation to local government boundaries. Pine Creek had a meeting a couple of weeks ago with 150 people turning up and petitioning the minister, asking that they be part of the Katherine council. I would like to know whether that request has been approved. If not, why not? I gather one of the concerns is that the bureaucracy has told Pine Creek they would lose their operating funds. I would have thought that if the operating funds were for Pine Creek, it would not matter whether they were in the Katherine Shire or the Victoria Daly Shire. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about that.
There was also a petition I presented earlier this year from Daly River people, 320 people exactly, asking the government to delay the introduction of proposed council reforms and the amalgamation proposed for the NT. They claimed it would be to the detriment to the people of the Daly River area, having an adverse effect on local employment, and that there had been a lack of adequate consultation. Minister, whilst I know you have been travelling around, I am interested to hear whether you had meetings with the Daly River people. They did not feel that the boundaries of that shire were practical especially in relation to the Victoria Daly Shire. Nguiu, Peppimenarti, Palumpa, Port Keats made some sense but being connected with Timber Creek and Yarralin, which are on the other side of the Fitzmaurice, did not seem to be a practical solution to local government. They wanted more time to discuss whether that was relevant. That highlights that we did not have enough discussion right at the beginning about boundaries.
Minister, I know we will discuss these issues when the amendments come forward for debate, but I do think I should at least summarise what I am saying. I understand there is good reason for local government reform. I support that principle. I feel it was the process that was flawed. I believe this has been driven by the bureaucracy rather than by communities. That was an argument I used in relation to the Top End Shire; that if you bring the community along, you will bring successful reform along. I do not believe that has happened. You can say that many of the people you have met on your travels agree that we should get on with it. I am not going to put more stumbling blocks in the road. But I do need to say and have on record that the basis on which this reform was started was flawed.
My big concern is that people who put their name down to work in local government as elected officials should be responsible to the electors. This legislation is more about being responsible to the agency and the government. There should be less of that and more emphasis on the electors being the people who have the final say about the people they elect. I will give you a quick example. You have a code of conduct. If the code of conduct is assessed to have been breached in a serious manner, the minister can, though a process, sack that councillor. I say that is not the job of the minister. It is the job of the elected people. They make up their mind whether those codes of conduct were broken in such a way as to bring disrepute to their council. They decide whether those councillors should be suitable to stay on that council at the next election.
That is distinct from the main breaches you can have that you have already in the act which gives reasons why you cannot qualify to be a councillor. The main problem I have with this act is it is big brother determining who should be on my council, how my council should run, rather than the electors being the entity that the councillors should be responsible to.
Debate suspended.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
(Serial 129)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, today I respond to the local government reform bill. We have made our position on this very clear from the start. We, like everyone else in this House, support reform, but not this model of reform introduced by the Northern Territory government.
This bill represents extensive changes to the original Local Government Act 1993 and its amendments of 2003. It also represents a significant shift in accountability from local government to the Northern Territory government as opposed to the rate payers and all the electors of the new shires. The member for Nelson has flagged his concerns about that. That is a concern and it enables the minister enormous power in that respect.
It appears that many of the changes in the bill have been made simply for the sake of change with no apparent need or request for that change and, in some cases, without any apparent change in meaning whatsoever.
While there are some remote communities in the Northern Territory that are in dire need of reform, there are some that are not and some that are functioning very well. In fact, some are quite perplexed as to why you want to tear down a well organised, well run and well functioning council in order to bring another one up. These are some of their concerns. In other words, how does throwing several dysfunctional councils together create a functional one, and what happens to the already well run councils?
As we have said ad nauseam in this House, it is not the reform process that the Country Liberal Party opposes. It is this bullish way that it is being imposed on the communities across the Northern Territory. We emphasise that word ‘imposed’, Madam Speaker.
The government will create the boundaries, eight shires; they will appoint the CEOs; the government will set out the time frame; and the government will dictate the form of community consultation - of which, we believe, there has been very little. It has been a bit more of a ‘sit down and this is the way it is going to be and too bad if you do not like it because it is going to happen anyway’. There has been no real meaningful consultation. We emphasise that word ‘meaningful’. There has been no meaningful consultation about the number of shires and their boundaries, and when this should be rolled out. Again, I go back: government will create the boundaries, appoint the CEOs and set the time frame.
The whole process has been set in place by the Northern Territory government, not in consultation with Northern Territorians. We firmly believe that and we stated that from the very beginning.
What consultation did take place was in the form of transition committees. These transition committees are there to represent the community. These meetings were not public unless you were sponsored, and you had to register and, even then, you could only speak for four minutes.
The member for Nelson has done a remarkable job in his neck of the woods. He has made a great point about governance of such proposed massive shires - the infrastructure and service problems associated with such large shires and, above all, diluting that localism, that local community. The proposed Barkly Shire is 320 000 km2 in size and that is 50 000 km2 larger than Victoria. The question is: how are people in that proposed shire able to maintain or develop a sense of community and a real sense of localism in such a huge body of land - 320 000 km2 of land, larger than some Australian states.
I will talk about rates. Clause 142 in Chapter 11 refers to conditionally rateable land. It says:
In relation to these provisions, the council is to prepare a draft rating proposal and submit that proposal to the minister for approval. There is no opportunity for the public, or those affected by a rating proposal, to comment on that proposal. We say that the proposal should be placed on public exhibition for comment before being submitted to the minister. It should be circulated to all those people potentially affected, particularly the holders of pastoral leases and mining tenements. The draft proposal, inclusive of comments and submissions, should then go to the minister for consideration. The minister should then be obliged to take into account those submissions in relation to the draft rating proposal.
In clause 142(3), it mentions that a rating proposal must contain the information required by the minister’s guidelines. The question here is: what is contained in those guidelines? There is nothing in here that illustrates that. It would appear that what is contained in those guidelines would be critical to any rating proposal.
Let us move to clause 142(7) which says:
In Chapter 11, Part 11.3 – Liability for rates, clause 150 - joint and several liability:
The provision makes occupiers of rateable land liable for rates, including arrears, meaning station owners and staff living on pastoral and other rural properties are potentially liable for rates imposed on that property. That is another area of concern with clause 150.
I will read out some concerns we have discussed in the past from other organisations. The Minerals Council has been an outspoken body on this since the very beginning. I will read a couple of questions. Perhaps, minister, we can flesh these out in detail in the committee stage. I would like to flag it in this response to the second reading. It says here:
I know that CDEP is being reinstated, but nevertheless these questions do still stand:
The question here is:
Another question raised:
Finally:
Turing to the Preamble in the bill, it says:
Does this mean, minister, that council could be challenged where services are delivered in a manner other than in harmony with this legislation? Are the proposed reforms, in reality, contrary to this statement of intent? How can a shire, which has an area greater than the size of Victoria, as we said 320 000 km, 50 000 km larger than the state of Victoria; how can a shire the size of that, with diverse and separate languages, and in some cases, little in common either culturally or geographically, possibly be responsive to the needs of local communities and be accountable? Does it mean that council can be challenged when services are delivered, in a manner not in harmony with this legislation, as pointed out in the preamble?
One of the communities in Central Australia, and I am sure the minister and the previous minister would know well, is Amoonguna. They have raised some questions and to date they have not received answers from the minister. I will ask some of those questions now, and they do deserve an answer. These are grassroots, fundamental, housekeeping-type questions that concern the people there. Who is going to pay the additional tax now incurred by Amoonguna due to the legislation changes? That is, salary sacrifice and FBT. Who would guarantee that the bookkeeper and auditors will be paid for work they would need to carry out after 30 June, after this has rolled out? Are the current employees going to be offered positions as promised by the previous minister until June 2009, as the meeting with the shire CEO made no guarantees of this? How will the community be better off under the shire? Will it be able to provide an equal or better service than is currently being supplied? That is an important question that applies to many other communities. What will happen to the shop? This was operating only because it was being subsidised by Amoonguna. A more serious question they raised is about the Health Clinic. What will happen to the Health Clinic? They were advised that the new body would need to be set up to take over the clinic’s entity. It would not be accepted by the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health because it did not have a proven track record, even though the same management would be in place. This problem could be overcome, if they were to retain their entity as an Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health. They promised they would fund the current organisation if it was in place. So, what happens to the Health Clinic as a result of this? That is a big concern; a much more serious one. This government’s approach to this, as we have seen is big on rhetoric and short on answers. I hope the minister can provide some answers to the questions raised.
If the Northern Territory government is so committed to delivering the best possible outcomes for Territorians, and emphatically believe that this process will deliver such results, then why are so many people and organisations right across the Northern Territory, not convinced? When this, one of the most important pieces of legislation in the Northern Territory since self-government 30 years ago, is being bulldozed through by an administration that cannot or simply will not, openly and honestly answer simple questions put to it by people, communities and organisations right around the Northern Territory. We are not talking about the Larapinta Tiddlywinks Club or whatever it is. These are organisations that have formed the backbone of the Northern Territory for many years. They have been around these parts for a long time and they understand the workings and the machinations of the Territory as well as anybody.
If they still think that there are too many unanswered questions, if they think that this process is rushed and not of such great benefit to Territorians as we are constantly told, then you would think they would be worth listening to.
We have a list of amendments and I know we will go through those in the committee stage too, but this was made available on Friday, effectively giving the new councils less than seven days to meet and discuss the new changes. It is not a lot of time.
What about the councils that are not part of this reform, but will be part of the act, such as Coomalie and Cox Peninsula which remain within that Top End Shire that we are talking about? How are they to pay for some of the roll-out of this act? I was looking for the Treasurer’s Advance on 17 December; down the bottom there is the Department of Local Government and Housing, an output appropriation of $51m. That was on 17 December 2007, after the Top End Shire was taken out of the proposed reform. Has this money gone to these councils that are not part of the reform but are part of the act, or is the breakdown of that money, is that toward housing or has that gone into local government? It was $51m and that was from the Treasurer’s Advance – yes, $51m or $50.952m.
Madam Speaker, there are still many unanswered questions. As I say, we can flesh those out in the committee stage of the bill. For the Parliamentary Record, we support reform and we have always said that we support reform, but we do not support the reform process imposed by this government.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the Local Government Bill.
This bill sets a high standard of governance for indigenous people in the Northern Territory. It gives indigenous people in the Northern Territory ability to provide better service delivery with their input at that high level.
This bill embraces something that happened many years ago - even before we thought about any form of legislation – which has been the pastoral and mining industry back in true partnership with indigenous people in the Northern Territory. It is about giving people the hope to work together to better the Northern Territory. For far too long we have been separated, with the mining industry in one corner, the pastoral industry in one corner, and the Aboriginal people in another one corner. We have tended to fight and argue with each other. This bill gives us the ability to come back together. As you know with the history of the Northern Territory, indigenous people and the pastoral industry have always had a tremendous relationship, working together and helping each other.
I have always believed in this reform and, with this bill being passed today, it gives us the opportunity to think outside the square. For far too long we have just thought about our individual little community. We have thought about Papunya in isolation to Kintore, in isolation to Mt Liebig, in isolation to Haasts Bluff, when in fact we only live a couple of hours from each other. This bill will make indigenous people in the Northern Territory think more about their region, their language and their clan rather than their little communities. There is also the opportunity for regional job opportunities for indigenous people, such as regional road construction, and regional housing construction.
Last year, the former Minister for Local Government was consulting in one of my communities in Mt Liebig. This is why I totally disagree with the opposition; that there has not been any consultation on this local government bill. There has been consultation. I have been to some of those forums where the former minister had the consultation process in my region. I know that the MacDonnell Shire has been asking for this to be implemented straight away. My crew have been saying to the member for Barkly, the former minister: ‘We want this. This is what we have been waiting for. Do it’. They want to see the change. They want to get away from just being on a council at Papunya, Haasts Bluff, Mt Liebig or Kintore.
Each community having its own accountant when they are only half-an-hour away from each other cannot be good for the Northern Territory or the local councils. The fact that we all have different auditors cannot be good for us. This reinforces in people’s minds how important it is to have people sitting at this high level, understanding what a governance mechanism is to govern the region and their communities. It gives them capacity to be able to sit in places such as we sit in here in this Chamber today, and become politicians, because they can better understand what it takes to be in places like this.
I turn to something the member for Nelson said regarding the size of the shires. Aboriginal people will always tell you that boundaries are not a doing of indigenous people; it was set up by non-indigenous people coming in and saying: ‘This is Queensland, this is Northern Territory, this is South Australia’. As Aboriginal people, we have gone across into each others borders and traded, and shared ceremonies with each other. When I look at my own boundaries of the MacDonnell Shire, the people at Kintore have ties with the people at Finke, Docker River or Papunya. Our children are inter-married into different languages and live in different parts - the bottom end or the top end of the shire. We cross over to all those ceremonies through all that area as well.
I encourage everyone in this House to support the bill. It focuses more on the region working together, and encourages people to provide much more information to their own community people. For far too long, councils have sat there and had meetings in the council chamber and then walked out. There was no real information flow involving the community. This will allow the community to participate and for the community to have a regional perspective on what is happening in their regions.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to this House and congratulate the minister. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the former minister, the member for Barkly. This was initiated through his vision of seeing what was really required in the Northern Territory. With his Cabinet colleagues, this bill was created and introduced to this House. I thank all the Cabinet ministers and this Labor government for having the vision to bring Territorians together. For far too long, we have lived with this separation of industries living in one corner, and Aboriginal people living in another corner. This gives us the ability, and encourages us, to work as a team, as Territorians.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I support the Local Government Bill. Speaking as a local member, with a large bush electorate, my electorate takes in four different shires, including Victoria Daly, Barkly, MacDonnell and the Central Desert Shires.
From my experiences over the last couple of years, and also as a born and bred Territorian, I say that this reform is well overdue. The Local Government Act was first introduced in 1985, 23 years ago. Previous CLP governments, through their local reform agenda, had several attempts at reforming local government, but failed.
Touching on what the member for Greatorex said about the preamble, that is even more reason why we need to acknowledge traditional owners, we need to acknowledge legislation that has been fought and won through the highest courts in this country, being native title and land rights. We need to acknowledge that legislation and traditional owners because this local government reform is happening on Aboriginal freehold land as well as pastoral land and leases. In the spirit and the intent of this legislation, it is very important that this preamble spells that out early on at the very beginning.
I believe that is why, in the past, we have seen the CLP government fail in turning things around in the bush, because they tended to try to deliver services and operate with many of our communities in the bush outside that spirit and intent of those two pieces of legislation. I acknowledge the Minister for Local Government, and the previous minister, for including that preamble and acknowledgement of traditional owners. That is a very important symbolic issue and statement that I believe will encourage and engage the majority of indigenous people who are going to be impacted by this legislation.
Also, I acknowledge many people in my electorate who have been involved. We hear constant remarks that there has been no consultation, but certainly through my electorate, through those four different shires, there has been quite a large number of people from communities involved in the process, whether it has been at the shire advisory board level or the transition committee level. We have had a great opportunity in taking the minister out through my electorate as well, and I am sure he has picked up on some of those amendments that we see being put forward today from those consultations on the ground, particularly the trips through Utopia and Ampilatwatja to Yuendumu, Lajamanu and also to Kalkarindji and Yarralin.
The minister mentioned the other day a comment from one of the ladies at Utopia to ‘just get on with it, let us get this local government reform in place’. They understand how urgent it is in terms of turning things around in their communities. I also acknowledge comments from the former minister, John Ah Kit, some time ago, a quite honest and abrupt statement that he put forward to this House. I believe that was really the turning point in this local government reform. The Stronger Regions stuff, sure, there were some bad things and some things that did not work out, but it was another attempt to turn things around in the bush. I acknowledge John Ah Kit for his honesty and his attempt at reforming local government.
We have seen the baton passed on to the former minister, the member for Barkly, and now we have the member for Daly, the new minister. I acknowledge all those previous ministers and also the current minister. He has certainly gone out of his way. He has travelled extensively over the past few months, and extensively through my electorate. I thank the minister for that getting out there on the ground, listening to the people as another form of consultation. I know people through my electorate have been fairly well engaged in the Shire Transition Committees and the advisory boards. They are looking forward to this happening because they understand, more than any of us in this parliament, the need to reform local government.
There is a bit of debate about the boundaries, but as the member for Macdonnell has acknowledged, there has to be recognition of some of those ceremonial and traditional boundaries that existed well before local government and self-government existed. In my electorate, there are strong connections through the different wards. Those wards pick up on some of those communities of interest. In the Warlpiri region, you have the wards for the Lajamanu community, but also Nyirripi, Willowra and Yuendumu. While those boundaries are very large, when you break them down into wards they do show a common interest in language and cultural connections.
It is an important reform for the Territory not only in terms of closing the gap in many areas of service delivery, particularly local government, but also in bringing together Territorians who, for a long time, have been neighbours, be they pastoralists, Aboriginal communities or miners. One way or another we all have genuine interests in the land, regardless of tenure or interests. This legislation will bring us closer together in how we deliver services, and how we ensure there is a better future for all the regions and Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, it was in March 2002 when my predecessor, John Ah Kit, brought to the attention of this Assembly the stark reality of our communities across the Northern Territory. I quote from John’s announcement that day:
I begin my statement with reminding this Assembly of the importance of this debate. I support the minister’s bill simply because I know this bill did not just happen overnight. Speakers from the opposition have said there has not been enough consultation. I remind members that this process actually began quite a long time ago. It may formally have begun 18 months to two years ago but, in actual fact, it began way back in 2001-02. It began in March 2002 when John Ah Kit stood in the House, stood right in the face of everyone, presenting this momentous speech that enough was enough, that our community councils across the Northern Territory were, at best, just standing on their feet and, at worst, completely dysfunctional or, in his words, many of them basket cases.
In my electorate of Arnhem, I can give examples of one community that has struggled. That community is Ngukurr. The Yugul Mangi Council over the years has had its own history of dismissals, as a council, and still struggles today to really get on its feet and have direction. Thankfully, it is a lot further down the road than it was five or six years ago.
I want to remind members that we are talking about one of the most historic reforms to ever take place across the Northern Territory. In social reform, in council reform and, this government - and you guys do not like to hear this - but this government has had a tremendous amount of courage; courage to sincerely look at the problems within our councils, to know that something has to work for the better.
You talk about models and the kinds of models that you want. Let me tell the opposition that what you are referring to is simply a minor part of what this reform is all about.
People out in the regions have had tremendous numbers of CEOs go though them. I was only in the job for six months and had six CEOs go through in one council. We really have to hit at the heart of what these reforms are about. I know, not only as the member for Arnhem, but as an Aboriginal woman who stands in this parliament, that it is about governance. We all know that unless we have a voice in our future and in the decisions that are made about our future, we feel helpless, we feel hopeless. We feel like there is no way forward. This is not going to be the panacea and there will be issues with this direction, but it is going to be a hell of a lot better than where we have come from. It will be.
Minister, I know for you, and your predecessors, the member for Barkly and John Ah Kit prior to him, that this is about consistency in terms of Labor and policies that we believe in as a government, believing in working to make life different and better for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in the Northern Territory. We have had to hit hard at the heart of the crises in these regions, and ask questions that people do not want to ask, and struggle to find the answers.
It is an exciting journey and there is going to be a tremendous difference. I give as an example to this House the excitement that I see east of Katherine with the Nyirranggulung Regional Authority, which is almost a mini-shire that began in 2004-05. Nyirranggulung takes in the Katherine East region of Eva Valley, Barunga, Beswick and Bulman. It has had some challenges. One of the first things that members in those communities found was that sense of having to band together, that no longer were they just going to have a Barunga Council or a Beswick Council. They actually had to work out what was their united approach together, how they could share the services and resources to be able to make a real difference in those communities. Yes, there was heartache along the way, and with my community of Bulman, there was no doubt it felt disempowered, isolated, and out on the edges.
Eighteen months later, Nyirranggulung Regional Authority has come a long way. Two to three years later, it has come an incredibly long way. I would have to say that also goes to the leadership of that authority. At that time it was directed by Michael Berto, who I am happy to say is the head of the Roper Gulf Shire. It is extraordinary people like Michael Berto and other shire leaders who have taken on this incredible challenge. It is an incredible challenge, an exciting one and a good one because it is going to get better. I only have to look at the East Katherine model to know that this is what we are about.
When members comment on concerns about how huge the shires may be, or the language or communication issues, I remind them that this idea and this model for shires did not come from nothing.
ATSIC had quite large regions. I speak largely for my area which is the East Katherine and Arnhem area, and the Garak-Jarru ATSIC regional model was one that worked quite effectively and very well for the regions. In fact, before the demise of ATSIC, it was the regions in the Northern Territory that were far more successful with the model of ATSIC, than perhaps anywhere else in the country.
Aboriginal people in the communities are acutely aware of how that process works because it worked under ATSIC. They could see this is about representation, this is about empowering people to have a voice. No, it did not mean 100 people were sitting around a table, it actually meant people had to vote for a person who would speak for them. People in the bush are not as frightened or as backward as people might think. They do understand what it means to vote for a representative who can sit at a council table and speak up on their behalf.
I allay any fears in that regard, and in particular about communication. We must have one of the richest countries with access to communication. I put this challenge out to our telecommunications system, and, in particular, Telstra. With communication, we have phones, mobile phones, e-mails, and computers. We can communicate via video teleconferencing. If we use the excuse of lack of communication regarding Darwin to Canberra, we would have some real problems. I remind members that, while people may live in the bush, they are not actually Stone Age; they can have communication through computers and mobile phones. Let us move from that argument, because it is not an argument. Aboriginal people are just as capable of having that kind of technology as anyone else. I wanted to put that on the record because I heard some members were concerned about that.
I believe the move towards the shire model is about an exciting direction for the future. It is a very reformist model. It is about the bringing together of all people across the Northern Territory to have a voice - an effective voice - of governance about their future.
I want to raise some of the concerns I have. The requirement for infrastructure needs to be remembered. I have seen some of the CEOs moving a lot, not only from places like Ngukurr, Numbulwar, Ramingining and Millingimbi. I think it is things like the infrastructure, minister. I know that Ramingining council has always had a wish list for a much better building because that place is a shocker. I have stood in the House before and spoken quite openly about it. I know it was taken on board to make a difference for that particular community. They have relocated to a building which is still not up to standard but, with the move towards the shire model for the East Arnhem, they have come on board and they are excited.
I will talk a little about Groote Eylandt, minister. You came to Groote Eylandt and heard the concerns and the wish list there with people wanting Groote Eylandt to, at some future stage, look at their own. It was really encouraging for them to hear that they can, down the track, have a look at the growth of the region. We have talked about the mining towns and, in particular on Groote, Alyangula. The good news about Groote Eylandt is that there is a great relationship between the Anindilyakwa people and GEMCO, the mining company. There is a future option there for them to be able to explore what could happen for them. That is an important point, especially for the people on Groote.
With the mining and the cattle industries, I point out to everyone in those areas that this is massive social reform on a scale that we have not seen in the Northern Territory. It is an exciting time because we can make a real difference - a true difference where each and every individual across the Northern Territory can have a voice and be respected, appreciated, and stand forward and say: ‘This is what we want for our area’. To see mining companies, cattlemen and Aboriginal people come to the table on that and know that this is a form of governance that they need to work together - they have to work together - to make the difference for their areas, whether it be with the roads, houses or rubbish, has to bode well for the future of the Northern Territory and with our relationships with each other.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, the passage of the Local Government Bill in the Assembly is another step towards stronger local government across the Northern Territory. The hard work of local government providing services to people in the bush is an ongoing process which will, ultimately, be overseen by elected council representatives. I firmly believe that this bill provides the legislative framework necessary for elected councillors to govern and develop communities across the Territory.
This belief is based on the fact that perhaps more than any other legislation in the Territory, this bill has benefited from the input of an enormous range of stakeholders. In getting to the draft stage, the bill went through no less than 26 iterations resulting from a range of different consultation processes with the multiple stakeholders who have an interest in local government. These range from local government councils, managers and community representatives, through to regional organisations and representative groups, to a number of those members who sit opposite today.
More than anything else, this shows that in providing for a new legislative framework for local government in the Northern Territory, this government was ultimately concerned with getting it right to benefit families in the bush. The bill will provide local governments with the structure and capacity to deliver more reliable and consistent services through a more robust local government council system.
Since becoming the Minister for Local Government, I have travelled extensively across the Territory visiting many hard-working Territorians who are committed to local government. I have listened to families living in the bush, to council staff and elected members, and a range of stakeholders who all care a great deal about local government.
An important example of this is that relating to conditionally rateable land. In response to concerns raised by a number of stakeholders, we recognise that pastoral rates levied by councils need to be balanced with pastoral rents charged by the Northern Territory government. Amendments will be drafted for the Pastoral Lands Act so that in setting the annual rent for pastoral leases, the minister responsible for the Pastoral Lands Act shall offset any increase in shire rates against the pastoral rents. This will ensure that the important primary industry sectors in the Northern Territory are not disadvantaged unduly by government policy. It is indicative of a government that is not only willing to listen but also to negotiate. We also expect losses to own revenue to ensure a sustainable local government and business in the Northern Territory.
Over the last three months, I have travelled more than 36 000 km, held more than 50 formal meetings and countless informal discussions to ensure the new local government legislation provides the needs of councils, council staff, resource centres, and other individuals and groups who have an interest in regional governance and service delivery. I have done this because I wanted to meet the people living in our regional areas and hear for myself their ideas, comments and concerns about the new system of local government. What has struck me most during these visits has been the proactive and positive approach to the changes in local government.
On the whole, these communities are positive about the move to shires, and this is because they have been involved in the process from the start. I have cited the example before in the Assembly of a senior woman from the Urapuntja Council of the Utopia homelands who, after a particularly colourful meeting, simply said: ‘Enough talk, get on with it’. This has been a common refrain across the Territory.
However, it would not be completely honest of me to stand here and claim that all the people I have met have embraced the changes without some concern. People rightly have concerns about their councils, their services, their jobs and their community identity. This is not to be denied nor ignored. Over the last two months I have taken the time to listen to people and have worked to ensure that these concerns are addressed, and will continue to work with communities to address any outstanding concerns.
What has struck me most in travelling around communities is the number of people who have said to me that, despite these concerns, they agree with the need for change. In many cases the response has been simply ‘get on with it’. By far, the majority of people are prepared, in typical Territory fashion, to give it a go. Despite their concerns, they can still see the benefits of stronger organisations that are able to deliver consistent services and negotiate with the Territory and Commonwealth governments on their behalf. Despite the fear of the unknown, many people understand the need to move on. They understand a council which provides sporadic, inconsistent services can be worse than no council at all.
While some councils have a history of good governance and service delivery, in far too many cases councils have failed to deliver even basic services. For too long, many people in remote communities, in particular, have lived in these communities without any real certainty that services they rely on today will still be available tomorrow. Often, the delivery of these services has been a matter of luck. At times, it has been like a rollercoaster ride for communities which have ultimately become disengaged not only from the local government of their communities but also from future development.
Over the last two months, I have been struck by the concern people have for the future of their communities. What has often let them down has been the capacity of these local organisations to sustain service delivery and implement the policy decisions of council. At the very least, the development of local government represents recognition that continuity is essential and for that we need robust organisations.
This Local Government Bill does not present a quick fix for communities. This is just the beginning of a modernisation of the framework in which local government operates in the Territory. A necessary step in any process of improvement is to ensure that there is institutional and organisational capacity to support development and improvement. The Local Government Bill provides this necessary framework.
I now turn to comments made by other members in this debate.
The member for Nelson made a number of comments and I will not go into too much detail because we will cover many of these matters in the committee stage. The member for Nelson raised the issue of boundaries, population and size of the shires. In determining shire boundaries, population was one determinate; so too were service delivery lines and transport networks; and the ABS played a key role as did communities of interest and cultural factors. All these issues were developed through detailed consideration by the Shire Transition Committees and the Local Government Advisory Board. It was not a unilateral decision of government. It was a lot of a painstaking work mainly by volunteers who were passionate and had particular experience within local government. They were also people, local to the Territory and local to individual communities. I believe they created the best boundaries possible and the best fit. However, as we will possibly discuss during the committee stage, this legislation creates a very good process for flexibility with boundaries.
As members know, the Territory is a diverse place, and the legislation has been created to allow flexibility, to adapt over time to population shifts, or other needs. The member for Nelson and I are going to have a respectful disagreement on the issue of boundaries. I believe the shires need to be established with the best chance possible to stand on their own two feet. The boundaries and the populations of each of these shires does just that.
I understand where the member for Nelson is coming from in relation to his discussions about jobs. He may be surprised to find that I agree. There is the chance he has not heard me clearly when I have discussed this issue. The stronger governance structure for local government will create confidence in the private sector to invest in the bush. This will create jobs. Both the Territory and Commonwealth government will have greater confidence to invest in the regions through the shires as a result of the stronger governance structure that this legislation brings. For example, the federal government’s investment in night patrol services in the bush.
I have to respectfully disagree with the member for Nelson that the shires will not create more jobs in and of themselves. There is a strong chance they will actually do that. This legislation is flexible. It allows shires, the legitimate third tier of government, to make decisions and determinations for their future. That is a fundamental responsibility of those elected members of those councils. They can decide to employ people responsibly within their budgets in areas where they so choose. That is the decision of those elected members and not for the members of the Assembly to dictate.
I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Greatorex. He canvassed a whole range of issues. We have quite a lengthy committee stage and I can pick up those comments in the committee stage.
I thank my colleagues, the members for Arafura, Macdonnell, Stuart and Arnhem. It has been delightful to be able to travel through your respective electorates. I gained much from your comments and your contributions which have fed into this legislation. The historic situations of your communities has given me further encouragement, and the encouragement of this government, to ensure that local government is strong in those communities. I thank you for your contribution there.
I recognise the contribution of the two previous ministers for Local Government, the member for Barkly and the former member for Arnhem. As many other people have said, they paved the way for this reform. I am the current minister just implementing what they started.
It is timely to give thanks to all those people from all parts of the Northern Territory who have contributed to the development of the bill. First, I thank members of the Municipal Councils of Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs who have given their time and energy to contribute to the process. The department has also benefited greatly from the input and advice of an informal reference group of local government managers, all with a great deal of experience in managing local government both in the Northern Territory and in other states. In addition, a great deal of expert advice on the myriad of issues surrounding this reform has been received through the Northern Territory Local Government Advisory Board. This group, chaired by Mr Pat Dodson, included representatives from local government councils, LGANT, industry groups and community and regional representatives across the Territory. A special thanks to Pat; he has made this process much easier.
While not directly related to the development of this Local Government Bill, members of the Shire Transition Committees have also contributed greatly and with energy and enthusiasm to the development of individual shires. While their work will continue, I take this opportunity to thank those individuals. While all land councils have had some input into the current local government reform, I offer special thanks to the Central Land Council which has been proactive in offering advice and critical appraisal of the bill, particularly as it relates to the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
Of particular mention is Jayne Weepers as a representative on the NTLGAB who has provided valuable advice often under tight time constraints. Finally, I would like to offer a personal vote of thanks to the members of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport who have worked tirelessly and often beyond the call of duty at weekends and after hours to bring the bill together. I thank all the staff who have worked on this, not only currently, but over the years.
Bill Stuchbery is one such man; he was in the gallery not to long ago. A special thanks to Bill. He is on long service leave at the moment, but he has been around for a long time and has contributed right through this. I hope he is here for the remainder of the debate because he has been very helpful and he is someone who has local government in mind.
Also, I acknowledge one person, Lee Williams, who has been my little trainer, I guess, with the legislation. He has been up and down with the legislation over the months that it has been out there, and has had to travel quite extensively as well to talk to many different groups. I thank you, Lee, for your efforts.
The legislation we are considering today is the result of a great deal of effort and consultation over a number of years. The process of listening to communities and stakeholders will continue after the passage of this bill. I am confident that this bill, when passed into legislation, will serve the local government sector in the Northern Territory well for many years to come.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I would like to make some preliminary comments in relation to the amendments, just to provide some clarity. I have circulated these comments to my proposed amendments to members opposite, but I will read these to the House.
I provide clarification regarding the amendments which I am presenting. Since I first presented the bill, consultation with key stakeholders has occurred. I have travelled over 36 000 km and visited over 60 communities listening to what people had to say. Most of the amendments I am proposing are technical in nature, and some are issues of substance that have been raised during the ongoing consultation. These amendments are proposed to give effect to the government’s decision to not proceed with the Top End Shire, to strengthen the existing provisions, and to provide clarification on the intent of specific clauses.
The definition of ‘Aboriginal community living area’ has been amended …
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair! Sorry, minister, I know you were going to go through this statement you gave us, and you will be going through clause by clause in relation to your amendments. What you have written here is a description of all those amendments. I do not know whether we are going to duplicate the process by you reading them all out now and, when we get to the bill, you will read them again. I ask for clarification of whether that is a reasonable point.
Mr KNIGHT: I will not read them again. I will move them as circulated in the committee stage as we get to those amendments. This is to provide a clear picture of what the government’s intent is with these clauses. If there is anything outside of this description that you need when we get to that clause, I can provide that. This is to put on the public record exactly what we mean by, and the reason behind, the changes.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I understand the minister. As long as we have a little time to think when we get to those particular points. Usually, what happens is the minister will say: ‘I am going to amend this’, and gives an explanation as to the amendment which gives us time to work out where we are in relation to the bill. I am happy for you to do that, and we will work our way through.
Mr KNIGHT: That is why I circulated the list yesterday to you, to give you a chance.
The definition of ‘Aboriginal community living area’ has been amended so as to allow the minister to gazette an area as an Aboriginal community living area. This is necessary as not all of the relevant areas are caught up by the original definition.
The definition of ‘mining tenement’ has been amended by inserting new words to clarify the meaning. The intent remains the same, that where an authority is required for commercial production, the definition applies only where the holder of the tenement holds such an authority.
Clause 12(2) sets out in broad terms the functions that a council may assume. This clause has been amended to clarify which functions are optional for a council.
Clause 14 deals with operations outside a council area. Amendments have been made to take into account the unincorporated areas of the Territory as a result of the decision not to proceed with the Top End Shire. The amendments allow for the council to exercise its powers within such unincorporated areas with the minister’s permission.
Under the bill, the department will be responsible for compiling the three regional management plans. This has been amended in clause 21 to provide that copies of the plan are to be available free of charge from the department and from the council offices. The department will supply copies of the regional management plan to councils for provision to the public.
Part 3.2 of the bill deals with municipal or shire plans. Clause 22 has been amended to make copies of municipal or shire plans available for inspection at council offices free of charge, or for purchase from council at a fee fixed by council. The plans will also be on the Internet. This amendment ensures that people who do not have access to the Internet will have access to the shire or municipal plan.
Clause 23(2) has been amended to correct a typographical error by replacing the reference to 1(b) with 1(c). The intention was always that the matters in 1(c) should be reviewed only once in each term in regards to municipal and shire plans.
Clause 24(2) has been amended to make it absolutely clear that although the budget forms part of a municipal or shire plan, the provisions set out in Part 3.2 do not apply in relation to changes to the council’s budget. When a budget is amended, the process applying to the creation of a shire municipal plan does not need to be repeated.
Division 2 of Chapter 4 contains provisions relating to the formation of council subsidiaries. Amendments have been made to clause 27(3) to enable LGANT to form a subsidiary of its own. For example, LGANT may wish to form a subsidiary to provide human resources or financial services to local government bodies across the Territory. The previous clause 27(3) only provided for LGANT to join with other councils to form a subsidiary.
The reporting obligations for councils regarding these subsidiaries, set out at clause 30, has been amended so that the annual report of the council may refer to, rather than physically contain, the annual report of the subsidiary.
Clause 36, which deals with eligibility for membership of a council, has been amended in relation to the shires. The amendment means that a person stands for election and represents a ward regardless of where they live in the council area. This amendment provides the electorate with maximum choice, and a member will not become disqualified only because of moving residence to another part of the council area. It makes the rule the same for shire councils as it is for municipal councils.
Clause 37(1)(d) provides that, if a person was employed by the council, then they could not be a council member. The amendment provides that only employees whose seniority disqualifies them will not be eligible to be a council member. The guidelines will clarify which positions are disqualified. They will be the senior and management positions within the council.
An amendment to clause 39(1)(c) was required as a consequence of the amendment to clause 36. The amendment deletes clause 39(1)(c), which provided that a casual vacancy arose if a member ceases living in the ward to which they were elected to represent. This provision is no longer required.
Part 4.3 concerns principal members of council. Clause 42(1) of this part has been amended to reflect the fact that Litchfield would like to retain the ability to choose whether to have a President or a Mayor. An amendment has also been made to the provisions covering local boards. The amendment to clause 64(1) provides for a local board to appoint its Chair rather than the council appointing the Chair of the board. An amendment to the heading of clause 101 to read ‘Role and Functions of CEO’ clarifies that clause 101 specifies the CEO’s functions.
The bill, like the current act, contains provisions relating to the financial administration of councils. Clause 127(3) has been amended to remove the possibility of ministerial approval for a council to budget for a deficit. It is not good accounting practice to budget for a deficit. The Accounting Regulations will expand on the detail of the meaning of ‘deficit’ so that it means the amount to which expenditure, including depreciation expense, exceeds revenue after incorporating transfers in from, and out of, specific reserves.
Chapter 11 of the bill deals with rates and charges. Extensive consultation has been undertaken in relation to rates. A direct result of that consultation is that clause 144(1) relating to exemptions, has been amended by the insertion of the new subclause (ja). The amendment provides that land owned by a land trust or an Aboriginal community living area association is exempt from rates, except for land designated in the regulation as rateable land subject to a lease or a licence of occupancy or land used for a commercial purpose. The intent remains that Aboriginal townships will have rateable land as most of these townships are under lease.
A note has been inserted at clause 145(2) and clause 145(3) to clarify that rates apply to a land trust or Aboriginal community living area only where that land is not fully exempt under clause 144(a). These two notes clarify the interrelation between the exemption contained within clause 144(1)(ja) and clause 145(2).
An amendment has been made to clause 149 to provide guidance in relation to how rates are to be calculated for mining tenements. The unimproved value of a mining tenement is its assessed value and the unimproved value is taken to be 20 times the annual rental payable under the tenement.
Changes have also been made in relation to the notification requirements regarding the change of ownership at clause 153 to reflect current practice. This change is being made in response to feedback from key stakeholders. Clause 153 is amended by deleting subclause (4), which effectively removed a ratepayer’s obligation to notify a council if a change of ownership had occurred that was registered with the Land Titles Office. The critical thing here is that rights and responsibilities attach to councils and ratepayers, and it is important that ratepayers provide councils with the information required so that rate notices are not misdirected.
Clause 170, which provides that unpaid and overdue rates become a charge on the land, has been amended. This amendment makes it clear that rates do not become a charge on land unless the owner of the land is a ratepayer who is liable for the rates that are in arrears and, secondly, that rates cannot become a charge on land within an Aboriginal community living area. The effect of this is that land on an Aboriginal community living area may not be sold for the non-payment of rates. In such cases, other debt retrieval processes are still available.
Clause 184(1) which deals with cemeteries within a council area, has been amended. The word ‘vest’ has been substituted with the word ‘care’, ‘under the care, control and management of the council’. The amendment was made to avoid any possible confusion arising from the interpretation of the word ‘vest’ which is sometimes used to describe the transfer of an interest of fee simple in land, which of course cannot happen with Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
Amendments to the provisions dealing with roads have also been made with particular reasons. Clause 185(1)(b) has been amended to broaden the definition of a road by including the words ‘or placed under the care, control and management of a council’ which includes roads which may not be given to the council in fee simple. An example of this is where a fee simple in a road is retained by the Territory but a council is responsible for the care, control and management of the road. Similarly, clause 185(2) has been amended by including the words ‘under the care, control and management’.
Clause 186(2) and (3) which deals with the withdrawal of a road from a council’s care has been amended to take into consideration the difficulties in only using the word ‘vest’. The amendments provide clarification between differences of vesting and care, control and management. An insertion of a new subclause (3)(a) also caters for the circumstances in which a council is looking after a road that actually belongs to an entity that is neither the council nor the Territory.
The last of the amendments relating to roads are the amendments to clause 187. Clause 187 provides for the circumstances under which a council may close a road. Subclause (2) has been amended so that a road cannot be permanently closed unless the regulations are followed and consent from both the minister responsible for the administration of the Control of Roads Act and the minister responsible for the Local Government Act has been obtained.
The amendment to clause 187(3) clarifies that a road must be under the care, control and management of the council at the time of closure for fee simple to vest in the council.
Madam Chair, a number of legislative notes and examples have been used in the drafting of this bill to make it easier to read and to understand. A note has been added at clause 190 to further explain the process of making by-laws. These rules are actually contained in another act, the Interpretation Act. The note brings that fact to the attention of the reader. The note will alert those not familiar with the by-law making process about the relevance of section 63 of the Interpretation Act.
Another legislative note has been inserted at the end of clause 249(1). Clause 249 concerns service of documents by council on others. The note clarifies that reference to ‘service of documents’ includes instances where other words of similar meaning such as ‘give a notice’ are used.
Clause 257 is the just terms clause that relates to acquisition of property. Clause 257(3)(a) has been amended so that it covers both the transitional process that occurred last year with the Local Government Amendment Act 2007, and the process under the new act by which councils are amalgamated into shires.
Madam Chair, as I indicated during the second reading speech, amendments have been made to give effect to the government’s decision to not proceed with the Top End Shire. These amendments begin at clause 261 with a definition of Top End Councils. Top End Councils means the Litchfield Municipal Council and the Belyuen, Coomalie and Cox Peninsula Community Government Councils.
Clause 262 has been amended with new subclauses (7) and (8) being inserted. Subclause (7) provides that the prospective Top End Shire Council does not become a shire council, and continues in existence only for the purpose of being wound up. It also states that the proposed Top End Shire is abolished. Subclause (8) provides that, when the winding up of the prospective Top End Council is complete, the minister may, by Gazette notice, dissolve the body corporate. These amendments make it absolutely clear that the prospective Top End Shire Council continues in existence only for the purpose of being wound up.
Clause 264 contains provisions in relation to the continuation of existing councils which are not being subsumed into shires. Clause 264(1) has been amended to ensure that council members continue in office until elections are held. New clause 264(5) makes it clear that budgets and other administrative things done in accordance with the new act, in preparation for new local government, will be valid even though there may be some contradiction with the current act. An example is provided that a council may fix allowances for its members when passing the budget even though this may not technically be lawful under the current act. New clause 264(6) is particularly relevant to Belyuen Community Government Council. It provides that where a council is under official management, it continues under official management under the new act.
New clause 264A makes some special provisions for Top End councils. The name of the Litchfield Municipal Council, currently known as the Litchfield Shire Council, is changed to Litchfield council. This change is at the request of the council. Belyuen, Coomalie and Cox Peninsula Community Government Councils become shire councils under a name to be assigned by the minister. Those councils are currently being consulted about their preferred name.
The minister fixes the date of elections, and the general election for the Litchfield Municipal Council is to be held at the same time as general elections for the shire councils in 2008.
Clause 266(1) has been amended, by replacing ‘31 May 2008’ with ‘the date of transition’. This amendment extends the time in which the minister can approve a rating proposal in relation to conditionally rateable land for the next financial year.
The final amendment is in relation to the description of Region One in Schedule 1, Top End Shire Council. The Top End Shire Council has been replaced with the councils that will now be continuing in existence.
Madam Chair, these amendments are indicative of my commitment to consult with people in order to ensure the Local Government Bill will be workable, practical and effective. I am most grateful to everyone who has contributed their ideas to the development of these amendments. Thank you for your patience, Madam Chair.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I would like to speak in general about the whole bill, and ask some questions on the bill in toto.
Madam CHAIR: Seek leave, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I seek leave to discuss a range of questions dealing with the whole of the bill.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I have a couple of questions. In the explanatory statement, there is a general outline and it talks about the purpose of the bill being reformed by moving from 61 local government bodies to nine shire councils and four municipal councils. Of course, that is now eight shire councils, four municipal and four others, you might say.
Minister, you said in your conclusion to your summing-up speech that the transition committees were the ones that decided on the boundaries. Who actually decided on the number of shires? I add to that: what was the basis of that number of shires?
Mr KNIGHT: The Shire Transition Committees made the decision about the boundaries. They, with the advisory board and a number of other stakeholders including local communities, provided advice about the boundaries. The number of shires was being kicked around, even back in the CLP times; back in 1998 they proposed amalgamations. We have had a number of numbers chosen. It was a decision of government, those numbers, based on a whole range of considerations. We can debate it, but we have that number now. Obviously, there may have to be some changes into the future, particularly with the Top End area of the Northern Territory, but that is a number that was arrived at with a number of factors and that is what we are moving towards.
Mr WOOD: I need you to clarify a little. There have been some statements made that infer that my argument is about where the actual boundaries are. I was raising issues about the alignment of boundaries. What I was trying to find out from the government is that your government decided that there would be nine shires. There was no community consultation with that. That was an announcement made at the very beginning of this whole process. Government has said that it would allow some tinkering with boundaries, and the transition committees looked at that. What I am trying to find out, because this is the basis on which this bill is going forward, a basis of reform based on bringing the number of councils down from 61 to a now eight. There must have been a basis for the government to pick that number. I am trying to find out what it was. The second part of the question really is, and this is the bit that has always concerned me, why was not the broader public - not the experts and all those sorts of people - part of that consultation process to work out how many shires there should be?
Mr KNIGHT: I will go back over it again. The number of shires has been proposed for a great many years. You know that, member for Nelson. There was a whole range of considerations about where they should lie. There was a decision made by the previous minister with advice from a whole range of different areas, and I believe that is a good number. You look at a whole range of factors. You talk about the geography, the size of them. But you look at the populations; they are quite small in comparison to a lot of other areas. We can talk about it, we can argue about it, but the fact is that there was a whole range of good advice from a well-intentioned, caring government which wants to make sure that these shires succeed.
Investing $27m into these shires is not setting them up to fail; it is backing good decisions. You have been around a long time, member for Nelson. I know you have made comments, and everyone has made comments about, yes, we support reform, well, that has been talk, talk, talk. At some point someone had to get some leadership and make a commitment, and we have done it. It is going to happen. After decades of talk, it is actually going to happen.
There is flexibility within the act to allow a whole range of things to happen. We, as a government, are not going to walk away from making sure that these shires deliver for the people living across the Territory. If we have to improve it, that is what we will do. You have to realise that, at some point, some government which really gave a damn about what was happening out bush had to make a decision.
We are going to have to respectfully disagree about numbers and whatever. I support where the numbers sit at the moment, but this is a government that will keep watching that local government and these new shires do deliver.
Mr WOOD: You missed the point, minister. We could argue about the numbers, but what I simply want to know is that you have picked the number as the government. I think it is a fair question to ask: on what basis? Surely there must have been a basis. You do not just think of eight, nine, ten, 11, or 12? What I have heard is that a figure of 6000 people was the figure used for the average population for a council. All I am saying is that I need it on record because we are changing the Local Government Act as part of a reform process. This sets out how many shires there will be and, as yet, we do not have on record exactly what your reasoning was behind that change.
Mr KNIGHT: As I have answered in the last question we want local government to work. We did not go about it and think: ‘We will have one-size-fits-all. We will set this one up this way, and that one might fall over; we do not care about that one’. We went across the Territory and looked at them, and there was a range of factors geographically and culturally as well. We believe they are sustainable. They are going to work and that is why we did it. We can debate this. We have a lot of legislation to get through. You believe that there has to be one-size-fits-all, one definition. What I am saying to you is, we looked at a whole range of factors. We wanted to make each shire the most viable and we believe we have done that.
That is my position, my understanding of it. I get back to it again: we want these shires to work. We are not going to set them up to fail. We used a number of factors across the Northern Territory in determining how many we should have and what their boundaries would be.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I do not want to harp on the issue. I am not saying one size fits all. I am not even arguing about the number. I am not saying you are not doing a good job with reform, that your intentions are dishonourable or anything like that. If a government makes a very big decision to knock down 61 councils down to eight shires and four municipals, then I would have thought there had to be some sort of recognition of some formula which brought that into being. I do not have the documents here, but the figure was 6000 people. That may not be the case. I do not want to harp on it anymore, but it is disappointing that the government cannot present the basis on which it made this change. Not the philosophical basis. I am not against reform. I am not against amalgamation. I believed there should have been amalgamations way when I was in local government.
My complaint is that they are too jolly big. When I went to Alpurrurulam and asked: ‘Do you feel like part of Tennant Creek?’ They said: ‘No’. It is not something that I thought up. For the record it would be nice to have on record the reason behind bringing the number of councils down to this number. If that is not possible, I will move on.
Just another question, you made a statement and I need some clarification before we get in to the main part of the bill. You were talking about transitional rates for pastoral properties. You said the government that owns the land would discount the lease to cover the amount paid to the local councils through the transitional rate. Is that correct or incorrect?
Mr KNIGHT: It is very explicit in what I read in the introduction to this committee stage exactly what was going to happen with respect to conditional rating on pastoral leases. It will be offset with the pastoral rents.
Mr WOOD: I have not read that. Was that in your explanatory notes or was that something new that has been added today? That is why I have stood up here now and thought that is different to what I have read.
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry, it was in my wrap-up speech. There will be amendments to the Pastoral Lands Act and when they are setting those they will offset the difference in the rise of the pastoral rents. This is after 2011, so the capping will stay in place for three years, then the councils will set their rates and then the minister responsible for the Pastoral Lands Act will offset the difference between the current rate and what it goes up to.
Mr WOOD: So you are saying that they will still be paying rates? It will not be paid for by the government? They will only be paying the difference between the capped rate and an increase in that rate in 2011? That is my understanding.
Mr KNIGHT: That is right. They will be paying whatever the rate is and the difference between what it is at the moment, which is 0.06 UCV, to whatever it gets approved at in 2011. The difference will be offset with their current pastoral rents.
Mr WOOD: We might get down to that when we get to that section, but I heard you mention it in your speech previously.
In relation to those communities that would like to change their boundaries, one would be Pine Creek, as I mentioned before. Could you explain to the House what is the story with Pine Creek wanting to belong to the Katherine Shire? Are you looking at that being a possibility? If so, would that require you to make a legislative change under the act, or would an amendment to the act have to come back to parliament if that was the case?
Mr KNIGHT: We can talk about it here, I suppose. There is provision within this current act to name wards, to change ward boundaries, to change council boundaries, and that can actually happen. With respect to Pine Creek, they obviously think there is greater value to their community being with Katherine. Those discussions are ongoing; I have been engaged in those discussions. The provision within the new act, and also the current act, is to allow for boundaries to change.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair. I will get into the main part of the bill. Thank you, minister.
I am not sure whether the shadow minister has some clauses, but would you like to start with clauses and I will respond.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.1, as distributed.
Mr WOOD: I want to check – this is where it gets confusing – are we using the clauses in the draft, or are we using the clauses in the schedule? I have the act here; the new act.
Mr KNIGHT: I am referring to the Schedule of Amendments that was circulated.
Mr WOOD: I need to just clarify with the Chair which clauses - I was looking at the preamble to clause 3 …
Mr KNIGHT: It is not a clause.
Mr WOOD: We actually have not dealt with the preamble. Am I right?
Ms Scrymgour: The preamble, we have gone past.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but I am just not sure that we actually dealt with it, because we dealt with clauses 1 to 2. The preamble was not mentioned.
Mr KNIGHT: We have dealt with clause 1 and 2. I am happy to discuss the preamble now, but it may be useful in the last move, which is the remainder of the bill, which covers all bits and pieces that are left over. I do not know whether you want to handle it now or later.
Mr WOOD: If we keep it in order, we probably should have asked the preamble first. I did not realise that that was not going to come up.
Madam CHAIR: We will deal with that at the end of the committee stage with all the other bits and pieces.
Mr KNIGHT: We are dealing with clause 3, Amendment 31.1.
Mr WOOD: We are going through the bill clause by clause. That is okay.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Same section, we are dealing with section 3, Definitions. Minister, under the definition ‘close family relationship’ it says:
That sounds an extremely technical term. Is there an English version of that term, please?
Mr KNIGHT: This refers to the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The words were put in by Parliamentary Counsel, so I imagine it has some legal significance. In basic terms, it means just what I said.
Mr WOOD: Did you ever think that Parliamentary Counsel might put it in the terms that you just said or, if they will not because they do not think it is a good idea, then there should be some definition of that? I could not find that in a dictionary. It is a new word. It would be good, if you are going to use such technical terms, to have some reference to what that actually means - either in another part of the definitions or as a note to explain what it means. It is certainly not common language. I wonder whether the government will consider, at some other time, putting in an explanatory note?
Mr KNIGHT: This act will be used in the elected members training. That definition will be heavily used, particularly out bush as far as the conflict of interest provisions go. That is Parliamentary Counsel’s wording. I guess they need that as a part of any future legal action that is taken in relation to conflict of interest. I have to take their advice on that. As far as putting some sort of plain English reference, that will be through the elected members training.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Surely, you should not need to do that. ‘Close family relations’ is an important part of the act because it deals with conflict of interest and, therefore, someone should be able to pick up the act and say: ‘Ah, that is me. I am, therefore, classified as a close family relation’. There is no way in the wide world that anyone would know what a ‘remoter lineal descendent’ was, and it would be good for the government to explain it if it has to use that word because that is the technical word. It is certainly not a word that most people would understand. I think local government would appreciate not having to go somewhere else for an explanation, but to find that in the act.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, this knowledge about what is in this act will particularly be used by the elected members. It is not going to be some child in the street who is referring to themselves as a close family relation; it will be the elected members who will have to take particular recognition of it in the application of their duties. Also, the staff of the council. They will be the practitioners and they will be given the training as far as what that actually means.
Mr WOOD: Well, good luck.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.2 as circulated, regarding clause 3 in relation to the change from council subsidiary to local government subsidiary.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.3.
Mr WOOD: This is my question on definitions. This is the Local Government Act, and I have concerns about whether we are actually dealing with regional government rather than local, should there be a definition of what local government actually is in this act? Do you think there is a need for that?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, ‘local government’ is a clear term used throughout this nation for the third tier of government. I do not think there needs to be any sort of clarification about it. It is very well known. Whether they operate over this area or that area, they perform local government services which are clearly recognised across the country.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I just correct you – it is the third ‘sphere’. Many a local government person thinks third ‘tier’ is putting them down, so I just mention that.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.4.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 11:
Mr WOOD: Part 1.3 Agency, clause 5; it is more a technical question. Why are we now calling what should be a ‘department’ an ‘agency’. Generally speaking, we have a post office agency or we might have an agency of Medibank. It seems to me that the people running the show is the Department of Local Government. Why is there a move to start using this term instead of saying ‘the department’?
Mr KNIGHT: My understanding is that under the Administrative Arrangements Act departments are referred to as agencies. That is why that terminology is being used.
Mr WOOD: I have a question in relation to clause 7. Under the local government system, it says:
What does ‘the management of the area at the local level’ mean? How broad a statement is that? I can understand it for the government, but for management at the local level, are there any restrictions on what that means?
Mr KNIGHT: That is the third sphere of government managing those services – obviously you cannot be that prescriptive, so there is flexibility. It is certainly about local government, as the third sphere of government in Australia, managing those local services.
A member: It is going to be a long night, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: That is all right. Well, it is a big change.
A member: An important change.
Mr WOOD: Yes, and that is why I am taking it seriously, believe it or not.
Section 8 deals with municipalities and shires, minister. We know there are four councils that are not, I suppose, recognised as such. This section says:
Should there be a note in there exempting places, for instance, like Cox Peninsula Council which was only in Belyuen? They are now classified as shires under this act but they would not be a shire if you took density of population and the degree of urbanisation as yardsticks because they are quite small.
I am wondering whether this phrase or this description of what a municipality and shire is, needs to take into account the circumstances that have occurred since the Top End Shire dropped out of the geographical part of the reform process.
Mr KNIGHT: You are saying that Cox Peninsula is urbanised. I think they see themselves very different. It takes both those things into consideration. I think they see themselves as a rural area while people from some of the other areas, say Coomalie, see themselves as regional. The gap between what you see with the shires, those three smaller ones, and what you have with the populations of Litchfield and Katherine where there is a mixture of high densities and rural areas, and Alice Springs, Darwin and Palmerston, there is a clear difference between those, and in relation to provisions of the Regional Management Plans as well. There is a clear difference. I cannot see how you could make some assumption that they would be in some way referred to as municipals. Those examples you are using are anomalies at the moment.
Clauses 4 to 11, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 12:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.5 to clause 12.
Mr WOOD: I am wondering if we are doing this correctly. My discussion is on clause 12(1)(d) which is before subclauses (f) and (g) are removed. It is only a technicality, but should I speak first in order of – if you do not mind, minister?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes.
Mr WOOD: I had a good briefing with the Local Government department. Thank you very much for the briefing. We had a long briefing some time ago and another one last night. I must admit I thought we were going to discuss this tomorrow which would give me enough time to take it all in. So if things seem a little haphazard sometimes it has been difficult getting over some of these changes quickly.
In relation to this section 12(1) the functions of a council include the following:
I presume these are things that council will have to provide because that is why we now have a new section further down which uses the word ‘may’. I am concerned that there is some cost shifting here. I am not saying councils should not carry out measures to protect its area from natural and other hazards. That, however, should be the role of Emergency Services. In most cases you would expect the council to help but you would not expect that to be the function of the council.
Minister, could you say why (d) is a ‘must’ rather than a ‘may’ for a council?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, it is about the extent of what is being proposed here. You are using an example of an extreme situation here, but councils will have to have the ability to clear hazards in their normal day-to-day business. We have had the situation in recent years where councils have had to clear away hazards. It is about extent. Those councils will not be taking on those roles to that extent that you are talking about without any sort of financial recompense. Also, they actually do a lot of the work, and they get reimbursed for it through the NDRRA money. They clearly understand that is what is going to happen to them. They have to have the ability and the obligation, where there are hazards in the community, to be able to clear that hazard away, and they currently do that.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, what would you define as a hazard? I could understand it being in relation to fire; so you would put in fire breaks around the town and that would help mitigate the effects of such a hazard. If I was to talk about a cyclone, an earthquake or a tsunami - is that the sort of hazard you are referring to here, because for instance with a cyclone, what does that actually mean from a council’s perspective? Are they part of the role in providing protection from cyclones? Or is their role to make sure all the trees are chopped back around buildings so they will not fall on houses? I do not know. I know what you are saying, that councils do get involved, but this is fairly broad. Unless there is some idea of what ‘natural and other hazards’ actually means it could leave a fairly wide scope of responsibility on a council.
Mr KNIGHT: It gets back to the extent of that sort of situation. Dangerous dogs are a hazard; a tree falling over a council road is a hazard. I rely on the elected members of those councils; they are sensible and pragmatic people regarding the council functions they undertake and the ratepayers’ money that they manage. There has to be some flexibility in there. However, it is all about extremes and extents that you go by. I am very conscious of what you are alluding to, and every Local Government minister in the country would be conscious of this cost shifting arrangement, but it is not the intent of what you have been saying here.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you mentioned dogs. This is not a back door way of getting back at Litchfield Shire is it, by any chance?
Mr KNIGHT: We are already moving down that road.
Mr WOOD: I imagine it would not be dogs in this case, unless it was some sort of pack of dogs.
Mr KNIGHT: It might have saved your dogs, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Okay, thank you. All right, minister, I will accept that, but I am a little concerned that if it is taken to its fullest extent, it could be seen as cost shifting; but we will go on.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Can I speak on that now. I can do it either way. I was just going to say I would like to thank the government for taking those two clauses out. It is something that I raised at the briefing, especially clause 12(f).
For a council to be told it has ‘to promote its area as a location for appropriate industries or commerce or as an attractive tourist destination’, is very difficult, especially when councils do not having planning controls. I am not saying that councils should not do it, but they would have to look at their budgets to see whether they are some of things that they should take on. I am pleased that the government has moved that into a separate clause, and it takes away the problem with putting an extra burden on councils where they may not either have the power, or they simply do not have the finance.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.6 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.7 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I have a question in relation to this. We are dealing with clause 14, ‘Operations outside area’. You are cancelling subclause (1) and inserting a new subclause (1) which states:
I go to new clause (1)(b):
Surely the residents of the area outside the council area that is going to have another council provide services to that area should be consulted before such an act takes place. Where, in this section would it say it will protect those people’s rights?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, this amendment was, basically, put in for those unincorporated areas left by the Top End Shire, and mean that the minister at the time will take into consideration local residents’ views in the effect of granting such powers to a particular neighbouring council. You have to trust the minister at the time, member for Nelson, to do the right thing. There does need to be the provision whether the minister has to approve such an act by a neighbouring council.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, minister, I do not always trust the minister. I remember the rates being capped without any consultation. Here is a classic example. What I have said all along in regarding this bill is that it is too big brother-ish. I am not saying that the government or the department has a role, but people are part of local government and they need to be consulted. That is what I have said all the time in this reform process. I am not against the reform process.
Surely, if for instance for argument’s sake, Coomalie council said: ‘We are going to look after the services in Douglas Daly’, there has to be something in the act that says: ‘Yes, after consultation with the people who live in Douglas Daly’ and, then, with the minister’s consent. That is the gap in that system that, once again, highlights the minister has power that tends to get in the way. What really should happen is that there should be community consultation first.
Would the minister consider an amendment to that bill which basically said: (1)(b) If the powers are to be exercised outside council areas those residents living in those areas defined will be required to be consulted, and then approval will be given, subject to those discussions with the ministerial consent’?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, a minister, in any act has a number of responsibilities and powers. You do not like to do that, but trust in what the minister does. The minister is accountable to this House and to the people of the Northern Territory, ultimately, and this power may be issued from time to time. I do not see it being extensively used, but it needs to be in there. It provides the ability for the councils to do it, and for the minister to approve it. The minister is not going to make a decision which is going to adversely affect people in those areas.
Mr WOOD: Not putting too much of a point on it, except that these areas are all going to be inside your electorate, and you are the minister. This is a brand new amendment that really has not had time to go out to the community, and it is a very limited community, nor the councils within that community. Remember, these amendments came out last Thursday. Most councils would not have had a chance to discuss them at a meeting. I am sure the people of Dundee, Marrakai, Douglas Daly, whatever, would not have known that this is a new change to the act. Probably, if I had realised it a bit earlier, but we had a briefing yesterday to look at the amendments, and I think there is a problem here. All I am saying is that I believe this is a fault in the legislation. I do not believe it would make any difference. The minister would still have the power. However, what you do is, you send out the right signal to people that you are willing to listen to what they have to say.
That lesson could not be any better learned than what happened in Litchfield Shire. There was not up-front consultation, and you are dealing with the same people in the same area. So, minister, if you cannot amend it now, I ask that you at least look at it and possibly look at an amendment. I would be happy to leave it even until the next sittings of parliament if that was possible. I think it would be a very good change, a democratic change, and it would be supported by those communities that it would affect.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.8 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, are we up to clause 15 yet?
Madam CHAIR: No, we are still in clause 14.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amendment, agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 20:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am referring to clause 16(1) which says there must be a regional management plan for each region. I wonder why it has to be forced on council. I am not saying regional plans are not something that should be looked at, but we are starting off a group of councils which are going to have a lot of changes and a lot of responsibilities, and what we are trying to do is to fix up the basics. Then you are going to tell them, as part of a huge number of plans – I wrote them down here before – there are an enormous number of plans that a council is going to have to put together. I will have a look for it later.
The regional management plans are going to be quite onerous. Would it not be better to have regional management plans as voluntary things, at least for the time being until councils get on their feet? If you go to the schedule at the back of the act and look at Region 3 – Barkly Shire, Central Desert Shire, MacDonnell Shire and the Alice Springs Town Council, and the Alice Springs Town Council does not have to be in it - you have three Victorias there. You have said that there have been many problems with councils, and we have amalgamated them and we are setting up this new structure and you have told us how wonderful it is. Why do we not give them a bit of breathing space and try to get them into shape? You have all these new CEOs, all these new Directors of Corporate Affairs, all these sorts of people: why are we putting this extra layer on? Why not leave it a little longer? Why is that not more the responsibility of the Territory? Previously, regional development was part of the Northern Territory government’s responsibility. Why are they not taking more of that on themselves thereby allowing councils to get off the ground and get the core function part of the reforms started?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, the agency has the key role in pulling together those regional management plans. So, as far as actual work goes, it will not really be the case. It will be using their existing shire and, hopefully, municipal plans as well. The crux of it, member for Nelson, is accountability. What we are seeing, and you would acknowledge this across those shires, is inconsistency in delivery of services. These regional plans will not only make those core services accountable on an annual basis but also provides a conduit, an environment where you can look at improving those services. By looking at them regionally - even if that is the entire southern region - there may be some services that you could provide to those shires in that southern region of the Northern Territory. There will not be extra work as the department will be carrying the load for that. I believe that the people of the various communities and towns throughout the Northern Territory, as ratepayers and residents, want their councils to be accountable for those core services which they and we pay for as taxpayers.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you said the agency was paying for a lot of these things. Surely this is going to require a lot of travel. You have a whole section, Chapter 3, which is set out purely for regional management plans. They have to be revised, they have to be prepared, they have to be circulated, they have to be put on the website, they have to report annually on the service delivery, or the agency does. I would imagine these councils have to get together at some stage and discuss these issues. If they are covering an area three times as big as Victoria, surely there are costs involved in developing these management plans.
Mr KNIGHT: I do not think that will necessarily be required. The agency will be pulling together the shire and municipal plans into a regional management plan. They will be doing the bulk of the work and consulting with LGANT, as well.
I acknowledge Tony Tapsell in the gallery. Thank you for your contribution with LGANT, Tony.
The agency will be doing the bulk of the work. You refer to regional development plans. I would hope that the Territory government and the Commonwealth government actively look at these regional management plans as opportunities to invest. That is what it is all about for those southern, central, and northern regions as a whole. The government and I share a vision in developing these regional plans for improving services, to be accountable for those services at the local level, and also for government or even the private sector to invest.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. The other question is that clause 16(3) says:
I suppose the simple question is why is there discrimination between a shire and a municipality in relation to having a regional management plan.
Mr KNIGHT: The municipal councils already provide the kind of services that will be covered by the regional management plans. The regional councils are also free to participate in the regional management plans if they so wish, as I have stated. There are many advantages for the councils to participate and governments should actively look at these regional management plans as being the conduit for investment for a particular region.
It is very much about accountability. The municipals councils in Darwin or Palmerston are extremely accountable for the core services they provide whereas with the shires, which have traditionally been a problem over the decades, it is about making sure that they report and we report to the public and to this Assembly about those services, particularly out bush in those shires.
Mr WOOD: Minister, there were only two shires in the days gone by, one was Nguiu Shire Council and one was Litchfield Shire Council. Neither of them were a problem, or maybe you were referring to the existing new shires and the councils that make up those shires.
Schedule 1 puts all these councils into regions. Does this section of the act allow, for instance, the old Top Roc type region to come under this? For instance, if Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield, Coomalie, Cox Peninsula and Belyuen, which was the old Top Roc area, are they therefore not committed to form a regional management plan? You have under Schedule 1 that these are the only areas that can be divided into regions in relation to regional management plans?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I will identify those three clear regions. We can disagree; you want more of those plans. It is something to look at over time. However, in the first instance, those three regional areas are big enough to report on. I am not sure if I have it correct about what you were saying about Top Roc, whether they want to participate in the plans or what?
Mr WOOD: I am actually saying if some councils decide they would like to set up their own regional management area, for instance, Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield, Coomalie, Cox Peninsula like there used to be, is there an ability in this act to do that, or are you tied to those three regions that are mentioned in Schedule 1?
Mr KNIGHT: We have proposed three areas which report on the core services and any other services that they want to put in there as far as those regional management plans. That is for local government. If Litchfield want to talk to Pine Creek or Yuendumu about some other sort of sharing or planning arrangements, they can do that. But this is the local government regional management plans. It is there as an accountability mechanism and looking at future planning for local government and efficiencies. If different organisations want to join up in some sort of other regional grouping, they can do that. Our regional management plans are resourced as far as assistance from the agency staff to pull them together. Those councils can choose to talk and plan with other agencies about other services they may provide whether it is tourism or whatever it may be.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. I suppose what I also should raise as part of the issue is that, if you took Schedule 1, it includes East Arnhem, West Arnhem - which includes Groote Eylandt – the Tiwi Island Shire Council and what was originally going to be the Litchfield Shire. You will now have Cox Peninsula, Coomalie and Belyuen in a Schedule 1 region. What is the logic behind that? If we took the old Top End Shire, what is the regional thinking behind it being attached to Groote Eylandt? It is a long way away. Someone has drawn up this idea of three regions. On what basis? It should have been more regions. There should have been regions based on a closer locale. I just mentioned that one we used to call Top Roc. There was another one with Jabiru, Pine Creek and Adelaide River. Why were such large regions singled out? Can you see that it would be difficult to say that Groote Eylandt had some core functions that could be relevant to, say, Litchfield Shire?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I guess we have eight large shires, three small ones, and five municipals at the moment. That is 16 in total. If you take out the municipals, you have 11. Three regional plans for 11 shires is reasonable. They will have their own shire plans which will cover large regions, as you have identified. Having only three regional management plans is appropriate to cover the Territory. Those councils can enter into planning or other arrangements with those councils outside this planning regime. We want to have three regional management plans on the table to ensure that these councils are delivering core services.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, clause 16(5) says:
I do not want Tony Tapsell to take this the wrong way because it is not against the LGANT ...
Mr Knight: We know what it is about.
Mr WOOD: It is not against LGANT.
Mr Knight: You would not let him in.
Mr WOOD: What I am saying is that LGANT, basically, is a representative of the councils. I am not sure it is the role of the government to tell them that they can participate in a regional management plan. Surely, it would be done at the request of the council within that region. They should be the one to say that they would like LGANT to represent them or to work with them in the development of a regional plan - not the government saying that LGANT can do that. It should come from the council within that region.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, these regional management plans are proposed and resourced by the government to look across vast regions to work with those councils about efficiencies and about being accountable. LGANT is the peak body. They may come into this with the things that they are doing, and they should - they are the peak body. Whatever you think of them, Gerry - and you should have let him in the meeting. You kicked him out. You know what a great job LGANT does and can do and should do. It is the peak local government body for the Northern Territory organisations. It does a great job for the Northern Territory, and outside of the Northern Territory on a national scene. It has a wealth of information about what is happening interstate and overseas. It gives them the ability to be part of it and to make a valuable contribution to the plans across the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I am not going to mention their role one bit, but they do have an important role. Mine was a more technical query. This act says they ‘may participate in consultation’, but they are the peak body for members. What I am saying is, it should be the members that say they would like LGANT to represent them on the regional management plan, not the government. This says ‘LGANT may participate in consultation’ relating to regional management plans.
I am not saying it should not be, but I think that would have been up to the members to decide, that is all. It is like the union; if you want the union to represent us at the meeting or come along, yes. So it is more technical. It is not putting down LGANT at all. I believe they would certainly play an important role in regional management plans. It is just saying that it has come from the wrong side of the road when you put this clause in.
Can I get a clarification what clause we are on, Madam Chair?
Madam CHAIR: Clause 17.
Mr WOOD: Clause 17(1)(b): I know I had a briefing on this, but I just need a clarification. It says:
Does that mean that every council within that region will deliver exactly the same core, local government services, and at the same level? And that will be tied in to all councils by this management plan. Is that what it means?
Mr KNIGHT: I guess that is exactly what we want to achieve out of these regional management plans. They will come from the shire plans. That is what we want to achieve. We want that transparency across the region to say that this shire, and this community within that shire, is receiving that core service at that level, and this community and this other shire is receiving at that level. We want to have a look at that. We want to expose the level of services that are happening out there. We want to be able to see how good shires are delivering good services, and we want to be able to identify the shires that are not delivering good core services to indigenous communities.
The setting out, the structure, the work to develop those plans will be done by the agency. You are probably alluding to the fact that it will be fairly extensive work, and it will be. It will be getting all those shire plans, which they will be developing themselves, as they should, and bringing them together and identifying them all.
Mr WOOD: What I am saying is that, if I read this the way it is, if the regional development plans must define for shire councils within the region the core local government services, are they saying that every local government council within the region will provide exactly the same services at exactly the same level, and there will be no room to move between one council and the other as to what core local government services they can provide?
Mr KNIGHT: I believe you are taking the interpretation of ‘define’ meaning ‘direct’, but I am taking it as being ‘described’. Does that answer your question? You think that we are saying ‘must define’, so you are saying that the regional management plan must tell the council in that region how to deliver its core service. The regional management plan actually describes the shire, it describes the service and where it is being delivered. I guess we are talking about a definition of the word ‘define’. Am I on the right track there?
Mr WOOD: I was concerned that it was actually going to make a level playing field across X number of councils and they were not going to have any variations in what they could do. That was what was concerning me. So if one council did not want to have dog control and the other one did want to have dog control, this would not allow them to do that, they would have to have a level number of core services. So that is not the case, that is what you are saying? They could vary their core services according to each council.
Mr KNIGHT: You are again alluding to the big brother. I think that is what you are getting at. It is a transparency mechanism. The plan will be developed, as I said, from the shire plans, which describe their services and where they are delivering those. It is a description.
Mr WOOD: I am just trying to get a clarification. We are adding extra layers of bureaucracy here and I want to see how it works. All right, this council says this is the core function, then it goes to a regional management meeting with four other councils to set up a regional management plan. What has that got to do with the regional management plan? I have a set of core functions here, I am council X, and council Y has a series of core functions it wants to carry out, and council Z has another set of core functions. They all come together. What is the reason they have to define their core local government services? What is the reason for that? You are saying things like the cemetery or some equipment. I am just wondering what the mechanics of all this will be when it goes into place. What is the reason for that clause (1)(b) to be there?
Mr KNIGHT: It is to provide some definition of how those regional management plans are going to be developed. It gets back to being accountable. That has been the part which has been lacking. With the framework that local governments operated in there has been an issue with accountability. We have had various regional plans over the years, regional economic plans or whatever they may be. This puts local government services in that kind of regional context. There may be some opportunities that come about with identification of similar services which can be delivered on a regional basis rather than a local one. The clause will also expose those councils which are not providing those core services at a level that they should be.
This clause gives you an idea of how the plan is to be developed and what needs to be in it.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. If I could just go on quickly with this clause 19 - and I do not want Tony Tapsell throwing something at me - but clause 19(2) is also related to LGANT and clause 19(2)(d) relates to LGANT. My query is not whether LGANT should be involved. I believe it is something the members of LGANT should decide themselves, whether they want LGANT to come onside or not. I know I will get the same answer you gave before. I just want to make it clear: it is not about LGANT not being involved. It is just that I have a different way of thinking in relation to who should say whether it should come into the consultation process.
Just quickly, clause 19(3): I am not sure if it is one of your amendments. It says:
Is that the only way that the draft management plan will be publicised, on the website? Not everyone is going to have a website. Will hard copies of that be available?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, amendment 31.9 covers that in clause 21.
Mr WOOD: Hang on, 21 what?
Madam CHAIR: Amendment 31.9
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, it is clause 21 though.
Madam CHAIR: Yes, it says that copies of a regional management plan are to be available free of charge at the agencies’ public offices at the public offices of a council in their area within a region.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, so clause 19.3 stays there. Then you have to read on further to find out that it is in …
Mr KNIGHT: It is in relation to the …
Mr WOOD: I am talking about the draft regional plan. Subclause (3) relates to the draft regional management plan. Is there anything to say that that should be available on a hard copy somewhere?
Mr Conlan: That is 21(3), is it not?
Mr WOOD: No, I am looking at 19(3). It also applies to 21(c) and 22(3).
Mr KNIGHT: In relation to that, clause 19(2)(c):
of one month prescribed. So it is published; it will be a fairly big document. I take on board what you are saying, but it is a draft. It will be quite a large document. It will be advertised in the paper and will be available on the website and ultimately available from the offices.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. That is all, Madam Chair.
Clauses 15 to 20, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Madam CHAIR: Members, I would like to adjourn proceedings for a period of five minutes.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed its consideration in Committee of the Whole:
Clause 21:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.9 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Just to clarify. Was that referring to clause 21 in the bill?
Mr KNIGHT: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: When you print the exposure draft in black and white, sometimes you cannot quite see which bit you might have added in. But it is all okay. I did not have anything.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move …
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I would like to speak before the minister, just in general. Part 3.2 deals with municipal or shire plans. One of the issues I have is that, compared to the council I knew and the council we are going to get now, there seems to be much more reporting. I am of the opinion that there is too much reporting. I know you have to certainly have some plans for what you do, and you have to account for the money you spend. My understanding is that not only will you have a regional management plan, but you will have a municipal or shire plan. That municipal shire plan will be made up of financial plans, and a strategic plan. You will have to review this municipal or shire plan. You will have to have a long-term financial plan, an annual budget, an annual financial statement, and you will have to have an annual report.
Has the government realised how much that process is going to cost a council, in the form of getting extra people to deal with all that. Maybe in the case of the big shires that is not a problem because they are going to get rid of all their CEOs and they are going to have one CEO and an accountant for the whole shire. If I refer to places like Coomalie, Belyuen, Litchfield, they are going to have to do all this as well. Is there any money in the budget, or has it been taken away to help fund those councils to put all this in process? This is a lot of work for a new council. Have you recognised what this will cost, and are you looking at providing some funds for the councils that did not end up as part of the reform process? I am not expecting them to be that way forever, by the way, but is there any financial assistance to help those councils?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, you have made an assertion that there will be extra work. I will only concede it on a couple of points. The regional management plans will be done ostensibly by the agency pulling together the shire and, hopefully, the municipal plans. So there will not be any sort of cost incurred there. The shire plans are basically the business plans that those councils do at the moment.
When I said I concede on a couple of points, it was about that long-term financial and strategic planning, because they need to do it. You know yourself that councils, a lot of the time, and Litchfield has looked into the future a bit with their depreciations, but there are many councils that do not, but it is a very prudent, modern business practice to be doing those sorts of things. That is what we are trying to aim for.
We are trying to make sure that these councils just do not go from year to year, and then find themselves in all sorts of trouble. We want them to look into the future to make sure that when they are setting their annual budget they are to take into account costs that will be borne in future years. I believe that cost will not be significant. Many of them do it now, and those large shires, which will probably incorporate many of those small councils that were not doing it, will have the capacity to do it themselves. Certainly, the business systems that they have in place, that we have provided, allow for that as well. I do not think there will be a cost incurred. I believe that Coomalie is forward thinking as far as its plans go, and those other councils should as well.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I have to beg to disagree. I spoke to Litchfield and they certainly think there is going to be an extra cost, because there is not only the cost of preparing these, you have to get these on to the web, you have to be able to put them out there and make sure they are accurate, you are going to have to have hard copies as well. Putting this out to the public and making sure that it is accurate will require some extra staff. I spoke to somebody on one of the smaller councils today and they said: ‘We have a strategic plan but because it is not in the format that the government wants …’, now, you would have to wonder why a strategic plan has to be in a format that the government wants. You really want to be able to read it and say: ‘That is my strategic plan’. But they have said that they would have to have a strategic plan in a format the government wants and that is going to take time and effort to do that.
I noticed that in the budget you spoke about $5m being provided to the new shires and I wonder whether that is for a lot of these sorts of things, if the government would be prepared to help councils financially, that is, the councils that are left over from the Top End Shire. They have to go through all this, and there is a fair bit of paperwork and material required. I am not saying that a lot of this is not necessary to make sure councils operate correctly, but some of the smaller councils may find it burdensome. I was curious if the government would consider giving those councils some financial help to do this.
Mr KNIGHT: I believe the large amalgamated shires are pretty right. I have spoken to those three smaller ones. I have a meeting this Sunday with Cox Peninsula, which may be the one you are referring to. We are happy to look at one-off costs that have resulted from this reform, but ultimately we want those councils operating at the same level of accountability and modern business practices that you would expect them to. We might be speaking about the same council. I have spoken to those three small ones. The shires should be right and the municipals as well.
Mr WOOD: What concerns me is this: this is one of the Tiwi Island’s Shire Council business plans. This is pretty thick; this is a lot of stuff to go through. I do not believe that you have to run a council to this extent. This is starting to get out of hand. What I am concerned about is that you are taking it to a level that is not required to provide good services. You do not want to get struck down with this. Could I also ask while we are dealing with the general issue of municipal or shire-type plans, these business plans that we see here, this is only a draft one, these will be incorporated in a municipal or shire plan, would they not? If a council adopted this, this would be a part of this?
Mr KNIGHT: The business plan would be the shire plan. On that document you have there. I do not think that you were being derogatory against Tiwi people using that particular one at all.
Mr Wood: No, I have fond memories.
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Arafura gets very touchy about that.
Mr Wood: She likes to needle me when she gets the opportunity.
Mr KNIGHT: It is very interesting that you say that because it is a very complex document. When I met with the Tiwi council, the former member for Arafura, Maurice Rioli, was there. He is one of the key departmental staff and he said: ‘This is what I need as a manager of my section. This is not for the general Joe Blow, this is for me to use so I can actually do my job. I can drill into it and see exactly what I am doing, what I am getting out of it, how much I have, and what I am supposed to provide’. It is very much a working document. He found it very useful. Those business plans will effectively be the shire plans. That is the planning software that has been provided to the shires.
Mr WOOD: There is no doubt; I am not knocking having a business plan. I am just saying that the level of complexity and detail may not be required. The business plan for Litchfield Shire certainly was not this thick. You might say that it was not thick enough, but it did the job for the core functions.
I need to know how this fits into this whole bill. This is the important document; each council has had one of these done. I will try to get this into perceptive. This is a draft and it is the first draft for most councils. Litchfield, however, has a second draft. These were supposed to be looked at by the transition committees. There is supposed to be a final draft out in May. The problem I have at the moment is that on the web page I do not see any minutes of any transition committees this year, bar one, in 2008. I do not know from the local government website whether anything has changed.
What I need to know is that once we pass this legislation, once a business plan has been approved by the shire, would such things in here, like the big list of core services, if that what was agreed, that is what the council has to take on. If it says in here that you will take on certain commercial functions – it is written in some of these documents ‘will’, although I do note that when you go to the website you get a summary version. The summary version has different wording in relation to the commercial services. Someone has changed that slightly. I will give you an example. It talks about services for all and it says:
in this case, the Victoria Daly Shire.
It is not saying you will do them, but they will be available on a fully commercial basis, but when you open up this document here, it starts to talk about ‘… you will do those things’. I am a bit concerned as to what is going to come out at the end. Will we have a chance to look at the final drafts? This legislation is going to be passed and it will tie councils to exactly what is in this final business plan, all their core functions, agency services, commercial services that, if I read this one correctly, they ‘will’ have to do. I am concerned about that.
How is this all going to work. Will we be expecting the final draft of this next month? Is that up for public discussion or is it just something that the councils agree on and it will automatically be part of this, and we will not be able to see this as part of a debate anywhere. Once there is a final draft approved by the transition committee, will that be it? No more debate? That is how I see it. And then, automatically, it will come as part of this legislation?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, those first drafts were very rough. I will freely acknowledge they were very rough. The second draft, which provides much more clarity, more solid numbers in there, and job numbers as well, is due in a matter of days. I would expect there to be at least one more, and maybe two more fine tuning drafts before 30 June, for these business plans. May has been locked in. The recent announcement about CDEP will again change things within the business plans and the staffing numbers. The one you have there is a very rough first draft, with a lot of information pulled in from a larger region. They will ultimately be published.
I will look into the matter about the website. The second draft of the business plans will be circulated and will be made public, and I would imagine the third and possibly a fourth, if there is one, will be circulated as well.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am dealing with clause 23(1)(a) if that is all right, minister?
Contents of municipal or shire plan. In clarification, minister, that clause 23(1)(a) says:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, as you know, the municipal councils can be part of these regional management plans. If they choose to be part of the regional management plan, they have to set out their core services and, being the size they are, should be in accordance with the planning requirements of the regional management plan. If they choose to opt in to the regional management plan, they will have to set out their service delivery plans in accordance with the regional management plan.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, minister. It might be a technical point in the way it is written. Even though I know they are excluded, if they want to be, from a regional management plan, this does not write that exclusion into it. It simply says that a municipal plan must contain a service delivery plan for the period for which the municipal shire plan relates, in accordance with planning requirements specified in a relevant management plan. It might be technical in the words, but I would have thought that it would then have to say ‘if a municipality was part of a regional plan’. Maybe it is too technical, but it seems to me that it is not clear - that is all I am saying.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, we need to go to lunch with Parliamentary Counsel, maybe, if you want to argue technical points. This has been out there for a while. You have one interpretation of it, and they have a different interpretation of it. If they are going to come in, that is what the prescription is. They have the option to come in and out but, if they are in, that is the way they do it. I have to trust Parliamentary Counsel on this one.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Even Parliamentary Counsel are fallible sometimes. We have to understand that this is the committee stage and we are going through this bill. As some people have said, this is one of the most important bills put before the parliament, and it is worthy of scrutiny. I always say that we only have one House of parliament here. We do not have a second House of review, and the committee stage is one of the most important stages in the process. I know it is a long, drawn-out process, but it is one of the most valuable processes we can carry out. If I sound like I am drumming on a bit with some of these issues, it is important that we ensure they are clear. Then, if people want to read later in the Parliamentary Record what you said about the clause, it is there for people to read. Thank you, minister, we will move on.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 33.11 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.12 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 27:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.13 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.14 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 30:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.15.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 35, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 36:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.16 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I welcome this change. It is an important change. The idea of having a person restricted to living in a particular ward meaning that that person could only stand in that ward was against what I call the basic philosophy of this Local Government Bill. It should be up to the people in the shire to decide who represents them, whether they live in a particular ward or not. If they live within the shire, that is fair enough. As I have said before, in the Northern Territory I can live in Howard Springs and stand in the electorate of Greatorex. I would say my chances of getting elected are pretty slim …
A member: Oh, I do not know.
Mr WOOD: My good looks might help. But that leaves it up to the people in that electorate to decide. To change what you have done is far more democratic and puts an emphasis, which I think should be in this bill, that we should be making it clear that elected representatives are responsible to those who elect them more than the government or the agency. Thank you for that change.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, my question in relation to this qualification will probably come up again later when we get to the code of conduct. The code of conduct has been included, I believe, because the government saw some issues in relation to Darwin’s Lord Mayor at the time. There were issues about whether what had happened would allow that person to be removed from council. I am not a really great supporter of the code of conduct, and the disciplinary committee as has been written into this bill further on. Why I am bringing it up here is that I think that under this section here you could cover some of those things. For instance, if someone was charged with theft or fraud, you could put under the disqualification clauses a clause which stated that. It is clear here that there are certain things that you cannot do and hold office, or cannot even stand for office.
I would prefer this section to be looked at and maybe clauses added, rather than introducing a whole new extra bit of bureaucracy in the form of disciplinary committees and codes of conduct. When we get to that I will raise some issues.
Minister, was there any consideration given to widening the reasons for disqualification under this section, rather than introducing a code of conduct?
Mr KNIGHT: This clause actually prescribes a number of things. Darwin City Council is the classic example of a very unusual situation. There has to be flexibility. The tribunal is a very accountable and responsible body to make that interpretation so, although there are areas that are defined within this particular clause, for disqualification, there is the provision for unusual instances. I understand what you are saying. By having this clause, and the tribunal, there is enough scope to cater for any particular instance, as well as ensuring we avoid the same situation we had with Darwin City Council.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, just on subclause (1)(c)
(1) A person is disqualified from office as a member of a council if the person:
Essentially, the bar has been lowered. The previous terms were that three months within the last five years would disqualify a person from office. We have seen in the past some quite lenient sentences for some quite serious crimes. My question is why is it necessary to effectively lower that bar where a person could serve 364 days of the year for a serious crime, but still be eligible for office?
Mr KNIGHT: I am not too sure. You will have to give me some more clarification. My reading of the current act, the Local Government Act, section 9(1)(e):
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, minister, you are right. Three hundred and sixty-six days, one day more than one year, and is still eligible for office.
Mr KNIGHT: Say that again, sorry, 366 …
Mr CONLAN: Essentially, in the act here, it says that … a person is disqualified from office if he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment (which has not expired) of one year or more …’, where, previously, three months within the last five years would disqualify a person from office. My point is that the bar has been lowered to disqualify someone from serving on a council. I was wondering why that has changed.
Mr KNIGHT. Madam Chair, can you refer to the section within the current act that you are referring to?
Mr CONLAN: Clause 37(1)(c).
Mr KNIGHT: You will have to give me more clarity, member for Greatorex, in that 37 …
Madam CHAIR: Are you referring to the proposed bill?
Mr KNIGHT: There is no 37(1)(c).
Mr CONLAN: Disqualification, minister.
Mr Wood: Which bill are you referring to?
Madam CHAIR: It says about three months. What clause is it?
Mr CONLAN: In an earlier draft, terms of three months within the last five years would disqualify. Has there been a change, minister, and why is that?
Madam CHAIR: What clause is that in the old …
Mr CONLAN: I have just made a note here, so I have not got a …
Mr KNIGHT: I cannot seem to find the reference in the old act for that particular section, but as far as the legitimacy of this provision here, it is consistent with the Australian Constitution and it is consistent with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, so as far as it being an appropriate clause, it is certainly consistent with the national and Territory legislation.
I am sorry, I do not know what you are quoting from there.
Mr CONLAN: I will find the previous one, thank you, minister.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Chair, I would hate to confuse things here, but the way it is now, it does not mean that they have to serve that time. That is a sentence that is handed down. And just about invariably people do not serve the full sentence, but it is the sentence that is handed down, not the time they serve.
Mr CONLAN: That makes it clear, thank you, member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr WOOD: My concern is clause 37(1)(d) and it needs clarification as it is an important clause. I believe it has changed from the previous act, especially in relation to community government councils.
Mr KNIGHT: Do you want me to move - that is the amendment.
Mr WOOD: I beg your pardon. I do not have the pretty colours. When I am looking through here they do not stand out, sorry. I will wait for you to move that amendment minister.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.17 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: I will just read what you said, so that I can make sure that I understand this fully. You say: ‘Clause 37(1)(d) provides that if a person was employed by a council they could not be a council member. The amendment provides that only employees whose seniority disqualifies them will not be eligible to be a council member, guidelines will clarify which positions are disqualified, and they will be the senior and management positions within a council’. Minister, this has always been a bit of a hot potato. It has been an issue because there is conflict of interest and all that sort of thing, and in municipal councils my understanding is that you simply could not. In community government councils it can only be done with the minister’s approval.
This is only going to say to us, that with both municipal councils and shires there is a change and you do not have to get ministerial approval - or we do not know that as we are going to have some guidelines. However, we are now going to pass an amendment without seeing what those guidelines are. This is a very important part of local government to make sure there is no hint of corruption, or paternalism, or influence into contracts, etcetera, or financial matters of council. Yet you are asking us to pass an amendment without seeing the guidelines which would set this particular amendment in place.
Minister, do you have a copy of the ministerial guidelines we can look at before we agree or disagree to this clause?
Mr KNIGHT: I acknowledge that this particular clause has given a great deal of consternation. From the travel I did, and talking to various communities, it became very clear that we need to have that ability, at least in the short term, for members of council to be able to serve on the council. We want those members from bush communities, the smartest and most intelligent people, to be advocating their region’s or their local community’s cause within local government.
It is consistent across Australia that you cannot. However, in Queensland, it is allowable, especially in the Cape York communities. They have a four-year transition of that provision out of the Local Government Act. However, there is the acknowledgment within their scheme that you cannot be a Deputy CEO or the Assistant Chief Financial Officer.
It was a compromise about ensuring that we got the best possible people on those councils but recognising that we did not want to have them too close to the decision-making level. Going back to the elected members’ training, it is about identifying clearly what conflict of interest is and about what you can and cannot do. Also, you need to acknowledge that being an employee of a council is an obvious potential conflict of interest. Being involved in other obligations out bush has greater potential for conflict of interest. There is a whole range of conflict of interest; this is just one that is fairly obvious.
These shires are going to take on a lot of roles across the shires especially, and we just have to be careful we do not disempower the governance of these shires, at the communities’ detriment, by being too prescriptive. It is something that we have had to consider very fully, and the ministerial guidelines will reflect that. The guidelines will come out and they will be open for consultation, but this bill will have to pass first. Those guidelines will certainly be distributed for consultation.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I understand that, and I have some sympathy with what you are saying. When you have a small population base and you are trying to get the best people to operate the council, that is what you are trying to do. That is what the community government section of the Local Government Act enables.
Because this is something new for municipals, in my understanding it is just simply not allowed - full stop. I am interested now, if someone fits within the ministerial guidelines – I really need to know what those ministerial guidelines are. I am interested to know which levels of seniority. I know you are saying some, but I hope that they are written somewhere so that the councils have the guidelines for who can stand and who cannot. It would be interesting to look at how that actually works in practical terms in relation to conflict of interest for a member of the council.
Clause 73(1) states:
You also have that playing along at the same time. It would be unwise to have a person who works for the council, who may not be right at the top but, maybe somewhere in the middle but is dealing with a lot of issues, who would then find themselves in the position of always having a conflict of interest in many of these issues and, then, can hardly be the person who can take part in the decision-making.
I am just putting forward that there could have been some more discussion. I do not know what the municipal councils think about this change. I discussed with one of my fellow parliamentarians that one of the council presidents was concerned about this particular clause. I wondered whether this clause has been sent out. I know it has been e-mailed but whether, for instance - well, I am not sure that councils knew that this was going to be debated tonight - if they knew that these changes were going to occur and did they support those changes? This now allows municipals to have people standing which they did not have before. There are two sides to this coin that need to be discussed and debated.
Mr KNIGHT: I guess the alternative was to take it out. I believe it would have disempowered those shires. As far as the circulation of this, it has been in the old act. We were taking advice into consideration right up to almost the last minute. This was circulated to those councils last Friday, as soon as we could get it out. If we had taken this provision out, in the short term we would potentially disempower those communities.
For the municipals, I do not think the potential for that exists as much as it does for the shires. You obviously have a greater job pool. I do not know how many positions the Darwin City Council has, but there are certainly more jobs in the Darwin City Council area outside of the council than what you would have in some of the communities. An example is Ali Curung, which I visited. You have a council operating and those councillors have been on council for a while. They are the smartest, the most active, enthusiastic people. Every single one of those council members would be ineligible if we had left this provision out. So that community, as far as an advocacy, a person on that Barkly Shire Council would be worse off.
I guess it is in recognition that these shires have taken on a great deal of responsibility from day one, but in the coming years may take on a greater or lesser degree of responsibility. We have to acknowledge that, but also keep a close eye on it. This is just one area of conflict of interest which is very obvious and which we obviously focus on, but there is a whole range of other areas, and that is why education about conflict of interest is very important.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I accept that. I am not trying to debate that side of it. The difference is that you said that this was in the old act, but the old act had the guidelines written in there. We do not have the guidelines here and that is something that is missing. Do you have any idea when the guidelines might be available?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, the guidelines will be out in a couple of weeks. There will be things in there that have been removed from the key decision makers, the Director of Corporate Services and the CEO, and I am sure there will be other provisions about training and things like that. So, yes, a couple of weeks, and it certainly will be circulated to you, member for Nelson.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I will quickly refer to clause 39(1)(f):
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.18 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 42:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.19 as circulated.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr WOOD: That includes 1A, is that right?
Mr KNIGHT: That is right.
Mr WOOD: It is probably a good time to bring it up now, in the case of 42(1A)(b), where it says:
in the case of the Litchfield Council …
and, of course, the word ‘Shire’ is missing there. Minister, you did say to me the other night, that the council could have the word ‘shire’ remaining in its title. I put that to the shire. They said the department told them they had to have the word ‘Shire’ taken out. I spoke to the department last night and they said that is not the case. I rang the president of the council and the chief executive officer. They said they would like to keep the name ‘Shire’, but of course could not do it until they had passed it at a meeting, given that they had said originally that they were willing to take it out.
That was all right when I knew we were going to debate this on Thursday night. The fact is they might have started the meeting by 6.35 pm to discuss the issue. It is probably not practical for me to come in here with an amendment saying where it refers to Litchfield council it should be Litchfield Shire. I ask the minister under the powers in this act, if the Litchfield Shire Council came back to you and said they would like the word ‘Shire’ still left in the act - because this act will not apply until 1 July - have you, under the powers in this act, the ability to take up a change? Can you do that without me having to bring an amendment to the parliament?
Mr KNIGHT: I have not heard anything from the Litchfield Shire Council. You are saying you have. There is, I understand, a provision that they can actually take on that name, but they will be referred to in this act as it stands today because I do not have any contrary advice such as a council resolution which says they want to be called Litchfield Shire. I understand that can change, but, as far as this act goes tonight, it will go through as Litchfield council because that is my understanding of their intention.
Mr WOOD: That is what we discussed last night at the briefing, and it was not until after the briefing that I was told that this bill was coming tonight instead of Thursday. That meant there was difficulty getting a council meeting to change the name. I am not party to the discussions Litchfield Shire had with the department. All I am saying is that the President of Litchfield Shire Council said to me last night he would be happy if the name stayed there. What I am trying to clarify, minister, is if the council does decide tonight that they would like to retain the name Litchfield Shire, would you have the power to install that name in the act, or would I have to bring forward an amendment at some later date?
Mr KNIGHT: Apparently, it can be done by gazettal, but again we have a council resolution and apparently there was no pressure brought to bear on them at all. We will look at that in the future, but it can be done through gazettal.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 63:
Mr WOOD: Just some clarification. In relation to clause 44(1)(b), I would have preferred that all mayors or presidents be elected by the populace. I realise that these changes do include what used to happen under community government councils anyway. However, for the sake of trying to keep politics or anything else out of local government, I always refer people to a documentary called Rats in the Rank that used to be on ABC television. It is a classic reason why it is better for people to elect their president or mayor rather than the councillors. Whether it is political parties or whether it is groupings or whatever, it takes that bias out of the election.
Minister, the word ‘appointment’ is used in subclause (2), and also in clause 44(1)(b). Does that mean there is no election within the council? Normally you can elect people by the populace or you can elect people from the councillors. Does ‘appoint’ have a different meaning here?
Mr KNIGHT: It does. ‘Appointment’ is basically the method. As you understand, the shires can choose to do it by populace or do it from within their own. So the word ‘appointment’ is describing the method in which that is undertaken.
Mr WOOD: Did we get to clause 47?
Madam CHAIR: Yes, clauses 43 to 63.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, clause 47. This one is interesting. We talk about the setting up of the council office, but there is nothing to say that the council office must be within the boundaries of the shire. Should it be?
Mr KNIGHT: No, member for Nelson. We have situations where shires are going east and west of a major regional centre, as in Alice Springs, where that is the central hub and that central office will not be in the shire of MacDonnell or Central Desert, and with Roper Gulf as well as Victoria Daly because it will be in Katherine. So there is recognition that the Territory is different and we have regional centres which fall into the auspices of municipal councils and you are going to have the shire council in their regional centre. We are a bit different in the Territory as you know and the local government is going to be different.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I was going to raise this civil issue later but it may be worth raising it now. One of the concerns I have with these council offices not being in their shire is that we are actually taking people out of the shire. Tennant Creek is an example where there will be certain jobs that belong to Barkly that will be moving to Alice Springs. In the case of Victoria Daly, the advertisements for positions available for the Victoria Daly are not at Port Keats, or Nguiu, or Timber Creek. They are actually at Katherine. They are for the human resources manager, the site services manager, manager of assets, manager of finance, accounts payable officer, accounts receivable officer, and purchasing officer. They are basically saying that ‘we currently have the following vacancies to be based in our headquarters in Katherine’.
I know what you are saying, but one of the downsides of having a public office in these central areas is that for a town like Tennant Creek it is a very bad thing because it loses some of its people to another centre. In a shire like Victoria Daly it is saying that Katherine is the easiest place to put it because it is on the main highway, it is accessible. They have an Aboriginal township out here of 2000 or 3000 people but we are not willing to put the people there in the heart of the council they are to serve. It sends the wrong message if we keep saying that we need to put the public office in those shires. Maybe it has some practicalities but I would have liked these people to work in my shire, if possible, and that would send a better message to the people in that shire.
Mr KNIGHT: It is my understanding that 90% of the local government jobs will be within the shires. I guess you have to, member for Nelson, leave it up to the members of those shire councils, as in shire transition committees, to decide where they situate their head office to a degree. The people of Ports Keats may love to have their head office there; however, some of the other members of that particular shire would disagree with that.
Some of the positions you describe are positions that were previously contracted out. Now, they will be in-house. Yes, I recognise what you are saying but, as I say, 90% of the jobs will be out in the shire doing those works, and there will be depots and smaller offices out on each one of those communities employing local people. We have had to look at efficiencies, and what is the most acceptable manner of providing headquarters and local offices.
Mr WOOD: Clause 63, just quickly on local boards, minister. I welcome the changes from the original bill which spoke about local boards with three men and three women and, you name it, it was all very prescriptive. However, I have a couple of concerns still. Local boards do not have a lot of seats, even though people might talk about them. The facts are that a council may establish one or more local boards – ‘may’ is the point to make. Also, the council may abolish it. However, if we go further down, clause 51 says:
(a) the members of the council who are resident within the local board’s area or who represent wards within the area; and
(c) any other person whom the council appoints to be a member of the local board.
This is my argument: you would be better off with a progress association, because they would just have voluntary people who came along and joined that association. This board has a lot of control via the council, and you have to ask: what is the point of the board because, if it can appoint people as it sees fit, do you not think that you are losing the real need for the board? I would expect that board to elect its own people who voluntarily want to belong to that board, not to the ones that the council would like to be on that board. Do you think that the board will not be seen to be independent?
Mr KNIGHT: There the two things that you need to recognise here. The shire council needs to have a legitimate responsibility for the direction of the shire. Also, shire councils - and I put a great deal of trust in them - know that local advice needs to come from the bottom up, not from the top down, because it just will not work. We have seen that with a number of missives by government federally over the last 12 months; that you cannot impose and direct down into communities, you have to come from the bottom up. Therefore, these local boards will play a key role in the development and direction of those local communities. Also, one of the key members of that local management board will be the shire councillor. Again, as a legitimate third sphere of government, that shire council has the responsibility to ensure that those local boards are the most representative body in that community, that they want to get their advice from.
Therefore, they need that flexibility to put some members on there who, maybe, traditionally never got on a local body that provided advice through to the overarching governance body. You, perhaps, know of instances around the Territory where certain groups were excluded from local boards or local government groups. It allows that flexibility, but the shires will recognise the importance of these local management boards in driving, from the ground up, advice and direction to the success of the shire as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister but, under clause 52(2), I do not think they are driven from the ground up. It says here: ‘a local board is subject to control and direction by the council’. So, it is the other way around. I am concerned that these were set up in response to people’s concerns that local communities would lose their identity. I think you spoke about it yourself.
I feel you would retain far more of your identity if you had an independent progress association, or ratepayers association, or landholders association or whatever, where they elected their own people, where they had their own members, and they were not subject to the direction of a council. But they were a legitimate body that was set up with a corporation. It could be the Douglas Daly; they could set themselves up as a corporation there, and they came to council meetings or they asked the councillors to come to those meetings. You would achieve the same thing, but that little association would be much more independent than this board. That is what concerns me; that these boards will be a little like puppet regimes that are not really independent.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I guess that can happen. They are independent associations. This is local government, this is local government services, and we have to give legitimacy to the elected shire council. And also the shire council, if it deals inappropriately with a local management board, it is going to suffer because it is not going to get that clear direction and advice about where it needs to go. Then, also, if the shire council believes that a local management board should be given some responsibility it can delegate some functions to the local management board. Also, if a local community wants to set up their own association for its own purposes, it can do that outside of local government. But certainly, for local government services and the governance of these new shires, it is going to be in the way of the shire council and these local management boards.
Mr WOOD: I am retrieving my notes, clause 61(8), I could not remember what it was. This is in relation to procedures at meetings. It says here: ‘unless the council decides unanimously to take a vote by secret ballot, voting is to be by a show of hands’. This is in relation to council meetings. I know that has been in local government for a while, but I must admit that I prefer that voting was open and there were some guidelines to say when it should not be, rather than a council deciding that they can decide when it should be in secret. I believe that one of the great benefits of local government is that you can go to a council meeting and sit in the public gallery and watch your councillors vote. So you know if you want to support that councillor at the next election because he thought a 98-storey building in Palmerston was the ideal thing, but you can see how he or she votes. We should try to retain that as much as possible in local government, except where it could deal with, for instance, contracts or some matters pertaining to a member of staff, the usual things which are not normally out there in the open in relation to the public.
I know there can be problems when setting up committees, that some people might not like to vote against a councillor over the road when they are forming a committee within a council, but I would rather see the rules say ‘voting will always be open except for the following’, rather than leaving it up to the council to decide.
Now, that may rarely happen, but I think it is the philosophy behind local government that it retains that openness, transparency and accountability to the people who elected it. I do not know what your opinion on that would be. I know it has been around a while and probably some councils would like it there. I am not here to defend what councils want; I am here to defend what I think is good for the democratic process. I do not know what you think on that, minister?
Mr KNIGHT: I guess those councils will be judged upon their application of this provision. You have named two or three instances where it could be used, there are probably a hundred where it could be used, and you cannot put them all in there. You have to put the responsibility back on that council. If they misuse this provision, they will be judged, ultimately, at the next election. There may be many reasons for a certain councillor or the council to utilise this provision. It has been around for a while and people will judge those councils on the application of them.
Clauses 43 to 63, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed its consideration in Committee of the Whole:
Clause 64:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.20 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I would like to thank the minister for that change, which was something that came out of the briefing. It is an important change. Previously the council appointed the Chair. This allows the members of the board to appoint the Chair, and that is a good move.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 to 100, by leave, taken together:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, clause 65, Meetings to be open to the public. This relates to clause 65(2); it says:
Minister, are those regulations available yet?
Mr KNIGHT: My understanding is that the regulations will be developed after we pass this bill. We will be apprised of those regulations when they become available.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. However, the problem from my point of view is that I am passing the bill and, hopefully, agreeing with the regulations which will probably never come back to parliament. You can see from other sections of the act where there are meant to be guidelines and I have to agree to the clause, but I have not seen the guidelines. It might be normal for government to process things that way, but it is a little frustrating in some ways if you have to agree to something when it is not here; it will be available in a few weeks time. I understand regulations take time to put together, but you are dealing with a complete bill here. It would be good if the regulations were available to be checked out as well.
Mr KNIGHT: In answer to that, we show good faith in this process with this particular legislation. You described how we took some matters on board in previous clauses. As you say, we have to pass this legislation to actually get these regulations under way. They will go to consultation, and the good faith that we showed in this legislation will continue in the regulations and the guidelines.
Mr WOOD: Same question in relation to clause 71(2) regarding allowances and expenses. I might have received those guidelines. This one refers to the allowance being set at a rate fixed by the council, subject to guidelines issued by the minister for the relevant financial year. They are the draft proposals that are being put out, I presume? Okay.
My next question relates to clause 78(3) in relation to interpretation. Clause 78(3), under Making or adoption of a code of conduct, says:
My question is: why is it less stringent and who makes that assessment? I refer to Schedule 2 - these are pretty broad: ‘A member must act with honesty and integrity’. Who is to say that he was acting with integrity? ‘A member must act with reasonable care and diligence in performing official functions’. Who is going to say if that was reasonable? ‘A member must act with courtesy towards other members’. That could be open for interpretation. It says here that if a council makes a code of conduct that is not as stringent as this, then this schedule applies. I am asking: who makes those judgments?
Mr KNIGHT: My understanding is that if there is a complaint about the code of conduct which the council has adopted and they feel that the code of conduct is less stringent than what is prescribed in Schedule 2, they have to appeal through the disciplinary committee. Then, obviously, they have recourse up through the tribunal as well. Councils adopt them; they look at where it is in Schedule 2, and they apply their code of conduct. However, if people feel that the code of conduct has not been applied, and they question whether it is strong enough, they have recourse through the disciplinary committee.
Mr WOOD: Could you tell me where I could see that process? That is, if someone does not believe that the council’s code of conduct is less stringent, where in the disciplinary proceedings do I find the ability for someone to disagree with that?
Mr KNIGHT: It is contained in clause 79. A person actually has to make a complaint regarding a breach of the council’s code of conduct. They make a complaint to the disciplinary committee that they feel that the code of conduct has been breached and is not in compliance with this act, and as stringent as Schedule 2. So, they have to actually make a complaint.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, Division 2, Disciplinary proceedings, clause 79, Complaints of breach of code of conduct. It is about a breach of the code of conduct. It is not a complaint that the code of conduct is not stringent enough. I do not see where that clause has anything to do with somebody making an assessment as to whether the council’s code of conduct is less stringent than Schedule 2. I do not believe that you could use that to cause that. It appears to me someone has to make a decision as to whether the code of conduct is strict enough.
Mr KNIGHT: The provisions within this act say that the council must have a more stringent, or as stringent, a code of conduct as prescribed here. Provisions in clause 73 say that if someone feels that a code of conduct has been breached, they lodge a complaint with the agency. I guess the council would be either in breach of their own code of conduct, or that their code of conduct is not sufficient to meet the level that has been set within Schedule 2.
Mr WOOD: We may have to agree to disagree because, under the section, Disciplinary proceedings, we have a section which deals with the complaints of a breach of code of conduct; establishment and composition of disciplinary committees; and procedure of disciplinary committees, at clause 80 and clause 81. I think that clause 78(3) is not dealt with under that section. So, we may have to agree to disagree, and I suppose wait for the time that a council draws up its code of conduct and see who instigates this so-called process to see whether their code of conduct is less stringent than the one the government has drawn up.
Mr KNIGHT: When these councils are setting their code of conduct, they will be aware of not only the setting of them, the requirement in there, but also the relevance to a breach of the code of conduct. They will inform themselves of this legislation and set those codes of conduct appropriately.
Mr WOOD: My next query is in relation to Division 2, Disciplinary proceedings. My basic question is: do we need disciplinary proceedings? In the end, councils are responsible to the people who elected them. When you read your code of conduct, which disciplinary proceedings will apply? They are very general codes of conduct. You know: ‘A member must not direct, reprimand or interfere in the management of council staff’, a lot of those things are open to interpretation. ‘A member must act with courtesy towards other members’. That could be really open to greater interpretation. Someone might just have the grumps.
We have to give councils a bit of leeway to some extent. They are only human beings, and if they do something silly, well, be it on their head, they will probably end up on the front page of the NT News. But, at the next election, let the people decide whether that councillor is not worthy of being on the council. We are dealing with relatively minor things compared to what is in the disqualification clause. Some people have called this the Adamson amendment. They felt that, because of the issues that arose at Darwin City Council, there was no way to remove someone and suggested adding something to the disqualification clause.
I believe this is a big brother scenario. There is a danger that people could use this for political reasons. I know you have to go through the disciplinary committee. I know there is a tribunal and I know that it is independent. But people may use this as a way of getting at someone. We do not have it at the moment. Councillors should act properly but, in the end, if they do not, and it is not a serious offence, it is not a criminal offence under this disqualification section, let the people decide. They are the ones who decide. Look at the things that happen in this House that would not fit in this code of conduct. Have we kicked people out of the House? We have not. What we say is: ‘Well, if people do not like what that person has said or done, it will be up to the electorate at the next election’. Why should we not apply the same principle for people on councils?
We already have the disqualification section. That could be tightened up, as I said. We are making a larger bureaucracy, or adding a layer of big brother. I would rather this section just be dropped altogether. Hopefully we are dealing with adults. They will make mistakes from time to time. Leave it up to the people. That is my basic philosophy behind why we have a local government act. The councils are responsible for those people who elected them. Let them decide, not the government, not the minister.
Mr KNIGHT: I agree to disagree on this. I do not think you can wait for four years to resolve an issue at the ballot box for certain matters. There needs to be …
Mr WOOD: What happens here?
Mr KNIGHT: Well, it depends on what we do.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right. I am talking about minor things.
Mr KNIGHT: You have to understand that the disciplinary committee is not me. It is made up of a legal practitioner nominated by the Attorney-General, a nominee from the minister, and a nominee from LGANT. It is not some politically motivated body. It provides for the councils to resolve issues that come up within its terms. It is appropriate and will serve the councils well.
Mr WOOD: Of course there can be recommendations. The minister can remove a member on disciplinary grounds. When you look at the code of conduct, if it got more serious than some of these things, you would have to wonder whether you gone into criminal offence in the first place. When it gets into that sort of realm, that sort of seriousness, there is a likelihood the minister would have to step in. That sort of serious breach of conduct should be part of the disqualification section. That is all I am saying. If you look at most of these, they are not the end of the world. They might not be the right thing to do. Conflict of interest could be one of the major things but we cover that under conflict of interest in the act. Is it something we really need or are we just imposing a lot of work for the government? I am not denying that the tribunal would not be independent. I think it is an unnecessary part and could be dealt under the disqualification section.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Nelson is misleading when he refers to the Adamson amendment. There are years of history behind this. In my 18 years in the House I have seen countless examples of councils being ripped off by unscrupulous CEOs and others when they got their hands on the bickie jar. One example, in the mid-1990s when Steve Hatton was the Minister for Local Government, was the Galiwinku Council which finished $500 000 in the red at the end of the financial year. Most of that went across the tables of the casino down the road and the council could not be charged with anything. No accountability and no responsibility under the act as it stood.
I was embarrassed on behalf of the people of Darwin, the city council and the government when it could not act in the Adamson case. It was scandalous that here was a person who had - and not for the first time - dipped into the public barrel and taken money that did not belong to him.
We had the example here, as the member for Casuarina well knows, when we came to government of a grant which was not repaid by that former member. It was not until investigations were carried out after this government was elected in 2001 that that money was subsequently forthcoming and returned by the former member and former minister. I thought that was shameful and a scandal on the whole of Darwin that no-one seemed to be able to do anything about it.
Any way that the act and legislation is strengthened to give certainty so that wrongdoing of any of that type and nature can be readily dealt with under the act is welcome. It needs to be in there as firmly as it is.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, clause 90(2)(b) is to do with voting. It says
Minister, I am not sure whether electronic voting is approved in the Territory, but I would have thought that electronic voting is a very important issue to be debated overall for the whole of the Territory. It is an issue that I have heard debated recently in the United States because, as you know, they had difficulty with electronic voting in a presidential election.
There was quite a bit of discussion on news radio one evening about matters relating to electronic voting. Some of those discussions were as simple as: ‘the system collapsed’, ‘the power went off’, ‘someone could hack into the system’. All those sorts of issues were raised. I am not sure that there has been enough discussion in the community, and with the experts who deal in IT and people who deal with voting systems, to leave this clause in for the minister to decide.
I would prefer this clause not to be in there until parliament, or the community, or there was a lot more discussion about the use of electronic voting. I am not saying it should or should not happen. However, I would rather at this stage you not put that in there without a broader debate on the pros and cons of electronic voting so we can weigh up what sort of system could be used. For instance, if it was introduced in the Territory, what protection devices would be required to make sure that there was high security; are there any other safeguards so that this process protects the democratic voting system we have at the moment? I would prefer this not to be in the act. Let us look at it in a much broader stage and debate the issue and come back to parliament with some recommendations for the whole of the Territory before we introduce it into the Local Government Act.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, a couple of points. We have to allow flexibility. There is a traditional method of voting; this allows the full range of voting methods to be used. It is my understanding that it has been canvassed in this House in the independent review of the Electoral Commission back in 2001-02 when electronic voting was canvassed across the Northern Territory in public forums. I believe the Deputy Electoral Commissioner from the ACT chaired that committee. So it has been canvassed. It allows that flexibility.
Why would the minister opt for a system which was going to disenfranchise a particular jurisdiction within the Territory? It allows that flexibility. It has great potential having seen a minor use of it in the last federal election. It offers a great advantage for communities across the Territory into the future. However, I could not see the relevant minister at the time applying it where it was going to disenfranchise a community. You would apply it where you saw there was a need and it actually enhances voter choice in elections.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am not trying to disenfranchise anyone. Most people in local government will not be disenfranchised if you run the system we already run - mobile polling booths getting around to all those communities. In the Territory we should be proud that we have a system that allows most people the opportunity to vote under the present system. I am not debating that. I am saying that there are some implications when it comes to changing the system of voting in relation to whether it should be electronic. Some of those arguments could be philosophical, but some could be technical. There should be a little more debate around whether that is appropriate at this stage, and whether those systems would work and whether they are secure.
It is not about saying that we should not have change, but before we introduce that change, ensure we have gone down the path of checking so that, whatever we do, still protects the anonymity of the person voting, the secrecy of it, and it is foolproof.
As we saw in America, it is not always the case. You might say electronic systems have moved on since then, but there is nothing to say, when it comes to electronic voting, that everything is foolproof. That is all I am saying, minister. All your options should be available but, before we go down the path of something that is different, like electronic voting, we should have much more discussion.
Madam CHAIR: Clauses 65 to 100. Member for Nelson, anything further?
Mr WOOD: Clause 96 is about a minister’s powers in relation to elections. I raised this at the briefing. I suppose I am just a little concerned. I know the minister has the power to extend the time to hold an election or to take any step in relation to the holding of an election. I just did not know whether there were any limitations on that. Could the minister say that we will not have an election for four years? Clause 96(1) says:
Could the minister, in theory, put an election off for forever and a day, or is there some way he would be limited to how he could interpret that clause?
Mr KNIGHT: This clause goes to the intent of and the purpose of it which is, basically, where an election for a particular reason - whether it is a cyclone, where there is trouble within a local community, or the Electoral Commissioner is not ready - as a short-term measure to allow the minister to postpone that election for a short period of time. As I understand it, this provision is contained in the previous act, which has not had any misuse in the past by any minister of any previous government. Member for Nelson, you will have to trust the minister to be accountable to the parliament and to the people of the Northern Territory to do the right thing.
Mr WOOD: That sounds like a good advertisement for litter. You might be right, minister, but you did say for a ‘short period’. If I read that clause as it is, there is nothing to say that it should be a short period. What I am arguing is there could be some limitations or an explanation as to when this should be used. As it is, if there was not a minister I could trust, maybe they could abuse it. I am saying, as it reads there, it is wide open.
Clauses 65 to 100, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 101:
Mr WOOD: Did you say 100?
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, I said that the question is that clause101 be agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: We just passed clause 100.
Mr WOOD: I did not know whether that was inclusive.
Madam CHAIR: They were inclusive - clauses 65 to 100 inclusive.
Mr WOOD: Could I ask the minister a question on clause 100?
Mr KNIGHT: Oh, go for your life!
Mr WOOD: It is the same question as before, and it relates to clause 100(4):
Still coming?
Mr KNIGHT: Still coming.
Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.21.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 102 to 126, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 127:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.22 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 128 to 143, by leave, taken together:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I have a problem with the whole concept of conditionally rateable land. I am elected to the council; my job is to set the rates. If people do not like it, they do not have me at the next election. You know what it is like when you put up the rates. If you have a look at The Centralian Advocate today you will see: ‘10% rate rise fear’. The media love it when the rates go up. When it comes to an election, if people do not like the rate rises that the council’s been putting out for the last few years, they get rid of the councillors. That is the way they feel.
This is saying that a council cannot make that decision. It can decide what it thinks should be the rates, and then give that to the minister, who goes and talks to the relevant minister for Primary Industry or Mining, and then the minister approves the rates. The minister is not responsible to the people who should be making the decisions. So, minister, your seat is in Daly. The Barkly council wants to make a decision about the pastoral properties in Barkly. You will be the one making the final decision as to what the rate will be, but you will not be accountable to that local government at the next election. I believe there is a fundamental flaw in what is happening.
I go back to the basis that local government should have its foundations in being responsible to the people who elect it. You make the decisions, you are responsible for it, and you wear it at the next election, whether people love you or hate you.
The whole issue of conditionally rateable land - I know why it is being done, because some pastoral properties are concerned that a council might decide that it will have a big rate increase, using pastoral properties but, on the other hand, that is exactly what local government has to decide, and they have to wear the consequences of it. I do have a concern about the principle behind the conditionally rateable land.
Also, can a council have a fixed rate on conditional land or does it have to be based on the unimproved capital value? Could they say: ‘We will have a fixed rate; we will recommend to the minister that there will be a fixed rate?’ I am talking a flat rate here, for all the properties within the shire - that is the pastoral properties.
Mr KNIGHT: A couple of points - the last one first. It is my understanding that after these three years the council may be able to put up a proposal for a fixed rate on pastoral land. The conditional rate you speak of interests me; this is the first time I have heard you speak so openly about it. This has been a contentious subject and LGANT, to their credit, have raised objections to it for the reasons that you have mentioned.
Mr WOOD: I raised it at the original briefing. Do not forget that this has taken a while to come out.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes. We have had to balance things across the Territory. We have had to recognise the pastoral and mining industry and that is why we have incorporated those into this act. So, on your last point, yes, they can do that.
Mr WOOD: I need clarification for, say, the Litchfield Shire. It has mining tenements. Under this act, Litchfield Shire will be able to charge rates on the mining tenements. Will they be capped for Litchfield Shire or could they apply a fixed rate for those mining tenements?
Mr KNIGHT: It is my understanding that they can actually apply to the minister to put a fixed rate on those properties. I feel I am obligated to go on the record about the Litchfield Shire Council rates. It is an unusual system they have and, yes, it has worked in previous years. The times are a changing in Litchfield, though. There is rapid growth there and a demand for services. I am very fearful for the ratepayers of Litchfield with respect to the fairness of their rating system. When it was a very small council perhaps that system did work well and the philosophy may have been justifiable. I will respect what the council wants to do but I have grave fears for some of the people in that shire about the fairness of the rates they are paying.
Mr WOOD: You raise an interesting point but I do not have all night and I do not intend to take all night. However, I do not accept what you say that it is being unfair. I believe that a flat rate actually can protect people who are vulnerable under unimproved capital value. That is specifically for people who have lived in an area for a long time who may be pensioners, who may be people who are not on a high income but just happened to be the first people to live in an area that is now close to development, like Coolalinga or Palmerston. Under a UCV system they can be rated out of existence. That is what has happened in big cities.
There are arguments for and against but I do not consider it is as clear cut as you make it out to be. That is up to the people in Litchfield to decide. I feel we have to be careful. This has been debated before. One of the reasons this reform process went off the rails in Litchfield – I did not have anyone say that they did not support the reform process – but they did not want, via a back door method, unimproved capital value coming in. It came in because the minister at that time said it will be on commercial, pastoral and mining land in the shire.
People saw that as the first attempt to bring UCV into the system which did not have it before. One of the good things in this act is that you have brought in a fixed rate and that is, according to this bill, allowing a council to put a rate on each individual allotment - that is my understanding - which, in the case of commercial blocks, is something that was difficult to do under the previous act. My understanding from the briefing is that that is what you can do. Those places that used to say: ‘Well, Woolworths gets charged this much and someone else gets charged that much and it is unfair’, council now at least has the ability to put rates on certain allotments. You had problems with commercial rating because you would have a mango orchard or a nursery that was not in a commercial zone but was acting as a commercial business. It is one good thing that has come out of these rates is the concept of a fixed rate and a way that it can be now interpreted.
We will not get into the UCV, minister. I would not proclaim too much in the rural area. If you think it is a good idea, you are welcome to it, but I think there will be a backlash.
Things have to change. I am not against reform within Litchfield; I have never said that. Let us do it with the people and make sure they are the ones who decide, not in here.
Mr KNIGHT: I respect Litchfield council’s rating policy, but personally, I have concerns. I respect the elected members of that council in setting their charges for that area.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, in Chapter 11, clause 142 refers to conditionally rateable land which we are talking about, just further on from the member for Nelson. In relation to these provisions the council is to prepare a draft rating proposal and submit that proposal to the minister for approval. However, there is no opportunity for the public or those affected by a rating proposal to comment on that proposal. The question is: can the proposal be placed on public exhibition for comment before being submitted to the minister and circulated to those potentially affected, particularly the holders of pastoral leases and mining interests, and the draft proposal inclusive of comments and submissions then go to the minister for consideration and then the minister should be obliged to take into account those submissions in relation to that draft rating proposal?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, this matter has come up before and the public exhibition of the rating proposals is something that has been considered within the guidelines. It has come from the parties that you would probably know.
Mr CONLAN: So, that is a yes is it?
Mr KNIGHT: It has been brought up and we are considering it for the guidelines, yes.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, in relation to clause 142(7), which says:
In other words, conditionally rateable land is not rateable unless there is an approved rating proposal for the local government area. In other words, clause 142(7) merely requires an approved rating proposal for the local government area in question. It does not state that such a proposal limits the rating of the land in question in the manner proposed in clause 142(7).
Minister, the question is: can it be amended to expressly provide that the rating of conditionally rateable land must be strictly in accordance with an approved rating proposal?
Mr KNIGHT: Well, that is what it is. If it is not a pastoral or mining tenement which has to have a conditional rate applied to it, it is other. Excluding exempted land you are left with rateable land which this alludes to. If it is not conditionally rateable, which has a conditionally rateable proposal on it, it is regarded as rateable land. It is fairly explanatory, I would have thought.
Mr CONLAN: Does that then mean it is expected that it will provide that the rating of conditionally rateable land is strictly in accordance with an approved rating proposal?
Mr KNIGHT: That is what this whole clause deals with. It defines what conditionally rateable land is - that is, pastoral and mining tenements - and it has to have a proposal approved on it.
Clauses 128 to 143 agreed to.
Clause 144:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.23 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 145:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.24 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.25 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 145, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 146 to 148, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 149:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.26 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 150 to 152, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 153:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.27 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 153, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 154 to 169, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 170:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.28 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: Minister, in your explanation at the start of the committee process, you said:
What do you mean by that and what happens? I mean, you could be doing this to people with very few possessions. What is the outcome if you have no ability to sell land, and people do not have any possessions that you can recover those rates from?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, the options are some sort of repayment schedule. We would hope that we would be moving to a new era through the Territory Housing model – well, actually Territory Housing and the Northern Territory government will be paying the rates. But in the first instance, these people on Aboriginal living areas have paid service charges and other fees over the time, and we would hope that we would not get to the situation that the council would have to claim rates back. I do not see this as an anomaly, but we certainly cannot have the situation where the councils are winding up an association which has Aboriginal land.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I have a general question in relation to that. The section previously was all about rates. We were told that you will not be able to charge rates on certain Aboriginal land, but you will be able to charge a service fee. Where does the ability of a council to charge a service fee come within the scope of this bill? Is there a section here that I should know about that gives the council the power to apply that service fee?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Nelson, this applies to clause 157, which has been dealt with, but I will go through it - imposition of charges:
Mr WOOD: That is fine. Thank you, minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 170, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 171 to 183, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 184:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.29.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 184, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 185:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.30 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.31 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: I will talk on clause 185(1)(c) which talks about ‘land reserves dedicated or resumed with the council’s agreement as a public street, road or thoroughfare’. I have raised this issue before and I still think it needs clarification. Where a community has a permit system and you require a permit to drive on that road, is that road a public road?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, we have been through this a few times. I know that it is not up to your satisfaction, member for Nelson, but I am not going to go through it over and over again. I know what you are alluding to. Those roads are open for a whole range of reasons and people have access onto those roads. Those roads are funded from the federal government and nothing will change on day 1. You know the situation out there. I do not know why you want to persist with this, but I am not going to persist. Those roads are fairly well open now. I know that many of them appear on Aboriginal land, as you are alluding, but I do not know why you want to persist with it.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am not trying to be mischievous. We have a new system of local government which includes many areas that were not part of local government. There are pastoral properties and open towns, and there will be ratepayers who will be paying a contribution of their rates towards the maintenance of public roads. For instance, if you had a road into a cattle station I imagine, where it said ‘Smithy’s cattle station’ and a cattle grid, you know that once you enter over that cattle grid, you are on a private road. You would not expect the council to be paying for the maintenance of that road.
I am simply applying similar logic to roads that are on Aboriginal land, normally in a town. There was, under the previous government, a belief that the permit system in a town would not exist anymore. One could say therefore those roads were open to the public and they could be regarded as public roads. Once you put a sign up saying ‘permit required’, clearly those roads are not public. No council, surely, anywhere in Australia would normally be allowed to spend its funds on private roads. Councillors have been taken to court over doing tricks like that. I believe that there is an important area of clarification here. As I have said, we now have people from a huge shire like Barkly who will be putting rates into the council’s coffers and some of that money will be used to maintain roads right throughout the shire. Do I have a guarantee then, minister, that that money will only be used for public roads? That is another way of putting it.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Nelson, I will just say this once more. Those roads you have talked about, many of them are funded by the federal government, and they are also funded by contributions made by ratepayers within the proposed shire of Barkly. Many of those ratepayers will be people living in housing in the particular community. You know the legislative framework we have in the Territory and it has never been an issue before. I do not know why you want to persist with this. I know what you are trying to do, but I do not know why you want to do it. Everyone contributes to rates, including Aboriginal people, and roads are funded from various sources, including the federal government, for the provision of maintenance and upgrades on those roads.
Mr WOOD: I simply want to get it clarified, minister, because we do have a different system of local government now. Previously, people who were ratepayers were the ones who lived within their little council area and their rates automatically went to the roads within their area. We have got rid of that system, so people in one town are paying for the rates in another area. There will be people in Aboriginal communities paying for the rates in Tennant Creek, they are paying for the roads in Tennant Creek, and they can drive into Tennant Creek over what is regarded as a public road.
I am simply trying to get a legal clarification of where those roads lie. It relates to the section on roads because it talks about ‘a public street, road or thoroughfare’. I am looking for a clarification of what is ‘a public street, road or thoroughfare’. It has nothing to do with Aboriginality. We are talking local government and these are issues that need to be clear when we are talking about local government.
If I ever decided to bituminise my driveway courtesy of the council I would be out the door very smartly because my driveway, even though it is used by members of the public, is not a public road.
All I am asking is to get that clarified, to have it on Hansard so we know exactly what it is. Minister, I know you were quoted in the paper trying to compare driving onto Freds Pass Reserve as the same thing. Well, it is not. Anyone can walk onto Freds Pass Reserve. The only time you have to get permission is if you want to use it for a game of footie so you do not clash with the next game of football or a game of cricket. You can walk onto Freds Pass Reserve anytime until the gates are shut. There is no permission required. I do not believe that is a fair comparison.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 185, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 186:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.32 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: In relation to proposed clause 186(3A), minister, it says:
Does this mean the council is taking over a private road, or does it have some other meaning? I am not quite sure what that proposed clause actually means.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, it is my understanding that this would apply if you have a development where the developer owns the road and the council agrees to take it on. They have the care and control of that road to manage it and that responsibility is exclusive to those of the owner.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, if a developer was developing a sub-division and built a road in there, I was trying to work out why he would have the council maintaining that road. Why would he not look after that road until he was ready to hand it over to the council? That is what you are saying.
Mr KNIGHT: As you have heard through the rest of the legislation this allows the ability where you have an owner separate to the council and the council agrees to take on that road. They agree to take it on for the care, control and management but they want the powers to do that exclusive from the owner. This is about the council having flexibility to take on the road, which is a matter for them. However, when they do take it on, they want to have the power to look after it exclusive to the owners telling them what to do. The owner may be a range of different people. It is a provision that allows flexibility for a particular situation into the future.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 186, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 187:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.33 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 187, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 188 and 189, by leave, taken together and agreed to
Clause 190:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.34 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 190, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 191 to 248, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 249:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.35 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 249, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 250 to 256, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 257:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.36 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 257, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 258 to 260, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 261:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.37 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 261, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 262:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.38 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 262, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 263 agreed to.
Clause 264:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.39 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.40 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 264, as amended, agreed to.
New clause 264A:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.41.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 264A agreed to.
Clause 265 agreed to.
Clause 266:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.42 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 266, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 267 and 268, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.43 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I have a question on the Preamble. In part 3 of the Preamble, it says:
Minister, ‘harmony’ is not defined anywhere in the act. I was wondering if you could explain what you mean by ‘harmony’, and give an example of what might not be in harmony and what may be in harmony. Does it mean that some of these councils could be challenged where these services being delivered are not in harmony with the legislation?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, the Preamble does a number of things. It shows what the intent is of the bill. ‘Harmony’ is one of those words that describes that. Obviously, much of this work that is done by local government will happen on Aboriginal land. The Preamble describes the intent of what this act is trying to do, trying to work on Aboriginal land, and should work in harmony with those two laws, as they would anyway. It recognises that and that is what a Preamble actually does.
Mr CONLAN: If that was the intention, I am curious why that has not been defined in the act. The question is: what is not in harmony and what is in harmony? Could there be a challenge if something was not in harmony with the act?
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely. It is just a question of consistency, Madam Chair. It means ‘not inconsistent with’. It is the same as if we passed a law that was not consistent with federal law. It would be knocked out simply on those grounds. It is just a safeguard in the act, I think, to make sure everyone is aware of it. So, you read it as ‘consistent with’.
Ms Carney: Why didn’t you say that?
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr KNIGHT: Further to the former Attorney-General’s comments, and perhaps the member for Araluen like to …
Ms Carney: If you meant to say consistent, why did you not say consistent?
Ms Martin: It is a legal nicety and you should know about that.
Ms Carney: Well, harmonious has taken us to other areas. Harmony is not a word we are used to.
Mr KNIGHT: I believe she is quite a good dancer down at Throb, but anyway. As you would know, member for Araluen, if you are participating in this, is that the Preamble cannot be challenged. It is not part of the act. It is just a preamble. Your colleague was referring to the act being challenged, saying he was concerned that the wording of the preamble can be challenged in a court of law. The preamble is only the preamble. It shows the intent of what the legislation is about and what the parliament was actually thinking in the passage of the legislation.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you minister, and former minister. I note what you have said. However, it is somewhat unusual to have the expression ‘harmony’ in legislation, whether it is a preamble or not. What you did not say in your answer is can you can give an example of a delivery of local government services that would not be in harmony with those laws referred to in part 3 of the Preamble?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, this is about the intent of government; it is about the intent of this legislation. It is not about examples. It is about the intent. I would have thought you would be supportive of what we are trying to recognise in this preamble, certainly a modern bit of legislation we have here, and it recognises the rights of traditional owners and the two key bits of legislation to recognise those rights. Harmony is something we would like to have in local government.
Ms CARNEY: So that is your answer? Notwithstanding that it says: ‘… and the delivery of local government services must be in harmony with those laws’, you, as minister, are unable to give any examples of what might not be in harmony or indeed might be in harmony. That is your answer, minister, is it?
Mr KNIGHT: As you know, being a legal professional that you are, the preamble shows the intent of what the legislation is supposed to be about, and that is what it is. If you do not know what the word ‘harmony’ is and I cannot speak for your party room, but this is the intent of this legislation.
Ms CARNEY: We are probably more harmonious that you are. Minister, please do not think that we have difficulty with the word ‘harmony’. This is your bill, the one government instructed people to draft, the one you are standing by, proudly it seems. I will give you one more opportunity, if I could, to ask you, just so that we are clear, do not go around in circles with respect, can you or can you not give an example of what would not be in harmony with the laws?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, this is not a court of law. The member for Araluen is trying to interrogate the minister. What the intent …
Ms Carney: It is your bill and you cannot answer it because you do not know.
Dr BURNS: It is late at night …
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Dr BURNS: I am just trying to explain to you the simple fact …
Ms Carney: If you do not know what your bill says or means that is a matter for you.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Araluen, order!
Dr BURNS: What I am saying to you, member for Araluen, through the Chair, is that the minister could stand up here and give 15 examples. But what this legislation is about is giving principles to provide harmony to all those examples that he might not give.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, what we had in this Chamber prior to about five minutes ago when someone entered the Chamber, was harmony. We have gone through 40-odd amendments, 265 clauses, with very constructive advice and debate on it. That is what harmony has been. We do have harmony. We did have harmony and the preamble does describe that. I do not want to go into it further. I believe that the member for Nelson has some other questions about it. This is very good legislation. I am very impressed with having a preamble. As has been discussed, the federal legislation has preambles. I am very proud of the wording of this preamble.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, if harmony is the intent of the bill, if we substitute the word ‘harm’ just for the example of this, does it mean that council can be challenged where services are delivered in a manner other than the intent of this legislation. If services are delivered in a manner other than the intent of the legislation, can councils be challenged?
Mr KNIGHT: That happens outside of this act.
Mr CONLAN: If it is the intent of the bill though.
Mr KNIGHT: The intent of the bill is exactly that. That sort of legal challenge would happen outside of this bill. We are trying to propose the intent of what the local government is trying to do across Aboriginal land in the Territory. We are saying it should be in harmony. However, if it does not, that is challenged outside of this act. That is challenged between these two bits of legislation and whoever is breaking those two bits of legislation.
Mr WOOD: My comments seemed very mild after that. I must admit that we have had a good debate about it, as has been said here before. It is a very important bill and it needs thorough debate. My comments on the preamble relate to two words. In relation to the Preamble section, part 4(b) talks about having ‘wide powers’ and part 4(c) talks about having a ‘broad role’. I wonder why those particular terms had to be used.
The intent of the bill is fine. However, you are opening it up for someone to say that local government’s job is to take on wide powers and to take on broad roles. I would say that is not really what the government should be saying. It should say it can take on the powers and the roles and it would be up to local government to decide whether it is broad or not so broad. That may be something that did not need to be in the Preamble.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, it allows that flexibility for those councils to do those particular functions. It gets back to respecting that third sphere of government to chart their own course. It gives them the ability; it does not prescribe that they should do it. That legitimate third sphere of government chooses to do what it likes and is accountable for what it does to the people who elected those members of those shires and councils.
Mr WOOD: I will not debate that any further, minister.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution. I know he has been an active member of the local government industry for many years and is quite vocal in this area. It is good legislation. It provides that framework. Ultimately, it is up to those shires to use it. It is a tool, it is a vehicle, but ultimately those shires have to drive it. It will also be also useful for the municipal councils into the future as well.
I thank everyone for their contribution this evening and to the many people who have provided advice on this legislation, and the departmental staff who provided support.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, this evening I thank some very hard-working public servants who, for some months now, have worked with me and my office, and government broadly, on putting together the Northern Territory budget. It is a very large task. It is one that Northern Territory Treasury is very adept at; they get through the budget process every year.
As Treasurer, it was a real eye-opener for me to see the extent of the effort they go to - and the months, literally, of pouring over options, considerations, in a jurisdiction the size of the Territory with the needs that this jurisdiction has. I described it that we are a fairly young jurisdiction in significant development phases. There are, obviously, issues in and around how you fund for growth and how you deal with your recurrent requirements, as well as your infrastructure requirements for growth. All of those issues are issues that, as Treasurer, I tackled, but I did so based on the hard work and the advice of all of the public servants who support the Treasury process.
In that regard it is the various different units within Northern Territory Treasury that I rely on. This evening, I acknowledge their work and indicate that this is not about politicising it all; it is simply saying that people have a political view of the budget or otherwise, but the budget process is an intensive amount of work over months which requires this enormous task be undertaken by hard-working public servants working very closely with the Treasurer in the guidance and direction I want to see in the budget. They work up various proposals based on what information I am seeking and requiring, and then they make various iterations of that until it gets to the point where I am pretty comfortable and happy with it.
Obviously, we then go through a very lengthy Cabinet process with my Cabinet colleagues. I know that all of their agencies are very hard-working through that process as well. There is a lot of work that occurs across agencies, and between Treasury and the other agencies, to ensure that the information being provided is of the highest calibre.
Whilst I acknowledge all the public servants very broadly in their efforts, I specifically thank those staff members of Treasury who undertake, in developing a budget, what is recognised as an enormous task. Many people contribute to the preparation of the product that I had the pleasure of tabling in the Assembly yesterday.
First and foremost, I acknowledge the absolute professionalism, dedication, and adherence to the greatest integrity of the Under Treasurer, Jennifer Prince. She has prepared many budgets for the government, and I felt very privileged, as Treasurer, to be working with a professional of the high calibre of Jennifer Prince as Under Treasurer. She is highly regarded and highly respected, and deservedly so. She is the sort of leader of her staff that I admire enormously. She fosters and nurtures all of her Treasury staff. She is very proud of the fact that they have a very young Treasury staff, and that they have many young parents on the Treasury staff. They are a very good reflection of our community. They are extremely hard-working, but a large part of their dedication comes from admiring and respecting Jennifer Prince and the way she goes about her task as Under Treasurer.
I also thank Sarah Rummery and her staff, particularly Robert Cagnetti and Eamon Holligan, for providing detailed analysis of the Territory economy. Craig Vukman, Ivan Basei and Kevin Phang put in a huge amount of work developing all of the revenue initiatives that were contained in the budget, including an enormous amount of modelling that I got them to do in and around the stamp duty reform. I thank them.
Jodie Kirkman is the person we rely on to know every number in the budget. Jodie and her team, led by David Braines-Mead and Bronwyn Riedel are responsible for the analysis and presentation of agency initiatives, which is done in the six months leading up to the budget. They are also responsible for the preparation of information for all agencies, as well as the whole-of- government financial information and the infrastructure program, the explanatory papers, including regional highlights and the budget overview.
Rather than identifying a few people, I acknowledge the whole of the Financial Management group for their magnificent contribution. Treasury also has a team that is responsible for managing the overall production of the budget papers and related material. Thanks to Catherine Wauchope and Lynda Hale who do a terrific job on the production end of the process.
Putting together a budget is a huge effort done in a relatively short period of time under considerable pressure. I thank all of those who have contributed to the process.
As I say, I feel incredibly privileged to be the Treasurer, to be working with such a professional team within Northern Territory Treasury, led extremely ably and highly professionally, and with an enormous amount of integrity, by Jennifer Prince. We are fortunate to have an Under Treasurer of her calibre and experience in the Territory.
Certainly, it was a challenge, being a new Treasurer, putting together a budget for the first time. It was the first budget for my staff as well, and we were an entirely new team. I did not inherit any Treasury advisors from the previous Treasurer. So, it was a new experience for all of us. I was well supported by my senior advisor and Chief of Staff, David Money. There have been many jokes flying around about how appropriate his surname is, with the surname Money and working for the Treasurer. He has been getting a great deal of delight out of that. David Money has worked tirelessly in supporting me. Treasury staff have worked through the weekends, certainly in the last few weeks, working incredible hours, nights and weekends to get the budget prepared in time, as have my personal staff in Parliament House. David, thank you for the weekends you have given up. I know you have a young family, I know they have been missing you, and I very much appreciate the enormous effort you have gone to and the leadership you have shown within my office in putting in the hard yards and making sure that, as Treasurer, I have been fully prepared for the budget process.
Also, it was an outstanding effort by Nicole Manison, my Media Adviser. She, like David, worked weekends; they not only worked Saturdays, they worked Sundays. Over this long weekend we took the opportunity of the public holiday to work the long hours. So, Nicole Manison, I thank her as well. It was an enormous task. The good feedback I have had from Treasury officials is that they found working with her to be a very positive experience in terms of her professionalism.
Sam Parkinson has come on board as my Treasury and IR advisor, and it was a first budget experience for her. She put in the hard yards as well. Sam, Nicole and I still have quite a bit of travel to do in talking about the budget throughout the Territory. I am looking forward to being on the road with Sam and Nicole. Sam organised much of the detail, much of the background work, and the tedious effort of setting up functions and making sure that everything was running smoothly. So, Sam Parkinson, thank you for coming in, coming in fresh, coming in new, and putting every effort into it.
Brett Brogan and Wolf Loenneker in my office, whilst they were advisors in the other portfolio areas, I tell you what, it was every shoulder to the wheel. They got stuck in helping out as well and their efforts were fantastic. I really appreciate the effort they have undertaken. Wolf, by nature, comes in and works weekends anyway; I think he enjoyed having the extra company in the office on the weekends. He is well renowned for his t-shirt, shorts and thongs attire on the weekends, but I have to say the quality of his work is fantastic, as is Brett’s, who is a young advisor with a lot of potential.
Also, thanks to my administration staff, Tracey Lemass. Tracey has put in a phenomenal effort. She has worked late nights and weekends, round the clock, with a few hours sleep overnight and she is back early in the morning. Tracey has done a phenomenal job. She is a lovely, sweet person. She will check on me and make sure that I am drinking water during the long hours I was putting in as well. Thank you, Tracey. I really appreciate not only the efforts you went to and the professionalism you showed, but also the personal touch, in looking out for the Treasurer who was trying to keep up with the pace of the fantastic team around her.
Trish Schebella, who took an opportunity to attends her son’s wedding, missed out on the front end of the long hours but certainly made up for it at the back end of the long hours. Trish put her shoulder to the wheel after the break of celebrating with her family. Thank you, Trish, for taking care of me in the last few weeks and pulling in and supporting the rest of the team who, by the time you got back from leave, you saw were pretty exhausted with the long hours. We certainly had a lot of long hours ahead of us. It is a team effort pulling together something of the magnitude of the budget.
Dee Hona came in towards the end there to assist with the administrative workloads. Dee has been an absolute pleasure to have in the office. It was very handy to have her around in the last couple of weeks to help crunch through the extra paper work that was coming in and out of a Treasurer’s office. It has been valuable assistance for both Trish and Tracey to have her there. Chris Grace came on board to help out in the budget process and Leader of Government Business’ work. Gracie’s on a learning curve, and I think is enjoying it. He is well known to members having assisted Madam Speaker for quite some time. The change and the frenetic energy that he has stepped into, in the Treasurer’s office pulling together a budget, has been a very interesting learning experience. I hope he has enjoyed it. I certainly enjoyed having Gracie on the team.
That is the team. The NT Treasury team are stand-out professionals. I have enjoyed working with every one of them. If I did not mention Tony Stubbin previously I want to thank Tony. I really enjoy his advice and I also enjoy his tremendous wit. I have to say that before I became Treasurer, even though I had a very high regard and I knew that the Under Treasurer had a fantastic wit and sense of humour and I had met Jodie quite a few times and Craig and Ivan, and I certainly have got to know them much better, Treasury folk are not dry. They are certainly very interesting characters, and very lively and colourful people with a terrific sense of humour. People who work incredibly hard and carry a great deal of responsibility, and have to do a lot of analysis and understand detail that most normal people would not begin to understand sometimes have a tremendous sense of humour. That is what I have found with NT Treasury staff.
As I say, it has been an enormous privilege, but it has also been a bit of fun along the way in understanding the way in which Treasury experts approach their jobs and approach the different options that pop up that you have to make decisions on.
So, a big thank you to my staff. I could not have got through all of the work without their support and the incredibly long hours they have worked over recent weeks. We still have some long hours to go. I wanted to take the opportunity of an adjournment, just after budget, to thank them and, importantly, to thank Jennifer Prince and her fantastic hard-working Treasury staff in preparing Budget 2008-09.
Budget 2008-09 is a body of work that all of them, each and every single one of them in NT Treasury, can be proud of. I hope my staff are proud of it, as it is a collaborative effort. We have all put our shoulders to the wheel. As Treasurer, I am very privileged and proud to have led the team, with the Under Treasurer to deliver, what I believe is a very good budget for the Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about a great constituent of mine, with a great community spirit, who spends a lot of his own free time eradicating graffiti in the Casuarina area. I speak about Mr Geoff Samuels.
For many years, Geoff has been removing unsightly graffiti in the community, especially in the Casuarina area. Geoff first came to me when the cost of the materials was getting too much to cover on his own. I was very happy to assist Geoff with materials and take this opportunity to also thank some of the other electorate officers, like my colleague, member for Johnston, which have recently offered to provide Geoff with assistance to pay for the materials.
Geoff now cleans the whole of Darwin. If he sees any graffiti when he is travelling around - there have been traffic light boxes and walls of buildings - he immediately gets to work and removes it. He works really hard to make our community a much better place to live. This is the kind of person with community spirit who makes our life and our community much better.
I would like to speak about my schools, Nakara Primary School and Alawa Primary School. Hardworking teachers, hardworking children, and we see the results. I am very proud to see children from Nakara and Alawa schools now that they have grown up and are going to Dripstone Middle School where my wife is a teacher. They immediately ask her name and ask if she is married to me. I appreciate incredible efforts of the parents and the teachers for the students.
I congratulate Nakara Primary School for putting on a wonderful Harmony Day concert recently. Nakara Primary School is one of the most multicultural schools in Darwin. I was extremely impressed by the effort the kids made to dress in national costumes, to talk to the other students about their cultural background, and to present some dances. We had dances from Polynesian islands, from One Mob Different Country, Greek dancers, Irish dancers, and Scottish dancers; it was incredible and very impressive.
I was also very pleased to present my student achievement awards at the school assembly at Nakara. One of my awards went to Mihalis Halkitis for his commendable attitude and Andrew Northcote for consistent effort and achievement in all areas. I thank Mihalis and Andrew, their teachers and their parents on this excellent effort at school.
I was also very proud to accompany the Education minister, Marion Scrymgour, to Alawa Primary School. Marion announced the Stage 2 $2m funding for the upgrade of Alawa Primary School and $2m for the Nakara School upgrade. The first stage of the upgrade of Alawa School has now become a showcase for how to convert a neglected school. I say neglected because for many years not much money was spent on Nakara or Alawa and now Alawa has become a showcase for schools that have been converted from an old school to a very modern school.
Last Friday, the teachers, staff and families from the Alawa Primary School community joined together to celebrate Walk Safely to School day. Ms Ranie organised the walk before assembly. It is a great way to stay active, healthy and happy. I hope more children walk safely to school every day and more parents and grandparents who have the time can walk with their children to school.
Dripstone Middle School is a community of achievers. I was invited to attend the official launch of their new Virtual Business Enterprise which is called Territory Luxury Catering. I was extremely proud to see the wonderful efforts of students and teachers in making this venture such a success. The group of 14 Year 9 students and their teacher, Ms Trish Orr, have done a wonderful job getting their virtual business up and running. They developed their own business plan, and created their own business name, logo and motto. They have gone from a group of students to a fully functioning business. Through this journey they will develop strong workplace skills and great friendships which will give them great life skills for the future. I was very proud of their enthusiasm and professionalism at the official opening and look forward to following their business venture with interest throughout the year.
I also congratulate McDonalds. The manager of McDonalds actively supports these children and provides them with the opportunity to have experience in their shops. I really appreciate the corporate sector standing by students like them to provide them with opportunities. Often we complain about how our children go astray, or how our children are not focused, but here we have a corporate entity that puts their money where their mouth is and actively supports Dripstone Middle School and supports the students to achieve something that a few months ago they would have never imagined: to set up a virtual enterprise.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to end with two sad notes. First of all I give my heartfelt condolences to Kay Brown and her children Stephanie, Christine and Anthony on the loss of their beloved husband and father, Colin. Colin Brown was a good friend. He used to visit me occasionally in the electorate office to have a chat. Debbie and I will certainly miss his smiling face and his cheeky sense of humour.
I also give my sincere condolences to Martins and Mendes Lay of Tiwi on the recent loss of their beloved wife and mother, Eliza. Eliza had suffered from cancer over the last four years and in the last 12 months, in particular, had suffered increasingly failing health. Eliza came to the Territory as part of a refugee group on a Red Cross boat straight after the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. She brought her small son, Mendes, and several of her nieces and nephews which she looked after. She left behind her husband, Martins, who remained in East Timor and subsequently in Indonesia for a number of years.
On her own, Eliza raised her son and several other children, often working two jobs just to make ends meet. Remember, at this time, Darwin was a wreck from Cyclone Tracy, so she lived in part of a dilapidated house with all those children. She got a government house first in the Narrows and then finally moved to Tiwi.
Eliza was a highly talented seamstress so she worked at making clothes for people while also working as a cleaner. When she was later joined by her husband they bought a business in Parap - the famous Toppy’s - and they built the business up over many years. I first met Eliza and Martins when I was inspecting their premises as part of my duties as an Environmental Health Officer in Darwin. Everybody who knew them at Toppy’s will recall how they laid claim to having the best burgers in Darwin.
Eliza contributed to the Hakka community. Like many of these organisations, occasionally there was some feuding between groups. It was always Eliza whom everyone trusted to do the right thing. She was well known as the peacemaker, the honest broker. She served in various roles, usually as the Vice President of the group.
She was also a committed and strong Catholic, and she played an important role in the Chinese Catholic Women’s Association. In fact, she and her husband, Martins, received a letter of thanks from the Vatican for the work that they have undertaken on behalf of the Catholic Church.
It was a shock to everyone when Eliza became ill four years ago. She bravely fought the cancer, but had to sell the business. When she finally became bedridden, her son, Mendes, gave up his work to become a full-time carer – a role he has undertaken for the last 12 months.
On behalf of my family, I give my sincerest condolences to Martins and Mendes for the loss of their wife and mother, and record my regret for the loss to the community that the passing of Eliza will bring.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to a public servant who has just retired after serving for 45 years in the Northern Territory. Forty-five years is an amazing effort. It is with pleasure I acknowledge the commendable service of Harry Cook, who is retiring as Asset Accounting Manager for the Department of Corporate Information Services in Alice Springs. Harry, who recently turned 68, is retiring from the public service. I am sure all members will join me in acknowledge his extraordinary achievement.
Harry arrived in Alice Springs with his family in 1946 as a six-year-old. During his first three years in Alice Springs, he boarded at Griffiths House while his parents lived and worked between Aileron and Tennant Creek. Harry rejoined his family in Tennant Creek at age nine.
At age 15, he left school and commenced an apprenticeship with his father’s business, Cook’s Construction and, after six years, became a qualified cabinetmaker. I am told that Harry had intended to join the Navy but, at age 17, suffered a severely broken leg which changed the course of his life.
In 1963, he was offered a job in the mechanical section of the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Works where he works as a transport driver for the road gangs working on the Stuart Highway. Harry went on to hold a number of positions within that department, mainly in the Finance and Accounting area, until he transferred to the Health department in 1973.
Between 1973 and 1983, Harry worked mainly in the finance areas, including ledgers and revenue collection, and it was here he became interested in stores and procurement. In 1984, he was appointed as a works officer for his agency, where he was heavily involved in development systems to manage works programs, assets, phones, vehicles and equipment. When computers were first introduced, he was appointed to assist with the installation and soon became an expert in their application. Harry went on to become Asset Manager for the same agency with whole-of-Territory responsibilities. As Asset Manager, he established stock take programs, together with appropriate procurement procedures and disposal schedules.
Harry remained in this position until he was transferred to the Department of Corporate and Information Services in 1998, where he took up the position of Asset Manager Alice Springs with whole-of-government responsibilities for the region. In his time with Corporate and Information Services, Harry has become a source of expert advise and assistance to people across government and the private sector. His corporate knowledge in his field is unequalled, and his opinion and input will be sadly missed.
Not only was Harry an important employee in the Northern Territory government, he also had strong involvement in the community. Harry Cook and the Alice Springs Show Society are almost synonymous. He has been a tireless worker for the Alice Springs Show Society for more than 20 years - a fact recognised by life membership. Harry has also had a long-term involvement with the Uniting Church where he made a significant contribution for many years. Harry also managed to find time to make a wonderful contribution to the local scouting group, both as the Scout Master and Assistant Commissioner.
The good news is that that Harry has advised he intends retiring in the Territory with his wife, Julie, and is looking forward to spending more quality time with his children and grandchildren, and finishing some of his long-term projects.
I pay tribute to Harry after 45 years of public service to the people of the Northern Territory. I am sure all members will join me in thanking Harry for his magnificent contribution to the Territory.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending a special Anzac Day luncheon at the Coconut Grove Seniors Hall in my electorate of Millner. I was proud to be the host of another fantastic function. We provided lunch. There were over 80 people in attendance, mostly Millner and Coconut Grove residents. Mely Alambo led the rousing rendition of the National Anthem. Terry Hine read the Ode of Remembrance. The hard-working community served the food, and are great at organising seniors events. Thanks to Bridie Kuskey, Ron Mitchell, Helen Hofmann, Bill Parry, Jim Brupaccher, Ginger Delacour and Rhonda Blaser. We were entertained by the Groovy Grans who put on a very professional tribute floor show which depicted the sacrifices of our servicemen and women, as well as recognising the different branches of the services. Many thanks to Dottie Daby and her Groovy Grannies, Lee O’Donnell, Marlene Smith, Marj Duminski, Marj Baxter, Kay W, Joan Angeles, Vic O’Donnell, Maureen Hack and, of course, Pat Bonson.
I also take this opportunity to pay my tributes to the Majid family, on the passing of the late Richard Majid, the family patriarch. I would like to read a few words about Mr Majid and his family, who have been great supporters of mine and my family for many decades. Mr Majid came to the Northern Territory many years ago.
Mr Majid then travelled and met Seamah and, of course, they married and formed a loving relationship that lasted many years. It was a fantastic funeral in recognition of Mr Richard Majid’s life and his family: his wife, Seamah, and children, Richard Desmond, Chrysanta Jacqueline, Eleanor, Matthew Darrell, Colin Dale Ferrin, and Samantha Diane
The Majid family are a well-known Millner family, but also a Darwin family with Torres Strait Island roots. They contributed widely to the NT community and to the Darwin social life. Richard was a famous singer in his time and loved all types of music. I will never forget when we had a fundraiser for the local Millner electorate and Richard Majid gave us the opportunity to sing a few songs and showed his talent to the crowd. He thoroughly enjoyed himself.
To his children who are left behind, I know you cared and loved your father deeply and sincerely. From me as the local member and, of course, the Bonson family and other local families, our condolences go out to you and our greatest sympathy. We wish that you and your family remember Mr Richard Majid in the light that the rest of the community did.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as the Heritage minister, in recent weeks it has been my pleasure to attend two functions as the guest of the FNAR, or Friends of the North Australia Railway, a group of volunteers who maintain the Adelaide River Heritage Precinct.
I visited their Berrimah site to launch this year’s Heritage grants. A few days later, it was my pleasure to launch their brand new - and as they described it – drop-dead gorgeous website. I think there is a little marketing involved in that badging!
It is great to see volunteers to dedicated to the Northern Territory’s rich and diverse history and heritage. Mainly based in Darwin, the Friends have a block at Berrimah - courtesy of the most generous benefactors in the form of Peter and Estelle Cornell, whom the Friends describe as ‘rolled gold’ sponsors - at which they undertake extraordinary work on salvaging railway rolling stock with the ultimate aim of placing it all in the precinct at Adelaide River.
Not content with heritage alone, the Friends are closely associated with tourism authorities, and one of their works in progress is a 1936 rail carriage used as an ambulance train in World War II which will be fitted out to be the Adelaide River Visitor Information Centre.
Established in July 2001, the Friends are dedicated to the long-term goal of running a heritage tourism rail from Adelaide River to the World War II Snake Creek Government Depot some 4 km away. They will get there I am sure, and the Top End will be all the richer for it.
Like Robin Hood’s band of merry helpers, the Friends are a small, compact and very diverse group. Their skills range from engineering, to media, to catering, and they achieve a great deal with not much very much more than human perseverance. This year alone they have completed some 3000 hours of volunteer labour. If you give that labour a value of $15 per hour, which is pretty cheap, a minuscule rate by any standards, it amounts to a contribution of $45 000 to the Territory’s heritage tourism.
Once a month during the Dry Season they have Devonshire teas in the precinct to raise money. They have regular newsletters and, as I mentioned, now have a website. They have developed close relationships with other heritage rail organisations and know an impressive range of World War II veterans who have donated photographs, anecdotes, uniforms and a range of other material which would otherwise be lost to the Territory. They also have an impressive range of former North Australia Railway employees in their network and these people range from drivers to gangers, fettlers and engineers.
They cannot function without the support of their very generous sponsors, organisations such as Tourism NT, the Coomalie Community Government Council, the residents and commercial operators at Adelaide River itself and, of course, without the support of the general public. In the past, the Friends have been recipients of Northern Territory Heritage Grants. I saw firsthand how an 1885 Cowans Sheldon Crane has been restored to its former glory in the Berrimah yard.
There are several talented individuals involved with the Friends. They include, but are not limited to: Trevor Horman, the President. Trevor is an engineer and a railway heritage fan. It is beyond doubt that this man’s boundless energy drives the organisation. A man completely incapable of standing still, Trevor represents the Friends on a range of tourism, heritage, professional associations in addition to his tireless physical efforts in the precinct.
The Secretary and Treasurer is Judy Richardson. Judy not only takes care of the paperwork but gathers up material for the newsletter and helps out in the precinct on a regular basis. She wields a mean paint brush, is pretty good on the lawn mower, can turn her hand to waiting on tables, and manages to be the official photographer.
Vice President, Mick Kent, has meticulously documented the history of the Overland Telegraph and is responsible for what some visitors have called ‘the best OT display in Australia’ at the precinct. Mick has also lovingly restored a rail cattle car at the Berrimah yard and is always on hand to help out with lawn mowing and other more mundane but necessary work. On open days, Mick is games master and presents gold dog spikes to the winners of events.
Nola Smith and Estelle Harris are legends who run the Devonshire teas every month, and on open days like the one held on Monday of this week which attracted several hundred visitors. They also keep the troops fed and watered, calling them in from the field when lunch is served or a well deserved cuppa is waiting. Nola and Estelle are also responsible for recruiting ‘Grey Nomad’ caretakers for the precinct by doing the rounds around Darwin caravan parks with position vacant flyers.
Owen Peake and Mike Bowman represent the ‘steam team’ and do a huge job of work on restoring steam locomotives. Peter Poole is a civil engineer and tree clearer extraordinaire. Trevor Menzies, a surveyor, has done a lot of work at the precinct on flood mitigation and exhibit positioning purposes.
There is also another individual who is a great help to the FNAR. That is Robyn Smith who is well known to quite a number of us here in the House. Robyn is currently on leave and is putting a lot of time while she is on leave into helping out with the FNAR. Robyn has contributed in a whole range of ways. She has written the precinct interpretive signage plans, and she researches historical stuff where necessary. She has developed brochures and helps Judy with the newsletter. It was actually Robyn who also got the website up. It is a very good website and I recommend everyone to have a look at it. One of her more endearing works is that she writes the Brolga entries. Unfortunately, she never gets it up there but it does keep their name up in bright lights.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, organisations as the FNAR could not exist without such volunteers, and I commend them to members here for the work that they do. Their tireless effort in helping retain Territory heritage is something that will make us all so much richer as a community. On behalf of all members present, I put on the public record our thanks for their selfless and tireless efforts in helping to maintain Territory heritage.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I will speak on three different matters. The first one is an issue that has appeared in the media recently. I have had the opportunity to meet the gentleman concerned and it points directly at concerns in the delivery of education in our remote communities.
I had a meeting with Robert Bartholomew. It is important I have always found when these matters are brought to our attention to assess these matters by meeting the individuals concerned. I had the good fortune of meeting Robert Bartholomew and assessing the concerns he raised about his time in Ali Curung. His experiences in Ali Curung which were outlined in The Australian newspaper sincerely warrant investigation and deep consideration if we are to take our concerns seriously in order to advance towards a solutions to the problems that beset our community and delivery of education to our indigenous kids particularly.
I will read from a statement that Mr Bartholomew has prepared, and at the end of this I will make some additional comments. This here is the statement made by Mr Robert Bartholomew:
I add to these comments my own words. Having met Dr Robert Bartholomew, his wife, and children, having assessed his story and been in a position where I have been a leader in an educational community, I assess him as one whose story must be listened to if we are to be taken seriously.
The delivery of education, in any context, is immensely difficult and challenging. We either have the courage to face those challenges or turn from them. I fear, most deeply, that in this case, because the issues that were raised by Dr Robert Bartholomew caused too great a challenge, there was insufficient courage to face the challenge and, instead, sadly, the department turned away and dealt with the one who raised the concern.
It is a time when we need to recognise that there is a need for whistleblowers legislation for protection of those who speak up. There is nothing worse than someone who feels aggrieved and feels the need and the moral obligation to speak up for the needs of those who are being neglected in our education system; and the one who speaks up is then dealt with.
I do not want to support or remain silent in any way. I would be supporting it if I remained silent in this situation. All I ask for, in backing up Robert Bartholomew’s comments and story to me and, as published, is a sincere investigation to weigh it properly – an independent inquiry and investigation of the matters of significant nature that have been raised. I will leave it at that for the moment.
I, with a few other members of this Chamber, attended the Young Achievers Awards for 2008. As others may have said in adjournment debates, it is good to be a part of something like this, to be encouraged by the quality of youth, leadership, and young achievers in a range of areas across the Northern Territory, and to celebrate their achievements. It was a great encouragement to be a part of that event.
My wife and I went away with the words that many spoke on that night; that this was one of the best nights. I will not go through the list of those who received recognition on that night. Comment, as far as possible, has been made directly to those individuals concerned.
One thing occurred on that night which I want to turn my attention to now; that being, the Northern Territory representative for National Youth Week, Amy Robinson, was called upon to give a speech. She presented a speech which I feel needs to be presented here in this Chamber, and I present it on her behalf. I was deeply impressed by her speech. I understood, after speaking to her, where it came from, and it is a message that needs to resonate in this Chamber. I, therefore, place it on the Parliamentary Record. This is a short speech delivered by Amy Robinson. When I spoke to Amy afterwards, having been touched by her words, she immediately thanked me, but turned her comments to include her father who she recognises as her mentor for assisting her in the formation of this speech.
This is Amy Robinson’s speech:
They were Amy Robinson’s words, and from the mouth of a young person, that touched my heart and challenged me. I felt the next thing to do was to acknowledge those words and to put them into the Parliamentary Record for the benefit of honourable members and others who may wish to read them.
Finally, in recognition of the fact that we are global citizens, and we have been talking about the challenges that we face in our own community, we look at what has happened in Burma and we see something that causes us to put our own situations into context. I use the remaining time I have to make some comments about the situation in Burma. I would guess or assume that I am speaking on behalf of honourable members when we extend our sympathy to the people of Burma.
The people of Burma have faced, and are facing, a significant challenge on a couple of fronts. They have been under a military dictatorship for many years, well over 50 years, I believe. They are under a regime that has caused many to flee. In recent times, once again, we have had the good citizens of that nation rise up in protest to restore human dignity and the freedom of an individual to express their view and they have been crushed. And now they have suffered a natural disaster of immense proportions on the same scale as the tsunami. It has gone from bad to worse. The situation, as I found in one report, is very telling. It says that there are two fronts: there is already an agenda for a constitutional referendum to be conducted in Burma. Part of what is called a so-called roadmap to democracy was supposed to go ahead this weekend, and the military junta has decided to continue with that referendum whilst they are attending to an immense catastrophe.
At this point they are now looking at perhaps 60 000 people who will have lost their lives, and 95% of houses in some cities have been destroyed. Some though, being very traditional people, have viewed that this juxtaposition of the natural disaster of catastrophic proportions, and the actions and response of a government continuing with its intent to go down the referendum path, demonstrates the inability or the invalidity of this regime to remain in power. Of course, in all this is Aung San Suu Kyi, who won an election observing this. This well may be a turning point in Burma.
But that aside, with these events being played out, I can only hope that the military authorities will open those doors and allow assistance to be delivered into the heart of Burma to assist those in need, and at this point there seems to be some obstructions. I only hope that those doors open up and that assistance is delivered.
I ask that we spare a thought for those families who are suffering in Burma. There well may be 60 000 who have lost their lives. The impact of that is immense. I hope that those doors open up and help can be delivered to the heart of that nation.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Royal Darwin Hospital said farewell to one of its longest serving employees, Mrs Mary Raymond, who retired on 21 March 2008 after 35 years of invaluable service.
Mary started her employment at Royal Darwin Hospital on 23 March 1973 in the Housekeeping department. During 1980-81, Mary transferred from the Housekeeping to the Catering department where she remained until her retirement.
Mary was born in Darwin and is a traditional Larrakia woman. Mary is mother to eight children - Jane, John, Laurie, Dorrie-Ann, Michael, Tina, Philip and Leon - all of whom were born during her career within the Department of Health and Community Services.
Those who have worked with Mary will know that she is a perfectionist. She excelled in whatever was required. Mary was also a hard worker and continuously strove to improve working conditions not only for herself but for her peers. Mary completed the Diets Certificate, Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points Certificate, and Train the Trainer Certificate. Mary put her learning to daily use in whatever situations arose. Mary worked as the relief Catering Supervisor and Diet Supervisor until the time of her retirement.
Mary Raymond was a great worker, friend and mentor to all who had the pleasure of knowing and working with her. The Royal Darwin Hospital Catering Team will miss her dearly.
Tonight, I also acknowledge the retirement of Carmen McDonald, better known as Suzy Q to her peers, patients and community, and of course that is the community of Nhulunbuy. She is certainly a bundle of life and a bundle of enthusiasm.
Suzy Q retired on 29 February 2008 from the Department of Health and Community Services after 28 years of dedicated service at the Gove Hospital. I thank Suzy for her energy, support and caring contribution to the people of Nhulunbuy and Gove Peninsula.
Suzy Q spent the majority of her employment at Gove Hospital working as a Medical Records Clerk. It is well known that Suzy Q is a very conscientious and dedicated worker. Importantly, and even better known, is Suzy Q’s enthusiasm for life, warm personality and capacity to develop rapport quickly and easily with her work colleagues, patients and community more broadly.
On a personal level, I met Suzy Q when I did some relief pharmacy work at one stage at Gove Hospital and subsequent to that when I was doing research with the Menzies School into the health effects of Kava and looking at all the health records associated with that. Suzy Q certainly was a great help to me. She was very friendly and I certainly enjoyed sitting down having a cup a tea with her and a bit of a laugh. She is a very warm person, with a very infectious sense of humour.
I understand that Suzy Q will be staying in Nhulunbuy after her retirement which is great news for the Nhulunbuy community and fantastic news for the Territory. People make positive contributions in many different ways to their communities through sports, board memberships and volunteering, just to name a few. I am sure Suzy Q will continue to be a positive presence in Nhulunbuy for many years to come.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in acknowledgement of the people I had spoken about last night, John Briscoe and Jenny Francis, and tonight, Mary Raymond and Suzy Q, I congratulate them on their long-standing and dedicated employment to the Department of Health and Community Services and for all their services to the public in the Northern Territory.
I foreshadowed in February that school council elections were in the wind. I take this opportunity to congratulate all the fantastic people who make up the School Councils and Student Representative Councils in my electorate schools.
I will start with the Casuarina Senior College which is led this year by Chairperson, Julie Donohue, and supported by the Acting Secretary and Treasurer, Elise Dungey; parent members, Sigrid Evans, Derek Farrell, Cindy Impelmans, Jac Stirrat, Janet Schmidt, Lynne Cooke, Pamela Hose, Denise Crosby and Jill Watkinson; with Principal, Sue Healy, and staff members, Pasquale Cosentino and Hannah Michaelis.
The very enthusiastic Student Representative Council this year comprises president, Tara Alexander; vice president, Jasmine Tremblay; secretary, Sonia Mu; treasurer, David Creeper; Year 12 representative, John-Paul Arango; Year 11 representative, Kaleb Frost; and the Year 10 representative is Kay Dealwis. I wish them all a very successful and exciting year with their studies and with the student representative council work which they undertake in an effort to improve the quality of school life for all students.
The Jingili school community is chaired by Rhianna Suttie-Gunson, with support from deputy chair, Barbara McKaige; secretary, Juanita Gay; treasurer, Carol Kerr; assisting treasurer, Lorna Dudley; parents members, Michael Duffy, Josh and Jo Davis, Tracey Menhonshen, Bridget Riggs and Jane Black; teacher representatives, Judith Armstrong and Judy Purcher; preschool representative, Angela Minotti; kindy rep, Janine Stevens; and invited member kindergarten director, Liz Howden. The Jingili school community is doing great work. It is building on the work of the previous councils and there is a very bright future for the Jingili school community council.
The formally elected Student Representative Council at Jingili school comprises: Jessica Harpur, Blake Larson, Sarah Mikic, Jordyn Stacey, Jacob Browne, Dylan Brown, Amber Muir-McKay, Shayayla Carne, Ashleigh Lambert, Isabella Charles, Blair Galloway, Abby Smith, Jaz Watson, Nicholas Pond, Gage Ryan and Briony Galloway.
The school and house vice captains are: Samantha Kearney and Gavin Boase, captains of Forest; Claudia Lee and Jarrah Fowler, vice captains of Forest; Jarenzo Davis and Mietta Russell, captains of Ocean; Jade Jewell and Jesse Lai, vice captains Ocean; Breanna Haase and Jordyn Carne, captains of Earth; Daina Brown and Jake Levick, vice captains of Earth.
Congratulations to all those representatives. I wish them all the very best with their work for the Jingili school community, a community well know for its excellent work in fundraising. In fact this year, they have taken on the enormous task of fundraising to send about 30 Year 5s and 6s to Canberra in August, which will give the students an opportunity to visit Parliament House, the Australian War Memorial and the snow just to name a few.
At Moil Primary School this year, the 2008 council is chaired by Michael McRostie with vice chair, Sandra Papadonokis; treasurer is Taya Petsheny; secretary, Lisa Bell; assistant secretary, Bronwyn McRostie; and council members, Megan Luis, Kathy Johnston, Irene O’Meara and Diane Ryan.
They do a great job at Moil Primary School and they have already organised quite a number of good events. It has been my pleasure to attend them over the last year, and I look forward to the ones in the coming year.
The successful candidates voted into the Student Representative Council to represent their peers during the 2008 school year were: Johanna Hayes and Zac Luis from Year 3; Arran Stephens and Noah Roche from Year 4; Tayla Palmer and Chad Dickens from Year 5; Sam Jongue and Ralston Riley from Year 6. Mighty congratulations to all these kids. The other part of the school council comprises the House captains and the successful people this year were: Abby Lee and Elina Mosheni, captains of the Greenwood Greenants; Eliza Morse and Adam Johnston, captains of the Byrne Barras; Billy Browne and Anthony Andreou, captains of the Linde Lorikeets; Justin Bond, assistant captain of the Linde Lorikeets; Chloe Wallent and Clancy Standford, captains of the Wilson Wallabies.
I wish all these students all the very best for a great year in their leadership roles and lots of fun during the year as they represent their peers.
Wagaman Primary School is a great school in my electorate. I congratulate the school council which comprises: Justin Heath, who is returning as chair, who has done a great job over many years; Rose McKenzie, vice chair; Sylvia Mavros, parent representative; Michelle Zagorianos, parent representative; and the new people on the committee, Angie Maxwell, secretary; Lenny Ross, treasurer; Katie Karamanakis, parent representative; Annie Boast, invited member; and teacher representatives, Sally Baker and Lois Ramsay; preschool rep, Sue-Ellen Ling; and Principal, Michelle Cody.
That is a school council that does a lot of good work. They really drill down into the detail and their hearts are really for the school. Wagaman Primary School is really moving ahead under the leadership provided by the school council.
Also, the Wagaman Student Representative Council this year are: president, Tristan Garces; vice president, Hakon Dyrting; secretary, Michelle Kerrin; treasurer, Megan Burke; Year 3 class representatives, Will Heath and Alannah Denaro; Year 3/4 class representative, Luke Van der Velde and Rachael Motter; Year 4/5 representatives, Joshua Kelleher, Mya Stewart; Year 5 representatives, Kyban Baird and Sabrina Ciubal; and Year 6 representatives, Germano Bernadino and Teoni Cantrill.
Congratulations to all these extraordinary school students and the best of luck during the year representing your fellow students.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Anzac Day is a special day for everyone across the whole of Australia and New Zealand, when all of us focus on remembering those who sacrificed their lives for our great country and who, by their actions, have shaped what our nation is today. It is right and proper that we never forget those who fought and died for our nation.
I acknowledge the Anzac commemorations that were held around the Territory last week. On Wednesday, 23 April, I attended the Humpty Doo Primary School Anzac Day Assembly. I was very proud of the students’ participation in, and honour of, this significant historical event. The students conducted an informative assembly, acknowledging the history of the Anzacs with readings, one minute’s silence, The Last Post was played, and class representatives laid wreaths at this most impressive memorial service. I am very proud of the way the students conducted the assembly, and their dedication to studying the history and the true meaning of the Anzac tradition.
On Anzac Day, 25 April, I attended the Litchfield Anzac Day commemorations at the Humpty Doo Village Green, where the Lions Club of Litchfield hosted the morning’s program, starting with a march then a very moving service and wreath laying. The march from Taminmin High School to the Anzac Cenotaph at the village green was proudly led by the Vietnam Veterans, with local schoolchildren, service personnel, ambulance, firefighter volunteers, and representatives of our local community groups participating in the march.
I acknowledge the participation of the following organisations which contributed to the success of the 2008 Anzac Day at Humpty Doo: the Humpty Doo St John Ambulance Cadets; Girraween Primary School and St Francis of Assisi School; Howard Springs and Humpty Doo Scout and Guide groups; the Vietnam Veterans Association; and the Humpty Doo, Koolpinyah, and other rural area volunteer fire brigades.
This month was notable for the 10th anniversary birthday celebrations for the Humpty Doo division of St John Ambulance Cadets. Brian and Joyce Maden, who started the Humpty Doo Division, along with the division’s longest serving member, Vicki MacMillan, were all recognised for their outstanding voluntary work as part of this very important community service organisation. As you all know, St John Ambulance volunteers attend many community and sporting events and contribute many hundreds of voluntary hours to these events. Some of the original young people who attended the very first meeting are still voluntary members, while others are now full-time paramedics with St John Ambulance. This is, indeed, a credit to the division. The 10th anniversary celebration clearly marked a significant milestone for the Humpty Doo St John Ambulance Cadets. On behalf of the Northern Territory parliament, I congratulate and thank them for their meritorious service and their continued dedication to serving this very special need in our rural area.
The Henderson government recently recognised the dedication of another very active volunteer organisation in our rural area when Mr Len Kiely presented the Lambells Lagoon Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade with a $60 000 medium attack fire truck. Along with the truck that has since been donated to the Beatrice Hill Volunteer Brigade, both brigades are now well equipped to ensure they are able to assist landholders by continuing to combat bushfires. I also congratulate and thank these voluntary firefighters for the service they provide, and urge them to take care when out fighting fires this Dry Season.
Humpty Doo Primary School recently completed a dream indigenous calendar garden for their early childhood students. I believe its opening was quite a media event. Each of the new garden beds recognises indigenous seasons by incorporating plantings that bloom in each of the six seasons. The indigenous garden features the six seasons namely Wurrgeng, Gurrung, Gunumeleng, Gudjewg, Banggerreng and Yegge.
The visual creation was the brainchild of local author and artist, Di Lucas, and as described in her book, Walking With the Seasons in Kakadu. This has been a real school community project, with many students and parents assisting with the garden construction and painting the wildlife mural in the walkway leading to the garden. Special thanks go to the parent, Michelle Shugg who designed the garden landscaping. Humpty Doo school principal, Felicity Hancock, said the students have also started a school nursery to help grow some of the plants to place in this garden and around the general gardens of the school.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I advise of several special award recipients from Taminmin High School. In particular, congratulations go to Terry Lim on winning a national Simpson Prize for his essay which encapsulated the true spirit of Anzac. This accolade is awarded annually to the top student from each state. Terry was particularly determined to win this prestigious honour as he was the runner up last year.
Following Terry’s award presentation in Canberra, he was also given the honour of travelling to Turkey and attending the Anzac Dawn Service at Gallipoli. I am sure all members of parliament are truly encouraged by the willingness of our students such as Terry to learn about the history of the Anzacs and our Anzac Day tradition. On behalf of the parliament, I congratulate Terry on his efforts.
The Taminmin High School debating team performed extremely well last month by defeating the Darwin High School debating team. As a result of the team’s debating skills, under the leadership of Jan Sparrow, Emily Holyoake was selected for the NT debating team. On behalf of parliament, I congratulate Taminmin High School debating team, Jan Sparrow and Emily Holyoake on their fantastic achievements.
Emily Holyoake also deserves another notable mention as a participant on the Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. Emily represents many young people from the Taminmin High School’s cohort region. As explained in her extract: ‘It is not very often that a bunch of young people get to decide on what goes on in their Territory. It is a pretty awesome opportunity’.
Another rural representative, Amy Smith, is as excited as Emily to represent young, rural people at the Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. Both these young ladies are very pleased to have the opportunity to work hard with the diverse group of young people from across the Territory to express the views of the Northern Territory youth to government.
I also acknowledge Gemma Benn, a previous student at Taminmin High, who is now the Vice Char of the Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. I know we are all very proud of these talented young rural Territorians, and I look forward with interest to the outcomes of these forums.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 3 Leanyer Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Fran Selvadurai, who are participating in the Parliament of the Birds. On behalf of honourable members I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Alice Springs Cup Carnival
Alice Springs Cup Carnival
Mr KNIGHT (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, last Monday saw the conclusion of yet another magnificent XXXX Gold Alice Springs Cup Carnival with the running of the feature event at Pioneer Park. I was fortunate enough to attend many of the Cup Carnival events during my various trips over the last few weeks to Alice Springs. I can honestly say that Alice Springs really knows how to put on a show.
I attended the Young Guns meeting for a great day of socialising mixed in with some low key punting on the Cleanaway Quality Handicap amongst other races. I was unable to attend the Ladies Day. I am told that it was a fabulous event with spectacular fashions and great food and entertainment. I believe there was actually some racing on that day as well.
Congratulations to trainer, Merv Rumble, jockey, Craig Moon, and the connections of Swepscay, the winner of the Redbank Wines WFA Chief Minister’s Cup.
Last weekend, Alice Springs was the place to be if you are into socialising. The Racing minister’s cocktail party on Friday evening was a huge success. It was a pleasure to be there with the Racing minister to meet many of the locals and visitors to Alice Springs and to absorb the racing fever.
The William Inglis & Son Red Centre Yearling Sale followed and, although the number of the horses up for grabs was down a little on previous years, over $105 000 in total changed hands on the night which was a great effort and a great way to finish off an excellent night.
Saturday’s family fun day was just another highlight and many hundreds of mums, dads and kids enjoyed beautiful weather and great hospitality of the Alice Springs Turf Club, Coleman’s Printing, the Gillen Club and Buslink.
The Lisa Lefoe trained Periduki, a product of the Alice Springs yearling sales, took out the feature, the Lasseters Hotel Casino Pioneer Sprint. Congratulations to Lisa and jockey, Justin Potter, and all the owners on a wonderful and convincing win.
Saturday night was the Alice Springs Cup Ball, a truly magnificent event with over 400 guests. A big crowd of over 2200 people turned up for the Cup Day on Monday. Locals were dressed in their finery and it was a good example of the diversity within the Alice Springs population. The feature event, the XXXX Gold Alice Springs Cup, was won by Tradesmen’s Choice, which was magnificently ridden by Dominic Tourneur.
I acknowledge Alan Rowe again - it was good to catch up with him - who did a great job for Lion Nathan; and to Lion Nathan for supporting the Alice Springs Cup Carnival and the Alice Springs Turf Club. In fact, to all the sponsors: your generous support for racing in the Centre is greatly appreciated by this government, by racing patrons throughout the Territory and by the Alice Springs public.
Thanks to Karen Jones, who worked tirelessly throughout the Cup Carnival to raise money for the Leukaemia Foundation, the chosen charity of the Alice Springs Turf Club. Your commitment and your energy to charitable causes is magnificent. Our community would be all the poorer without people like you.
I congratulate Andrew O’Toole, Carley Plume and Turf Club Chairman, Paul Bain, for a magnificent effort in working the seemingly endless hours to make this such a memorial carnival. It is the dedication of people like this that make Alice Springs such a great place.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the report - the first report for the Minister for Central Australia, I believe, in his new portfolio. Congratulations on that. Yes, it certainly was a great weekend - in fact, a great five-week carnival; the first time the carnival has been held over five weeks, including the Family Fun Day, Food and Wine Day, the Young Guns Day and, of course, the Cup Carnival Day and Ladies Day.
I congratulate my Electorate Officer, Karen Berry, who took out Fashions on the Field that day, Ladies Day ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: She did, she did. It was fantastic.
I am not sure if the minister was at the lunch. I know you may have arrived in the afternoon, but the lunch kicked off the whole weekend on Friday afternoon. That was terrific, too. It was sponsored by XXXX Gold, the Turf Club and Lasseter’s Hotel Casino with Darren Lehman and Kerry O’Keeffe, who always does a fantastic job, who was the guest speaker. Wayne Phillips did a terrific job all weekend as the MC.
As you said, Alan Rowe and the guys from XXXX Gold are very committed to the Alice Springs Turf Club, Pioneer Park, since they won the contract off Foster’s a few years ago. They have been going hammer and tongs turning it into a real event. Pioneer Park, essentially, has become a real place to go for Central Australians. It is an event and a day out these days, rather than a one-off spot to go during Cup Day or the Cup Carnival.
I believe they have about 35 or 36 races a year at Pioneer Park. This year also featured the Greatorex Classic, the first race of the Alice Springs Cup Carnival. They kicked off the whole carnival with the Greatorex Classic. That was won by Gold Magic, which was owned by Ken Rogerson.
All in all, minister, well done - great to see you down there. Congratulations on your first report as Minister for Central Australia. Congratulations to all involved: Andrew O’Toole, the Turf Club, Carley Plume and Alan Rowe from XXXX Gold.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, yes, it was a good weekend. Unfortunately, I was still suffering from the flu so I missed out on it.
The Alice Springs Turf Club is growing, and that is what is important; that it is not stagnant. We need to say commiserations to the member for Nhulunbuy because I believe his horse came seventh. We have to admit that he is still in there plugging away, and that is good news.
It was not just the Cup Carnival that was on at the weekend. We had the Bangtail Muster as well. I hope you managed to get to see a little of that because it is always great. The Teppa Hill Preschool in my electorate took out the float award and we had all those utes that had come from all over the place, including Les Smith’s ute from Kulgera that he brought in. I hate to say this - probably many people in this House are too young to remember the old FJ utes. Still, it does not matter, they were great.
Mr Wood: FJ - no, I cannot remember that.
Mrs BRAHAM: Oh, the fellow behind me seems to think he was too young.
As well as that, the Alice Springs netball team was away competing in Victoria. It is great that they have a representative team from netball. As you know, I am patron of that. We need to say something about netball because over 1000 players are there every Saturday. It must be one of the most represented sports in Alice Springs. You had 2000 people at the races; just come down to the netball courts and you will see 1000 people playing netball, which is great. Perhaps, the minister for Sports might get down there one day to see that.
Alice Springs is alive and doing well; it is buoyant. I believe that people really get behind it and enjoy things such as the Cup Carnival. No, I did not get an invitation to the reception.
Mr KNIGHT (Central Australia): We will make sure that is fixed up next year.
Ms Carney: Will you be around next time?
Mr KNIGHT: I will be there.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I support the member’s comments about the netball, 1050 members there. I was there for the launch of the season and a great rematch for the grand final. It was a great event.
Alice Springs really does punch above its weight. With a population of 30 000 people they really do punch above their weight. The show they put on for the race carnival was very impressive, a great crowd turned up, and the Fashions on the Field were incredible. I would like to thank some people who gave me some good advice over the weekend; I am much wiser for it, but I am much poorer for it: Matt Benson, Marc Loader, Jared Wapper and Crafty who gave me some good advice.
I was really doing quite well with the Cup over the few weeks. I was up quite a bit, but I had to support my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, so I came back about square for the whole weekend. It was a great event for Central Australia.
Public Sector Trainees and
Apprenticeships Program
Apprenticeships Program
Mr BONSON (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the Northern Territory Public Sector Trainees and Apprenticeships Program and inform the House of the latest graduation successes.
The NTPS Apprenticeship Program provides approximately 100 government traineeship placements per annum. Government traineeships like this deliver for Territory families and it is about investing in our future.
In January and February, 50 NTPS apprentices completed their traineeships and obtained their qualifications. The program supports diversity and regional employment. Of our recent graduates, 25% are indigenous Territorians; 22% live and work in regional centres; and 92% are under the age of 25. The NTPS Apprenticeship Program achieves an 80% completion rate, with most of the apprentices moving on to good jobs and careers after their traineeship. Of the recent group, around 53% have secured ongoing work with the Northern Territory Public Service; six of them are considering further study; and the remainder have sought employment in the private sector with high success rates.
This group of apprentices has undertaken a diverse range of studies including business (office administration), aquaculture, retail, travel, events management, multimedia, horticulture, conservation and land management, and information technology. The graduating apprentices have spent the past 12 to 36 months doing a mix of on-the-job and off-the-job training.
On 30 January 2008, my predecessor, Elliot McAdam, attended the Darwin graduation ceremony and presented certificates of attainment and qualification to 24 Darwin graduate apprentices. Graduation ceremonies have been held in all major Territory centres to publicly acknowledge the efforts of each apprentice. The youngest graduating trainee was just 16-years-old when he commenced his apprenticeship in information technology. Our oldest trainee will be 39 when she receives her Certificate III in Business (Office Administration).
A highlight of the Darwin ceremony includes reflections from two of the apprentices. They spoke of their personal journey and what the program meant to them. Rory Milner told how he had not expected his placement with the Department of Justice to provide stress, boredom and excitement all in just a single hour. Roy went on to tell how the apprenticeship program has provided him with the motivation to go to university to seek a career in engineering. Samantha Brittain, spoke highly of her work colleagues in all three job rotations within Northern Territory Treasury. She also credited her apprenticeship training for building her confidence in public speaking and for improving her capacity to recognise her strengths.
The announcement of Jobs Plan 3 in 2007 provided continuity for the NTPS Apprenticeship Program. Under Jobs Plan 3, additional focus has been placed on regional and remote employment, including indigenous and disadvantaged Territorians. Around 100 apprenticeship opportunities will be offered each year over the two year program. The Department of Health and Community Services’ Aboriginal Health Worker Program and the Department of Employment, Education and Training’s Indigenous Education Worker Program have successfully created new and sustainable opportunities for local people in remote Territory towns.
The NTPS Apprenticeship Program is being offered again this year. To date, 33 trainees have been employed in remote Territory centres, ranging from Elcho Island and Gapuwiyak, to Hermannsburg and Willowra. NTPS apprenticeships have provided a valuable training ground for Territorians and are a source of future skilled employees for both the public and private sectors.
I acknowledge that the success of this program relies not only on the motivation of the participants themselves, but also on the capacity of the program coordinators. Northern Territory government workplace supervisors, agency early-career coordinators, DCIS Training and Employment programs unit, Regional Training Authorities and the contracted service provider, Group Training Northern Territory, are all integral to the success of the program and their contributions are to be applauded.
The NTPS Apprenticeship Program highlights the contribution of this government to skills development of the Northern Territory through its greatest resource, its people. Madam Speaker, we are a government committed to delivering for Territory families and investing in our future.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report this morning. I hope when all these traineeships are finalised, the regions will significantly benefit. It is especially important for the regions. I note the minister’s report.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on training young people for working in the public service. There is a good opportunity, whether we demolish the prison or put the prison somewhere else, to look at the regions. Having low security prison farms in Katherine and Tennant Creek would open up opportunities for people in those communities to become involved as Community Correctional Officers. There is a program already in place for indigenous people to be involved in Corrections. It would be great to place the low security prison farms or something similar in those regions, especially for employment and for indigenous people who might not have opportunities in those towns unless they move to Darwin or Alice Springs. That is one facet the government should look at. I support any move to have low security prisons in Katherine and Tennant Creek.
Mr BONSON (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I note the observations of the members for Katherine and Nelson. They have a keen interest in employment in remote, rural and regional areas as we do. The Northern Territory Public Service Apprenticeship Graduation Scheme definitely provides this opportunity. As minister, I have seen that the program has the capacity to help increase job opportunities in remote areas. I am committed to informing members of those opportunities. I make that offer to you now: we will provide information relating to the queries you have raised and keep you updated on the potential for Katherine and other regions, and the identification of job opportunities as described by the member for Nelson.
National and International Migration Expos
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I report on the work being done to attract skilled overseas migrants to live and work here. As all members are aware, there is a skills and labour shortage in the Territory; as there is across the country. Training of Territorians is a key priority of this government.
While the main coordinator of all government action on training is DEET, within my Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development we have the Skilled Migration Services Program. My department works with Territory employers to raise their awareness of the migration options available, to facilitate recruitment of skilled workers from overseas, and the process and procedures they must follow. We also act to raise the profile of the Northern Territory with prospective overseas migrants in key source countries and to encourage them to choose the Northern Territory as their new home.
Last month, the Northern Territory participated in the 2008 Australia Needs Skills Expo in London. This expo specifically targeted skilled overseas people whose occupations had been identified as being in shortage in Australia. Participation in the Australia Needs Skills Expo allowed the Territory to take advantage of the Australia brand and the Commonwealth’s extensive print, radio and electronic marketing of the event. As a result, some 4700 invitations were issued to attend the weekend event. Despite the poor weather conditions that prevailed on the second day of the Expo, over 3300 people attended. All Australian state and territory governments were represented in the 38 exhibitors at the event. Staff were kept very busy answering inquiries and delivering seminars, and took around 200 curriculum vitae from qualified and experienced people interested in employment opportunities in the Territory, several of whom indicated that they had previously visited the Territory.
Following the London Expo, the Territory combined with Tasmania, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory to host a regional migration seminar in the Netherlands. This event was aimed at skilled people from diverse trade and professional working backgrounds, many of whom had secured their visas and were seeking detailed information about settlement in regional areas of Australia.
The Territory’s most recent foray into international migration markets was participation in the Opportunities Australia Expos in South Africa.
I extend my appreciation to the Chamber of Commerce NT and in particular to Mr Greg Bicknell, Executive Officer of the Chamber’s International Business Council, who partnered with our departmental representative to staff the Territory’s display at the expos in Johannesburg and Cape Town. I was pleased to assist the Chamber by covering the cost of Mr Bicknell’s airfare for the events. While this is not the first occasion that officers of the department and industry associations have worked together to promote the Territory at a migration exhibition, it is a first for joint government/Chamber efforts at such events.
Early indications suggest that visitor numbers to the Opportunities Australia Expo in Johannesburg were going to be high when organisers advised that they had stopped pre-registrations. At that time, 9000 visitors were anticipated. However, actual attendance numbers exceeded expectations with more than 11 000 attending the two day expo. The majority of the visitors were educated and work-experienced South Africans. Over the two days our representatives distributed 1000 information packs on the Territory and took in excess of 500 resumes from expo visitors.
The Cape Town expo on the following weekend was smaller. Nevertheless, interest was high with more than 4000 visitors over the two days. Again, our representatives distributed information packs and took a large number of CVs from the expo visitors.
Territory seminars highlighting lifestyle, employment and business opportunities were presented each day of the respective expos in South Africa. The seminars attracted an almost total capacity audience of 1100 people interested in hearing what the Territory has to offer. There has been a substantial increase in inquiries from South Africa since the visit and this interest, coupled with the quality of the training in many of the trades and professions of that country, is likely to produce good outcomes for Territory employers.
Following the expos, the Chamber of Commerce is planning an information session to provide employers with feedback on the events, as well as giving Darwin employers information about the expos and the country’s potential for skilled migration, it is intended for a South African expatriate to talk about her experience of moving to Darwin. The combined efforts of the government and the Chamber of Commerce will continue into the future and will result in more people coming to live and work in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is an important statement in what is a global crisis for skilled labour. It is very important that the Territory is strongly represented at such forums.
However, I ask the minister to comment on another aspect of this issue that has been spoken about at the 2020 summit. Prior to that on Foreign Correspondent there was an excellent report on programs that have been put in place in New Zealand with outreach to the Pacific Islands, and that is a guest worker program. It seems to be working very well in New Zealand and it warrants serious consideration in Australia.
When you think of our regions, one of the deficiencies that we have are workers to work in the service industries, to work in the service stations and hotels, to work in horticulture and agriculture. Within our region we have many who would be grateful to receive an opportunity to participate in that kind of work. We have labour available in the Northern Territory and nationally, but particularly in the Northern Territory.
Whilst our policies that we are implementing to bridge, largely indigenous, Territorians with the skills to be able to take up many of the jobs that are going on in regional Australia and in Darwin, it would be worth looking at the guest worker program. I know Western Australia has strongly lobbied the federal government for some consideration for the program that is in operation in New Zealand. You would only have to travel through the regions and you have probably heard that some of these small businesses are closing for the lack of basic workers, just people who can put their hand up and say ‘I am happy to do the job’. There are people in our region; it is as close to us, almost, as Tennant Creek. They would be, for instance, in Timor. When it comes to horticulture there is a grave shortage of workers. I ask the minister to look at that program.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his contribution. Certainly there is a lack of skills in Australia and in the Territory. We are trying our best to attract people with skills that we need currently in the Territory. There is no way we can train people in a short period of time to address the shortage we have in the industry and the mining industry.
As for the guest workers program, that is controlled by 457 visas. The current and previous governments made it clear that they are looking for skilled workers rather than unskilled workers. It would be interesting to see what the outcome of the current review of the 457 visa will bring. We will support any changes that will bring workers, skilled or semi-skilled, into the Territory, even if it is for a short period of time. We need hands. We are doing our best to train people. Our training program has been really good, with thousands of people currently in apprenticeships and training, and will continue to be so, especially with special focus on the housing program now in indigenous communities.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Leader of Opposition’s Reply to Budget
Leader of Opposition’s Reply to Budget
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I call Government Business, I remind you that at 11 am the Leader of the Opposition will be making his reply to the budget. As is the custom, I will be interrupting the member who is on their feet in order that the Leader of the Opposition may make his speech.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Two Bills through all Stages
Pass Two Bills through all Stages
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Revenue Law Reform (Budget Initiatives) Bill 2008 (Serial 146) and Pay-roll Tax Amendment (Harmonisation) Bill 2008 (Serial 148):
- (a) being presented and read for a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings of the bills together; and
(b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
REVENUE LAW REFORM (BUDGET INITIATIVES) BILL
(Serial 146)
PAY-ROLL TAX AMENDMENT (HARMONISATION) BILL
(Serial 148)
(Serial 146)
PAY-ROLL TAX AMENDMENT (HARMONISATION) BILL
(Serial 148)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The bills put in place a package of revenue measures announced as part of the 2008-09 Budget, and implement payroll tax harmonisation measures first announced in March 2007.
The bills propose amendments to the Stamp Duty Act, Taxation Administration Act, First Home Owner Grant Act and Pay-roll Tax Act. The key proposals involve easing the tax and compliance cost burden on Territorians and Territory business by reducing the payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 5.9% from 1 July 2008; reducing from 6 May 2008 the current conveyance stamp duty rates with a new minimum rate of 1.5% and a maximum rate of 4.95% that applies from a property value of $525 000; and introducing from 1 July 2008 payroll tax legislation that is harmonised with every other state and territory in eight key areas.
In relation to the reduction in conveyance stamp duty rates, this is the first overall rate reduction since 1994. It will also result in an increase in the stamp duty First Home Owner Concession from the first $350 000 of a property’s value to the first $385 000. This reduction provides savings to all conveyances that are subject to stamp duty. Based on 2007 data, about 8000 Territory homebuyers, investors and businesses are expected to receive stamp duty savings. More specifically, over 1300 first homebuyers, 1700 other homebuyers, 3400 residential investors, and 1400 commercial property buyers will benefit. Collectively, these changes will save taxpayers $12m in conveyance stamp duty in 2008-09. These changes are proposed to apply to instruments executed on or after 6 May 2008. Purchases secured prior to 6 May 2008 either by a contract or option will not be eligible for the reduced rates.
The government has demonstrated its commitment to reducing the burden of payroll tax on businesses. Over several budgets it has increased the payroll tax exemption threshold from $600 000 to $1.25m, and has also reduced the rate from 6.5% to 6.2%. In line with its 2005 election commitment, this government will further reduce the payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 5.9% with effect from 1 July 2008. This measure will benefit all employers that pay payroll tax in the Territory - nearly 1600 employers at an estimated cost of $7.2m in 2008-09. The proposed harmonisation of payroll tax legislation will streamline administration for all businesses that operate in the Territory, but will provide the greatest benefits to those businesses that also operate interstate.
Although national reforms have been agreed in eight payroll tax areas, the Territory already complies in some respects. I will now provide greater detail of the changes proposed by the Pay-roll Tax Amendment (Harmonisation) Bill 2008.
First, it proposes to tax a living-away-from-home allowance by the amount that exceeds the taxable threshold for fringe benefits tax rather than taxing the full amount of the allowance. Exemptions will also be introduced for motor vehicle and accommodation allowances at standardised rates below which payroll tax will not apply. The bill also proposes to align with other jurisdictions the rules relating to the treatment of employee share schemes and wages for work performed in another country. Greater detail of all changes proposed by both bills is set out in the explanatory statements accompanying the bills.
Several important changes are also proposed to enable the alignment of the grouping of employers for payroll tax purposes. These include adopting rules where direct and indirect interests can be traced through corporations and aggregated to give a controlling interest greater than 50%. These changes would apply to more complex business structures. Currently, the Commissioner of Territory Revenue has a discretion to exclude a member from a payroll tax group where it operates independently of, and is not substantially connected with, the other members of the group. However, this is only available for groupings through discretionary trusts or where the services of employees are shared within the group. The bill widens this exclusion discretion to include group members that have been grouped under any of the revised grouping provisions, other than the grouping of related corporations under the Commonwealth’s Corporations Act.
Finally, the same payroll tax laws as those in New South Wales and Victoria are being adopted for the treatment of termination payments. These laws reflect the Territory’s current treatment of termination payments.
In addition to compliance cost savings delivered by the payroll tax harmonisation measures, Territory businesses are expected to save about $1.7m in payroll tax in 2008-09.
I now turn to the other measures contained in the Revenue Law Reform (Budget Initiatives) Bill 2008 which, unless otherwise indicated, are all proposed to commence from 1 July 2008.
If a deed is not otherwise subject to ad valorem duty, nominal stamp duty of $20 applies. In recognition that taxpayers incur costs in arranging for deeds to be stamped, and that government also incurs costs in processing deeds, the bill proposes to abolish nominal stamp duty on those deeds. However, nominal stamp duty will be retained for deeds that relate to trusts to ensure that valuable transactions do not proceed without stamp duty being paid on them.
This bill also proposes three measures to improve the integrity of the Stamp Duty Act and to minimise the possibility of weaknesses in that act being exploited.
The first measure proposes to treat exploration rights like other mining interests for stamp duty purposes by including them within the definition of land. This addresses the current inequitable stamp duty treatment of such rights. I am disappointed to say that this change also responds to practices to minimise stamp duty by artificially apportioning value that is properly attributed to mining tenements to exploration rights. Curbing these minimisation practices should reduce protracted and expensive valuation and legal disputes, and provide a more equitable treatment of these types of interests.
The bill also provides a stamp duty concession when an exploration licence or exploration retention licence is conveyed pursuant to a farm-in agreement. This concession acknowledges that when a person becomes entitled to acquire an interest in such a licence by contributing to the cost of exploration, it would be inequitable to then assess duty on any increase in value that results from such exploration. Instead, duty will be on the consideration or the value of the exploration licence or exploration retention licence at the time the farm-in agreement is entered into. Furthermore, the grant of new exploration rights, rather than the transfer of existing exploration rights, will remain exempt from stamp duty. Accordingly, this measure is not expected to significantly impact on the level of new exploration in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, a technical shortcoming has been identified in the stamp duty legislation. Doubt exists over the current practice of requiring stamp duty to be paid on the conveyance of a mining tenement before it is entered in the Mining Register. In response, the second measure seeks to rectify this shortcoming by ensuring that stamp duty is paid on an unregistered instrument conveying a mining tenement before it is registered.
The last of these measures ensures that conveyance stamp duty is payable when a person acquires property from a non-discretionary trust as a purchaser rather than in their capacity as a beneficiary of the trust. This corrects an oversight when new taxation administration arrangements were introduced from 1 January 2008. As such, it is appropriate for the proposed amendment to take effect from that date.
The bill proposes several other measures relating to the new Taxation Administration Act. First, it proposes to clarify that revenue-related information can be provided to Northern Territory law enforcement agencies, such as the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is consistent with the explicit disclosure powers previously available to the Commissioner.
The bill also proposes to make it very clear that all members of a group for the purposes of a taxation law are jointly and severally liable for the tax of any group member. This uncertainty was introduced when the new Taxation Administration Act commenced from 1 January 2008 and, as such, it is proposed the amendment take effect from 1 January 2008. This will also minimise the possibility of a group member avoiding a tax liability.
The last of these measures seeks to make minor consequential amendments to update obsolete references in other Territory legislation as a result of the introduction of the new Taxation Administration Act. For example, references to the Commissioner of Taxes will be changed to the Commissioner of Territory Revenue.
I turn now to the final four measures proposed by the bill that make minor changes to the Territory’s home ownership schemes. The First Home Owner Grant Scheme and the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession have very similar eligibility criteria and are administered in tandem. The measures proposed by the bill seek to achieve even greater consistency in the administration of these schemes. The first proposal seeks to align the interest rate and the way in which interest is applied to a First Home Owner Grant debt with that for a First Home Owner Concession debt.
The second proposed change seeks to increase the time in which prosecution for a contravention of the First Home Owner Grant Act may be commenced – from three years to five years from when the alleged offence occurred. Of note is that this change is intended to apply only to offences that are alleged to have been committed on or after 1 July 2008. A five year time period is currently provided for the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession.
The third proposal seeks to ensure that it is an offence under the First Home Owner Grant Act, in all circumstances, where materially false or misleading information is provided. To alleviate concerns that a person may be unjustly prosecuted for providing a misleading document, it is a defence to this offence where the misleading aspect of the document is identified and corrected to the extent the person can reasonably do so. Consistent with contraventions in relation to other taxation laws, further aspects of criminal responsibility are provided for in the Criminal Code. This proposal is similar to the current arrangements for the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession.
The final proposed change seeks to excuse a conveyee from the residence requirements of the First Home Owner Concession or principal place of residence rebate, provided there are special reasons where there are two or more conveyees and at least one will comply with the residence requirements. This is consistent with the intent of the legislation and the way in which the First Home Owner Grant Act operates.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members. I table the explanatory statements to accompany the bills.
Debate adjourned.
NATIONAL GAS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL
(Serial 149)
(Serial 149)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill that I have introduced today is the culmination of a huge amount of work done by the Ministerial Council on Energy, or the MCE, at the direction of the Council of Australian Governments to rationalise the regulation of the energy market, principally the gas and electricity markets in Australia. Over the last six years, the MCE has overseen the development of a regulatory structure which will provide nationally coordinated energy market rule making, and enforcement under a single national regulatory arrangement. In June 2004, the Northern Territory signed the Australian Energy Market Agreement, committing the Northern Territory to participate in the national energy regulatory reforms.
The Australian Energy Market Agreement commits the Commonwealth, state and territory governments to establish, and maintain a new national energy market framework. The National Gas (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 will apply a new national gas law as a law of the Northern Territory. The new national gas law was recently introduced as a schedule to the South Australian Applications Act; as South Australia generously acted as lead legislator for the purpose of passing the National Gas Law.
The new National Gas Law reforms the governance arrangements for the third party access regulation of pipeline services by conferring functions and powers on two new national energy bodies. These are the Australian Energy Market Commission, which was established under the South Australian Energy Market Commission Establishment Act 2004; and the Australian Energy Regulator, established under the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974. The National Gas Law also establishes a policy-making role for the Ministerial Council of Energy in the context of gas regulation.
The Australian Energy Regulator will be responsible for gas transmission and distribution regulation in all jurisdictions other than Western Australia, where Western Australia’s Economic Regulation Authority retains this role. The Australian Energy Market Commission will be responsible for rule-making for gas transmission and distribution in all jurisdictions.
As a result of these new regulatory arrangements, the existing Code Registrar and the National Gas Pipelines Advisory Committee are to be abolished and their functions assumed by the Australian Energy Market Commission. The Australian Energy Regulator is the primary regulator under the National Gas Law, and will have enforcement compliance monitoring and economic regulatory functions.
The current national cooperative scheme for the regulation of the natural gas pipeline services came into operation in 1997. The lead legislation was the Gas Pipelines Access (South Australia) Act 1997. There were two Schedules to this act; the first titled ‘Third party access to natural gas pipelines’, and the second ‘National Third Party Access Code for Natural Gas Pipeline Systems (the Gas Code)’. Together these Schedules were referred to as the Gas Pipelines Access Law, and applied to all Australian states and territories and the Commonwealth.
Under the proposed reforms, the new National Gas Law to be brought into force under the National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 will be applied in all Australian jurisdictions when they, like us, pass application acts which apply the law to the Territory and all Australian jurisdictions - except Western Australia, which will pass its own mirroring legislation.
An important objective of the Australian Energy Market Agreement is the promotion of the long-term interests of energy consumers and this has been enshrined as a key objective in the National Gas Law. The National Gas objective is to promote effective investment in, and efficient use of, natural gas services for the long-term interests of consumers of natural gas with respect to price, quality, reliability and security of supply of natural gas.
The purpose of the National Gas Law is to establish a framework to ensure the efficient operation of pipeline services, efficient investment, and the effective regulation of gas networks. Consistent with the Australian Energy Market Arrangement, the new National Gas Law has been drafted to reflect the Ministerial Council on Energy’s function to give high level policy direction to the Australian Energy Market Commission in relation to the National Energy Market, rather than engage directly in the day-to-day operation of the energy market or the conduct of regulators.
The National Gas (South Australia) Act 2008 will make important governance reforms to gas regulation through separating high level policy direction, economic regulation, rule making, and rule enforcement. The act brings gas access regulations under the jurisdiction of the Australian Energy Market Commission as rule-maker, and the Australian Energy Regulator as the economic regulator and enforcement body. The National Gas Law does not apply economic regulation to pipelines that do not meet the coverage criteria. Any person can apply to bring a pipeline under the regime, or apply for a pipeline to become uncovered at any time, unless the pipeline has been granted a greenfields pipeline incentive.
Access arrangements have been the central feature of pipeline regulation under the Gas Code, and will continue to have this position under the National Gas Law. For those with a more specific interest in gas access arrangements, the National Gas Law requires service providers who are subject to price regulation to submit access arrangements, and revisions to the access arrangements, to the Australian Energy Regulator in accordance with rules. The Australian Energy Regulator is also required to apply an access arrangement during an access dispute.
The processes for submitting, approving and revising access arrangements will be contained in the National Gas Rules - equivalent to regulations - which will allow flexible development through a rule change process. In the Rules, the approval processes for access arrangements will now be subject to clear time limits. The benefits of this are that the approval of access arrangements will be expedited and certainty as to what is expected of all parties has been improved, whereas previously, pipeline development could be held up indefinitely by third party operations.
Of particular relevance to future investment in pipeline development in the Northern Territory, is that the National Gas Law continues a greenfields incentives process that was established in 2006 under the Gas Pipelines Access Law. The greenfields incentive allows a relevant minister to make a no-coverage determination, following a recommendation by the National Competition Council, that is binding for a period of 15 years if a new pipeline does not meet the pipeline coverage criteria. However, the 15-year no-coverage assessment process may not be a sufficiently timely process to provide regulatory certainty for complex international greenfields gas pipeline projects. For this reason, the Ministerial Council on Energy also decided to implement the option of a price regulation exemption, also having effect for 15 years, for international transmission pipelines bringing gas from a source outside Australia.
The National Gas Law also provides an option for light-handed regulation of certain gas pipelines where the access arrangements do not include price or revenue regulation, but simply require that the prices, terms and conditions applying to the pipeline be published.
The preservation of these incentives of the National Gas Law may, in the future, have important ramifications for natural gas developments in the Northern Territory.
This act also makes significant advances in transparency in the market for gas by establishing a Bulletin Board. The purpose of the Bulletin Board is to both facilitate trade in natural gas and markets of natural gas services through the provision of pipeline systems and gas market information, which will become readily available to all interested parties, including the general public. It will also assist in emergency management through the provision of system and market information. The Bulletin Board will also provide a platform for future gas market transparency measures such as a gas market statement of opportunities. While this arrangement will not have an immediate benefit to the Territory, as markets of natural gas developments evolve, it may facilitate domestic gas sales in the Territory.
In closing, I reiterate that this bill applies the National Gas Law, which has been passed by the South Australian parliament as a Schedule to its gas applications legislation, as a law of the Northern Territory. The National Gas (Northern Territory) Bill 2008 is an important regulatory step for the Northern Territory. Its passage will meet the Territory’s commitment to supporting the implementation of the new regulatory arrangements nationally.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the National Gas Law and explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
(Serial 129)
(Serial 129)
Continued from 21 February 2008.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support the Local Government Bill, a long-overdue updating of especially important legislation. There has been much debate in this House over the years on the need for efficient, effective and accountable local government for all citizens of the Northern Territory. We are now finally getting close to the time when we will have a long-awaited framework for new local government right across the Territory, so we can get on with the job of working together across all levels of government improving services to our citizens.
It has been intriguing for me to note that in every debate we have had about local government there is not one member of this parliament who has disagreed with the fundamental need to improve local government across the Territory so that it can work, grow and consistently deliver quality services and benefits to all Territorians, especially those in our most disadvantaged communities.
Everyone has agreed on our need to get the third sphere of government: one, better functioning and ready; two, willing and able to foster the social and economic development of the Territory - and I believe that this issue gets lost in all of the debate; and three, equity. I believe all members in this House should be excited to be part of these objectives.
Instead, we have again seen an opposition which is big on the rhetoric of supporting better governance across the Territory and of looking after bush constituents, but light on the real work of working together to build a strong system of local government of which we can all be proud. It has been a complete policy-free zone. At least with our Independent members of parliament, both of whom have a background in local government, it has been possible to have genuine exchange of ideas and debate. We will not necessarily agree, but there is a meeting of minds. In fact, when we look at who is the latest version of Local Government spokesperson for the opposition it could be seen as the member for Nelson.
It would frighten any decent member of a local government body anywhere in the Northern Territory to realise just where the opposition has been when it comes to seriously getting their heads around local government. Thankfully, Territorians, both out bush and those involved in our municipal councils, know what needs to be done and they have put their shoulders to the wheel for many months now, working through the detail and supporting the development of new local government for the Territory.
In my own electorate, this work has been going on for some time. Some of my constituents in the proposed West Arnhem Shire have been working on local government reform for five years now. They know what needs to be done. They are ready and want to move on. They want to see the West Arnhem Shire up and working. What they understand is this: first, the system of local government, established by the CLP in the 1980s, is failing. We just cannot go the way we have been going, and change is not desirable, it is necessary. For too long we have put up with small community councils that are often dysfunctional and almost always financially unviable. Second, local government at a regional level with strong protection for communities and other population centres within a region is the best way to go. It is the best approach because of the economies of scale and the accumulation of skills available at a regional level, and only rarely and sporadically available or possible at the level of a small community. It is the best approach also because it is one that genuinely parallels and echoes traditional Aboriginal political and organisational structures.
I quote the former member for Arnhem, speaking five years ago, almost to the day, to a LGANT conference:
- … we must abandon the myth that the discrete community can be regarded as a viable unit in terms of service delivery in the Northern Territory.
There is a completely false view that Aboriginal communities, from outstations and pastoral excisions, to larger communities and townships, through, indeed, to inhabitants of towns and cities, exist in splendid isolation from each other.
It is a view based on colonialist notions encouraged by the days of the mission, the settlement and the pastoral property. It is an idea designed to divide Aboriginal people from our land, our languages and our ceremonial connections.
It is an ideology that deliberately denied the fact that Aboriginal people of what is now known as the Northern Territory have always worked together socially, culturally and economically, as a series of overlapping and interconnected regions …
The word winan, common to the East Kimberley, Victoria and Daly River regions, describes a series of inter-relationships between many language groups united by the trade of ceremonial and other goods. It is a word, and a complex set of ideas, that tells us of traditions and contemporary practices that reflect thousands of years of history. It is an object lesson in people acting together, in harmony, and according to customary Law regionally.
Across the Territory, the ‘finish up’ of major ceremonies involves hundreds, at times thousands, of participants from many clan and language groups, drawn from communities scattered across thousands of square kilometres. These ceremonies are not the exclusive possession of individual discrete communities - they are shared across regions, they are the domain of owners and custodians linked in ways that have nothing to do with mere domicile.
Indeed, the idea that a ceremony is the exclusion possession of a particular community is both bizarre and offensive. Major ceremonies express themselves socially and politically, indeed, economically, as regional forums of governance and communal relationships.
- So the idea of looking at the Northern Territory as a series of regions, both overlapping and interconnected, for service delivery is not one borne of bureaucratic convenience or ministerial faddishness on my part. It is based on an understanding of the reality of the Northern Territory’s population which is remarkably decentralised and dispersed on the basis of traditional affiliation to lands.
- Uniquely, the Northern Territory is a jurisdiction that reflects, in large part, pre-colonial boundaries, rather than notions of the individuated, isolated community disconnected from the region in which it exists.
Regions, however defined, and for various purposes, have always been a feature of organisation for Aboriginal peoples of the Northern Territory.
So service delivery at the level of the individual community is not just stupid on the basis of cost efficiency or economic rationalism, it is just plain silly in cultural terms
… We will not neglect the importance of the family and clan, or the community, in playing fundamental roles in protecting and advancing the interests of people out bush - they are important. The decisions they make for themselves cannot be ignored or obliterated for mere administrative convenience.
However, legislation such as the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, for example, reminds us that Traditional Owners, not to mention custodians and other ritual players, have paramount decision-making capacity.
What I am saying is we must for cultural, social, political and economic reasons, reinvigorate our traditions and start to rethink and re-imagine ourselves as working at regional levels.
These ideas come into play when we think about ceremony so must be reinvigorated in the political, social and economic lives of the regions we live in.
When I say this, I am thinking of the work of groups such as the Bawinanga Corporation and its work with the Djelk Rangers. Bawinanga has delivered services - efficiently and effectively at a regional level - for most of the last three decades. Through Djelk, Bawinanga is delivering substantial employment - and environmental benefit - through dealing in culturally and politically appropriate ways, across many different clan and language groups, at the level of an extended region.
The words from John Ah Kit apply just as strongly today. In retrospect, I thank him for citing the great work of Bawinanga in my own electorate. I am pleased as a member of this government that we are close to the day when all these local people can put into practice the ideas and objectives they have been working on for so long.
On the Tiwi Islands my constituents know better than anyone the complexities of local government and the great challenges local government faces. These challenges include tackling the deficit issues, the accumulated results of many years of underfunding of infrastructure development in our remote communities. They know all about trying to do more with less and the apparently distant goal of strong, sustainable local government.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, I ask you to continue your remarks after Question Time.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the wife of the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs Ros Mills, together with staff from the Leader of the Opposition’s office. On behalf of all honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
APPROPRIATION BILL
(Serial 141)
(Serial 141)
Continued from 6 May 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I deliver the opposition’s response to the budget speech delivered by the Treasurer yesterday.
I have always maintained that the Northern Territory, the place where I have chosen to live and raise a family, has a bright future. The continuing boom in minerals and commodity trading, especially with China, the potential for further sustainable industrial development, and the continuing development of our services sector, point to continuing economic growth.
We desire the Northern Territory to be a land of opportunity and a place to be proud of. This government constantly talks of the Territory lifestyle. They say the Northern Territory has the best lifestyle in Australia. Well, I am sad to say that this so-called lifestyle and reputation that is the envy of the rest of Australia has been copping a bit of stick lately.
Our Territory lifestyle has been tarnished by the neglect and abuse that prompted the Little Children are Sacred report and the subsequent federal intervention. A report, which it must be said that this Labor government was dragged kicking and screaming to undertake and one that they sat on for months. Our reputation has been tarnished by this government’s inability to ensure that it is safe to walk many of our urban streets after dark. This is a reputation tarnished by the stories of towns just passed our border to deal with refugees from the intervention and the antisocial behaviour that those people are bringing with them. This is a reputation tarnished by ineffective minimum gaol sentences, court cases in Alice Springs being held over through equipment failure, teachers striking for a better deal for education, and repeated failures to deliver on promises.
This is a reputation tarnished by the number of drunks that are being locked up in record numbers with over 26 000 protective custodies last year where, in 2000, this was less than 12 000. Territorians want to know whether the Henderson government will actually deliver on the promises or will they be broken again and again and again. Will we have to listen to initiatives announced again and again and again? First, we see the media spin begin with the conception of the idea; second, with the release of the plan; third, media for a tender, then when the consultant comes in to review it because it has taken so long, and then when the tender is finally let, and then when the dozer moves in, and then when the first brick is laid, the first wall, and on and on and on it goes. Of course, if nothing eventuates it is common that this Labor government will simply include it in the next budget. Just ask the commuters on Tiger Brennan Drive, the Territory cancer sufferers and their families, water park users in Alice Springs, and so on. The list grows.
Territorians want real authentic leadership, not empty promises; real leadership of action, not government by media release; leadership for the future, not just for the next election.
How can Territorians be convinced that any promise made in this budget will be delivered?
Consider this government’s form. On 24 August 2006, the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, promised that new laws will shut down gangs; or the 2001 promise of an oncology unit promised again and again, not yet delivered, not even budgeted for; or the promise of whistleblowers legislation since before the 2001 election. Even when the opposition brought a whistleblowers bill before this House it was rejected with the promise that it would be delivered in 2006, but it still has not happened. What about Tiger Brennan Drive - a promise made years ago and now only just begun. Or the promise of a waterfront development that would be delivered with a sound shell, amphitheatre, markets, volleyball courts, and a raft of other public amenities by the end of 2007; or the promise of a waterfront in which the public investment was going to be $100m. Stage 1 alone will now consume at least $150m with a further $63m earmarked for Stage 2. Or a dedicated senior high school in Palmerston, or the Humpty Doo swimming pool, or the Myilly Point redevelopment that was promised last budget speech and still has not started, or the fact that Bellamack is still over a year away from turning blocks off when we have a housing crisis, and we have absolutely no time line for when the Berrimah Farm land will become available.
The nett debt plus employee liability situation is worse - much worse than government promised it would ever be. Our remote education system is in crisis in spite of your promise to fix it. There have been five announcements to introduce geothermal legislation. Nothing has happened in spite of the Chief Minister’s assertion that it is one of ‘the most critical issues facing the Northern Territory’. There is the broken promise to make Glyde Point the centre of gas-based industry - something that the government’s website promoting the Territory still says. There is the reassurance that assault reporting rates are up only because people are reporting more crime, when reporting rates have barely moved.
There is the promise to control growth in the public sector and allowing it to track continually upwards with executive fat cat numbers positively exploding upwards. Yet, despite all these new high-paid executives, this Labor government is spending even more of taxpayers’ money on interstate consultants to write such things as infrastructure plans for the future. Do we not already have departments for that?
What about the ‘poo shooter’ that continues to pump raw sewage into the harbour not 500 m from Lameroo Beach; and the promise to create and independent EPA, but only delivering on an EPA that is simply part of a department? There is still no bypass to Humpty Doo as promised. While we are on that matter, where is the bypass at Girraween you promised in last year’s budget speech? What is there does not go very far. Also, the promise of an upgrade to the area around Wulagi shops has also amounted to nothing.
Our tarnished reputation and a government that is all talk, all media release and no action, is not a Territory that we should aspire to. There have not been many times in our short history since self-government that the Territory has the opportunities that it now has. There is no doubt that Australia and the Northern Territory has been in boom times. Record GST revenue has been returned to the Territory. This means the government has record funding to spend - $1.6bn more than when Labor came to office.
Labor’s record spending is simply the result of record funding from the federal government, not the result of real fiscal planning or responsibility. If there was a degree in spending other people’s money, Labor would get a PhD. If there is record funding coming to government, then the community has the right to expect record spending and record saving. However, all we get is record spending. There is very little by way of money being saved for when things tighten, or for real infrastructure development. This is a government that even received some $300m more than they budgeted for last year. You would reasonably expect some of that would be saved and be available to pay off debt, or address spiralling superannuation debt. But no, this government keeps spending and spending and spending and, before you know it, Labor has overspent by nearly the entire extra amount that it received.
The Treasurer does not understand that a dollar spent on reducing debt saves interest costs. In fact, the surplus is about equal to the money you will get in projected increased revenue from poker machines in 2008-09. That is what we have to show for record money coming in. Would it not be better for the community in the long run, if money being spent on interest is then spent on better services? Many Territorians understand this. If they have a windfall, they pay off the credit card, reduce the home loan, and pay off the car loan before they blow it. They know they save money on interest, a fact this Treasurer does not seem to understand.
Schools, roads and buildings are the bread and butter of government. These are the things the community has the right to expect as a matter of course. They should also see infrastructure, like railways, dams and significant, sustainable, industrial development to pave the way for economic prosperity. They also need to see real programs to address the cost of living - real programs to benefit families, not rebadging old programs as new, or touting federal spending as our government spending.
Government must have a set of principles by which it stands. If government stands for everything, it will fall for anything. Sadly, this is the state we find the current budget and the government in the Northern Territory.
A future government, a Country Liberal Party government that I will lead, will stand on firm principles and address the issues that are threatening the very fabric of our community. These principles include:
the notion that individuals and the community in which they live have both rights and responsibilities;
Only when we have an educated population, one that exercises its community responsibilities as much as its rights, one that has access to real work and a real stake in the economy, can then we begin to talk about a job well done.
Right now, on this very day, there is a great chunk of our adult population sadly revolving through our justice system who cannot read and write, racking up the cost, charges and bed time, but who are going nowhere fast. Where is the money, the detail and determination to address this substantial problem in yesterday’s budget? It is not there, Madam Speaker. This is both an economic and social disgrace continuing to be overseen by this government.
Only when we are free to go about our business with safety, and families are genuinely assisted to deal with the hard stuff such as buying a home, raising kids to respect themselves and others, saving for their kids’ future, being able to afford fuel, groceries and clothes for their families, being able to pay the phone bill, the power bill, the childcare bill, and being able to walk safely in their street, in their suburb, in their town, or in their community, only then will our community fabric improve.
A future Country Liberal Party government will not follow all road markers set out by the Henderson government.
Law and order: the link between poor education, public drunkenness and crime, particularly violent crime, is real, but drunks themselves must be held responsible for their actions. We are long overdue for a genuine approach to zero tolerance in our community.
I do not intend to enter into a lengthy description of the broken windows theory, but if it is understood, then anyone who has had any experience with the term ‘zero tolerance’ knows that it places the burden squarely at the feet of those who upset good order in our community at a street level.
In the year 1999-2000, 11 395 drunks were apprehended in the Territory. By last financial year, that had increased to 26 448. Clearly, it is time to change what we do with drunks in our community. I announce that the next Country Liberal Party government will introduce habitual drunks legislation that will get these people off our streets. Under a Country Liberal Party government, if you are picked up for being drunk three times in a six month period, then you will find yourself in front of a court. That court will have the power to make treatment orders as well as residence orders and other orders that are necessary, and they will be expected to act.
And if these people cannot read, they will be assisted to learn, and if they refuse to attend, they will be made to learn. Any person who breaches an habitual drunks order will be deemed to commit a criminal offence, and, upon sentencing, will serve time so that proper and effective treatment can be brought to bear. There will be no soft options any more.
If people come to town and commit offences, we will expect those people to be charged. We will place them in front of the courts to answer for their activities. This means that under a Country Liberal Party government if you urinate or defecate in our parks, or act in a disorderly way in our public places, you will answer to a magistrate and, as I have indicated, a Country Liberal Party government will expect the magistrates to act.
Territorians have every right to go about their business in a society that is protected by a government that governs for the peace and good order of all Territorians; regardless of their race, their creed, their faith, or cultural background - regardless of anything other than their conduct as citizens in our community.
The Country Liberal Party government will increase our police presence on our streets. We will increase police numbers to 40 officers above what the government has already promised. Those police will be in police cars and on our streets. There will be an extra patrol car in each sector in Darwin. To keep this promise, the Country Liberal Party will commit an extra $8m to the Police budget. We will act in a timely fashion. The courts will be expected to take meaningful action and those offenders will do time. They will do time in youth camps, they will do time in boot camps, they will do time in prison, they will do time serving the community they have offended against and, if needs be, they will do hard time. Offenders will be working hard in a boot camp and serving the community to repay their debt.
Planning is substantially absent from the government’s health focus but not so for a future Country Liberal government. A future Country Liberal government will immediately build an oncology unit and seek to recoup the appropriate amount of funding from the federal government. No more delays for people suffering from cancer. The Country Liberal Party will announce plans to allow our medical staff to better deal with accident and emergency care and not have patients treated in the back of ambulances, all the while preventing that ambulance from getting out to the next emergency. Along with other frontline public service workers, these health workers under a government I lead, will be protected from people who think it is acceptable to assault these hard-working people. A government I will lead will put in place minimum sentences for people who assault health workers. A Country Liberal government will also provide funding for an after hours bulkbilling medical centre in Farrar in Palmerston until the new federal facility is up and running.
We have spoken often about the need to address the issue of housing. This was the message delivered last year by the Country Liberal Party and it remains the message for this year. Last year we said to government that they had better address this issue in a meaningful way. The result is that in the last 12 months they have taken some industrial land and the Berrimah gaol and said that is to be a future residential development. What is apparent from the government’s responses is that they have no idea how to deal with the housing crisis in the Territory. They get credit for the quick-off-the-mark media release and the appearance of taking action. But, let me ask, when the Treasurer said last year first homebuyers are the big winners from the budget, what actually happened? HomeNorth tanked. Increasing house prices have rendered the HomeNorth Scheme inoperable and helped push up rents to higher levels. The Country Liberal Party is a party with a plan to deal with these issues. As has been announced, the Country Liberal Party government would move to establish a policy that offers a $100 000 saving for first homebuyers in the Territory to get into their home and make a start for themselves and their families here in the Northern Territory. This policy would be matched with an accelerated system of land release managed by a joint developer partner called the Territory Housing Land Corporation. This is a system of land release that works as has been proven in areas such as the new Lyons subdivision in Darwin.
A CLP government would be careful to get the balance right so that those people who have invested in homes up until now have their investment protected. To get first homebuyers into their homes, a portion of any new land release will be set aside for new homebuyers and that portion, depending on the nature and the size of the release, would amount to 15% to 20% of the blocks released. Those blocks are to be randomly peppered through the release area. These blocks would be made available for around $100 000 under the market price of the development. There would be some checks and balances, however, and they include qualifications such as the new homebuyer being a Territory resident and, upon completion, the property would have to be the principal place of residence for at least three years. This is an innovative revenue neutral plan to deal with the housing crisis affecting the Territory.
The government will again tinker with the edges of HomeNorth and stamp duty. It failed totally last year and will fail again this year.
Turning to education: when Professor Helen Hughes had the courage to question the government on the results in education, the minister called her ‘facile’ and attacked her for engaging in a ‘flimsy and selective diatribe’. However, nine days later, the Education minister was admitting that our education system was in crisis. Just look at the MAP test results. Rather than responding, the government’s choice has been to pick a fight with the teachers over the EBA and the conditions of employment that they work under in the bush. The Victorian government has exposed just how churlish this approach has been.
Many children do not have parents or role models who can read, write or value an education. We must not let the current generation continue this pattern. Kids must attend school. Under the Country Liberal Party, an Office of Truancy will be established, an SMS service will be started to notify parents when their kids are not at school, and parents who still will not send their kids to school will be prosecuted. Even in bush schools education can be distilled down to the quality of the interaction firstly between teacher and student, and secondly between school and parent.
The full Country Liberal Party education policy will focus on kids attending school and the quality of teaching and learning. I also commit to creating, in Darwin and Alice Springs, a model of mixed childcare, preschool and primary school co-located institutions. Instead of waiting for the wind to blow, the government I lead will lead the federal government in this area and not follow them. This means, from a parent’s perspective, their child or children will be in a seamless environment from childcare to the end of primary school. Initially, five early learning centres will be built at a cost of $3m each. Once up and running, we will build more, and if the federal government ever comes good on their promise, then they can reimburse us.
Also there will be recognition by the Country Liberal Party of the fundraising that is done by so many schools to supplement their incomes. We will raise the fund raising dollar cap from the current $6000 to $15 000.
To assist families: families in Darwin do it tough and a Country Liberal Party that I lead recognises this. Territory residents receive a zone tax rebate every year when they fill in their tax return. If they live in Darwin or Alice Springs, the base amount is $338. If you live in a remote area like Millingimbi the base amount is $1173. The Country Liberal Party will take a firm position and lobby the federal government to double these rebates, putting dollars back into the pockets of Territory families.
Today, I announce as a part of assisting families, the Country Liberal Party will increase the $50 back to school voucher to a $75 back to school voucher. Also, the Country Liberal Party recognises the need for healthy families and so today I announce a further voucher for Territory families. A future Mills government will supply for each and every primary and middle school student in the Territory a further $75 annual sports voucher so that parents can get their kids out there playing sports and participating in healthy activities. It will help to tackle the scourge of children in the modern age, childhood obesity.
While this is a $9m announcement over three years, I will say more about assisting families closer to the election.
The numbers of public servants employed since 2002 has risen from 14 400 to 16 100 in 2007, representing an increase of 12% in five years. This is where much of our extra revenue has gone. This is in no way a criticism of the individual frontline public servants, rather the NT government’s lack of leadership and direction. The experience described by serving police officers, for example, is that the number of steps in processing an arrest has increased substantially, hence more and more time than ever is dedicated to recording statistical information than actual policing.
Under a Country Liberal Party government, there will be reforms so that we can better position the Territory for the future. We will reduce the number of ministers to eight, and we will not have the wasted resources generated when single departments report to three ministers, as is the case under the Henderson government.
We commit to reducing the number of senior public servants, and we will drive a public service who are proud to come to work, who feel rewarded in their work, and who are focused on delivering public services. The Country Liberal Party will look to making savings of over $50m from this process, and it will include reducing the number of political staff on the fifth floor of this building. Further, we will reduce the obscene amount of money spent on political propaganda by this government.
Planning: as it is often said, failing to plan is planning to fail. Nowhere is this more stark than in planning in our harbour. The government, for years to come, will continue to use the harbour as a sewer. New buildings are being constructed and many of them tap into the sewers that drain into our harbour. There is no plan to accelerate remedial work; it is just business as usual.
There is also the issue of future, heavy industrial development. I accept many people have been critical of the position that I have taken, but I do not want to see our harbour become the centre of heavy industry in the Northern Territory. It is not the right place for it, and I will have much more to say about this in weeks to come.
The Country Liberal Party, in 2000 when in government, recognised that the placement of ConocoPhillips in the harbour was a product of necessity because there was nowhere else to put them. However, in response to the construction of that tank, the Country Liberal Party was mindful that the next site for major development needed to be away from the harbour. It was for that reason Glyde Point was identified. The government scoped the development of Glyde Point in the 2002-03 budget. That scoping work must have told government that the site was viable because it remained government policy until a couple of months ago.
The Country Liberal Party and Labor have recognised together that the harbour is the less desirable place to build more gas installations and the associated downstream heavy industry. Over the past seven years, the government has been in a position to develop Glyde Point but, because there was not an immediate customer on the horizon, no work was done. There was no future planning, so, when INPEX arrived on the scene, the government had only one place to offer them - and that was our harbour.
This great place, the Territory, was once a place where governments made decisions for the long term, for the future, and not just for the election-cycle future. The expenditure of a few million dollars each financial year since Labor came to office would have had Glyde Point ready today.
I announce today that the Country Liberal Party will not drop the ball in planning for Darwin, and we will commit $30m in our first year to taking the necessary steps to ensure that heavy industry will be catered for on the Gunn Peninsula. The Country Liberal Party will take steps to keep heavy industry out of the Darwin Harbour. What this issue has demonstrated is that there is now an opportunity to plan for the future of Darwin Harbour properly and we should seize this opportunity and do so with vigour.
I will conclude with our superannuation liability. The Territory’s superannuation liability has far exceeded projections. Other than Tasmania, the Territory is the most poorly positioned jurisdiction in dealing with that debt. Our superannuation obligations have risen steeply under the Labor government. Despite the Chief Minister’s assertions, they continue to grow. Nett debt stands at over $1bn and the interest payments on that debt are at least $300 000 a day. The money handed over paying interest would be better spent on services for Territorians. Our debt will have to be repaid one day. Simply rolling over the debt will cost more and more in interest. The revenue bonanza of the past five years presented a perfect opportunity to reduce the debt liability for future generations. Of course, that means less opportunity to pork barrel today.
Labor has chosen its re-election chances over our kids’ futures. Labor has made a very poor choice for the Territory and the Territory’s future. In the Northern Territory, we must base our decisions in government on principles, not on media spin. Government must do what it says it will do, not break promises.
Madam Speaker, government must plan and provide quality services efficiently and effectively without waste, and not make it up as they go along. Government must be honest and accountable to Territorians, something this government and this budget fails in.
We must educate the uneducated, skill the unskilled, develop our undeveloped potential, plan and invest for the next five, 10, 20 and 50 years, and we must provide safe and affordable places for people to live in. That is what Territorians expect. Territorians expect their governments to plan, to invest and to deliver for the future so that they can get on with living their lives today.
Debate adjourned.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
(Serial 129)
(Serial 129)
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will continue my response.
The new Local Government Bill is contemporary legislation which provides a strong and confident framework for getting on with the job of delivering on community expectations of a long awaited, strong and sustainable system of local government for the Territory as a whole. The legislation will help deliver this in many ways.
The bill contains a Preamble, which establishes the spirit and the tone of the bill, and recognises the important job that local government plays in our day-to-day lives. Importantly, the Preamble acknowledges local government as a distinct and essential sphere of government, but also acknowledges the right and interest of indigenous landowners and native title claimants, key contextual issues largely ignored when local government was being introduced in the 1980s and 1990s.
The local government councils will operate according to principles of good governance, in particular transparency and accountability to ratepayers. To this end, the bill requires councils to have plans in place and available to constituents that spell out how services will be delivered and the council’s financial plan.
Each council will be required to provide an annual report to the minister containing an audited financial statement and an assessment of the council’s performance against the specific performance indicators identified in the municipal/shire plan. The bill also provides for regional management plans, to be developed by the department in conjunction with shire councils, to promote and provide for inter-council cooperation and the development of cooperative arrangements between councils and other organisations.
Another feature is that every council must adopt a code of conduct, and the bill also provides for review of council decisions outside of referral to the judicial process of the local government tribunal.
These are important arrangements ensuring transparency and accountability to ratepayers. There are a number of initiatives that were championed by Elliot McAdam - and I pay tribute to the former Minister for Local Government - including provision for the establishment of local boards. Local boards will help achieve the effective integration and involvement of local communities in the affairs of shire councils. Importantly, local boards will also provide strong support between the local communities, community leaders and their elected council members.
Another initiative relating to the sustainability of new shires is that rates, for the first time, will be applicable for all commercial users of land in the new shires and across all larger Aboriginal communities in the Territory. This has presented a challenge as the department has had to develop a scheme for the treatment of rating on Aboriginal land, and concerns about how rates will be set in the future for those, who until now, have not had to pay rates. Both issues have been dealt with. Rates only apply to Land Trust land, or an Aboriginal community living area, where the land is subject to a lease or licence conferring a right of occupancy, for example, for housing, or where the land is used for a commercial purpose.
The legislation also provides for conditionally rateable land, including land held under a pastoral release or land occupied under a mining tenement. Shires will be required to submit a rating proposal, in accordance with the guidelines to the minister for approval, prior to rating of this land. The treatment of rating in the legislation has been a key interest to many of our key stakeholders. I believe the resulting legislation demonstrates our government’s commitment to listening to people’s concerns but also our expected leadership role to find a pathway that supports sustainable local government and the overall objectives of local government reforms.
Later today, the Minister for Local Government will work through with us a number of amendments to the bill tabled in the last sittings. The amendments reflect government decision making earlier this year to not proceed with the Top End Shire, but they also reflect community feedback, both from local government practitioners and citizens generally, about different parts of the bill. The minister will work through those amendments and I urge bipartisan support for the amendments. The suggestions come from the people, they are well thought out changes reflecting community feedback and, in combination, they all work to ensure that we move to the best system of local government we can create given our demographics, geography and experience of local government.
I congratulate my colleague, the member for Barkly, for creating the platform for this long overdue work. I also congratulate my ministerial colleague, Mr Rob Knight. Since taking up the challenge of local government reform, minister Knight has made a real effort to get about, to talk to people and listen to their views. He is committed to ensuring that the bill reflects people’s practical experience of local government in the Northern Territory. This is demonstrated by his willingness to bring back amendments for us to consider in committee; to ensure we get the best legislation we can to underpin new local government.
This bill will provide Territorians with a new system of local government that will provide real benefits to the bush and to ratepayers, funding agencies and the many commercial entities that do business with local government. This government is delivering on its promise to set up a system of local government to consistently deliver quality services to all Territorians, whether they live in the bush or in larger communities.
_________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Members I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery, of participants in the Parliament House Public Tour Program. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, as Minister for Indigenous Policy, I welcome the bill as a critical step in creating a new system of effective and efficient local government valued by its constituents. That is a local government that is ready, willing and able to work with government and non-government organisations to help to close the gap on indigenous disadvantage in the Territory, and to maximise investments engendering healthy, happy and sustainable communities. And that is, at the end of the day, about equity. It is about time; it has been long overdue. It is a change and a reform that has been needed for a long time in the bush, in terms of restorative equity. I commend the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a topic that has been discussed for very long time, in both parliament and in the public arena. I am passionate about local government, but I am not so passionate about what has happened over the last year in relation to the development of a reform process for local government. We certainly do need reform and I agree with the member for Arafura, although the difference I have with the government is that if you are to have a reform process you must bring the people along at the beginning, not in the middle and not at the end. Unfortunately, that is where the government has made a mistake.
I look at the local government reform in two packages. There is the geographical part of local government and there is the legislative part of local government. In relation to the geographical part, that is, the numbers of shires and the size of those shires, I will say continually that I believe that those shires are far too big. I will take up some of these issues during the committee stage because I need to ask the minister the basis for the government selecting those areas. There has been talk that those areas were based on population. However, when you look at the populations that other shires in the Territory had as their basis, it does not fit. The word was that 6000 people would make up a shire, yet the Tiwi Island Shire has a population of about 2500, well under the number of people that appear to have been set as the reason for having a shire, whereas the Top End Shire had about 20 000 people combined. On one hand you had a figure that was used as the model, however, there were at least two other areas where that concept did not seem to be used. I have some issues about that.
Even taking one step back, the government decided that that would be the size of the shires. The government decided that Barkly would be 20% bigger than Victoria. That is where the process was flawed. We should have been discussing these particular issues with the community right at the start.
It is difficult for me to believe that if you accept that local government is local, and there is no definition of ‘local’ in the act, and if you believe that local government is about community, which is not mentioned - I can hardly see that mentioned anywhere in anything that has been discussed - but if you believe and I believe that that is very much one of the foundations of good local government then I cannot accept that councils as big as Victoria are local and are about community. I have said this many times.
The Barkly is bigger than Victoria by 20%. That is a lot of country. Alpurrurulam is not related to Elliott. You look at Central Desert. Tobermorey Station is 1000 km from Lajamanu. What is the community? Where are the practicalities in trying to run a council that big? It is not that I am disagreeing with the reform process. Minister Ah Kit stood up in parliament here some time ago and tried to introduce a scheme of local government; he looked at 22 or 26 local governments. He did not look at the few that we have today. I do not think that that program was given enough time to be run with. There were shires; there were groups in our Territory who were coming together as partnerships, who were developing regional councils.
On top of that, when the government says then we should have regional councils, you have enormous areas. If you take the bottom part of the Territory, if you put Barkly, Central Desert and MacDonnell Shires together, you have this enormous land mass. And people who want their roads fixed, their lawns cuts, and their rubbish picked up have to deal with some huge responsibility that I believe is the responsibility of the Northern Territory government.
They should be the key drivers of regional development. Do not put this extra layer of bureaucracy on local government. I take up what the member for Arafura said, that local government is complex. I do not believe it should be complex. That is why I have always supported the model Litchfield Shire had. When I was on Litchfield Shire - I did not start at the very beginning, I came in at the second election - there was a great belief that you do not have to have a bureaucratic-type council to provide services. Yet, if you look at this Local Government Act, you have to have a regional management plan, a strategic plan, a financial plan, a budget, an annual report …
Ms Scrymgour: Why should communities or people not have them?
Mr WOOD: No. What I am saying is you need to keep local government strong, focused and simple. Do not make it complex because its job is not complex. Its job should not be complex. Those core functions do not require a great bureaucratic, administrative requirement to operate them properly. They do not need to do that because you will find that you will spend money on bureaucracy rather than delivering core services. That, I believe, is one of the problems with trying to make local government too bureaucratic. Of course it needs to report back to government, but do not think you are dealing with the Sydney or Brisbane council. In general, you are dealing with rural shire councils that want their basic, core functions delivered. That is what we should be aiming at ...
Ms Scrymgour: What about economic development? And trying …
Mr WOOD: I take up the interjection from the minister, who talked about economic development. That is not a core function of the councils, but that is what you are saying to the people because that is how you are saying you will create jobs. The council will get funding from the Commonwealth, from the NT government and from its rates to provide for those core services. One of the things you will see in the reform documents that the government has put out, is more jobs.
A council on its own receives only X amount of dollars to provide the services to provide employment. If it is to get more money, it has to get it from somewhere else that is not local government. What we are missing in this debate is that local government, by itself, will not create employment more than it can handle itself - in other words, more than its finances enable it to. To create more employment, it will then have to take on those functions which are in the business plans. Therefore, it will have to take on post office agencies, horticulture, and other things that are not core functions of local government.
One of the reasons local government failed is because it did take on all these agencies, and was not properly funded for them. They were not local government core functions. I believe that you are actually saying that, because you have local government: ‘We will provide lots more employment’. No, no, from local government itself you will not, but from other people coming in and saying, ‘Will you be an agent for what we do?’, there might be more employment. However, the local government will not be the employer. The banks or Centrelink might be the employers. The store, if it is Outback Stores, might be the employer, and they might use the council to provide administrative services for those things to operate.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, you say I might have no idea, but local government should be first and foremost delivering local government services. It is no good taking on all these other functions - and there are a lot of functions in here - if the roads are still not maintained, the rubbish is still on the road, and the grass is not cut. That is what concerns me; that we have this great big super picture which, as time goes by, may happen. But, if we lose sight of what local government is about and the delivery of those local government services, and we cloud it with all these other issues about real local jobs and regional service delivery will allow people to get the real jobs in their communities, if they are jobs for local government, they will be there now, because that is what you will be funded for by the Commonwealth, by the NT government and by the rates that you deliver.
That is where there is a misunderstanding in the communities about the role of local government. The government is really setting up regional government. That is what we should be really honest about, because these are huge areas. Local government is not trying to cover one quarter of the Northern Territory; that is regional government. I wonder whether the Territory government is trying to put into operation responsibilities that really are the responsibilities of the Northern Territory government. I wonder at times, are people being told that, for instance - if I was to pull out the MacDonnell, I do not have it here. The Tiwi Islands one would be a good example. If you look in their requirement …
Ms Scrymgour: It is a good plan, Gerry, the Tiwi Island Shire plan.
Mr WOOD: Well, if you look in the Tiwi Islands plan, it talks about the things that councils will have to look at. It says ‘will’ in the plan, although, if you look in the summary that is now on the website, you will see that has changed slightly, and it does not put it in as ‘will’.
If you read the MacDonnell Shire Council document, under Commercial Services it says:
- The following services will be undertaken by the shire: community stores; horticulture; housing and infrastructure maintenance; non-council roads; post office agency; power, water and sewerage; and visitor accommodation and tourist information.
Under Agency Services, it says:
- The following Agency Services will be delivered by the shire: airstrips; community safety; economic development support; employment and training; family (including childcare); outstation/homeland municipal; sport and recreation; and youth.
Then it goes on and states that other council services, for instance, ‘will be delivered by the shire: swimming pools’. It does have a section there on ‘may’.
I am saying that there is a danger now, if you are going back to the path where we were before, and why councils started to have problems being financial is they took on roles - it is written down here - that were not being fully funded. I do not have a problem if councils can afford it, but they also have to make sure before they take things on that they are running their core functions efficiently. They do not take on the post office if the road is still full of potholes or the rubbish is still on the road. They get the core functions right. I thought the very argument about this, way back, was that councils were not doing their core function, that they had taken on too many agencies and they were going broke because they had to fund these agencies out of their own pockets.
When you look at these business plans, we seem to be going back down that same path. I will take the example of horticulture. I have spoken about this before. Why would a council take on horticulture? Horticulture, according to you, should be a commercial service. If it is a commercial service, why is it the role of local government? Why is not it the role of an association or a private concern? It is not the role of council to be doing horticulture. Or the community store: why is that the role of a council? I would even argue that it should not be the role of housing. For many years, on Bathurst Island at Nguiu we had the Nguiu Ullintjinni Association, then those housing associations were scrapped under the Tiwi Local Government.
Ms Scrymgour: No, they were not, Gerry. Get better informed.
Mr WOOD: Well, they were amalgamated …
Ms Scrymgour: Bathurst Island Housing Association has always been an entity that is still there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Well, take Milikapiti, which was abandoned and given to local government. That was one of our arguments; they did not want that to happen. What I am saying is: is that a role of local government? Or is the role of local government sticking to its core function of providing roads, providing the land subject to the traditional owners’ approval? That is what their job is. Building houses, I believe, is something the professionals can do. If it is going to be the Housing Commission, let them build the houses, they can employ the people, let them do that. Make the local government do its own thing.
____________________
Visitor
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, do you mind if I recognise somebody in the Gallery? Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Ministerial Officers Gallery of Ms Liz McFarlane, former member of staff of the Department of Legislative Assembly. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I am saying that whilst reform is necessary, we need to keep our feet on the ground and not lose sight of what local government is all about.
The minister mentioned local government boards. If you read the act, the local government boards sound very nice. They can be founded if 20 people petition the council, but it has no power. The council can ignore it; the council has to approve the setting up. But it has no teeth. You may as well have a progress association. At least a progress association is not limited to who can be on it. The boards are limited to who can be on them. Whilst they sound good, in reality they have no teeth at all.
Minister, there have been a few issues in relation to a couple of communities. I have not heard anything back from the government in relation to local government boundaries. Pine Creek had a meeting a couple of weeks ago with 150 people turning up and petitioning the minister, asking that they be part of the Katherine council. I would like to know whether that request has been approved. If not, why not? I gather one of the concerns is that the bureaucracy has told Pine Creek they would lose their operating funds. I would have thought that if the operating funds were for Pine Creek, it would not matter whether they were in the Katherine Shire or the Victoria Daly Shire. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about that.
There was also a petition I presented earlier this year from Daly River people, 320 people exactly, asking the government to delay the introduction of proposed council reforms and the amalgamation proposed for the NT. They claimed it would be to the detriment to the people of the Daly River area, having an adverse effect on local employment, and that there had been a lack of adequate consultation. Minister, whilst I know you have been travelling around, I am interested to hear whether you had meetings with the Daly River people. They did not feel that the boundaries of that shire were practical especially in relation to the Victoria Daly Shire. Nguiu, Peppimenarti, Palumpa, Port Keats made some sense but being connected with Timber Creek and Yarralin, which are on the other side of the Fitzmaurice, did not seem to be a practical solution to local government. They wanted more time to discuss whether that was relevant. That highlights that we did not have enough discussion right at the beginning about boundaries.
Minister, I know we will discuss these issues when the amendments come forward for debate, but I do think I should at least summarise what I am saying. I understand there is good reason for local government reform. I support that principle. I feel it was the process that was flawed. I believe this has been driven by the bureaucracy rather than by communities. That was an argument I used in relation to the Top End Shire; that if you bring the community along, you will bring successful reform along. I do not believe that has happened. You can say that many of the people you have met on your travels agree that we should get on with it. I am not going to put more stumbling blocks in the road. But I do need to say and have on record that the basis on which this reform was started was flawed.
My big concern is that people who put their name down to work in local government as elected officials should be responsible to the electors. This legislation is more about being responsible to the agency and the government. There should be less of that and more emphasis on the electors being the people who have the final say about the people they elect. I will give you a quick example. You have a code of conduct. If the code of conduct is assessed to have been breached in a serious manner, the minister can, though a process, sack that councillor. I say that is not the job of the minister. It is the job of the elected people. They make up their mind whether those codes of conduct were broken in such a way as to bring disrepute to their council. They decide whether those councillors should be suitable to stay on that council at the next election.
That is distinct from the main breaches you can have that you have already in the act which gives reasons why you cannot qualify to be a councillor. The main problem I have with this act is it is big brother determining who should be on my council, how my council should run, rather than the electors being the entity that the councillors should be responsible to.
Debate suspended.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
(Serial 129)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, today I respond to the local government reform bill. We have made our position on this very clear from the start. We, like everyone else in this House, support reform, but not this model of reform introduced by the Northern Territory government.
This bill represents extensive changes to the original Local Government Act 1993 and its amendments of 2003. It also represents a significant shift in accountability from local government to the Northern Territory government as opposed to the rate payers and all the electors of the new shires. The member for Nelson has flagged his concerns about that. That is a concern and it enables the minister enormous power in that respect.
It appears that many of the changes in the bill have been made simply for the sake of change with no apparent need or request for that change and, in some cases, without any apparent change in meaning whatsoever.
While there are some remote communities in the Northern Territory that are in dire need of reform, there are some that are not and some that are functioning very well. In fact, some are quite perplexed as to why you want to tear down a well organised, well run and well functioning council in order to bring another one up. These are some of their concerns. In other words, how does throwing several dysfunctional councils together create a functional one, and what happens to the already well run councils?
As we have said ad nauseam in this House, it is not the reform process that the Country Liberal Party opposes. It is this bullish way that it is being imposed on the communities across the Northern Territory. We emphasise that word ‘imposed’, Madam Speaker.
The government will create the boundaries, eight shires; they will appoint the CEOs; the government will set out the time frame; and the government will dictate the form of community consultation - of which, we believe, there has been very little. It has been a bit more of a ‘sit down and this is the way it is going to be and too bad if you do not like it because it is going to happen anyway’. There has been no real meaningful consultation. We emphasise that word ‘meaningful’. There has been no meaningful consultation about the number of shires and their boundaries, and when this should be rolled out. Again, I go back: government will create the boundaries, appoint the CEOs and set the time frame.
The whole process has been set in place by the Northern Territory government, not in consultation with Northern Territorians. We firmly believe that and we stated that from the very beginning.
What consultation did take place was in the form of transition committees. These transition committees are there to represent the community. These meetings were not public unless you were sponsored, and you had to register and, even then, you could only speak for four minutes.
The member for Nelson has done a remarkable job in his neck of the woods. He has made a great point about governance of such proposed massive shires - the infrastructure and service problems associated with such large shires and, above all, diluting that localism, that local community. The proposed Barkly Shire is 320 000 km2 in size and that is 50 000 km2 larger than Victoria. The question is: how are people in that proposed shire able to maintain or develop a sense of community and a real sense of localism in such a huge body of land - 320 000 km2 of land, larger than some Australian states.
I will talk about rates. Clause 142 in Chapter 11 refers to conditionally rateable land. It says:
- (1) The following land is conditionally rateable:
- (a) land held under a pastoral lease;
(b) land occupied under a mining tenement;
(c) other land that is classified under the regulations as conditionally rateable.
In relation to these provisions, the council is to prepare a draft rating proposal and submit that proposal to the minister for approval. There is no opportunity for the public, or those affected by a rating proposal, to comment on that proposal. We say that the proposal should be placed on public exhibition for comment before being submitted to the minister. It should be circulated to all those people potentially affected, particularly the holders of pastoral leases and mining tenements. The draft proposal, inclusive of comments and submissions, should then go to the minister for consideration. The minister should then be obliged to take into account those submissions in relation to the draft rating proposal.
In clause 142(3), it mentions that a rating proposal must contain the information required by the minister’s guidelines. The question here is: what is contained in those guidelines? There is nothing in here that illustrates that. It would appear that what is contained in those guidelines would be critical to any rating proposal.
Let us move to clause 142(7) which says:
While an approved rating proposal remains in force:
(a) conditionally rateable land within the ambit of the approved proposal is to be regarded as rateable land; and
(b) conditionally rateable land outside the ambit of the approved proposal is not to be regarded as rateable land.
In Chapter 11, Part 11.3 – Liability for rates, clause 150 - joint and several liability:
- (1) The owner and the occupier (if not the owner) of an allotment are jointly and severally liable for rates payable in respect of an allotment.
- (2) However, an occupier of an allotment (if not an owner) does not become liable for rates in respect of the allotment unless:
- (a) the occupier's name is entered in the assessment record, on the occupier's own application, as the principal ratepayer for theallotment; or
- (b) the council gives the occupier written notice that it proposes to seek recovery of rates from the occupier.
The provision makes occupiers of rateable land liable for rates, including arrears, meaning station owners and staff living on pastoral and other rural properties are potentially liable for rates imposed on that property. That is another area of concern with clause 150.
I will read out some concerns we have discussed in the past from other organisations. The Minerals Council has been an outspoken body on this since the very beginning. I will read a couple of questions. Perhaps, minister, we can flesh these out in detail in the committee stage. I would like to flag it in this response to the second reading. It says here:
- Given the Commonwealth’s intervention into the Northern Territory including the removal of the CDEP program …
I know that CDEP is being reinstated, but nevertheless these questions do still stand:
- … the ability of many residents in remote and Aboriginal communities to contribute to the rate base will be limited. This means the rate base for the new councils will be very narrow and, clearly, the financial burden will fall heavily on regional business such as mineral lease operators. Moreover, the current NT legislation provides local government with a high level of freedom in their budgeting and rating powers. Once the concept of rating tenements is accepted and legislated, it becomes easy for government (or local government) to change the rating percentage to raise revenue from mineral (and perhaps petroleum) tenement holders.
The question here is:
- What assurances can government give that rating levels will not be used to prop up local government shires to the detriment of the minerals and petroleum industries?
Another question raised:
- In addition to levying rates, local government will have the power to charge levies and fees for services. Local government in other jurisdictions have sought to raise revenue from other fees when they perceive that their rating powers are limited. Clear and well defined guidelines are required to limit the extent that local government are able to charge additional fees. What work has been done to date in this regard and what are the early indications of fees and levies likely to be charged?
Finally:
- How does government intend to manage the situation where mining companies own the land underlying their mining tenure for the purpose of further securing their mining rights and not for any other independent purpose? Moreover, how does government intend to manage the situation where a mining tenement is located on a private pastoral lease with separate ownership of both titles? Will both parties be subject to rates for a similar parcel of land tenure?
Turing to the Preamble in the bill, it says:
- 3. The rights and interests of Indigenous traditional owners, as enshrined in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), must also be recognised and the delivery of local government services must be in harmony with those laws.
Does this mean, minister, that council could be challenged where services are delivered in a manner other than in harmony with this legislation? Are the proposed reforms, in reality, contrary to this statement of intent? How can a shire, which has an area greater than the size of Victoria, as we said 320 000 km, 50 000 km larger than the state of Victoria; how can a shire the size of that, with diverse and separate languages, and in some cases, little in common either culturally or geographically, possibly be responsive to the needs of local communities and be accountable? Does it mean that council can be challenged when services are delivered, in a manner not in harmony with this legislation, as pointed out in the preamble?
One of the communities in Central Australia, and I am sure the minister and the previous minister would know well, is Amoonguna. They have raised some questions and to date they have not received answers from the minister. I will ask some of those questions now, and they do deserve an answer. These are grassroots, fundamental, housekeeping-type questions that concern the people there. Who is going to pay the additional tax now incurred by Amoonguna due to the legislation changes? That is, salary sacrifice and FBT. Who would guarantee that the bookkeeper and auditors will be paid for work they would need to carry out after 30 June, after this has rolled out? Are the current employees going to be offered positions as promised by the previous minister until June 2009, as the meeting with the shire CEO made no guarantees of this? How will the community be better off under the shire? Will it be able to provide an equal or better service than is currently being supplied? That is an important question that applies to many other communities. What will happen to the shop? This was operating only because it was being subsidised by Amoonguna. A more serious question they raised is about the Health Clinic. What will happen to the Health Clinic? They were advised that the new body would need to be set up to take over the clinic’s entity. It would not be accepted by the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health because it did not have a proven track record, even though the same management would be in place. This problem could be overcome, if they were to retain their entity as an Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health. They promised they would fund the current organisation if it was in place. So, what happens to the Health Clinic as a result of this? That is a big concern; a much more serious one. This government’s approach to this, as we have seen is big on rhetoric and short on answers. I hope the minister can provide some answers to the questions raised.
If the Northern Territory government is so committed to delivering the best possible outcomes for Territorians, and emphatically believe that this process will deliver such results, then why are so many people and organisations right across the Northern Territory, not convinced? When this, one of the most important pieces of legislation in the Northern Territory since self-government 30 years ago, is being bulldozed through by an administration that cannot or simply will not, openly and honestly answer simple questions put to it by people, communities and organisations right around the Northern Territory. We are not talking about the Larapinta Tiddlywinks Club or whatever it is. These are organisations that have formed the backbone of the Northern Territory for many years. They have been around these parts for a long time and they understand the workings and the machinations of the Territory as well as anybody.
If they still think that there are too many unanswered questions, if they think that this process is rushed and not of such great benefit to Territorians as we are constantly told, then you would think they would be worth listening to.
We have a list of amendments and I know we will go through those in the committee stage too, but this was made available on Friday, effectively giving the new councils less than seven days to meet and discuss the new changes. It is not a lot of time.
What about the councils that are not part of this reform, but will be part of the act, such as Coomalie and Cox Peninsula which remain within that Top End Shire that we are talking about? How are they to pay for some of the roll-out of this act? I was looking for the Treasurer’s Advance on 17 December; down the bottom there is the Department of Local Government and Housing, an output appropriation of $51m. That was on 17 December 2007, after the Top End Shire was taken out of the proposed reform. Has this money gone to these councils that are not part of the reform but are part of the act, or is the breakdown of that money, is that toward housing or has that gone into local government? It was $51m and that was from the Treasurer’s Advance – yes, $51m or $50.952m.
Madam Speaker, there are still many unanswered questions. As I say, we can flesh those out in the committee stage of the bill. For the Parliamentary Record, we support reform and we have always said that we support reform, but we do not support the reform process imposed by this government.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the Local Government Bill.
This bill sets a high standard of governance for indigenous people in the Northern Territory. It gives indigenous people in the Northern Territory ability to provide better service delivery with their input at that high level.
This bill embraces something that happened many years ago - even before we thought about any form of legislation – which has been the pastoral and mining industry back in true partnership with indigenous people in the Northern Territory. It is about giving people the hope to work together to better the Northern Territory. For far too long we have been separated, with the mining industry in one corner, the pastoral industry in one corner, and the Aboriginal people in another one corner. We have tended to fight and argue with each other. This bill gives us the ability to come back together. As you know with the history of the Northern Territory, indigenous people and the pastoral industry have always had a tremendous relationship, working together and helping each other.
I have always believed in this reform and, with this bill being passed today, it gives us the opportunity to think outside the square. For far too long we have just thought about our individual little community. We have thought about Papunya in isolation to Kintore, in isolation to Mt Liebig, in isolation to Haasts Bluff, when in fact we only live a couple of hours from each other. This bill will make indigenous people in the Northern Territory think more about their region, their language and their clan rather than their little communities. There is also the opportunity for regional job opportunities for indigenous people, such as regional road construction, and regional housing construction.
Last year, the former Minister for Local Government was consulting in one of my communities in Mt Liebig. This is why I totally disagree with the opposition; that there has not been any consultation on this local government bill. There has been consultation. I have been to some of those forums where the former minister had the consultation process in my region. I know that the MacDonnell Shire has been asking for this to be implemented straight away. My crew have been saying to the member for Barkly, the former minister: ‘We want this. This is what we have been waiting for. Do it’. They want to see the change. They want to get away from just being on a council at Papunya, Haasts Bluff, Mt Liebig or Kintore.
Each community having its own accountant when they are only half-an-hour away from each other cannot be good for the Northern Territory or the local councils. The fact that we all have different auditors cannot be good for us. This reinforces in people’s minds how important it is to have people sitting at this high level, understanding what a governance mechanism is to govern the region and their communities. It gives them capacity to be able to sit in places such as we sit in here in this Chamber today, and become politicians, because they can better understand what it takes to be in places like this.
I turn to something the member for Nelson said regarding the size of the shires. Aboriginal people will always tell you that boundaries are not a doing of indigenous people; it was set up by non-indigenous people coming in and saying: ‘This is Queensland, this is Northern Territory, this is South Australia’. As Aboriginal people, we have gone across into each others borders and traded, and shared ceremonies with each other. When I look at my own boundaries of the MacDonnell Shire, the people at Kintore have ties with the people at Finke, Docker River or Papunya. Our children are inter-married into different languages and live in different parts - the bottom end or the top end of the shire. We cross over to all those ceremonies through all that area as well.
I encourage everyone in this House to support the bill. It focuses more on the region working together, and encourages people to provide much more information to their own community people. For far too long, councils have sat there and had meetings in the council chamber and then walked out. There was no real information flow involving the community. This will allow the community to participate and for the community to have a regional perspective on what is happening in their regions.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to this House and congratulate the minister. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the former minister, the member for Barkly. This was initiated through his vision of seeing what was really required in the Northern Territory. With his Cabinet colleagues, this bill was created and introduced to this House. I thank all the Cabinet ministers and this Labor government for having the vision to bring Territorians together. For far too long, we have lived with this separation of industries living in one corner, and Aboriginal people living in another corner. This gives us the ability, and encourages us, to work as a team, as Territorians.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I support the Local Government Bill. Speaking as a local member, with a large bush electorate, my electorate takes in four different shires, including Victoria Daly, Barkly, MacDonnell and the Central Desert Shires.
From my experiences over the last couple of years, and also as a born and bred Territorian, I say that this reform is well overdue. The Local Government Act was first introduced in 1985, 23 years ago. Previous CLP governments, through their local reform agenda, had several attempts at reforming local government, but failed.
Touching on what the member for Greatorex said about the preamble, that is even more reason why we need to acknowledge traditional owners, we need to acknowledge legislation that has been fought and won through the highest courts in this country, being native title and land rights. We need to acknowledge that legislation and traditional owners because this local government reform is happening on Aboriginal freehold land as well as pastoral land and leases. In the spirit and the intent of this legislation, it is very important that this preamble spells that out early on at the very beginning.
I believe that is why, in the past, we have seen the CLP government fail in turning things around in the bush, because they tended to try to deliver services and operate with many of our communities in the bush outside that spirit and intent of those two pieces of legislation. I acknowledge the Minister for Local Government, and the previous minister, for including that preamble and acknowledgement of traditional owners. That is a very important symbolic issue and statement that I believe will encourage and engage the majority of indigenous people who are going to be impacted by this legislation.
Also, I acknowledge many people in my electorate who have been involved. We hear constant remarks that there has been no consultation, but certainly through my electorate, through those four different shires, there has been quite a large number of people from communities involved in the process, whether it has been at the shire advisory board level or the transition committee level. We have had a great opportunity in taking the minister out through my electorate as well, and I am sure he has picked up on some of those amendments that we see being put forward today from those consultations on the ground, particularly the trips through Utopia and Ampilatwatja to Yuendumu, Lajamanu and also to Kalkarindji and Yarralin.
The minister mentioned the other day a comment from one of the ladies at Utopia to ‘just get on with it, let us get this local government reform in place’. They understand how urgent it is in terms of turning things around in their communities. I also acknowledge comments from the former minister, John Ah Kit, some time ago, a quite honest and abrupt statement that he put forward to this House. I believe that was really the turning point in this local government reform. The Stronger Regions stuff, sure, there were some bad things and some things that did not work out, but it was another attempt to turn things around in the bush. I acknowledge John Ah Kit for his honesty and his attempt at reforming local government.
We have seen the baton passed on to the former minister, the member for Barkly, and now we have the member for Daly, the new minister. I acknowledge all those previous ministers and also the current minister. He has certainly gone out of his way. He has travelled extensively over the past few months, and extensively through my electorate. I thank the minister for that getting out there on the ground, listening to the people as another form of consultation. I know people through my electorate have been fairly well engaged in the Shire Transition Committees and the advisory boards. They are looking forward to this happening because they understand, more than any of us in this parliament, the need to reform local government.
There is a bit of debate about the boundaries, but as the member for Macdonnell has acknowledged, there has to be recognition of some of those ceremonial and traditional boundaries that existed well before local government and self-government existed. In my electorate, there are strong connections through the different wards. Those wards pick up on some of those communities of interest. In the Warlpiri region, you have the wards for the Lajamanu community, but also Nyirripi, Willowra and Yuendumu. While those boundaries are very large, when you break them down into wards they do show a common interest in language and cultural connections.
It is an important reform for the Territory not only in terms of closing the gap in many areas of service delivery, particularly local government, but also in bringing together Territorians who, for a long time, have been neighbours, be they pastoralists, Aboriginal communities or miners. One way or another we all have genuine interests in the land, regardless of tenure or interests. This legislation will bring us closer together in how we deliver services, and how we ensure there is a better future for all the regions and Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, it was in March 2002 when my predecessor, John Ah Kit, brought to the attention of this Assembly the stark reality of our communities across the Northern Territory. I quote from John’s announcement that day:
- The simple fact is that it is almost impossible to find a functional Aboriginal community anywhere in the Northern Territory. I do not just mean the 10 or 15 communities that my department tells me that, at any one stage, are managerial or financial basket cases. The fact that a community may not get their quarterly statements in on time is only a part of the story.
I am talking of the dysfunction that is endemic through virtually all of our communities, both in towns and the bush. We cannot pretend that a community is functional when half the kids do not go to school because they have been up most of the night coping with drunken parents, or because they themselves have been up all night sniffing petrol.
I begin my statement with reminding this Assembly of the importance of this debate. I support the minister’s bill simply because I know this bill did not just happen overnight. Speakers from the opposition have said there has not been enough consultation. I remind members that this process actually began quite a long time ago. It may formally have begun 18 months to two years ago but, in actual fact, it began way back in 2001-02. It began in March 2002 when John Ah Kit stood in the House, stood right in the face of everyone, presenting this momentous speech that enough was enough, that our community councils across the Northern Territory were, at best, just standing on their feet and, at worst, completely dysfunctional or, in his words, many of them basket cases.
In my electorate of Arnhem, I can give examples of one community that has struggled. That community is Ngukurr. The Yugul Mangi Council over the years has had its own history of dismissals, as a council, and still struggles today to really get on its feet and have direction. Thankfully, it is a lot further down the road than it was five or six years ago.
I want to remind members that we are talking about one of the most historic reforms to ever take place across the Northern Territory. In social reform, in council reform and, this government - and you guys do not like to hear this - but this government has had a tremendous amount of courage; courage to sincerely look at the problems within our councils, to know that something has to work for the better.
You talk about models and the kinds of models that you want. Let me tell the opposition that what you are referring to is simply a minor part of what this reform is all about.
People out in the regions have had tremendous numbers of CEOs go though them. I was only in the job for six months and had six CEOs go through in one council. We really have to hit at the heart of what these reforms are about. I know, not only as the member for Arnhem, but as an Aboriginal woman who stands in this parliament, that it is about governance. We all know that unless we have a voice in our future and in the decisions that are made about our future, we feel helpless, we feel hopeless. We feel like there is no way forward. This is not going to be the panacea and there will be issues with this direction, but it is going to be a hell of a lot better than where we have come from. It will be.
Minister, I know for you, and your predecessors, the member for Barkly and John Ah Kit prior to him, that this is about consistency in terms of Labor and policies that we believe in as a government, believing in working to make life different and better for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in the Northern Territory. We have had to hit hard at the heart of the crises in these regions, and ask questions that people do not want to ask, and struggle to find the answers.
It is an exciting journey and there is going to be a tremendous difference. I give as an example to this House the excitement that I see east of Katherine with the Nyirranggulung Regional Authority, which is almost a mini-shire that began in 2004-05. Nyirranggulung takes in the Katherine East region of Eva Valley, Barunga, Beswick and Bulman. It has had some challenges. One of the first things that members in those communities found was that sense of having to band together, that no longer were they just going to have a Barunga Council or a Beswick Council. They actually had to work out what was their united approach together, how they could share the services and resources to be able to make a real difference in those communities. Yes, there was heartache along the way, and with my community of Bulman, there was no doubt it felt disempowered, isolated, and out on the edges.
Eighteen months later, Nyirranggulung Regional Authority has come a long way. Two to three years later, it has come an incredibly long way. I would have to say that also goes to the leadership of that authority. At that time it was directed by Michael Berto, who I am happy to say is the head of the Roper Gulf Shire. It is extraordinary people like Michael Berto and other shire leaders who have taken on this incredible challenge. It is an incredible challenge, an exciting one and a good one because it is going to get better. I only have to look at the East Katherine model to know that this is what we are about.
When members comment on concerns about how huge the shires may be, or the language or communication issues, I remind them that this idea and this model for shires did not come from nothing.
ATSIC had quite large regions. I speak largely for my area which is the East Katherine and Arnhem area, and the Garak-Jarru ATSIC regional model was one that worked quite effectively and very well for the regions. In fact, before the demise of ATSIC, it was the regions in the Northern Territory that were far more successful with the model of ATSIC, than perhaps anywhere else in the country.
Aboriginal people in the communities are acutely aware of how that process works because it worked under ATSIC. They could see this is about representation, this is about empowering people to have a voice. No, it did not mean 100 people were sitting around a table, it actually meant people had to vote for a person who would speak for them. People in the bush are not as frightened or as backward as people might think. They do understand what it means to vote for a representative who can sit at a council table and speak up on their behalf.
I allay any fears in that regard, and in particular about communication. We must have one of the richest countries with access to communication. I put this challenge out to our telecommunications system, and, in particular, Telstra. With communication, we have phones, mobile phones, e-mails, and computers. We can communicate via video teleconferencing. If we use the excuse of lack of communication regarding Darwin to Canberra, we would have some real problems. I remind members that, while people may live in the bush, they are not actually Stone Age; they can have communication through computers and mobile phones. Let us move from that argument, because it is not an argument. Aboriginal people are just as capable of having that kind of technology as anyone else. I wanted to put that on the record because I heard some members were concerned about that.
I believe the move towards the shire model is about an exciting direction for the future. It is a very reformist model. It is about the bringing together of all people across the Northern Territory to have a voice - an effective voice - of governance about their future.
I want to raise some of the concerns I have. The requirement for infrastructure needs to be remembered. I have seen some of the CEOs moving a lot, not only from places like Ngukurr, Numbulwar, Ramingining and Millingimbi. I think it is things like the infrastructure, minister. I know that Ramingining council has always had a wish list for a much better building because that place is a shocker. I have stood in the House before and spoken quite openly about it. I know it was taken on board to make a difference for that particular community. They have relocated to a building which is still not up to standard but, with the move towards the shire model for the East Arnhem, they have come on board and they are excited.
I will talk a little about Groote Eylandt, minister. You came to Groote Eylandt and heard the concerns and the wish list there with people wanting Groote Eylandt to, at some future stage, look at their own. It was really encouraging for them to hear that they can, down the track, have a look at the growth of the region. We have talked about the mining towns and, in particular on Groote, Alyangula. The good news about Groote Eylandt is that there is a great relationship between the Anindilyakwa people and GEMCO, the mining company. There is a future option there for them to be able to explore what could happen for them. That is an important point, especially for the people on Groote.
With the mining and the cattle industries, I point out to everyone in those areas that this is massive social reform on a scale that we have not seen in the Northern Territory. It is an exciting time because we can make a real difference - a true difference where each and every individual across the Northern Territory can have a voice and be respected, appreciated, and stand forward and say: ‘This is what we want for our area’. To see mining companies, cattlemen and Aboriginal people come to the table on that and know that this is a form of governance that they need to work together - they have to work together - to make the difference for their areas, whether it be with the roads, houses or rubbish, has to bode well for the future of the Northern Territory and with our relationships with each other.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, the passage of the Local Government Bill in the Assembly is another step towards stronger local government across the Northern Territory. The hard work of local government providing services to people in the bush is an ongoing process which will, ultimately, be overseen by elected council representatives. I firmly believe that this bill provides the legislative framework necessary for elected councillors to govern and develop communities across the Territory.
This belief is based on the fact that perhaps more than any other legislation in the Territory, this bill has benefited from the input of an enormous range of stakeholders. In getting to the draft stage, the bill went through no less than 26 iterations resulting from a range of different consultation processes with the multiple stakeholders who have an interest in local government. These range from local government councils, managers and community representatives, through to regional organisations and representative groups, to a number of those members who sit opposite today.
More than anything else, this shows that in providing for a new legislative framework for local government in the Northern Territory, this government was ultimately concerned with getting it right to benefit families in the bush. The bill will provide local governments with the structure and capacity to deliver more reliable and consistent services through a more robust local government council system.
Since becoming the Minister for Local Government, I have travelled extensively across the Territory visiting many hard-working Territorians who are committed to local government. I have listened to families living in the bush, to council staff and elected members, and a range of stakeholders who all care a great deal about local government.
An important example of this is that relating to conditionally rateable land. In response to concerns raised by a number of stakeholders, we recognise that pastoral rates levied by councils need to be balanced with pastoral rents charged by the Northern Territory government. Amendments will be drafted for the Pastoral Lands Act so that in setting the annual rent for pastoral leases, the minister responsible for the Pastoral Lands Act shall offset any increase in shire rates against the pastoral rents. This will ensure that the important primary industry sectors in the Northern Territory are not disadvantaged unduly by government policy. It is indicative of a government that is not only willing to listen but also to negotiate. We also expect losses to own revenue to ensure a sustainable local government and business in the Northern Territory.
Over the last three months, I have travelled more than 36 000 km, held more than 50 formal meetings and countless informal discussions to ensure the new local government legislation provides the needs of councils, council staff, resource centres, and other individuals and groups who have an interest in regional governance and service delivery. I have done this because I wanted to meet the people living in our regional areas and hear for myself their ideas, comments and concerns about the new system of local government. What has struck me most during these visits has been the proactive and positive approach to the changes in local government.
On the whole, these communities are positive about the move to shires, and this is because they have been involved in the process from the start. I have cited the example before in the Assembly of a senior woman from the Urapuntja Council of the Utopia homelands who, after a particularly colourful meeting, simply said: ‘Enough talk, get on with it’. This has been a common refrain across the Territory.
However, it would not be completely honest of me to stand here and claim that all the people I have met have embraced the changes without some concern. People rightly have concerns about their councils, their services, their jobs and their community identity. This is not to be denied nor ignored. Over the last two months I have taken the time to listen to people and have worked to ensure that these concerns are addressed, and will continue to work with communities to address any outstanding concerns.
What has struck me most in travelling around communities is the number of people who have said to me that, despite these concerns, they agree with the need for change. In many cases the response has been simply ‘get on with it’. By far, the majority of people are prepared, in typical Territory fashion, to give it a go. Despite their concerns, they can still see the benefits of stronger organisations that are able to deliver consistent services and negotiate with the Territory and Commonwealth governments on their behalf. Despite the fear of the unknown, many people understand the need to move on. They understand a council which provides sporadic, inconsistent services can be worse than no council at all.
While some councils have a history of good governance and service delivery, in far too many cases councils have failed to deliver even basic services. For too long, many people in remote communities, in particular, have lived in these communities without any real certainty that services they rely on today will still be available tomorrow. Often, the delivery of these services has been a matter of luck. At times, it has been like a rollercoaster ride for communities which have ultimately become disengaged not only from the local government of their communities but also from future development.
Over the last two months, I have been struck by the concern people have for the future of their communities. What has often let them down has been the capacity of these local organisations to sustain service delivery and implement the policy decisions of council. At the very least, the development of local government represents recognition that continuity is essential and for that we need robust organisations.
This Local Government Bill does not present a quick fix for communities. This is just the beginning of a modernisation of the framework in which local government operates in the Territory. A necessary step in any process of improvement is to ensure that there is institutional and organisational capacity to support development and improvement. The Local Government Bill provides this necessary framework.
I now turn to comments made by other members in this debate.
The member for Nelson made a number of comments and I will not go into too much detail because we will cover many of these matters in the committee stage. The member for Nelson raised the issue of boundaries, population and size of the shires. In determining shire boundaries, population was one determinate; so too were service delivery lines and transport networks; and the ABS played a key role as did communities of interest and cultural factors. All these issues were developed through detailed consideration by the Shire Transition Committees and the Local Government Advisory Board. It was not a unilateral decision of government. It was a lot of a painstaking work mainly by volunteers who were passionate and had particular experience within local government. They were also people, local to the Territory and local to individual communities. I believe they created the best boundaries possible and the best fit. However, as we will possibly discuss during the committee stage, this legislation creates a very good process for flexibility with boundaries.
As members know, the Territory is a diverse place, and the legislation has been created to allow flexibility, to adapt over time to population shifts, or other needs. The member for Nelson and I are going to have a respectful disagreement on the issue of boundaries. I believe the shires need to be established with the best chance possible to stand on their own two feet. The boundaries and the populations of each of these shires does just that.
I understand where the member for Nelson is coming from in relation to his discussions about jobs. He may be surprised to find that I agree. There is the chance he has not heard me clearly when I have discussed this issue. The stronger governance structure for local government will create confidence in the private sector to invest in the bush. This will create jobs. Both the Territory and Commonwealth government will have greater confidence to invest in the regions through the shires as a result of the stronger governance structure that this legislation brings. For example, the federal government’s investment in night patrol services in the bush.
I have to respectfully disagree with the member for Nelson that the shires will not create more jobs in and of themselves. There is a strong chance they will actually do that. This legislation is flexible. It allows shires, the legitimate third tier of government, to make decisions and determinations for their future. That is a fundamental responsibility of those elected members of those councils. They can decide to employ people responsibly within their budgets in areas where they so choose. That is the decision of those elected members and not for the members of the Assembly to dictate.
I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Greatorex. He canvassed a whole range of issues. We have quite a lengthy committee stage and I can pick up those comments in the committee stage.
I thank my colleagues, the members for Arafura, Macdonnell, Stuart and Arnhem. It has been delightful to be able to travel through your respective electorates. I gained much from your comments and your contributions which have fed into this legislation. The historic situations of your communities has given me further encouragement, and the encouragement of this government, to ensure that local government is strong in those communities. I thank you for your contribution there.
I recognise the contribution of the two previous ministers for Local Government, the member for Barkly and the former member for Arnhem. As many other people have said, they paved the way for this reform. I am the current minister just implementing what they started.
It is timely to give thanks to all those people from all parts of the Northern Territory who have contributed to the development of the bill. First, I thank members of the Municipal Councils of Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs who have given their time and energy to contribute to the process. The department has also benefited greatly from the input and advice of an informal reference group of local government managers, all with a great deal of experience in managing local government both in the Northern Territory and in other states. In addition, a great deal of expert advice on the myriad of issues surrounding this reform has been received through the Northern Territory Local Government Advisory Board. This group, chaired by Mr Pat Dodson, included representatives from local government councils, LGANT, industry groups and community and regional representatives across the Territory. A special thanks to Pat; he has made this process much easier.
While not directly related to the development of this Local Government Bill, members of the Shire Transition Committees have also contributed greatly and with energy and enthusiasm to the development of individual shires. While their work will continue, I take this opportunity to thank those individuals. While all land councils have had some input into the current local government reform, I offer special thanks to the Central Land Council which has been proactive in offering advice and critical appraisal of the bill, particularly as it relates to the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
Of particular mention is Jayne Weepers as a representative on the NTLGAB who has provided valuable advice often under tight time constraints. Finally, I would like to offer a personal vote of thanks to the members of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport who have worked tirelessly and often beyond the call of duty at weekends and after hours to bring the bill together. I thank all the staff who have worked on this, not only currently, but over the years.
Bill Stuchbery is one such man; he was in the gallery not to long ago. A special thanks to Bill. He is on long service leave at the moment, but he has been around for a long time and has contributed right through this. I hope he is here for the remainder of the debate because he has been very helpful and he is someone who has local government in mind.
Also, I acknowledge one person, Lee Williams, who has been my little trainer, I guess, with the legislation. He has been up and down with the legislation over the months that it has been out there, and has had to travel quite extensively as well to talk to many different groups. I thank you, Lee, for your efforts.
The legislation we are considering today is the result of a great deal of effort and consultation over a number of years. The process of listening to communities and stakeholders will continue after the passage of this bill. I am confident that this bill, when passed into legislation, will serve the local government sector in the Northern Territory well for many years to come.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I would like to make some preliminary comments in relation to the amendments, just to provide some clarity. I have circulated these comments to my proposed amendments to members opposite, but I will read these to the House.
I provide clarification regarding the amendments which I am presenting. Since I first presented the bill, consultation with key stakeholders has occurred. I have travelled over 36 000 km and visited over 60 communities listening to what people had to say. Most of the amendments I am proposing are technical in nature, and some are issues of substance that have been raised during the ongoing consultation. These amendments are proposed to give effect to the government’s decision to not proceed with the Top End Shire, to strengthen the existing provisions, and to provide clarification on the intent of specific clauses.
The definition of ‘Aboriginal community living area’ has been amended …
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair! Sorry, minister, I know you were going to go through this statement you gave us, and you will be going through clause by clause in relation to your amendments. What you have written here is a description of all those amendments. I do not know whether we are going to duplicate the process by you reading them all out now and, when we get to the bill, you will read them again. I ask for clarification of whether that is a reasonable point.
Mr KNIGHT: I will not read them again. I will move them as circulated in the committee stage as we get to those amendments. This is to provide a clear picture of what the government’s intent is with these clauses. If there is anything outside of this description that you need when we get to that clause, I can provide that. This is to put on the public record exactly what we mean by, and the reason behind, the changes.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I understand the minister. As long as we have a little time to think when we get to those particular points. Usually, what happens is the minister will say: ‘I am going to amend this’, and gives an explanation as to the amendment which gives us time to work out where we are in relation to the bill. I am happy for you to do that, and we will work our way through.
Mr KNIGHT: That is why I circulated the list yesterday to you, to give you a chance.
The definition of ‘Aboriginal community living area’ has been amended so as to allow the minister to gazette an area as an Aboriginal community living area. This is necessary as not all of the relevant areas are caught up by the original definition.
The definition of ‘mining tenement’ has been amended by inserting new words to clarify the meaning. The intent remains the same, that where an authority is required for commercial production, the definition applies only where the holder of the tenement holds such an authority.
Clause 12(2) sets out in broad terms the functions that a council may assume. This clause has been amended to clarify which functions are optional for a council.
Clause 14 deals with operations outside a council area. Amendments have been made to take into account the unincorporated areas of the Territory as a result of the decision not to proceed with the Top End Shire. The amendments allow for the council to exercise its powers within such unincorporated areas with the minister’s permission.
Under the bill, the department will be responsible for compiling the three regional management plans. This has been amended in clause 21 to provide that copies of the plan are to be available free of charge from the department and from the council offices. The department will supply copies of the regional management plan to councils for provision to the public.
Part 3.2 of the bill deals with municipal or shire plans. Clause 22 has been amended to make copies of municipal or shire plans available for inspection at council offices free of charge, or for purchase from council at a fee fixed by council. The plans will also be on the Internet. This amendment ensures that people who do not have access to the Internet will have access to the shire or municipal plan.
Clause 23(2) has been amended to correct a typographical error by replacing the reference to 1(b) with 1(c). The intention was always that the matters in 1(c) should be reviewed only once in each term in regards to municipal and shire plans.
Clause 24(2) has been amended to make it absolutely clear that although the budget forms part of a municipal or shire plan, the provisions set out in Part 3.2 do not apply in relation to changes to the council’s budget. When a budget is amended, the process applying to the creation of a shire municipal plan does not need to be repeated.
Division 2 of Chapter 4 contains provisions relating to the formation of council subsidiaries. Amendments have been made to clause 27(3) to enable LGANT to form a subsidiary of its own. For example, LGANT may wish to form a subsidiary to provide human resources or financial services to local government bodies across the Territory. The previous clause 27(3) only provided for LGANT to join with other councils to form a subsidiary.
The reporting obligations for councils regarding these subsidiaries, set out at clause 30, has been amended so that the annual report of the council may refer to, rather than physically contain, the annual report of the subsidiary.
Clause 36, which deals with eligibility for membership of a council, has been amended in relation to the shires. The amendment means that a person stands for election and represents a ward regardless of where they live in the council area. This amendment provides the electorate with maximum choice, and a member will not become disqualified only because of moving residence to another part of the council area. It makes the rule the same for shire councils as it is for municipal councils.
Clause 37(1)(d) provides that, if a person was employed by the council, then they could not be a council member. The amendment provides that only employees whose seniority disqualifies them will not be eligible to be a council member. The guidelines will clarify which positions are disqualified. They will be the senior and management positions within the council.
An amendment to clause 39(1)(c) was required as a consequence of the amendment to clause 36. The amendment deletes clause 39(1)(c), which provided that a casual vacancy arose if a member ceases living in the ward to which they were elected to represent. This provision is no longer required.
Part 4.3 concerns principal members of council. Clause 42(1) of this part has been amended to reflect the fact that Litchfield would like to retain the ability to choose whether to have a President or a Mayor. An amendment has also been made to the provisions covering local boards. The amendment to clause 64(1) provides for a local board to appoint its Chair rather than the council appointing the Chair of the board. An amendment to the heading of clause 101 to read ‘Role and Functions of CEO’ clarifies that clause 101 specifies the CEO’s functions.
The bill, like the current act, contains provisions relating to the financial administration of councils. Clause 127(3) has been amended to remove the possibility of ministerial approval for a council to budget for a deficit. It is not good accounting practice to budget for a deficit. The Accounting Regulations will expand on the detail of the meaning of ‘deficit’ so that it means the amount to which expenditure, including depreciation expense, exceeds revenue after incorporating transfers in from, and out of, specific reserves.
Chapter 11 of the bill deals with rates and charges. Extensive consultation has been undertaken in relation to rates. A direct result of that consultation is that clause 144(1) relating to exemptions, has been amended by the insertion of the new subclause (ja). The amendment provides that land owned by a land trust or an Aboriginal community living area association is exempt from rates, except for land designated in the regulation as rateable land subject to a lease or a licence of occupancy or land used for a commercial purpose. The intent remains that Aboriginal townships will have rateable land as most of these townships are under lease.
A note has been inserted at clause 145(2) and clause 145(3) to clarify that rates apply to a land trust or Aboriginal community living area only where that land is not fully exempt under clause 144(a). These two notes clarify the interrelation between the exemption contained within clause 144(1)(ja) and clause 145(2).
An amendment has been made to clause 149 to provide guidance in relation to how rates are to be calculated for mining tenements. The unimproved value of a mining tenement is its assessed value and the unimproved value is taken to be 20 times the annual rental payable under the tenement.
Changes have also been made in relation to the notification requirements regarding the change of ownership at clause 153 to reflect current practice. This change is being made in response to feedback from key stakeholders. Clause 153 is amended by deleting subclause (4), which effectively removed a ratepayer’s obligation to notify a council if a change of ownership had occurred that was registered with the Land Titles Office. The critical thing here is that rights and responsibilities attach to councils and ratepayers, and it is important that ratepayers provide councils with the information required so that rate notices are not misdirected.
Clause 170, which provides that unpaid and overdue rates become a charge on the land, has been amended. This amendment makes it clear that rates do not become a charge on land unless the owner of the land is a ratepayer who is liable for the rates that are in arrears and, secondly, that rates cannot become a charge on land within an Aboriginal community living area. The effect of this is that land on an Aboriginal community living area may not be sold for the non-payment of rates. In such cases, other debt retrieval processes are still available.
Clause 184(1) which deals with cemeteries within a council area, has been amended. The word ‘vest’ has been substituted with the word ‘care’, ‘under the care, control and management of the council’. The amendment was made to avoid any possible confusion arising from the interpretation of the word ‘vest’ which is sometimes used to describe the transfer of an interest of fee simple in land, which of course cannot happen with Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
Amendments to the provisions dealing with roads have also been made with particular reasons. Clause 185(1)(b) has been amended to broaden the definition of a road by including the words ‘or placed under the care, control and management of a council’ which includes roads which may not be given to the council in fee simple. An example of this is where a fee simple in a road is retained by the Territory but a council is responsible for the care, control and management of the road. Similarly, clause 185(2) has been amended by including the words ‘under the care, control and management’.
Clause 186(2) and (3) which deals with the withdrawal of a road from a council’s care has been amended to take into consideration the difficulties in only using the word ‘vest’. The amendments provide clarification between differences of vesting and care, control and management. An insertion of a new subclause (3)(a) also caters for the circumstances in which a council is looking after a road that actually belongs to an entity that is neither the council nor the Territory.
The last of the amendments relating to roads are the amendments to clause 187. Clause 187 provides for the circumstances under which a council may close a road. Subclause (2) has been amended so that a road cannot be permanently closed unless the regulations are followed and consent from both the minister responsible for the administration of the Control of Roads Act and the minister responsible for the Local Government Act has been obtained.
The amendment to clause 187(3) clarifies that a road must be under the care, control and management of the council at the time of closure for fee simple to vest in the council.
Madam Chair, a number of legislative notes and examples have been used in the drafting of this bill to make it easier to read and to understand. A note has been added at clause 190 to further explain the process of making by-laws. These rules are actually contained in another act, the Interpretation Act. The note brings that fact to the attention of the reader. The note will alert those not familiar with the by-law making process about the relevance of section 63 of the Interpretation Act.
Another legislative note has been inserted at the end of clause 249(1). Clause 249 concerns service of documents by council on others. The note clarifies that reference to ‘service of documents’ includes instances where other words of similar meaning such as ‘give a notice’ are used.
Clause 257 is the just terms clause that relates to acquisition of property. Clause 257(3)(a) has been amended so that it covers both the transitional process that occurred last year with the Local Government Amendment Act 2007, and the process under the new act by which councils are amalgamated into shires.
Madam Chair, as I indicated during the second reading speech, amendments have been made to give effect to the government’s decision to not proceed with the Top End Shire. These amendments begin at clause 261 with a definition of Top End Councils. Top End Councils means the Litchfield Municipal Council and the Belyuen, Coomalie and Cox Peninsula Community Government Councils.
Clause 262 has been amended with new subclauses (7) and (8) being inserted. Subclause (7) provides that the prospective Top End Shire Council does not become a shire council, and continues in existence only for the purpose of being wound up. It also states that the proposed Top End Shire is abolished. Subclause (8) provides that, when the winding up of the prospective Top End Council is complete, the minister may, by Gazette notice, dissolve the body corporate. These amendments make it absolutely clear that the prospective Top End Shire Council continues in existence only for the purpose of being wound up.
Clause 264 contains provisions in relation to the continuation of existing councils which are not being subsumed into shires. Clause 264(1) has been amended to ensure that council members continue in office until elections are held. New clause 264(5) makes it clear that budgets and other administrative things done in accordance with the new act, in preparation for new local government, will be valid even though there may be some contradiction with the current act. An example is provided that a council may fix allowances for its members when passing the budget even though this may not technically be lawful under the current act. New clause 264(6) is particularly relevant to Belyuen Community Government Council. It provides that where a council is under official management, it continues under official management under the new act.
New clause 264A makes some special provisions for Top End councils. The name of the Litchfield Municipal Council, currently known as the Litchfield Shire Council, is changed to Litchfield council. This change is at the request of the council. Belyuen, Coomalie and Cox Peninsula Community Government Councils become shire councils under a name to be assigned by the minister. Those councils are currently being consulted about their preferred name.
The minister fixes the date of elections, and the general election for the Litchfield Municipal Council is to be held at the same time as general elections for the shire councils in 2008.
Clause 266(1) has been amended, by replacing ‘31 May 2008’ with ‘the date of transition’. This amendment extends the time in which the minister can approve a rating proposal in relation to conditionally rateable land for the next financial year.
The final amendment is in relation to the description of Region One in Schedule 1, Top End Shire Council. The Top End Shire Council has been replaced with the councils that will now be continuing in existence.
Madam Chair, these amendments are indicative of my commitment to consult with people in order to ensure the Local Government Bill will be workable, practical and effective. I am most grateful to everyone who has contributed their ideas to the development of these amendments. Thank you for your patience, Madam Chair.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I would like to speak in general about the whole bill, and ask some questions on the bill in toto.
Madam CHAIR: Seek leave, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I seek leave to discuss a range of questions dealing with the whole of the bill.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I have a couple of questions. In the explanatory statement, there is a general outline and it talks about the purpose of the bill being reformed by moving from 61 local government bodies to nine shire councils and four municipal councils. Of course, that is now eight shire councils, four municipal and four others, you might say.
Minister, you said in your conclusion to your summing-up speech that the transition committees were the ones that decided on the boundaries. Who actually decided on the number of shires? I add to that: what was the basis of that number of shires?
Mr KNIGHT: The Shire Transition Committees made the decision about the boundaries. They, with the advisory board and a number of other stakeholders including local communities, provided advice about the boundaries. The number of shires was being kicked around, even back in the CLP times; back in 1998 they proposed amalgamations. We have had a number of numbers chosen. It was a decision of government, those numbers, based on a whole range of considerations. We can debate it, but we have that number now. Obviously, there may have to be some changes into the future, particularly with the Top End area of the Northern Territory, but that is a number that was arrived at with a number of factors and that is what we are moving towards.
Mr WOOD: I need you to clarify a little. There have been some statements made that infer that my argument is about where the actual boundaries are. I was raising issues about the alignment of boundaries. What I was trying to find out from the government is that your government decided that there would be nine shires. There was no community consultation with that. That was an announcement made at the very beginning of this whole process. Government has said that it would allow some tinkering with boundaries, and the transition committees looked at that. What I am trying to find out, because this is the basis on which this bill is going forward, a basis of reform based on bringing the number of councils down from 61 to a now eight. There must have been a basis for the government to pick that number. I am trying to find out what it was. The second part of the question really is, and this is the bit that has always concerned me, why was not the broader public - not the experts and all those sorts of people - part of that consultation process to work out how many shires there should be?
Mr KNIGHT: I will go back over it again. The number of shires has been proposed for a great many years. You know that, member for Nelson. There was a whole range of considerations about where they should lie. There was a decision made by the previous minister with advice from a whole range of different areas, and I believe that is a good number. You look at a whole range of factors. You talk about the geography, the size of them. But you look at the populations; they are quite small in comparison to a lot of other areas. We can talk about it, we can argue about it, but the fact is that there was a whole range of good advice from a well-intentioned, caring government which wants to make sure that these shires succeed.
Investing $27m into these shires is not setting them up to fail; it is backing good decisions. You have been around a long time, member for Nelson. I know you have made comments, and everyone has made comments about, yes, we support reform, well, that has been talk, talk, talk. At some point someone had to get some leadership and make a commitment, and we have done it. It is going to happen. After decades of talk, it is actually going to happen.
There is flexibility within the act to allow a whole range of things to happen. We, as a government, are not going to walk away from making sure that these shires deliver for the people living across the Territory. If we have to improve it, that is what we will do. You have to realise that, at some point, some government which really gave a damn about what was happening out bush had to make a decision.
We are going to have to respectfully disagree about numbers and whatever. I support where the numbers sit at the moment, but this is a government that will keep watching that local government and these new shires do deliver.
Mr WOOD: You missed the point, minister. We could argue about the numbers, but what I simply want to know is that you have picked the number as the government. I think it is a fair question to ask: on what basis? Surely there must have been a basis. You do not just think of eight, nine, ten, 11, or 12? What I have heard is that a figure of 6000 people was the figure used for the average population for a council. All I am saying is that I need it on record because we are changing the Local Government Act as part of a reform process. This sets out how many shires there will be and, as yet, we do not have on record exactly what your reasoning was behind that change.
Mr KNIGHT: As I have answered in the last question we want local government to work. We did not go about it and think: ‘We will have one-size-fits-all. We will set this one up this way, and that one might fall over; we do not care about that one’. We went across the Territory and looked at them, and there was a range of factors geographically and culturally as well. We believe they are sustainable. They are going to work and that is why we did it. We can debate this. We have a lot of legislation to get through. You believe that there has to be one-size-fits-all, one definition. What I am saying to you is, we looked at a whole range of factors. We wanted to make each shire the most viable and we believe we have done that.
That is my position, my understanding of it. I get back to it again: we want these shires to work. We are not going to set them up to fail. We used a number of factors across the Northern Territory in determining how many we should have and what their boundaries would be.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I do not want to harp on the issue. I am not saying one size fits all. I am not even arguing about the number. I am not saying you are not doing a good job with reform, that your intentions are dishonourable or anything like that. If a government makes a very big decision to knock down 61 councils down to eight shires and four municipals, then I would have thought there had to be some sort of recognition of some formula which brought that into being. I do not have the documents here, but the figure was 6000 people. That may not be the case. I do not want to harp on it anymore, but it is disappointing that the government cannot present the basis on which it made this change. Not the philosophical basis. I am not against reform. I am not against amalgamation. I believed there should have been amalgamations way when I was in local government.
My complaint is that they are too jolly big. When I went to Alpurrurulam and asked: ‘Do you feel like part of Tennant Creek?’ They said: ‘No’. It is not something that I thought up. For the record it would be nice to have on record the reason behind bringing the number of councils down to this number. If that is not possible, I will move on.
Just another question, you made a statement and I need some clarification before we get in to the main part of the bill. You were talking about transitional rates for pastoral properties. You said the government that owns the land would discount the lease to cover the amount paid to the local councils through the transitional rate. Is that correct or incorrect?
Mr KNIGHT: It is very explicit in what I read in the introduction to this committee stage exactly what was going to happen with respect to conditional rating on pastoral leases. It will be offset with the pastoral rents.
Mr WOOD: I have not read that. Was that in your explanatory notes or was that something new that has been added today? That is why I have stood up here now and thought that is different to what I have read.
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry, it was in my wrap-up speech. There will be amendments to the Pastoral Lands Act and when they are setting those they will offset the difference in the rise of the pastoral rents. This is after 2011, so the capping will stay in place for three years, then the councils will set their rates and then the minister responsible for the Pastoral Lands Act will offset the difference between the current rate and what it goes up to.
Mr WOOD: So you are saying that they will still be paying rates? It will not be paid for by the government? They will only be paying the difference between the capped rate and an increase in that rate in 2011? That is my understanding.
Mr KNIGHT: That is right. They will be paying whatever the rate is and the difference between what it is at the moment, which is 0.06 UCV, to whatever it gets approved at in 2011. The difference will be offset with their current pastoral rents.
Mr WOOD: We might get down to that when we get to that section, but I heard you mention it in your speech previously.
In relation to those communities that would like to change their boundaries, one would be Pine Creek, as I mentioned before. Could you explain to the House what is the story with Pine Creek wanting to belong to the Katherine Shire? Are you looking at that being a possibility? If so, would that require you to make a legislative change under the act, or would an amendment to the act have to come back to parliament if that was the case?
Mr KNIGHT: We can talk about it here, I suppose. There is provision within this current act to name wards, to change ward boundaries, to change council boundaries, and that can actually happen. With respect to Pine Creek, they obviously think there is greater value to their community being with Katherine. Those discussions are ongoing; I have been engaged in those discussions. The provision within the new act, and also the current act, is to allow for boundaries to change.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair. I will get into the main part of the bill. Thank you, minister.
I am not sure whether the shadow minister has some clauses, but would you like to start with clauses and I will respond.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.1, as distributed.
Mr WOOD: I want to check – this is where it gets confusing – are we using the clauses in the draft, or are we using the clauses in the schedule? I have the act here; the new act.
Mr KNIGHT: I am referring to the Schedule of Amendments that was circulated.
Mr WOOD: I need to just clarify with the Chair which clauses - I was looking at the preamble to clause 3 …
Mr KNIGHT: It is not a clause.
Mr WOOD: We actually have not dealt with the preamble. Am I right?
Ms Scrymgour: The preamble, we have gone past.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but I am just not sure that we actually dealt with it, because we dealt with clauses 1 to 2. The preamble was not mentioned.
Mr KNIGHT: We have dealt with clause 1 and 2. I am happy to discuss the preamble now, but it may be useful in the last move, which is the remainder of the bill, which covers all bits and pieces that are left over. I do not know whether you want to handle it now or later.
Mr WOOD: If we keep it in order, we probably should have asked the preamble first. I did not realise that that was not going to come up.
Madam CHAIR: We will deal with that at the end of the committee stage with all the other bits and pieces.
Mr KNIGHT: We are dealing with clause 3, Amendment 31.1.
Mr WOOD: We are going through the bill clause by clause. That is okay.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Same section, we are dealing with section 3, Definitions. Minister, under the definition ‘close family relationship’ it says:
- (b)(ii) the child or a remoter lineal descendent of the person’s spouse or de facto partner.
That sounds an extremely technical term. Is there an English version of that term, please?
Mr KNIGHT: This refers to the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The words were put in by Parliamentary Counsel, so I imagine it has some legal significance. In basic terms, it means just what I said.
Mr WOOD: Did you ever think that Parliamentary Counsel might put it in the terms that you just said or, if they will not because they do not think it is a good idea, then there should be some definition of that? I could not find that in a dictionary. It is a new word. It would be good, if you are going to use such technical terms, to have some reference to what that actually means - either in another part of the definitions or as a note to explain what it means. It is certainly not common language. I wonder whether the government will consider, at some other time, putting in an explanatory note?
Mr KNIGHT: This act will be used in the elected members training. That definition will be heavily used, particularly out bush as far as the conflict of interest provisions go. That is Parliamentary Counsel’s wording. I guess they need that as a part of any future legal action that is taken in relation to conflict of interest. I have to take their advice on that. As far as putting some sort of plain English reference, that will be through the elected members training.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Surely, you should not need to do that. ‘Close family relations’ is an important part of the act because it deals with conflict of interest and, therefore, someone should be able to pick up the act and say: ‘Ah, that is me. I am, therefore, classified as a close family relation’. There is no way in the wide world that anyone would know what a ‘remoter lineal descendent’ was, and it would be good for the government to explain it if it has to use that word because that is the technical word. It is certainly not a word that most people would understand. I think local government would appreciate not having to go somewhere else for an explanation, but to find that in the act.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, this knowledge about what is in this act will particularly be used by the elected members. It is not going to be some child in the street who is referring to themselves as a close family relation; it will be the elected members who will have to take particular recognition of it in the application of their duties. Also, the staff of the council. They will be the practitioners and they will be given the training as far as what that actually means.
Mr WOOD: Well, good luck.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.2 as circulated, regarding clause 3 in relation to the change from council subsidiary to local government subsidiary.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.3.
Mr WOOD: This is my question on definitions. This is the Local Government Act, and I have concerns about whether we are actually dealing with regional government rather than local, should there be a definition of what local government actually is in this act? Do you think there is a need for that?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, ‘local government’ is a clear term used throughout this nation for the third tier of government. I do not think there needs to be any sort of clarification about it. It is very well known. Whether they operate over this area or that area, they perform local government services which are clearly recognised across the country.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. I just correct you – it is the third ‘sphere’. Many a local government person thinks third ‘tier’ is putting them down, so I just mention that.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.4.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 11:
Mr WOOD: Part 1.3 Agency, clause 5; it is more a technical question. Why are we now calling what should be a ‘department’ an ‘agency’. Generally speaking, we have a post office agency or we might have an agency of Medibank. It seems to me that the people running the show is the Department of Local Government. Why is there a move to start using this term instead of saying ‘the department’?
Mr KNIGHT: My understanding is that under the Administrative Arrangements Act departments are referred to as agencies. That is why that terminology is being used.
Mr WOOD: I have a question in relation to clause 7. Under the local government system, it says:
- (b) a council is constituted for each area to be responsible for the government and management of the area at the local level.
What does ‘the management of the area at the local level’ mean? How broad a statement is that? I can understand it for the government, but for management at the local level, are there any restrictions on what that means?
Mr KNIGHT: That is the third sphere of government managing those services – obviously you cannot be that prescriptive, so there is flexibility. It is certainly about local government, as the third sphere of government in Australia, managing those local services.
A member: It is going to be a long night, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: That is all right. Well, it is a big change.
A member: An important change.
Mr WOOD: Yes, and that is why I am taking it seriously, believe it or not.
Section 8 deals with municipalities and shires, minister. We know there are four councils that are not, I suppose, recognised as such. This section says:
- Local government areas are classified as municipalities or shires according to the density of population and the degree of urbanisation.
Should there be a note in there exempting places, for instance, like Cox Peninsula Council which was only in Belyuen? They are now classified as shires under this act but they would not be a shire if you took density of population and the degree of urbanisation as yardsticks because they are quite small.
I am wondering whether this phrase or this description of what a municipality and shire is, needs to take into account the circumstances that have occurred since the Top End Shire dropped out of the geographical part of the reform process.
Mr KNIGHT: You are saying that Cox Peninsula is urbanised. I think they see themselves very different. It takes both those things into consideration. I think they see themselves as a rural area while people from some of the other areas, say Coomalie, see themselves as regional. The gap between what you see with the shires, those three smaller ones, and what you have with the populations of Litchfield and Katherine where there is a mixture of high densities and rural areas, and Alice Springs, Darwin and Palmerston, there is a clear difference between those, and in relation to provisions of the Regional Management Plans as well. There is a clear difference. I cannot see how you could make some assumption that they would be in some way referred to as municipals. Those examples you are using are anomalies at the moment.
Clauses 4 to 11, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 12:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.5 to clause 12.
Mr WOOD: I am wondering if we are doing this correctly. My discussion is on clause 12(1)(d) which is before subclauses (f) and (g) are removed. It is only a technicality, but should I speak first in order of – if you do not mind, minister?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes.
Mr WOOD: I had a good briefing with the Local Government department. Thank you very much for the briefing. We had a long briefing some time ago and another one last night. I must admit I thought we were going to discuss this tomorrow which would give me enough time to take it all in. So if things seem a little haphazard sometimes it has been difficult getting over some of these changes quickly.
In relation to this section 12(1) the functions of a council include the following:
- (d) to carry out measures to protect its area from natural and other hazards and to mitigate the effects of such hazards;
I presume these are things that council will have to provide because that is why we now have a new section further down which uses the word ‘may’. I am concerned that there is some cost shifting here. I am not saying councils should not carry out measures to protect its area from natural and other hazards. That, however, should be the role of Emergency Services. In most cases you would expect the council to help but you would not expect that to be the function of the council.
Minister, could you say why (d) is a ‘must’ rather than a ‘may’ for a council?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, it is about the extent of what is being proposed here. You are using an example of an extreme situation here, but councils will have to have the ability to clear hazards in their normal day-to-day business. We have had the situation in recent years where councils have had to clear away hazards. It is about extent. Those councils will not be taking on those roles to that extent that you are talking about without any sort of financial recompense. Also, they actually do a lot of the work, and they get reimbursed for it through the NDRRA money. They clearly understand that is what is going to happen to them. They have to have the ability and the obligation, where there are hazards in the community, to be able to clear that hazard away, and they currently do that.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, what would you define as a hazard? I could understand it being in relation to fire; so you would put in fire breaks around the town and that would help mitigate the effects of such a hazard. If I was to talk about a cyclone, an earthquake or a tsunami - is that the sort of hazard you are referring to here, because for instance with a cyclone, what does that actually mean from a council’s perspective? Are they part of the role in providing protection from cyclones? Or is their role to make sure all the trees are chopped back around buildings so they will not fall on houses? I do not know. I know what you are saying, that councils do get involved, but this is fairly broad. Unless there is some idea of what ‘natural and other hazards’ actually means it could leave a fairly wide scope of responsibility on a council.
Mr KNIGHT: It gets back to the extent of that sort of situation. Dangerous dogs are a hazard; a tree falling over a council road is a hazard. I rely on the elected members of those councils; they are sensible and pragmatic people regarding the council functions they undertake and the ratepayers’ money that they manage. There has to be some flexibility in there. However, it is all about extremes and extents that you go by. I am very conscious of what you are alluding to, and every Local Government minister in the country would be conscious of this cost shifting arrangement, but it is not the intent of what you have been saying here.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you mentioned dogs. This is not a back door way of getting back at Litchfield Shire is it, by any chance?
Mr KNIGHT: We are already moving down that road.
Mr WOOD: I imagine it would not be dogs in this case, unless it was some sort of pack of dogs.
Mr KNIGHT: It might have saved your dogs, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Okay, thank you. All right, minister, I will accept that, but I am a little concerned that if it is taken to its fullest extent, it could be seen as cost shifting; but we will go on.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Can I speak on that now. I can do it either way. I was just going to say I would like to thank the government for taking those two clauses out. It is something that I raised at the briefing, especially clause 12(f).
For a council to be told it has ‘to promote its area as a location for appropriate industries or commerce or as an attractive tourist destination’, is very difficult, especially when councils do not having planning controls. I am not saying that councils should not do it, but they would have to look at their budgets to see whether they are some of things that they should take on. I am pleased that the government has moved that into a separate clause, and it takes away the problem with putting an extra burden on councils where they may not either have the power, or they simply do not have the finance.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.6 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.7 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I have a question in relation to this. We are dealing with clause 14, ‘Operations outside area’. You are cancelling subclause (1) and inserting a new subclause (1) which states:
- A council may provide services outside its own area but cannot exercise its regulatory powers outside its own area except …
I go to new clause (1)(b):
- … if the powers are to be exercised outside council areas - with the Minister’s consent.
Surely the residents of the area outside the council area that is going to have another council provide services to that area should be consulted before such an act takes place. Where, in this section would it say it will protect those people’s rights?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, this amendment was, basically, put in for those unincorporated areas left by the Top End Shire, and mean that the minister at the time will take into consideration local residents’ views in the effect of granting such powers to a particular neighbouring council. You have to trust the minister at the time, member for Nelson, to do the right thing. There does need to be the provision whether the minister has to approve such an act by a neighbouring council.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, minister, I do not always trust the minister. I remember the rates being capped without any consultation. Here is a classic example. What I have said all along in regarding this bill is that it is too big brother-ish. I am not saying that the government or the department has a role, but people are part of local government and they need to be consulted. That is what I have said all the time in this reform process. I am not against the reform process.
Surely, if for instance for argument’s sake, Coomalie council said: ‘We are going to look after the services in Douglas Daly’, there has to be something in the act that says: ‘Yes, after consultation with the people who live in Douglas Daly’ and, then, with the minister’s consent. That is the gap in that system that, once again, highlights the minister has power that tends to get in the way. What really should happen is that there should be community consultation first.
Would the minister consider an amendment to that bill which basically said: (1)(b) If the powers are to be exercised outside council areas those residents living in those areas defined will be required to be consulted, and then approval will be given, subject to those discussions with the ministerial consent’?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, a minister, in any act has a number of responsibilities and powers. You do not like to do that, but trust in what the minister does. The minister is accountable to this House and to the people of the Northern Territory, ultimately, and this power may be issued from time to time. I do not see it being extensively used, but it needs to be in there. It provides the ability for the councils to do it, and for the minister to approve it. The minister is not going to make a decision which is going to adversely affect people in those areas.
Mr WOOD: Not putting too much of a point on it, except that these areas are all going to be inside your electorate, and you are the minister. This is a brand new amendment that really has not had time to go out to the community, and it is a very limited community, nor the councils within that community. Remember, these amendments came out last Thursday. Most councils would not have had a chance to discuss them at a meeting. I am sure the people of Dundee, Marrakai, Douglas Daly, whatever, would not have known that this is a new change to the act. Probably, if I had realised it a bit earlier, but we had a briefing yesterday to look at the amendments, and I think there is a problem here. All I am saying is that I believe this is a fault in the legislation. I do not believe it would make any difference. The minister would still have the power. However, what you do is, you send out the right signal to people that you are willing to listen to what they have to say.
That lesson could not be any better learned than what happened in Litchfield Shire. There was not up-front consultation, and you are dealing with the same people in the same area. So, minister, if you cannot amend it now, I ask that you at least look at it and possibly look at an amendment. I would be happy to leave it even until the next sittings of parliament if that was possible. I think it would be a very good change, a democratic change, and it would be supported by those communities that it would affect.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.8 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, are we up to clause 15 yet?
Madam CHAIR: No, we are still in clause 14.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amendment, agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 20:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am referring to clause 16(1) which says there must be a regional management plan for each region. I wonder why it has to be forced on council. I am not saying regional plans are not something that should be looked at, but we are starting off a group of councils which are going to have a lot of changes and a lot of responsibilities, and what we are trying to do is to fix up the basics. Then you are going to tell them, as part of a huge number of plans – I wrote them down here before – there are an enormous number of plans that a council is going to have to put together. I will have a look for it later.
The regional management plans are going to be quite onerous. Would it not be better to have regional management plans as voluntary things, at least for the time being until councils get on their feet? If you go to the schedule at the back of the act and look at Region 3 – Barkly Shire, Central Desert Shire, MacDonnell Shire and the Alice Springs Town Council, and the Alice Springs Town Council does not have to be in it - you have three Victorias there. You have said that there have been many problems with councils, and we have amalgamated them and we are setting up this new structure and you have told us how wonderful it is. Why do we not give them a bit of breathing space and try to get them into shape? You have all these new CEOs, all these new Directors of Corporate Affairs, all these sorts of people: why are we putting this extra layer on? Why not leave it a little longer? Why is that not more the responsibility of the Territory? Previously, regional development was part of the Northern Territory government’s responsibility. Why are they not taking more of that on themselves thereby allowing councils to get off the ground and get the core function part of the reforms started?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, the agency has the key role in pulling together those regional management plans. So, as far as actual work goes, it will not really be the case. It will be using their existing shire and, hopefully, municipal plans as well. The crux of it, member for Nelson, is accountability. What we are seeing, and you would acknowledge this across those shires, is inconsistency in delivery of services. These regional plans will not only make those core services accountable on an annual basis but also provides a conduit, an environment where you can look at improving those services. By looking at them regionally - even if that is the entire southern region - there may be some services that you could provide to those shires in that southern region of the Northern Territory. There will not be extra work as the department will be carrying the load for that. I believe that the people of the various communities and towns throughout the Northern Territory, as ratepayers and residents, want their councils to be accountable for those core services which they and we pay for as taxpayers.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you said the agency was paying for a lot of these things. Surely this is going to require a lot of travel. You have a whole section, Chapter 3, which is set out purely for regional management plans. They have to be revised, they have to be prepared, they have to be circulated, they have to be put on the website, they have to report annually on the service delivery, or the agency does. I would imagine these councils have to get together at some stage and discuss these issues. If they are covering an area three times as big as Victoria, surely there are costs involved in developing these management plans.
Mr KNIGHT: I do not think that will necessarily be required. The agency will be pulling together the shire and municipal plans into a regional management plan. They will be doing the bulk of the work and consulting with LGANT, as well.
I acknowledge Tony Tapsell in the gallery. Thank you for your contribution with LGANT, Tony.
The agency will be doing the bulk of the work. You refer to regional development plans. I would hope that the Territory government and the Commonwealth government actively look at these regional management plans as opportunities to invest. That is what it is all about for those southern, central, and northern regions as a whole. The government and I share a vision in developing these regional plans for improving services, to be accountable for those services at the local level, and also for government or even the private sector to invest.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. The other question is that clause 16(3) says:
- A municipal council may (but is not required to) participate in consultation related to a regional management plan.
I suppose the simple question is why is there discrimination between a shire and a municipality in relation to having a regional management plan.
Mr KNIGHT: The municipal councils already provide the kind of services that will be covered by the regional management plans. The regional councils are also free to participate in the regional management plans if they so wish, as I have stated. There are many advantages for the councils to participate and governments should actively look at these regional management plans as being the conduit for investment for a particular region.
It is very much about accountability. The municipals councils in Darwin or Palmerston are extremely accountable for the core services they provide whereas with the shires, which have traditionally been a problem over the decades, it is about making sure that they report and we report to the public and to this Assembly about those services, particularly out bush in those shires.
Mr WOOD: Minister, there were only two shires in the days gone by, one was Nguiu Shire Council and one was Litchfield Shire Council. Neither of them were a problem, or maybe you were referring to the existing new shires and the councils that make up those shires.
Schedule 1 puts all these councils into regions. Does this section of the act allow, for instance, the old Top Roc type region to come under this? For instance, if Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield, Coomalie, Cox Peninsula and Belyuen, which was the old Top Roc area, are they therefore not committed to form a regional management plan? You have under Schedule 1 that these are the only areas that can be divided into regions in relation to regional management plans?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I will identify those three clear regions. We can disagree; you want more of those plans. It is something to look at over time. However, in the first instance, those three regional areas are big enough to report on. I am not sure if I have it correct about what you were saying about Top Roc, whether they want to participate in the plans or what?
Mr WOOD: I am actually saying if some councils decide they would like to set up their own regional management area, for instance, Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield, Coomalie, Cox Peninsula like there used to be, is there an ability in this act to do that, or are you tied to those three regions that are mentioned in Schedule 1?
Mr KNIGHT: We have proposed three areas which report on the core services and any other services that they want to put in there as far as those regional management plans. That is for local government. If Litchfield want to talk to Pine Creek or Yuendumu about some other sort of sharing or planning arrangements, they can do that. But this is the local government regional management plans. It is there as an accountability mechanism and looking at future planning for local government and efficiencies. If different organisations want to join up in some sort of other regional grouping, they can do that. Our regional management plans are resourced as far as assistance from the agency staff to pull them together. Those councils can choose to talk and plan with other agencies about other services they may provide whether it is tourism or whatever it may be.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. I suppose what I also should raise as part of the issue is that, if you took Schedule 1, it includes East Arnhem, West Arnhem - which includes Groote Eylandt – the Tiwi Island Shire Council and what was originally going to be the Litchfield Shire. You will now have Cox Peninsula, Coomalie and Belyuen in a Schedule 1 region. What is the logic behind that? If we took the old Top End Shire, what is the regional thinking behind it being attached to Groote Eylandt? It is a long way away. Someone has drawn up this idea of three regions. On what basis? It should have been more regions. There should have been regions based on a closer locale. I just mentioned that one we used to call Top Roc. There was another one with Jabiru, Pine Creek and Adelaide River. Why were such large regions singled out? Can you see that it would be difficult to say that Groote Eylandt had some core functions that could be relevant to, say, Litchfield Shire?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I guess we have eight large shires, three small ones, and five municipals at the moment. That is 16 in total. If you take out the municipals, you have 11. Three regional plans for 11 shires is reasonable. They will have their own shire plans which will cover large regions, as you have identified. Having only three regional management plans is appropriate to cover the Territory. Those councils can enter into planning or other arrangements with those councils outside this planning regime. We want to have three regional management plans on the table to ensure that these councils are delivering core services.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, clause 16(5) says:
- LGANT may participate in consultation related to a regional management plan.
I do not want Tony Tapsell to take this the wrong way because it is not against the LGANT ...
Mr Knight: We know what it is about.
Mr WOOD: It is not against LGANT.
Mr Knight: You would not let him in.
Mr WOOD: What I am saying is that LGANT, basically, is a representative of the councils. I am not sure it is the role of the government to tell them that they can participate in a regional management plan. Surely, it would be done at the request of the council within that region. They should be the one to say that they would like LGANT to represent them or to work with them in the development of a regional plan - not the government saying that LGANT can do that. It should come from the council within that region.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, these regional management plans are proposed and resourced by the government to look across vast regions to work with those councils about efficiencies and about being accountable. LGANT is the peak body. They may come into this with the things that they are doing, and they should - they are the peak body. Whatever you think of them, Gerry - and you should have let him in the meeting. You kicked him out. You know what a great job LGANT does and can do and should do. It is the peak local government body for the Northern Territory organisations. It does a great job for the Northern Territory, and outside of the Northern Territory on a national scene. It has a wealth of information about what is happening interstate and overseas. It gives them the ability to be part of it and to make a valuable contribution to the plans across the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I am not going to mention their role one bit, but they do have an important role. Mine was a more technical query. This act says they ‘may participate in consultation’, but they are the peak body for members. What I am saying is, it should be the members that say they would like LGANT to represent them on the regional management plan, not the government. This says ‘LGANT may participate in consultation’ relating to regional management plans.
I am not saying it should not be, but I think that would have been up to the members to decide, that is all. It is like the union; if you want the union to represent us at the meeting or come along, yes. So it is more technical. It is not putting down LGANT at all. I believe they would certainly play an important role in regional management plans. It is just saying that it has come from the wrong side of the road when you put this clause in.
Can I get a clarification what clause we are on, Madam Chair?
Madam CHAIR: Clause 17.
Mr WOOD: Clause 17(1)(b): I know I had a briefing on this, but I just need a clarification. It says:
- (1) A regional management plan:
…
- (b) must define, for shire councils within the region, the core local government services, and where they are to be delivered, in the region.
Does that mean that every council within that region will deliver exactly the same core, local government services, and at the same level? And that will be tied in to all councils by this management plan. Is that what it means?
Mr KNIGHT: I guess that is exactly what we want to achieve out of these regional management plans. They will come from the shire plans. That is what we want to achieve. We want that transparency across the region to say that this shire, and this community within that shire, is receiving that core service at that level, and this community and this other shire is receiving at that level. We want to have a look at that. We want to expose the level of services that are happening out there. We want to be able to see how good shires are delivering good services, and we want to be able to identify the shires that are not delivering good core services to indigenous communities.
The setting out, the structure, the work to develop those plans will be done by the agency. You are probably alluding to the fact that it will be fairly extensive work, and it will be. It will be getting all those shire plans, which they will be developing themselves, as they should, and bringing them together and identifying them all.
Mr WOOD: What I am saying is that, if I read this the way it is, if the regional development plans must define for shire councils within the region the core local government services, are they saying that every local government council within the region will provide exactly the same services at exactly the same level, and there will be no room to move between one council and the other as to what core local government services they can provide?
Mr KNIGHT: I believe you are taking the interpretation of ‘define’ meaning ‘direct’, but I am taking it as being ‘described’. Does that answer your question? You think that we are saying ‘must define’, so you are saying that the regional management plan must tell the council in that region how to deliver its core service. The regional management plan actually describes the shire, it describes the service and where it is being delivered. I guess we are talking about a definition of the word ‘define’. Am I on the right track there?
Mr WOOD: I was concerned that it was actually going to make a level playing field across X number of councils and they were not going to have any variations in what they could do. That was what was concerning me. So if one council did not want to have dog control and the other one did want to have dog control, this would not allow them to do that, they would have to have a level number of core services. So that is not the case, that is what you are saying? They could vary their core services according to each council.
Mr KNIGHT: You are again alluding to the big brother. I think that is what you are getting at. It is a transparency mechanism. The plan will be developed, as I said, from the shire plans, which describe their services and where they are delivering those. It is a description.
Mr WOOD: I am just trying to get a clarification. We are adding extra layers of bureaucracy here and I want to see how it works. All right, this council says this is the core function, then it goes to a regional management meeting with four other councils to set up a regional management plan. What has that got to do with the regional management plan? I have a set of core functions here, I am council X, and council Y has a series of core functions it wants to carry out, and council Z has another set of core functions. They all come together. What is the reason they have to define their core local government services? What is the reason for that? You are saying things like the cemetery or some equipment. I am just wondering what the mechanics of all this will be when it goes into place. What is the reason for that clause (1)(b) to be there?
Mr KNIGHT: It is to provide some definition of how those regional management plans are going to be developed. It gets back to being accountable. That has been the part which has been lacking. With the framework that local governments operated in there has been an issue with accountability. We have had various regional plans over the years, regional economic plans or whatever they may be. This puts local government services in that kind of regional context. There may be some opportunities that come about with identification of similar services which can be delivered on a regional basis rather than a local one. The clause will also expose those councils which are not providing those core services at a level that they should be.
This clause gives you an idea of how the plan is to be developed and what needs to be in it.
Mr WOOD: Thanks, minister. If I could just go on quickly with this clause 19 - and I do not want Tony Tapsell throwing something at me - but clause 19(2) is also related to LGANT and clause 19(2)(d) relates to LGANT. My query is not whether LGANT should be involved. I believe it is something the members of LGANT should decide themselves, whether they want LGANT to come onside or not. I know I will get the same answer you gave before. I just want to make it clear: it is not about LGANT not being involved. It is just that I have a different way of thinking in relation to who should say whether it should come into the consultation process.
Just quickly, clause 19(3): I am not sure if it is one of your amendments. It says:
- The draft regional management plan and the notice inviting written representations must also be published on the website of any councils whose area is within the relevant region.
Is that the only way that the draft management plan will be publicised, on the website? Not everyone is going to have a website. Will hard copies of that be available?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, amendment 31.9 covers that in clause 21.
Mr WOOD: Hang on, 21 what?
Madam CHAIR: Amendment 31.9
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, it is clause 21 though.
Madam CHAIR: Yes, it says that copies of a regional management plan are to be available free of charge at the agencies’ public offices at the public offices of a council in their area within a region.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, so clause 19.3 stays there. Then you have to read on further to find out that it is in …
Mr KNIGHT: It is in relation to the …
Mr WOOD: I am talking about the draft regional plan. Subclause (3) relates to the draft regional management plan. Is there anything to say that that should be available on a hard copy somewhere?
Mr Conlan: That is 21(3), is it not?
Mr WOOD: No, I am looking at 19(3). It also applies to 21(c) and 22(3).
Mr KNIGHT: In relation to that, clause 19(2)(c):
- a notice is published on the website and in a newspaper circulating generally throughout the Territory inviting written representations, within a period …
of one month prescribed. So it is published; it will be a fairly big document. I take on board what you are saying, but it is a draft. It will be quite a large document. It will be advertised in the paper and will be available on the website and ultimately available from the offices.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. That is all, Madam Chair.
Clauses 15 to 20, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Madam CHAIR: Members, I would like to adjourn proceedings for a period of five minutes.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed its consideration in Committee of the Whole:
Clause 21:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.9 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Just to clarify. Was that referring to clause 21 in the bill?
Mr KNIGHT: That is correct.
Mr WOOD: When you print the exposure draft in black and white, sometimes you cannot quite see which bit you might have added in. But it is all okay. I did not have anything.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move …
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I would like to speak before the minister, just in general. Part 3.2 deals with municipal or shire plans. One of the issues I have is that, compared to the council I knew and the council we are going to get now, there seems to be much more reporting. I am of the opinion that there is too much reporting. I know you have to certainly have some plans for what you do, and you have to account for the money you spend. My understanding is that not only will you have a regional management plan, but you will have a municipal or shire plan. That municipal shire plan will be made up of financial plans, and a strategic plan. You will have to review this municipal or shire plan. You will have to have a long-term financial plan, an annual budget, an annual financial statement, and you will have to have an annual report.
Has the government realised how much that process is going to cost a council, in the form of getting extra people to deal with all that. Maybe in the case of the big shires that is not a problem because they are going to get rid of all their CEOs and they are going to have one CEO and an accountant for the whole shire. If I refer to places like Coomalie, Belyuen, Litchfield, they are going to have to do all this as well. Is there any money in the budget, or has it been taken away to help fund those councils to put all this in process? This is a lot of work for a new council. Have you recognised what this will cost, and are you looking at providing some funds for the councils that did not end up as part of the reform process? I am not expecting them to be that way forever, by the way, but is there any financial assistance to help those councils?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, you have made an assertion that there will be extra work. I will only concede it on a couple of points. The regional management plans will be done ostensibly by the agency pulling together the shire and, hopefully, the municipal plans. So there will not be any sort of cost incurred there. The shire plans are basically the business plans that those councils do at the moment.
When I said I concede on a couple of points, it was about that long-term financial and strategic planning, because they need to do it. You know yourself that councils, a lot of the time, and Litchfield has looked into the future a bit with their depreciations, but there are many councils that do not, but it is a very prudent, modern business practice to be doing those sorts of things. That is what we are trying to aim for.
We are trying to make sure that these councils just do not go from year to year, and then find themselves in all sorts of trouble. We want them to look into the future to make sure that when they are setting their annual budget they are to take into account costs that will be borne in future years. I believe that cost will not be significant. Many of them do it now, and those large shires, which will probably incorporate many of those small councils that were not doing it, will have the capacity to do it themselves. Certainly, the business systems that they have in place, that we have provided, allow for that as well. I do not think there will be a cost incurred. I believe that Coomalie is forward thinking as far as its plans go, and those other councils should as well.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I have to beg to disagree. I spoke to Litchfield and they certainly think there is going to be an extra cost, because there is not only the cost of preparing these, you have to get these on to the web, you have to be able to put them out there and make sure they are accurate, you are going to have to have hard copies as well. Putting this out to the public and making sure that it is accurate will require some extra staff. I spoke to somebody on one of the smaller councils today and they said: ‘We have a strategic plan but because it is not in the format that the government wants …’, now, you would have to wonder why a strategic plan has to be in a format that the government wants. You really want to be able to read it and say: ‘That is my strategic plan’. But they have said that they would have to have a strategic plan in a format the government wants and that is going to take time and effort to do that.
I noticed that in the budget you spoke about $5m being provided to the new shires and I wonder whether that is for a lot of these sorts of things, if the government would be prepared to help councils financially, that is, the councils that are left over from the Top End Shire. They have to go through all this, and there is a fair bit of paperwork and material required. I am not saying that a lot of this is not necessary to make sure councils operate correctly, but some of the smaller councils may find it burdensome. I was curious if the government would consider giving those councils some financial help to do this.
Mr KNIGHT: I believe the large amalgamated shires are pretty right. I have spoken to those three smaller ones. I have a meeting this Sunday with Cox Peninsula, which may be the one you are referring to. We are happy to look at one-off costs that have resulted from this reform, but ultimately we want those councils operating at the same level of accountability and modern business practices that you would expect them to. We might be speaking about the same council. I have spoken to those three small ones. The shires should be right and the municipals as well.
Mr WOOD: What concerns me is this: this is one of the Tiwi Island’s Shire Council business plans. This is pretty thick; this is a lot of stuff to go through. I do not believe that you have to run a council to this extent. This is starting to get out of hand. What I am concerned about is that you are taking it to a level that is not required to provide good services. You do not want to get struck down with this. Could I also ask while we are dealing with the general issue of municipal or shire-type plans, these business plans that we see here, this is only a draft one, these will be incorporated in a municipal or shire plan, would they not? If a council adopted this, this would be a part of this?
Mr KNIGHT: The business plan would be the shire plan. On that document you have there. I do not think that you were being derogatory against Tiwi people using that particular one at all.
Mr Wood: No, I have fond memories.
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Arafura gets very touchy about that.
Mr Wood: She likes to needle me when she gets the opportunity.
Mr KNIGHT: It is very interesting that you say that because it is a very complex document. When I met with the Tiwi council, the former member for Arafura, Maurice Rioli, was there. He is one of the key departmental staff and he said: ‘This is what I need as a manager of my section. This is not for the general Joe Blow, this is for me to use so I can actually do my job. I can drill into it and see exactly what I am doing, what I am getting out of it, how much I have, and what I am supposed to provide’. It is very much a working document. He found it very useful. Those business plans will effectively be the shire plans. That is the planning software that has been provided to the shires.
Mr WOOD: There is no doubt; I am not knocking having a business plan. I am just saying that the level of complexity and detail may not be required. The business plan for Litchfield Shire certainly was not this thick. You might say that it was not thick enough, but it did the job for the core functions.
I need to know how this fits into this whole bill. This is the important document; each council has had one of these done. I will try to get this into perceptive. This is a draft and it is the first draft for most councils. Litchfield, however, has a second draft. These were supposed to be looked at by the transition committees. There is supposed to be a final draft out in May. The problem I have at the moment is that on the web page I do not see any minutes of any transition committees this year, bar one, in 2008. I do not know from the local government website whether anything has changed.
What I need to know is that once we pass this legislation, once a business plan has been approved by the shire, would such things in here, like the big list of core services, if that what was agreed, that is what the council has to take on. If it says in here that you will take on certain commercial functions – it is written in some of these documents ‘will’, although I do note that when you go to the website you get a summary version. The summary version has different wording in relation to the commercial services. Someone has changed that slightly. I will give you an example. It talks about services for all and it says:
- Many communities will also be able to access a range of commercial and agency services, as well as community facilities. Commercial services are those that will be delivered on a fully commercial basis in …
in this case, the Victoria Daly Shire.
It is not saying you will do them, but they will be available on a fully commercial basis, but when you open up this document here, it starts to talk about ‘… you will do those things’. I am a bit concerned as to what is going to come out at the end. Will we have a chance to look at the final drafts? This legislation is going to be passed and it will tie councils to exactly what is in this final business plan, all their core functions, agency services, commercial services that, if I read this one correctly, they ‘will’ have to do. I am concerned about that.
How is this all going to work. Will we be expecting the final draft of this next month? Is that up for public discussion or is it just something that the councils agree on and it will automatically be part of this, and we will not be able to see this as part of a debate anywhere. Once there is a final draft approved by the transition committee, will that be it? No more debate? That is how I see it. And then, automatically, it will come as part of this legislation?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, those first drafts were very rough. I will freely acknowledge they were very rough. The second draft, which provides much more clarity, more solid numbers in there, and job numbers as well, is due in a matter of days. I would expect there to be at least one more, and maybe two more fine tuning drafts before 30 June, for these business plans. May has been locked in. The recent announcement about CDEP will again change things within the business plans and the staffing numbers. The one you have there is a very rough first draft, with a lot of information pulled in from a larger region. They will ultimately be published.
I will look into the matter about the website. The second draft of the business plans will be circulated and will be made public, and I would imagine the third and possibly a fourth, if there is one, will be circulated as well.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am dealing with clause 23(1)(a) if that is all right, minister?
Contents of municipal or shire plan. In clarification, minister, that clause 23(1)(a) says:
- (1) A municipal or shire plan:
- (a) must contain:
- (i) a service delivery plan for the period to which the municipal or shire plan relates prepared in accordance with planning requirements specified in a relevant regional management plan;
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, as you know, the municipal councils can be part of these regional management plans. If they choose to be part of the regional management plan, they have to set out their core services and, being the size they are, should be in accordance with the planning requirements of the regional management plan. If they choose to opt in to the regional management plan, they will have to set out their service delivery plans in accordance with the regional management plan.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, minister. It might be a technical point in the way it is written. Even though I know they are excluded, if they want to be, from a regional management plan, this does not write that exclusion into it. It simply says that a municipal plan must contain a service delivery plan for the period for which the municipal shire plan relates, in accordance with planning requirements specified in a relevant management plan. It might be technical in the words, but I would have thought that it would then have to say ‘if a municipality was part of a regional plan’. Maybe it is too technical, but it seems to me that it is not clear - that is all I am saying.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, we need to go to lunch with Parliamentary Counsel, maybe, if you want to argue technical points. This has been out there for a while. You have one interpretation of it, and they have a different interpretation of it. If they are going to come in, that is what the prescription is. They have the option to come in and out but, if they are in, that is the way they do it. I have to trust Parliamentary Counsel on this one.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. Even Parliamentary Counsel are fallible sometimes. We have to understand that this is the committee stage and we are going through this bill. As some people have said, this is one of the most important bills put before the parliament, and it is worthy of scrutiny. I always say that we only have one House of parliament here. We do not have a second House of review, and the committee stage is one of the most important stages in the process. I know it is a long, drawn-out process, but it is one of the most valuable processes we can carry out. If I sound like I am drumming on a bit with some of these issues, it is important that we ensure they are clear. Then, if people want to read later in the Parliamentary Record what you said about the clause, it is there for people to read. Thank you, minister, we will move on.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 33.11 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.12 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 27:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.13 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.14 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 30:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.15.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 35, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 36:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.16 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I welcome this change. It is an important change. The idea of having a person restricted to living in a particular ward meaning that that person could only stand in that ward was against what I call the basic philosophy of this Local Government Bill. It should be up to the people in the shire to decide who represents them, whether they live in a particular ward or not. If they live within the shire, that is fair enough. As I have said before, in the Northern Territory I can live in Howard Springs and stand in the electorate of Greatorex. I would say my chances of getting elected are pretty slim …
A member: Oh, I do not know.
Mr WOOD: My good looks might help. But that leaves it up to the people in that electorate to decide. To change what you have done is far more democratic and puts an emphasis, which I think should be in this bill, that we should be making it clear that elected representatives are responsible to those who elect them more than the government or the agency. Thank you for that change.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, my question in relation to this qualification will probably come up again later when we get to the code of conduct. The code of conduct has been included, I believe, because the government saw some issues in relation to Darwin’s Lord Mayor at the time. There were issues about whether what had happened would allow that person to be removed from council. I am not a really great supporter of the code of conduct, and the disciplinary committee as has been written into this bill further on. Why I am bringing it up here is that I think that under this section here you could cover some of those things. For instance, if someone was charged with theft or fraud, you could put under the disqualification clauses a clause which stated that. It is clear here that there are certain things that you cannot do and hold office, or cannot even stand for office.
I would prefer this section to be looked at and maybe clauses added, rather than introducing a whole new extra bit of bureaucracy in the form of disciplinary committees and codes of conduct. When we get to that I will raise some issues.
Minister, was there any consideration given to widening the reasons for disqualification under this section, rather than introducing a code of conduct?
Mr KNIGHT: This clause actually prescribes a number of things. Darwin City Council is the classic example of a very unusual situation. There has to be flexibility. The tribunal is a very accountable and responsible body to make that interpretation so, although there are areas that are defined within this particular clause, for disqualification, there is the provision for unusual instances. I understand what you are saying. By having this clause, and the tribunal, there is enough scope to cater for any particular instance, as well as ensuring we avoid the same situation we had with Darwin City Council.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, just on subclause (1)(c)
(1) A person is disqualified from office as a member of a council if the person:
…
- (c) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment (which has not expired) of one year or more;
Essentially, the bar has been lowered. The previous terms were that three months within the last five years would disqualify a person from office. We have seen in the past some quite lenient sentences for some quite serious crimes. My question is why is it necessary to effectively lower that bar where a person could serve 364 days of the year for a serious crime, but still be eligible for office?
Mr KNIGHT: I am not too sure. You will have to give me some more clarification. My reading of the current act, the Local Government Act, section 9(1)(e):
- has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more for an offence and that term has not expired;
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, minister, you are right. Three hundred and sixty-six days, one day more than one year, and is still eligible for office.
Mr KNIGHT: Say that again, sorry, 366 …
Mr CONLAN: Essentially, in the act here, it says that … a person is disqualified from office if he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment (which has not expired) of one year or more …’, where, previously, three months within the last five years would disqualify a person from office. My point is that the bar has been lowered to disqualify someone from serving on a council. I was wondering why that has changed.
Mr KNIGHT. Madam Chair, can you refer to the section within the current act that you are referring to?
Mr CONLAN: Clause 37(1)(c).
Mr KNIGHT: You will have to give me more clarity, member for Greatorex, in that 37 …
Madam CHAIR: Are you referring to the proposed bill?
Mr KNIGHT: There is no 37(1)(c).
Mr CONLAN: Disqualification, minister.
Mr Wood: Which bill are you referring to?
Madam CHAIR: It says about three months. What clause is it?
Mr CONLAN: In an earlier draft, terms of three months within the last five years would disqualify. Has there been a change, minister, and why is that?
Madam CHAIR: What clause is that in the old …
Mr CONLAN: I have just made a note here, so I have not got a …
Mr KNIGHT: I cannot seem to find the reference in the old act for that particular section, but as far as the legitimacy of this provision here, it is consistent with the Australian Constitution and it is consistent with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, so as far as it being an appropriate clause, it is certainly consistent with the national and Territory legislation.
I am sorry, I do not know what you are quoting from there.
Mr CONLAN: I will find the previous one, thank you, minister.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Chair, I would hate to confuse things here, but the way it is now, it does not mean that they have to serve that time. That is a sentence that is handed down. And just about invariably people do not serve the full sentence, but it is the sentence that is handed down, not the time they serve.
Mr CONLAN: That makes it clear, thank you, member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr WOOD: My concern is clause 37(1)(d) and it needs clarification as it is an important clause. I believe it has changed from the previous act, especially in relation to community government councils.
Mr KNIGHT: Do you want me to move - that is the amendment.
Mr WOOD: I beg your pardon. I do not have the pretty colours. When I am looking through here they do not stand out, sorry. I will wait for you to move that amendment minister.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.17 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: I will just read what you said, so that I can make sure that I understand this fully. You say: ‘Clause 37(1)(d) provides that if a person was employed by a council they could not be a council member. The amendment provides that only employees whose seniority disqualifies them will not be eligible to be a council member, guidelines will clarify which positions are disqualified, and they will be the senior and management positions within a council’. Minister, this has always been a bit of a hot potato. It has been an issue because there is conflict of interest and all that sort of thing, and in municipal councils my understanding is that you simply could not. In community government councils it can only be done with the minister’s approval.
This is only going to say to us, that with both municipal councils and shires there is a change and you do not have to get ministerial approval - or we do not know that as we are going to have some guidelines. However, we are now going to pass an amendment without seeing what those guidelines are. This is a very important part of local government to make sure there is no hint of corruption, or paternalism, or influence into contracts, etcetera, or financial matters of council. Yet you are asking us to pass an amendment without seeing the guidelines which would set this particular amendment in place.
Minister, do you have a copy of the ministerial guidelines we can look at before we agree or disagree to this clause?
Mr KNIGHT: I acknowledge that this particular clause has given a great deal of consternation. From the travel I did, and talking to various communities, it became very clear that we need to have that ability, at least in the short term, for members of council to be able to serve on the council. We want those members from bush communities, the smartest and most intelligent people, to be advocating their region’s or their local community’s cause within local government.
It is consistent across Australia that you cannot. However, in Queensland, it is allowable, especially in the Cape York communities. They have a four-year transition of that provision out of the Local Government Act. However, there is the acknowledgment within their scheme that you cannot be a Deputy CEO or the Assistant Chief Financial Officer.
It was a compromise about ensuring that we got the best possible people on those councils but recognising that we did not want to have them too close to the decision-making level. Going back to the elected members’ training, it is about identifying clearly what conflict of interest is and about what you can and cannot do. Also, you need to acknowledge that being an employee of a council is an obvious potential conflict of interest. Being involved in other obligations out bush has greater potential for conflict of interest. There is a whole range of conflict of interest; this is just one that is fairly obvious.
These shires are going to take on a lot of roles across the shires especially, and we just have to be careful we do not disempower the governance of these shires, at the communities’ detriment, by being too prescriptive. It is something that we have had to consider very fully, and the ministerial guidelines will reflect that. The guidelines will come out and they will be open for consultation, but this bill will have to pass first. Those guidelines will certainly be distributed for consultation.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I understand that, and I have some sympathy with what you are saying. When you have a small population base and you are trying to get the best people to operate the council, that is what you are trying to do. That is what the community government section of the Local Government Act enables.
Because this is something new for municipals, in my understanding it is just simply not allowed - full stop. I am interested now, if someone fits within the ministerial guidelines – I really need to know what those ministerial guidelines are. I am interested to know which levels of seniority. I know you are saying some, but I hope that they are written somewhere so that the councils have the guidelines for who can stand and who cannot. It would be interesting to look at how that actually works in practical terms in relation to conflict of interest for a member of the council.
Clause 73(1) states:
- A member has a conflict of interest in a question arising for decision by the council, local board or council committee if the member or an associate of the member has a personal or financial interest in how the question is decided.
You also have that playing along at the same time. It would be unwise to have a person who works for the council, who may not be right at the top but, maybe somewhere in the middle but is dealing with a lot of issues, who would then find themselves in the position of always having a conflict of interest in many of these issues and, then, can hardly be the person who can take part in the decision-making.
I am just putting forward that there could have been some more discussion. I do not know what the municipal councils think about this change. I discussed with one of my fellow parliamentarians that one of the council presidents was concerned about this particular clause. I wondered whether this clause has been sent out. I know it has been e-mailed but whether, for instance - well, I am not sure that councils knew that this was going to be debated tonight - if they knew that these changes were going to occur and did they support those changes? This now allows municipals to have people standing which they did not have before. There are two sides to this coin that need to be discussed and debated.
Mr KNIGHT: I guess the alternative was to take it out. I believe it would have disempowered those shires. As far as the circulation of this, it has been in the old act. We were taking advice into consideration right up to almost the last minute. This was circulated to those councils last Friday, as soon as we could get it out. If we had taken this provision out, in the short term we would potentially disempower those communities.
For the municipals, I do not think the potential for that exists as much as it does for the shires. You obviously have a greater job pool. I do not know how many positions the Darwin City Council has, but there are certainly more jobs in the Darwin City Council area outside of the council than what you would have in some of the communities. An example is Ali Curung, which I visited. You have a council operating and those councillors have been on council for a while. They are the smartest, the most active, enthusiastic people. Every single one of those council members would be ineligible if we had left this provision out. So that community, as far as an advocacy, a person on that Barkly Shire Council would be worse off.
I guess it is in recognition that these shires have taken on a great deal of responsibility from day one, but in the coming years may take on a greater or lesser degree of responsibility. We have to acknowledge that, but also keep a close eye on it. This is just one area of conflict of interest which is very obvious and which we obviously focus on, but there is a whole range of other areas, and that is why education about conflict of interest is very important.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I accept that. I am not trying to debate that side of it. The difference is that you said that this was in the old act, but the old act had the guidelines written in there. We do not have the guidelines here and that is something that is missing. Do you have any idea when the guidelines might be available?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, the guidelines will be out in a couple of weeks. There will be things in there that have been removed from the key decision makers, the Director of Corporate Services and the CEO, and I am sure there will be other provisions about training and things like that. So, yes, a couple of weeks, and it certainly will be circulated to you, member for Nelson.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I will quickly refer to clause 39(1)(f):
- (1) A person ceases to hold office as a member of a council if the person:
- …
- (f) is removed from office by the Minister under Part 7.5.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.18 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 42:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.19 as circulated.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr WOOD: That includes 1A, is that right?
Mr KNIGHT: That is right.
Mr WOOD: It is probably a good time to bring it up now, in the case of 42(1A)(b), where it says:
in the case of the Litchfield Council …
and, of course, the word ‘Shire’ is missing there. Minister, you did say to me the other night, that the council could have the word ‘shire’ remaining in its title. I put that to the shire. They said the department told them they had to have the word ‘Shire’ taken out. I spoke to the department last night and they said that is not the case. I rang the president of the council and the chief executive officer. They said they would like to keep the name ‘Shire’, but of course could not do it until they had passed it at a meeting, given that they had said originally that they were willing to take it out.
That was all right when I knew we were going to debate this on Thursday night. The fact is they might have started the meeting by 6.35 pm to discuss the issue. It is probably not practical for me to come in here with an amendment saying where it refers to Litchfield council it should be Litchfield Shire. I ask the minister under the powers in this act, if the Litchfield Shire Council came back to you and said they would like the word ‘Shire’ still left in the act - because this act will not apply until 1 July - have you, under the powers in this act, the ability to take up a change? Can you do that without me having to bring an amendment to the parliament?
Mr KNIGHT: I have not heard anything from the Litchfield Shire Council. You are saying you have. There is, I understand, a provision that they can actually take on that name, but they will be referred to in this act as it stands today because I do not have any contrary advice such as a council resolution which says they want to be called Litchfield Shire. I understand that can change, but, as far as this act goes tonight, it will go through as Litchfield council because that is my understanding of their intention.
Mr WOOD: That is what we discussed last night at the briefing, and it was not until after the briefing that I was told that this bill was coming tonight instead of Thursday. That meant there was difficulty getting a council meeting to change the name. I am not party to the discussions Litchfield Shire had with the department. All I am saying is that the President of Litchfield Shire Council said to me last night he would be happy if the name stayed there. What I am trying to clarify, minister, is if the council does decide tonight that they would like to retain the name Litchfield Shire, would you have the power to install that name in the act, or would I have to bring forward an amendment at some later date?
Mr KNIGHT: Apparently, it can be done by gazettal, but again we have a council resolution and apparently there was no pressure brought to bear on them at all. We will look at that in the future, but it can be done through gazettal.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 63:
Mr WOOD: Just some clarification. In relation to clause 44(1)(b), I would have preferred that all mayors or presidents be elected by the populace. I realise that these changes do include what used to happen under community government councils anyway. However, for the sake of trying to keep politics or anything else out of local government, I always refer people to a documentary called Rats in the Rank that used to be on ABC television. It is a classic reason why it is better for people to elect their president or mayor rather than the councillors. Whether it is political parties or whether it is groupings or whatever, it takes that bias out of the election.
Minister, the word ‘appointment’ is used in subclause (2), and also in clause 44(1)(b). Does that mean there is no election within the council? Normally you can elect people by the populace or you can elect people from the councillors. Does ‘appoint’ have a different meaning here?
Mr KNIGHT: It does. ‘Appointment’ is basically the method. As you understand, the shires can choose to do it by populace or do it from within their own. So the word ‘appointment’ is describing the method in which that is undertaken.
Mr WOOD: Did we get to clause 47?
Madam CHAIR: Yes, clauses 43 to 63.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, clause 47. This one is interesting. We talk about the setting up of the council office, but there is nothing to say that the council office must be within the boundaries of the shire. Should it be?
Mr KNIGHT: No, member for Nelson. We have situations where shires are going east and west of a major regional centre, as in Alice Springs, where that is the central hub and that central office will not be in the shire of MacDonnell or Central Desert, and with Roper Gulf as well as Victoria Daly because it will be in Katherine. So there is recognition that the Territory is different and we have regional centres which fall into the auspices of municipal councils and you are going to have the shire council in their regional centre. We are a bit different in the Territory as you know and the local government is going to be different.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I was going to raise this civil issue later but it may be worth raising it now. One of the concerns I have with these council offices not being in their shire is that we are actually taking people out of the shire. Tennant Creek is an example where there will be certain jobs that belong to Barkly that will be moving to Alice Springs. In the case of Victoria Daly, the advertisements for positions available for the Victoria Daly are not at Port Keats, or Nguiu, or Timber Creek. They are actually at Katherine. They are for the human resources manager, the site services manager, manager of assets, manager of finance, accounts payable officer, accounts receivable officer, and purchasing officer. They are basically saying that ‘we currently have the following vacancies to be based in our headquarters in Katherine’.
I know what you are saying, but one of the downsides of having a public office in these central areas is that for a town like Tennant Creek it is a very bad thing because it loses some of its people to another centre. In a shire like Victoria Daly it is saying that Katherine is the easiest place to put it because it is on the main highway, it is accessible. They have an Aboriginal township out here of 2000 or 3000 people but we are not willing to put the people there in the heart of the council they are to serve. It sends the wrong message if we keep saying that we need to put the public office in those shires. Maybe it has some practicalities but I would have liked these people to work in my shire, if possible, and that would send a better message to the people in that shire.
Mr KNIGHT: It is my understanding that 90% of the local government jobs will be within the shires. I guess you have to, member for Nelson, leave it up to the members of those shire councils, as in shire transition committees, to decide where they situate their head office to a degree. The people of Ports Keats may love to have their head office there; however, some of the other members of that particular shire would disagree with that.
Some of the positions you describe are positions that were previously contracted out. Now, they will be in-house. Yes, I recognise what you are saying but, as I say, 90% of the jobs will be out in the shire doing those works, and there will be depots and smaller offices out on each one of those communities employing local people. We have had to look at efficiencies, and what is the most acceptable manner of providing headquarters and local offices.
Mr WOOD: Clause 63, just quickly on local boards, minister. I welcome the changes from the original bill which spoke about local boards with three men and three women and, you name it, it was all very prescriptive. However, I have a couple of concerns still. Local boards do not have a lot of seats, even though people might talk about them. The facts are that a council may establish one or more local boards – ‘may’ is the point to make. Also, the council may abolish it. However, if we go further down, clause 51 says:
- (1) A local board is to consist of:
(a) the members of the council who are resident within the local board’s area or who represent wards within the area; and
(c) any other person whom the council appoints to be a member of the local board.
This is my argument: you would be better off with a progress association, because they would just have voluntary people who came along and joined that association. This board has a lot of control via the council, and you have to ask: what is the point of the board because, if it can appoint people as it sees fit, do you not think that you are losing the real need for the board? I would expect that board to elect its own people who voluntarily want to belong to that board, not to the ones that the council would like to be on that board. Do you think that the board will not be seen to be independent?
Mr KNIGHT: There the two things that you need to recognise here. The shire council needs to have a legitimate responsibility for the direction of the shire. Also, shire councils - and I put a great deal of trust in them - know that local advice needs to come from the bottom up, not from the top down, because it just will not work. We have seen that with a number of missives by government federally over the last 12 months; that you cannot impose and direct down into communities, you have to come from the bottom up. Therefore, these local boards will play a key role in the development and direction of those local communities. Also, one of the key members of that local management board will be the shire councillor. Again, as a legitimate third sphere of government, that shire council has the responsibility to ensure that those local boards are the most representative body in that community, that they want to get their advice from.
Therefore, they need that flexibility to put some members on there who, maybe, traditionally never got on a local body that provided advice through to the overarching governance body. You, perhaps, know of instances around the Territory where certain groups were excluded from local boards or local government groups. It allows that flexibility, but the shires will recognise the importance of these local management boards in driving, from the ground up, advice and direction to the success of the shire as a whole.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister but, under clause 52(2), I do not think they are driven from the ground up. It says here: ‘a local board is subject to control and direction by the council’. So, it is the other way around. I am concerned that these were set up in response to people’s concerns that local communities would lose their identity. I think you spoke about it yourself.
I feel you would retain far more of your identity if you had an independent progress association, or ratepayers association, or landholders association or whatever, where they elected their own people, where they had their own members, and they were not subject to the direction of a council. But they were a legitimate body that was set up with a corporation. It could be the Douglas Daly; they could set themselves up as a corporation there, and they came to council meetings or they asked the councillors to come to those meetings. You would achieve the same thing, but that little association would be much more independent than this board. That is what concerns me; that these boards will be a little like puppet regimes that are not really independent.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I guess that can happen. They are independent associations. This is local government, this is local government services, and we have to give legitimacy to the elected shire council. And also the shire council, if it deals inappropriately with a local management board, it is going to suffer because it is not going to get that clear direction and advice about where it needs to go. Then, also, if the shire council believes that a local management board should be given some responsibility it can delegate some functions to the local management board. Also, if a local community wants to set up their own association for its own purposes, it can do that outside of local government. But certainly, for local government services and the governance of these new shires, it is going to be in the way of the shire council and these local management boards.
Mr WOOD: I am retrieving my notes, clause 61(8), I could not remember what it was. This is in relation to procedures at meetings. It says here: ‘unless the council decides unanimously to take a vote by secret ballot, voting is to be by a show of hands’. This is in relation to council meetings. I know that has been in local government for a while, but I must admit that I prefer that voting was open and there were some guidelines to say when it should not be, rather than a council deciding that they can decide when it should be in secret. I believe that one of the great benefits of local government is that you can go to a council meeting and sit in the public gallery and watch your councillors vote. So you know if you want to support that councillor at the next election because he thought a 98-storey building in Palmerston was the ideal thing, but you can see how he or she votes. We should try to retain that as much as possible in local government, except where it could deal with, for instance, contracts or some matters pertaining to a member of staff, the usual things which are not normally out there in the open in relation to the public.
I know there can be problems when setting up committees, that some people might not like to vote against a councillor over the road when they are forming a committee within a council, but I would rather see the rules say ‘voting will always be open except for the following’, rather than leaving it up to the council to decide.
Now, that may rarely happen, but I think it is the philosophy behind local government that it retains that openness, transparency and accountability to the people who elected it. I do not know what your opinion on that would be. I know it has been around a while and probably some councils would like it there. I am not here to defend what councils want; I am here to defend what I think is good for the democratic process. I do not know what you think on that, minister?
Mr KNIGHT: I guess those councils will be judged upon their application of this provision. You have named two or three instances where it could be used, there are probably a hundred where it could be used, and you cannot put them all in there. You have to put the responsibility back on that council. If they misuse this provision, they will be judged, ultimately, at the next election. There may be many reasons for a certain councillor or the council to utilise this provision. It has been around for a while and people will judge those councils on the application of them.
Clauses 43 to 63, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed its consideration in Committee of the Whole:
Clause 64:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.20 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I would like to thank the minister for that change, which was something that came out of the briefing. It is an important change. Previously the council appointed the Chair. This allows the members of the board to appoint the Chair, and that is a good move.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 to 100, by leave, taken together:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, clause 65, Meetings to be open to the public. This relates to clause 65(2); it says:
- However, the public may be excluded while business of a kind classified by the regulations as confidential business is being considered.
Minister, are those regulations available yet?
Mr KNIGHT: My understanding is that the regulations will be developed after we pass this bill. We will be apprised of those regulations when they become available.
Mr WOOD: I understand that. However, the problem from my point of view is that I am passing the bill and, hopefully, agreeing with the regulations which will probably never come back to parliament. You can see from other sections of the act where there are meant to be guidelines and I have to agree to the clause, but I have not seen the guidelines. It might be normal for government to process things that way, but it is a little frustrating in some ways if you have to agree to something when it is not here; it will be available in a few weeks time. I understand regulations take time to put together, but you are dealing with a complete bill here. It would be good if the regulations were available to be checked out as well.
Mr KNIGHT: In answer to that, we show good faith in this process with this particular legislation. You described how we took some matters on board in previous clauses. As you say, we have to pass this legislation to actually get these regulations under way. They will go to consultation, and the good faith that we showed in this legislation will continue in the regulations and the guidelines.
Mr WOOD: Same question in relation to clause 71(2) regarding allowances and expenses. I might have received those guidelines. This one refers to the allowance being set at a rate fixed by the council, subject to guidelines issued by the minister for the relevant financial year. They are the draft proposals that are being put out, I presume? Okay.
My next question relates to clause 78(3) in relation to interpretation. Clause 78(3), under Making or adoption of a code of conduct, says:
- If a code of conduct made or adopted by a council is in any respect less stringent than a provision in Schedule 2, the relevant provision of Schedule 2 applies as a provision of the council’s code.
My question is: why is it less stringent and who makes that assessment? I refer to Schedule 2 - these are pretty broad: ‘A member must act with honesty and integrity’. Who is to say that he was acting with integrity? ‘A member must act with reasonable care and diligence in performing official functions’. Who is going to say if that was reasonable? ‘A member must act with courtesy towards other members’. That could be open for interpretation. It says here that if a council makes a code of conduct that is not as stringent as this, then this schedule applies. I am asking: who makes those judgments?
Mr KNIGHT: My understanding is that if there is a complaint about the code of conduct which the council has adopted and they feel that the code of conduct is less stringent than what is prescribed in Schedule 2, they have to appeal through the disciplinary committee. Then, obviously, they have recourse up through the tribunal as well. Councils adopt them; they look at where it is in Schedule 2, and they apply their code of conduct. However, if people feel that the code of conduct has not been applied, and they question whether it is strong enough, they have recourse through the disciplinary committee.
Mr WOOD: Could you tell me where I could see that process? That is, if someone does not believe that the council’s code of conduct is less stringent, where in the disciplinary proceedings do I find the ability for someone to disagree with that?
Mr KNIGHT: It is contained in clause 79. A person actually has to make a complaint regarding a breach of the council’s code of conduct. They make a complaint to the disciplinary committee that they feel that the code of conduct has been breached and is not in compliance with this act, and as stringent as Schedule 2. So, they have to actually make a complaint.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, Division 2, Disciplinary proceedings, clause 79, Complaints of breach of code of conduct. It is about a breach of the code of conduct. It is not a complaint that the code of conduct is not stringent enough. I do not see where that clause has anything to do with somebody making an assessment as to whether the council’s code of conduct is less stringent than Schedule 2. I do not believe that you could use that to cause that. It appears to me someone has to make a decision as to whether the code of conduct is strict enough.
Mr KNIGHT: The provisions within this act say that the council must have a more stringent, or as stringent, a code of conduct as prescribed here. Provisions in clause 73 say that if someone feels that a code of conduct has been breached, they lodge a complaint with the agency. I guess the council would be either in breach of their own code of conduct, or that their code of conduct is not sufficient to meet the level that has been set within Schedule 2.
Mr WOOD: We may have to agree to disagree because, under the section, Disciplinary proceedings, we have a section which deals with the complaints of a breach of code of conduct; establishment and composition of disciplinary committees; and procedure of disciplinary committees, at clause 80 and clause 81. I think that clause 78(3) is not dealt with under that section. So, we may have to agree to disagree, and I suppose wait for the time that a council draws up its code of conduct and see who instigates this so-called process to see whether their code of conduct is less stringent than the one the government has drawn up.
Mr KNIGHT: When these councils are setting their code of conduct, they will be aware of not only the setting of them, the requirement in there, but also the relevance to a breach of the code of conduct. They will inform themselves of this legislation and set those codes of conduct appropriately.
Mr WOOD: My next query is in relation to Division 2, Disciplinary proceedings. My basic question is: do we need disciplinary proceedings? In the end, councils are responsible to the people who elected them. When you read your code of conduct, which disciplinary proceedings will apply? They are very general codes of conduct. You know: ‘A member must not direct, reprimand or interfere in the management of council staff’, a lot of those things are open to interpretation. ‘A member must act with courtesy towards other members’. That could be really open to greater interpretation. Someone might just have the grumps.
We have to give councils a bit of leeway to some extent. They are only human beings, and if they do something silly, well, be it on their head, they will probably end up on the front page of the NT News. But, at the next election, let the people decide whether that councillor is not worthy of being on the council. We are dealing with relatively minor things compared to what is in the disqualification clause. Some people have called this the Adamson amendment. They felt that, because of the issues that arose at Darwin City Council, there was no way to remove someone and suggested adding something to the disqualification clause.
I believe this is a big brother scenario. There is a danger that people could use this for political reasons. I know you have to go through the disciplinary committee. I know there is a tribunal and I know that it is independent. But people may use this as a way of getting at someone. We do not have it at the moment. Councillors should act properly but, in the end, if they do not, and it is not a serious offence, it is not a criminal offence under this disqualification section, let the people decide. They are the ones who decide. Look at the things that happen in this House that would not fit in this code of conduct. Have we kicked people out of the House? We have not. What we say is: ‘Well, if people do not like what that person has said or done, it will be up to the electorate at the next election’. Why should we not apply the same principle for people on councils?
We already have the disqualification section. That could be tightened up, as I said. We are making a larger bureaucracy, or adding a layer of big brother. I would rather this section just be dropped altogether. Hopefully we are dealing with adults. They will make mistakes from time to time. Leave it up to the people. That is my basic philosophy behind why we have a local government act. The councils are responsible for those people who elected them. Let them decide, not the government, not the minister.
Mr KNIGHT: I agree to disagree on this. I do not think you can wait for four years to resolve an issue at the ballot box for certain matters. There needs to be …
Mr WOOD: What happens here?
Mr KNIGHT: Well, it depends on what we do.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right. I am talking about minor things.
Mr KNIGHT: You have to understand that the disciplinary committee is not me. It is made up of a legal practitioner nominated by the Attorney-General, a nominee from the minister, and a nominee from LGANT. It is not some politically motivated body. It provides for the councils to resolve issues that come up within its terms. It is appropriate and will serve the councils well.
Mr WOOD: Of course there can be recommendations. The minister can remove a member on disciplinary grounds. When you look at the code of conduct, if it got more serious than some of these things, you would have to wonder whether you gone into criminal offence in the first place. When it gets into that sort of realm, that sort of seriousness, there is a likelihood the minister would have to step in. That sort of serious breach of conduct should be part of the disqualification section. That is all I am saying. If you look at most of these, they are not the end of the world. They might not be the right thing to do. Conflict of interest could be one of the major things but we cover that under conflict of interest in the act. Is it something we really need or are we just imposing a lot of work for the government? I am not denying that the tribunal would not be independent. I think it is an unnecessary part and could be dealt under the disqualification section.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Nelson is misleading when he refers to the Adamson amendment. There are years of history behind this. In my 18 years in the House I have seen countless examples of councils being ripped off by unscrupulous CEOs and others when they got their hands on the bickie jar. One example, in the mid-1990s when Steve Hatton was the Minister for Local Government, was the Galiwinku Council which finished $500 000 in the red at the end of the financial year. Most of that went across the tables of the casino down the road and the council could not be charged with anything. No accountability and no responsibility under the act as it stood.
I was embarrassed on behalf of the people of Darwin, the city council and the government when it could not act in the Adamson case. It was scandalous that here was a person who had - and not for the first time - dipped into the public barrel and taken money that did not belong to him.
We had the example here, as the member for Casuarina well knows, when we came to government of a grant which was not repaid by that former member. It was not until investigations were carried out after this government was elected in 2001 that that money was subsequently forthcoming and returned by the former member and former minister. I thought that was shameful and a scandal on the whole of Darwin that no-one seemed to be able to do anything about it.
Any way that the act and legislation is strengthened to give certainty so that wrongdoing of any of that type and nature can be readily dealt with under the act is welcome. It needs to be in there as firmly as it is.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, clause 90(2)(b) is to do with voting. It says
- (2) Subject to the regulations, an elector may vote:
…
- (b) if the Minister approves – by voting electronically in a manner approved by the Minister …
Minister, I am not sure whether electronic voting is approved in the Territory, but I would have thought that electronic voting is a very important issue to be debated overall for the whole of the Territory. It is an issue that I have heard debated recently in the United States because, as you know, they had difficulty with electronic voting in a presidential election.
There was quite a bit of discussion on news radio one evening about matters relating to electronic voting. Some of those discussions were as simple as: ‘the system collapsed’, ‘the power went off’, ‘someone could hack into the system’. All those sorts of issues were raised. I am not sure that there has been enough discussion in the community, and with the experts who deal in IT and people who deal with voting systems, to leave this clause in for the minister to decide.
I would prefer this clause not to be in there until parliament, or the community, or there was a lot more discussion about the use of electronic voting. I am not saying it should or should not happen. However, I would rather at this stage you not put that in there without a broader debate on the pros and cons of electronic voting so we can weigh up what sort of system could be used. For instance, if it was introduced in the Territory, what protection devices would be required to make sure that there was high security; are there any other safeguards so that this process protects the democratic voting system we have at the moment? I would prefer this not to be in the act. Let us look at it in a much broader stage and debate the issue and come back to parliament with some recommendations for the whole of the Territory before we introduce it into the Local Government Act.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, a couple of points. We have to allow flexibility. There is a traditional method of voting; this allows the full range of voting methods to be used. It is my understanding that it has been canvassed in this House in the independent review of the Electoral Commission back in 2001-02 when electronic voting was canvassed across the Northern Territory in public forums. I believe the Deputy Electoral Commissioner from the ACT chaired that committee. So it has been canvassed. It allows that flexibility.
Why would the minister opt for a system which was going to disenfranchise a particular jurisdiction within the Territory? It allows that flexibility. It has great potential having seen a minor use of it in the last federal election. It offers a great advantage for communities across the Territory into the future. However, I could not see the relevant minister at the time applying it where it was going to disenfranchise a community. You would apply it where you saw there was a need and it actually enhances voter choice in elections.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am not trying to disenfranchise anyone. Most people in local government will not be disenfranchised if you run the system we already run - mobile polling booths getting around to all those communities. In the Territory we should be proud that we have a system that allows most people the opportunity to vote under the present system. I am not debating that. I am saying that there are some implications when it comes to changing the system of voting in relation to whether it should be electronic. Some of those arguments could be philosophical, but some could be technical. There should be a little more debate around whether that is appropriate at this stage, and whether those systems would work and whether they are secure.
It is not about saying that we should not have change, but before we introduce that change, ensure we have gone down the path of checking so that, whatever we do, still protects the anonymity of the person voting, the secrecy of it, and it is foolproof.
As we saw in America, it is not always the case. You might say electronic systems have moved on since then, but there is nothing to say, when it comes to electronic voting, that everything is foolproof. That is all I am saying, minister. All your options should be available but, before we go down the path of something that is different, like electronic voting, we should have much more discussion.
Madam CHAIR: Clauses 65 to 100. Member for Nelson, anything further?
Mr WOOD: Clause 96 is about a minister’s powers in relation to elections. I raised this at the briefing. I suppose I am just a little concerned. I know the minister has the power to extend the time to hold an election or to take any step in relation to the holding of an election. I just did not know whether there were any limitations on that. Could the minister say that we will not have an election for four years? Clause 96(1) says:
- The Minister may (before or after the expiration of a relevant time limit) extend the time for holding an election, or for taking any step in relation to the holding of an election.
Could the minister, in theory, put an election off for forever and a day, or is there some way he would be limited to how he could interpret that clause?
Mr KNIGHT: This clause goes to the intent of and the purpose of it which is, basically, where an election for a particular reason - whether it is a cyclone, where there is trouble within a local community, or the Electoral Commissioner is not ready - as a short-term measure to allow the minister to postpone that election for a short period of time. As I understand it, this provision is contained in the previous act, which has not had any misuse in the past by any minister of any previous government. Member for Nelson, you will have to trust the minister to be accountable to the parliament and to the people of the Northern Territory to do the right thing.
Mr WOOD: That sounds like a good advertisement for litter. You might be right, minister, but you did say for a ‘short period’. If I read that clause as it is, there is nothing to say that it should be a short period. What I am arguing is there could be some limitations or an explanation as to when this should be used. As it is, if there was not a minister I could trust, maybe they could abuse it. I am saying, as it reads there, it is wide open.
Clauses 65 to 100, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 101:
Mr WOOD: Did you say 100?
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, I said that the question is that clause101 be agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: We just passed clause 100.
Mr WOOD: I did not know whether that was inclusive.
Madam CHAIR: They were inclusive - clauses 65 to 100 inclusive.
Mr WOOD: Could I ask the minister a question on clause 100?
Mr KNIGHT: Oh, go for your life!
Mr WOOD: It is the same question as before, and it relates to clause 100(4):
- Appointments to the office of CEO are to be made, as occasion requires, by the council in accordance with the relevant Ministerial guidelines.
Still coming?
Mr KNIGHT: Still coming.
Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.21.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 102 to 126, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 127:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.22 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 128 to 143, by leave, taken together:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I have a problem with the whole concept of conditionally rateable land. I am elected to the council; my job is to set the rates. If people do not like it, they do not have me at the next election. You know what it is like when you put up the rates. If you have a look at The Centralian Advocate today you will see: ‘10% rate rise fear’. The media love it when the rates go up. When it comes to an election, if people do not like the rate rises that the council’s been putting out for the last few years, they get rid of the councillors. That is the way they feel.
This is saying that a council cannot make that decision. It can decide what it thinks should be the rates, and then give that to the minister, who goes and talks to the relevant minister for Primary Industry or Mining, and then the minister approves the rates. The minister is not responsible to the people who should be making the decisions. So, minister, your seat is in Daly. The Barkly council wants to make a decision about the pastoral properties in Barkly. You will be the one making the final decision as to what the rate will be, but you will not be accountable to that local government at the next election. I believe there is a fundamental flaw in what is happening.
I go back to the basis that local government should have its foundations in being responsible to the people who elect it. You make the decisions, you are responsible for it, and you wear it at the next election, whether people love you or hate you.
The whole issue of conditionally rateable land - I know why it is being done, because some pastoral properties are concerned that a council might decide that it will have a big rate increase, using pastoral properties but, on the other hand, that is exactly what local government has to decide, and they have to wear the consequences of it. I do have a concern about the principle behind the conditionally rateable land.
Also, can a council have a fixed rate on conditional land or does it have to be based on the unimproved capital value? Could they say: ‘We will have a fixed rate; we will recommend to the minister that there will be a fixed rate?’ I am talking a flat rate here, for all the properties within the shire - that is the pastoral properties.
Mr KNIGHT: A couple of points - the last one first. It is my understanding that after these three years the council may be able to put up a proposal for a fixed rate on pastoral land. The conditional rate you speak of interests me; this is the first time I have heard you speak so openly about it. This has been a contentious subject and LGANT, to their credit, have raised objections to it for the reasons that you have mentioned.
Mr WOOD: I raised it at the original briefing. Do not forget that this has taken a while to come out.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes. We have had to balance things across the Territory. We have had to recognise the pastoral and mining industry and that is why we have incorporated those into this act. So, on your last point, yes, they can do that.
Mr WOOD: I need clarification for, say, the Litchfield Shire. It has mining tenements. Under this act, Litchfield Shire will be able to charge rates on the mining tenements. Will they be capped for Litchfield Shire or could they apply a fixed rate for those mining tenements?
Mr KNIGHT: It is my understanding that they can actually apply to the minister to put a fixed rate on those properties. I feel I am obligated to go on the record about the Litchfield Shire Council rates. It is an unusual system they have and, yes, it has worked in previous years. The times are a changing in Litchfield, though. There is rapid growth there and a demand for services. I am very fearful for the ratepayers of Litchfield with respect to the fairness of their rating system. When it was a very small council perhaps that system did work well and the philosophy may have been justifiable. I will respect what the council wants to do but I have grave fears for some of the people in that shire about the fairness of the rates they are paying.
Mr WOOD: You raise an interesting point but I do not have all night and I do not intend to take all night. However, I do not accept what you say that it is being unfair. I believe that a flat rate actually can protect people who are vulnerable under unimproved capital value. That is specifically for people who have lived in an area for a long time who may be pensioners, who may be people who are not on a high income but just happened to be the first people to live in an area that is now close to development, like Coolalinga or Palmerston. Under a UCV system they can be rated out of existence. That is what has happened in big cities.
There are arguments for and against but I do not consider it is as clear cut as you make it out to be. That is up to the people in Litchfield to decide. I feel we have to be careful. This has been debated before. One of the reasons this reform process went off the rails in Litchfield – I did not have anyone say that they did not support the reform process – but they did not want, via a back door method, unimproved capital value coming in. It came in because the minister at that time said it will be on commercial, pastoral and mining land in the shire.
People saw that as the first attempt to bring UCV into the system which did not have it before. One of the good things in this act is that you have brought in a fixed rate and that is, according to this bill, allowing a council to put a rate on each individual allotment - that is my understanding - which, in the case of commercial blocks, is something that was difficult to do under the previous act. My understanding from the briefing is that that is what you can do. Those places that used to say: ‘Well, Woolworths gets charged this much and someone else gets charged that much and it is unfair’, council now at least has the ability to put rates on certain allotments. You had problems with commercial rating because you would have a mango orchard or a nursery that was not in a commercial zone but was acting as a commercial business. It is one good thing that has come out of these rates is the concept of a fixed rate and a way that it can be now interpreted.
We will not get into the UCV, minister. I would not proclaim too much in the rural area. If you think it is a good idea, you are welcome to it, but I think there will be a backlash.
Things have to change. I am not against reform within Litchfield; I have never said that. Let us do it with the people and make sure they are the ones who decide, not in here.
Mr KNIGHT: I respect Litchfield council’s rating policy, but personally, I have concerns. I respect the elected members of that council in setting their charges for that area.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, in Chapter 11, clause 142 refers to conditionally rateable land which we are talking about, just further on from the member for Nelson. In relation to these provisions the council is to prepare a draft rating proposal and submit that proposal to the minister for approval. However, there is no opportunity for the public or those affected by a rating proposal to comment on that proposal. The question is: can the proposal be placed on public exhibition for comment before being submitted to the minister and circulated to those potentially affected, particularly the holders of pastoral leases and mining interests, and the draft proposal inclusive of comments and submissions then go to the minister for consideration and then the minister should be obliged to take into account those submissions in relation to that draft rating proposal?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, this matter has come up before and the public exhibition of the rating proposals is something that has been considered within the guidelines. It has come from the parties that you would probably know.
Mr CONLAN: So, that is a yes is it?
Mr KNIGHT: It has been brought up and we are considering it for the guidelines, yes.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, in relation to clause 142(7), which says:
- While an approved rating proposal remains in force:
- (a) conditionally rateable land within the ambit of the approved proposal is to be regarded as rateable land; and
(b) conditionally rateable land outside the ambit of the approved proposal is not to be regarded as rateable land.
In other words, conditionally rateable land is not rateable unless there is an approved rating proposal for the local government area. In other words, clause 142(7) merely requires an approved rating proposal for the local government area in question. It does not state that such a proposal limits the rating of the land in question in the manner proposed in clause 142(7).
Minister, the question is: can it be amended to expressly provide that the rating of conditionally rateable land must be strictly in accordance with an approved rating proposal?
Mr KNIGHT: Well, that is what it is. If it is not a pastoral or mining tenement which has to have a conditional rate applied to it, it is other. Excluding exempted land you are left with rateable land which this alludes to. If it is not conditionally rateable, which has a conditionally rateable proposal on it, it is regarded as rateable land. It is fairly explanatory, I would have thought.
Mr CONLAN: Does that then mean it is expected that it will provide that the rating of conditionally rateable land is strictly in accordance with an approved rating proposal?
Mr KNIGHT: That is what this whole clause deals with. It defines what conditionally rateable land is - that is, pastoral and mining tenements - and it has to have a proposal approved on it.
Clauses 128 to 143 agreed to.
Clause 144:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.23 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 145:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.24 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.25 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 145, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 146 to 148, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 149:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.26 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 150 to 152, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 153:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.27 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 153, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 154 to 169, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 170:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.28 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: Minister, in your explanation at the start of the committee process, you said:
- Clause 170, which provides that unpaid and overdue rates become a charge on the land, has been amended. This amendment makes it clear that rates do not become a charge on land unless the owner of the land is a ratepayer who is liable for the rates that are in arrears and, secondly, that rates cannot become a charge on land within an Aboriginal community living area. The effect of this is that land on an Aboriginal community living area may not be sold for the non-payment of rates. In such cases, other debt retrieval processes are still available.
What do you mean by that and what happens? I mean, you could be doing this to people with very few possessions. What is the outcome if you have no ability to sell land, and people do not have any possessions that you can recover those rates from?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, the options are some sort of repayment schedule. We would hope that we would be moving to a new era through the Territory Housing model – well, actually Territory Housing and the Northern Territory government will be paying the rates. But in the first instance, these people on Aboriginal living areas have paid service charges and other fees over the time, and we would hope that we would not get to the situation that the council would have to claim rates back. I do not see this as an anomaly, but we certainly cannot have the situation where the councils are winding up an association which has Aboriginal land.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I have a general question in relation to that. The section previously was all about rates. We were told that you will not be able to charge rates on certain Aboriginal land, but you will be able to charge a service fee. Where does the ability of a council to charge a service fee come within the scope of this bill? Is there a section here that I should know about that gives the council the power to apply that service fee?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Nelson, this applies to clause 157, which has been dealt with, but I will go through it - imposition of charges:
- (1) If a council carries out work, or provides services, for the benefit of land, or the occupiers of land, within its area, the council may declare a charge on the land.
Mr WOOD: That is fine. Thank you, minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 170, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 171 to 183, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 184:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.29.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 184, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 185:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.30 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.31 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: I will talk on clause 185(1)(c) which talks about ‘land reserves dedicated or resumed with the council’s agreement as a public street, road or thoroughfare’. I have raised this issue before and I still think it needs clarification. Where a community has a permit system and you require a permit to drive on that road, is that road a public road?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, we have been through this a few times. I know that it is not up to your satisfaction, member for Nelson, but I am not going to go through it over and over again. I know what you are alluding to. Those roads are open for a whole range of reasons and people have access onto those roads. Those roads are funded from the federal government and nothing will change on day 1. You know the situation out there. I do not know why you want to persist with this, but I am not going to persist. Those roads are fairly well open now. I know that many of them appear on Aboriginal land, as you are alluding, but I do not know why you want to persist with it.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am not trying to be mischievous. We have a new system of local government which includes many areas that were not part of local government. There are pastoral properties and open towns, and there will be ratepayers who will be paying a contribution of their rates towards the maintenance of public roads. For instance, if you had a road into a cattle station I imagine, where it said ‘Smithy’s cattle station’ and a cattle grid, you know that once you enter over that cattle grid, you are on a private road. You would not expect the council to be paying for the maintenance of that road.
I am simply applying similar logic to roads that are on Aboriginal land, normally in a town. There was, under the previous government, a belief that the permit system in a town would not exist anymore. One could say therefore those roads were open to the public and they could be regarded as public roads. Once you put a sign up saying ‘permit required’, clearly those roads are not public. No council, surely, anywhere in Australia would normally be allowed to spend its funds on private roads. Councillors have been taken to court over doing tricks like that. I believe that there is an important area of clarification here. As I have said, we now have people from a huge shire like Barkly who will be putting rates into the council’s coffers and some of that money will be used to maintain roads right throughout the shire. Do I have a guarantee then, minister, that that money will only be used for public roads? That is another way of putting it.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Nelson, I will just say this once more. Those roads you have talked about, many of them are funded by the federal government, and they are also funded by contributions made by ratepayers within the proposed shire of Barkly. Many of those ratepayers will be people living in housing in the particular community. You know the legislative framework we have in the Territory and it has never been an issue before. I do not know why you want to persist with this. I know what you are trying to do, but I do not know why you want to do it. Everyone contributes to rates, including Aboriginal people, and roads are funded from various sources, including the federal government, for the provision of maintenance and upgrades on those roads.
Mr WOOD: I simply want to get it clarified, minister, because we do have a different system of local government now. Previously, people who were ratepayers were the ones who lived within their little council area and their rates automatically went to the roads within their area. We have got rid of that system, so people in one town are paying for the rates in another area. There will be people in Aboriginal communities paying for the rates in Tennant Creek, they are paying for the roads in Tennant Creek, and they can drive into Tennant Creek over what is regarded as a public road.
I am simply trying to get a legal clarification of where those roads lie. It relates to the section on roads because it talks about ‘a public street, road or thoroughfare’. I am looking for a clarification of what is ‘a public street, road or thoroughfare’. It has nothing to do with Aboriginality. We are talking local government and these are issues that need to be clear when we are talking about local government.
If I ever decided to bituminise my driveway courtesy of the council I would be out the door very smartly because my driveway, even though it is used by members of the public, is not a public road.
All I am asking is to get that clarified, to have it on Hansard so we know exactly what it is. Minister, I know you were quoted in the paper trying to compare driving onto Freds Pass Reserve as the same thing. Well, it is not. Anyone can walk onto Freds Pass Reserve. The only time you have to get permission is if you want to use it for a game of footie so you do not clash with the next game of football or a game of cricket. You can walk onto Freds Pass Reserve anytime until the gates are shut. There is no permission required. I do not believe that is a fair comparison.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 185, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 186:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.32 as circulated.
Mr WOOD: In relation to proposed clause 186(3A), minister, it says:
- If a council has the care, control and management of a road that is vested in someone else, then, subject to any contrary agreement between the council and the owner, the powers of the council to control and manage the road are exclusive of those of the owner.
Does this mean the council is taking over a private road, or does it have some other meaning? I am not quite sure what that proposed clause actually means.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, it is my understanding that this would apply if you have a development where the developer owns the road and the council agrees to take it on. They have the care and control of that road to manage it and that responsibility is exclusive to those of the owner.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, if a developer was developing a sub-division and built a road in there, I was trying to work out why he would have the council maintaining that road. Why would he not look after that road until he was ready to hand it over to the council? That is what you are saying.
Mr KNIGHT: As you have heard through the rest of the legislation this allows the ability where you have an owner separate to the council and the council agrees to take on that road. They agree to take it on for the care, control and management but they want the powers to do that exclusive from the owner. This is about the council having flexibility to take on the road, which is a matter for them. However, when they do take it on, they want to have the power to look after it exclusive to the owners telling them what to do. The owner may be a range of different people. It is a provision that allows flexibility for a particular situation into the future.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 186, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 187:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.33 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 187, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 188 and 189, by leave, taken together and agreed to
Clause 190:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.34 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 190, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 191 to 248, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 249:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.35 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 249, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 250 to 256, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 257:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.36 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 257, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 258 to 260, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 261:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.37 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 261, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 262:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.38 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 262, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 263 agreed to.
Clause 264:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.39 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.40 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 264, as amended, agreed to.
New clause 264A:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.41.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 264A agreed to.
Clause 265 agreed to.
Clause 266:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.42 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 266, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 267 and 268, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 31.43 as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I have a question on the Preamble. In part 3 of the Preamble, it says:
- The rights and interests of Indigenous traditional owners, as enshrined in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), must also be recognised and the delivery of local government services must be in harmony with those laws.
Minister, ‘harmony’ is not defined anywhere in the act. I was wondering if you could explain what you mean by ‘harmony’, and give an example of what might not be in harmony and what may be in harmony. Does it mean that some of these councils could be challenged where these services being delivered are not in harmony with the legislation?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, the Preamble does a number of things. It shows what the intent is of the bill. ‘Harmony’ is one of those words that describes that. Obviously, much of this work that is done by local government will happen on Aboriginal land. The Preamble describes the intent of what this act is trying to do, trying to work on Aboriginal land, and should work in harmony with those two laws, as they would anyway. It recognises that and that is what a Preamble actually does.
Mr CONLAN: If that was the intention, I am curious why that has not been defined in the act. The question is: what is not in harmony and what is in harmony? Could there be a challenge if something was not in harmony with the act?
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely. It is just a question of consistency, Madam Chair. It means ‘not inconsistent with’. It is the same as if we passed a law that was not consistent with federal law. It would be knocked out simply on those grounds. It is just a safeguard in the act, I think, to make sure everyone is aware of it. So, you read it as ‘consistent with’.
Ms Carney: Why didn’t you say that?
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr KNIGHT: Further to the former Attorney-General’s comments, and perhaps the member for Araluen like to …
Ms Carney: If you meant to say consistent, why did you not say consistent?
Ms Martin: It is a legal nicety and you should know about that.
Ms Carney: Well, harmonious has taken us to other areas. Harmony is not a word we are used to.
Mr KNIGHT: I believe she is quite a good dancer down at Throb, but anyway. As you would know, member for Araluen, if you are participating in this, is that the Preamble cannot be challenged. It is not part of the act. It is just a preamble. Your colleague was referring to the act being challenged, saying he was concerned that the wording of the preamble can be challenged in a court of law. The preamble is only the preamble. It shows the intent of what the legislation is about and what the parliament was actually thinking in the passage of the legislation.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you minister, and former minister. I note what you have said. However, it is somewhat unusual to have the expression ‘harmony’ in legislation, whether it is a preamble or not. What you did not say in your answer is can you can give an example of a delivery of local government services that would not be in harmony with those laws referred to in part 3 of the Preamble?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, this is about the intent of government; it is about the intent of this legislation. It is not about examples. It is about the intent. I would have thought you would be supportive of what we are trying to recognise in this preamble, certainly a modern bit of legislation we have here, and it recognises the rights of traditional owners and the two key bits of legislation to recognise those rights. Harmony is something we would like to have in local government.
Ms CARNEY: So that is your answer? Notwithstanding that it says: ‘… and the delivery of local government services must be in harmony with those laws’, you, as minister, are unable to give any examples of what might not be in harmony or indeed might be in harmony. That is your answer, minister, is it?
Mr KNIGHT: As you know, being a legal professional that you are, the preamble shows the intent of what the legislation is supposed to be about, and that is what it is. If you do not know what the word ‘harmony’ is and I cannot speak for your party room, but this is the intent of this legislation.
Ms CARNEY: We are probably more harmonious that you are. Minister, please do not think that we have difficulty with the word ‘harmony’. This is your bill, the one government instructed people to draft, the one you are standing by, proudly it seems. I will give you one more opportunity, if I could, to ask you, just so that we are clear, do not go around in circles with respect, can you or can you not give an example of what would not be in harmony with the laws?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, this is not a court of law. The member for Araluen is trying to interrogate the minister. What the intent …
Ms Carney: It is your bill and you cannot answer it because you do not know.
Dr BURNS: It is late at night …
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Dr BURNS: I am just trying to explain to you the simple fact …
Ms Carney: If you do not know what your bill says or means that is a matter for you.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Araluen, order!
Dr BURNS: What I am saying to you, member for Araluen, through the Chair, is that the minister could stand up here and give 15 examples. But what this legislation is about is giving principles to provide harmony to all those examples that he might not give.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, what we had in this Chamber prior to about five minutes ago when someone entered the Chamber, was harmony. We have gone through 40-odd amendments, 265 clauses, with very constructive advice and debate on it. That is what harmony has been. We do have harmony. We did have harmony and the preamble does describe that. I do not want to go into it further. I believe that the member for Nelson has some other questions about it. This is very good legislation. I am very impressed with having a preamble. As has been discussed, the federal legislation has preambles. I am very proud of the wording of this preamble.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, if harmony is the intent of the bill, if we substitute the word ‘harm’ just for the example of this, does it mean that council can be challenged where services are delivered in a manner other than the intent of this legislation. If services are delivered in a manner other than the intent of the legislation, can councils be challenged?
Mr KNIGHT: That happens outside of this act.
Mr CONLAN: If it is the intent of the bill though.
Mr KNIGHT: The intent of the bill is exactly that. That sort of legal challenge would happen outside of this bill. We are trying to propose the intent of what the local government is trying to do across Aboriginal land in the Territory. We are saying it should be in harmony. However, if it does not, that is challenged outside of this act. That is challenged between these two bits of legislation and whoever is breaking those two bits of legislation.
Mr WOOD: My comments seemed very mild after that. I must admit that we have had a good debate about it, as has been said here before. It is a very important bill and it needs thorough debate. My comments on the preamble relate to two words. In relation to the Preamble section, part 4(b) talks about having ‘wide powers’ and part 4(c) talks about having a ‘broad role’. I wonder why those particular terms had to be used.
The intent of the bill is fine. However, you are opening it up for someone to say that local government’s job is to take on wide powers and to take on broad roles. I would say that is not really what the government should be saying. It should say it can take on the powers and the roles and it would be up to local government to decide whether it is broad or not so broad. That may be something that did not need to be in the Preamble.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, it allows that flexibility for those councils to do those particular functions. It gets back to respecting that third sphere of government to chart their own course. It gives them the ability; it does not prescribe that they should do it. That legitimate third sphere of government chooses to do what it likes and is accountable for what it does to the people who elected those members of those shires and councils.
Mr WOOD: I will not debate that any further, minister.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution. I know he has been an active member of the local government industry for many years and is quite vocal in this area. It is good legislation. It provides that framework. Ultimately, it is up to those shires to use it. It is a tool, it is a vehicle, but ultimately those shires have to drive it. It will also be also useful for the municipal councils into the future as well.
I thank everyone for their contribution this evening and to the many people who have provided advice on this legislation, and the departmental staff who provided support.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, this evening I thank some very hard-working public servants who, for some months now, have worked with me and my office, and government broadly, on putting together the Northern Territory budget. It is a very large task. It is one that Northern Territory Treasury is very adept at; they get through the budget process every year.
As Treasurer, it was a real eye-opener for me to see the extent of the effort they go to - and the months, literally, of pouring over options, considerations, in a jurisdiction the size of the Territory with the needs that this jurisdiction has. I described it that we are a fairly young jurisdiction in significant development phases. There are, obviously, issues in and around how you fund for growth and how you deal with your recurrent requirements, as well as your infrastructure requirements for growth. All of those issues are issues that, as Treasurer, I tackled, but I did so based on the hard work and the advice of all of the public servants who support the Treasury process.
In that regard it is the various different units within Northern Territory Treasury that I rely on. This evening, I acknowledge their work and indicate that this is not about politicising it all; it is simply saying that people have a political view of the budget or otherwise, but the budget process is an intensive amount of work over months which requires this enormous task be undertaken by hard-working public servants working very closely with the Treasurer in the guidance and direction I want to see in the budget. They work up various proposals based on what information I am seeking and requiring, and then they make various iterations of that until it gets to the point where I am pretty comfortable and happy with it.
Obviously, we then go through a very lengthy Cabinet process with my Cabinet colleagues. I know that all of their agencies are very hard-working through that process as well. There is a lot of work that occurs across agencies, and between Treasury and the other agencies, to ensure that the information being provided is of the highest calibre.
Whilst I acknowledge all the public servants very broadly in their efforts, I specifically thank those staff members of Treasury who undertake, in developing a budget, what is recognised as an enormous task. Many people contribute to the preparation of the product that I had the pleasure of tabling in the Assembly yesterday.
First and foremost, I acknowledge the absolute professionalism, dedication, and adherence to the greatest integrity of the Under Treasurer, Jennifer Prince. She has prepared many budgets for the government, and I felt very privileged, as Treasurer, to be working with a professional of the high calibre of Jennifer Prince as Under Treasurer. She is highly regarded and highly respected, and deservedly so. She is the sort of leader of her staff that I admire enormously. She fosters and nurtures all of her Treasury staff. She is very proud of the fact that they have a very young Treasury staff, and that they have many young parents on the Treasury staff. They are a very good reflection of our community. They are extremely hard-working, but a large part of their dedication comes from admiring and respecting Jennifer Prince and the way she goes about her task as Under Treasurer.
I also thank Sarah Rummery and her staff, particularly Robert Cagnetti and Eamon Holligan, for providing detailed analysis of the Territory economy. Craig Vukman, Ivan Basei and Kevin Phang put in a huge amount of work developing all of the revenue initiatives that were contained in the budget, including an enormous amount of modelling that I got them to do in and around the stamp duty reform. I thank them.
Jodie Kirkman is the person we rely on to know every number in the budget. Jodie and her team, led by David Braines-Mead and Bronwyn Riedel are responsible for the analysis and presentation of agency initiatives, which is done in the six months leading up to the budget. They are also responsible for the preparation of information for all agencies, as well as the whole-of- government financial information and the infrastructure program, the explanatory papers, including regional highlights and the budget overview.
Rather than identifying a few people, I acknowledge the whole of the Financial Management group for their magnificent contribution. Treasury also has a team that is responsible for managing the overall production of the budget papers and related material. Thanks to Catherine Wauchope and Lynda Hale who do a terrific job on the production end of the process.
Putting together a budget is a huge effort done in a relatively short period of time under considerable pressure. I thank all of those who have contributed to the process.
As I say, I feel incredibly privileged to be the Treasurer, to be working with such a professional team within Northern Territory Treasury, led extremely ably and highly professionally, and with an enormous amount of integrity, by Jennifer Prince. We are fortunate to have an Under Treasurer of her calibre and experience in the Territory.
Certainly, it was a challenge, being a new Treasurer, putting together a budget for the first time. It was the first budget for my staff as well, and we were an entirely new team. I did not inherit any Treasury advisors from the previous Treasurer. So, it was a new experience for all of us. I was well supported by my senior advisor and Chief of Staff, David Money. There have been many jokes flying around about how appropriate his surname is, with the surname Money and working for the Treasurer. He has been getting a great deal of delight out of that. David Money has worked tirelessly in supporting me. Treasury staff have worked through the weekends, certainly in the last few weeks, working incredible hours, nights and weekends to get the budget prepared in time, as have my personal staff in Parliament House. David, thank you for the weekends you have given up. I know you have a young family, I know they have been missing you, and I very much appreciate the enormous effort you have gone to and the leadership you have shown within my office in putting in the hard yards and making sure that, as Treasurer, I have been fully prepared for the budget process.
Also, it was an outstanding effort by Nicole Manison, my Media Adviser. She, like David, worked weekends; they not only worked Saturdays, they worked Sundays. Over this long weekend we took the opportunity of the public holiday to work the long hours. So, Nicole Manison, I thank her as well. It was an enormous task. The good feedback I have had from Treasury officials is that they found working with her to be a very positive experience in terms of her professionalism.
Sam Parkinson has come on board as my Treasury and IR advisor, and it was a first budget experience for her. She put in the hard yards as well. Sam, Nicole and I still have quite a bit of travel to do in talking about the budget throughout the Territory. I am looking forward to being on the road with Sam and Nicole. Sam organised much of the detail, much of the background work, and the tedious effort of setting up functions and making sure that everything was running smoothly. So, Sam Parkinson, thank you for coming in, coming in fresh, coming in new, and putting every effort into it.
Brett Brogan and Wolf Loenneker in my office, whilst they were advisors in the other portfolio areas, I tell you what, it was every shoulder to the wheel. They got stuck in helping out as well and their efforts were fantastic. I really appreciate the effort they have undertaken. Wolf, by nature, comes in and works weekends anyway; I think he enjoyed having the extra company in the office on the weekends. He is well renowned for his t-shirt, shorts and thongs attire on the weekends, but I have to say the quality of his work is fantastic, as is Brett’s, who is a young advisor with a lot of potential.
Also, thanks to my administration staff, Tracey Lemass. Tracey has put in a phenomenal effort. She has worked late nights and weekends, round the clock, with a few hours sleep overnight and she is back early in the morning. Tracey has done a phenomenal job. She is a lovely, sweet person. She will check on me and make sure that I am drinking water during the long hours I was putting in as well. Thank you, Tracey. I really appreciate not only the efforts you went to and the professionalism you showed, but also the personal touch, in looking out for the Treasurer who was trying to keep up with the pace of the fantastic team around her.
Trish Schebella, who took an opportunity to attends her son’s wedding, missed out on the front end of the long hours but certainly made up for it at the back end of the long hours. Trish put her shoulder to the wheel after the break of celebrating with her family. Thank you, Trish, for taking care of me in the last few weeks and pulling in and supporting the rest of the team who, by the time you got back from leave, you saw were pretty exhausted with the long hours. We certainly had a lot of long hours ahead of us. It is a team effort pulling together something of the magnitude of the budget.
Dee Hona came in towards the end there to assist with the administrative workloads. Dee has been an absolute pleasure to have in the office. It was very handy to have her around in the last couple of weeks to help crunch through the extra paper work that was coming in and out of a Treasurer’s office. It has been valuable assistance for both Trish and Tracey to have her there. Chris Grace came on board to help out in the budget process and Leader of Government Business’ work. Gracie’s on a learning curve, and I think is enjoying it. He is well known to members having assisted Madam Speaker for quite some time. The change and the frenetic energy that he has stepped into, in the Treasurer’s office pulling together a budget, has been a very interesting learning experience. I hope he has enjoyed it. I certainly enjoyed having Gracie on the team.
That is the team. The NT Treasury team are stand-out professionals. I have enjoyed working with every one of them. If I did not mention Tony Stubbin previously I want to thank Tony. I really enjoy his advice and I also enjoy his tremendous wit. I have to say that before I became Treasurer, even though I had a very high regard and I knew that the Under Treasurer had a fantastic wit and sense of humour and I had met Jodie quite a few times and Craig and Ivan, and I certainly have got to know them much better, Treasury folk are not dry. They are certainly very interesting characters, and very lively and colourful people with a terrific sense of humour. People who work incredibly hard and carry a great deal of responsibility, and have to do a lot of analysis and understand detail that most normal people would not begin to understand sometimes have a tremendous sense of humour. That is what I have found with NT Treasury staff.
As I say, it has been an enormous privilege, but it has also been a bit of fun along the way in understanding the way in which Treasury experts approach their jobs and approach the different options that pop up that you have to make decisions on.
So, a big thank you to my staff. I could not have got through all of the work without their support and the incredibly long hours they have worked over recent weeks. We still have some long hours to go. I wanted to take the opportunity of an adjournment, just after budget, to thank them and, importantly, to thank Jennifer Prince and her fantastic hard-working Treasury staff in preparing Budget 2008-09.
Budget 2008-09 is a body of work that all of them, each and every single one of them in NT Treasury, can be proud of. I hope my staff are proud of it, as it is a collaborative effort. We have all put our shoulders to the wheel. As Treasurer, I am very privileged and proud to have led the team, with the Under Treasurer to deliver, what I believe is a very good budget for the Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will speak about a great constituent of mine, with a great community spirit, who spends a lot of his own free time eradicating graffiti in the Casuarina area. I speak about Mr Geoff Samuels.
For many years, Geoff has been removing unsightly graffiti in the community, especially in the Casuarina area. Geoff first came to me when the cost of the materials was getting too much to cover on his own. I was very happy to assist Geoff with materials and take this opportunity to also thank some of the other electorate officers, like my colleague, member for Johnston, which have recently offered to provide Geoff with assistance to pay for the materials.
Geoff now cleans the whole of Darwin. If he sees any graffiti when he is travelling around - there have been traffic light boxes and walls of buildings - he immediately gets to work and removes it. He works really hard to make our community a much better place to live. This is the kind of person with community spirit who makes our life and our community much better.
I would like to speak about my schools, Nakara Primary School and Alawa Primary School. Hardworking teachers, hardworking children, and we see the results. I am very proud to see children from Nakara and Alawa schools now that they have grown up and are going to Dripstone Middle School where my wife is a teacher. They immediately ask her name and ask if she is married to me. I appreciate incredible efforts of the parents and the teachers for the students.
I congratulate Nakara Primary School for putting on a wonderful Harmony Day concert recently. Nakara Primary School is one of the most multicultural schools in Darwin. I was extremely impressed by the effort the kids made to dress in national costumes, to talk to the other students about their cultural background, and to present some dances. We had dances from Polynesian islands, from One Mob Different Country, Greek dancers, Irish dancers, and Scottish dancers; it was incredible and very impressive.
I was also very pleased to present my student achievement awards at the school assembly at Nakara. One of my awards went to Mihalis Halkitis for his commendable attitude and Andrew Northcote for consistent effort and achievement in all areas. I thank Mihalis and Andrew, their teachers and their parents on this excellent effort at school.
I was also very proud to accompany the Education minister, Marion Scrymgour, to Alawa Primary School. Marion announced the Stage 2 $2m funding for the upgrade of Alawa Primary School and $2m for the Nakara School upgrade. The first stage of the upgrade of Alawa School has now become a showcase for how to convert a neglected school. I say neglected because for many years not much money was spent on Nakara or Alawa and now Alawa has become a showcase for schools that have been converted from an old school to a very modern school.
Last Friday, the teachers, staff and families from the Alawa Primary School community joined together to celebrate Walk Safely to School day. Ms Ranie organised the walk before assembly. It is a great way to stay active, healthy and happy. I hope more children walk safely to school every day and more parents and grandparents who have the time can walk with their children to school.
Dripstone Middle School is a community of achievers. I was invited to attend the official launch of their new Virtual Business Enterprise which is called Territory Luxury Catering. I was extremely proud to see the wonderful efforts of students and teachers in making this venture such a success. The group of 14 Year 9 students and their teacher, Ms Trish Orr, have done a wonderful job getting their virtual business up and running. They developed their own business plan, and created their own business name, logo and motto. They have gone from a group of students to a fully functioning business. Through this journey they will develop strong workplace skills and great friendships which will give them great life skills for the future. I was very proud of their enthusiasm and professionalism at the official opening and look forward to following their business venture with interest throughout the year.
I also congratulate McDonalds. The manager of McDonalds actively supports these children and provides them with the opportunity to have experience in their shops. I really appreciate the corporate sector standing by students like them to provide them with opportunities. Often we complain about how our children go astray, or how our children are not focused, but here we have a corporate entity that puts their money where their mouth is and actively supports Dripstone Middle School and supports the students to achieve something that a few months ago they would have never imagined: to set up a virtual enterprise.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to end with two sad notes. First of all I give my heartfelt condolences to Kay Brown and her children Stephanie, Christine and Anthony on the loss of their beloved husband and father, Colin. Colin Brown was a good friend. He used to visit me occasionally in the electorate office to have a chat. Debbie and I will certainly miss his smiling face and his cheeky sense of humour.
I also give my sincere condolences to Martins and Mendes Lay of Tiwi on the recent loss of their beloved wife and mother, Eliza. Eliza had suffered from cancer over the last four years and in the last 12 months, in particular, had suffered increasingly failing health. Eliza came to the Territory as part of a refugee group on a Red Cross boat straight after the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. She brought her small son, Mendes, and several of her nieces and nephews which she looked after. She left behind her husband, Martins, who remained in East Timor and subsequently in Indonesia for a number of years.
On her own, Eliza raised her son and several other children, often working two jobs just to make ends meet. Remember, at this time, Darwin was a wreck from Cyclone Tracy, so she lived in part of a dilapidated house with all those children. She got a government house first in the Narrows and then finally moved to Tiwi.
Eliza was a highly talented seamstress so she worked at making clothes for people while also working as a cleaner. When she was later joined by her husband they bought a business in Parap - the famous Toppy’s - and they built the business up over many years. I first met Eliza and Martins when I was inspecting their premises as part of my duties as an Environmental Health Officer in Darwin. Everybody who knew them at Toppy’s will recall how they laid claim to having the best burgers in Darwin.
Eliza contributed to the Hakka community. Like many of these organisations, occasionally there was some feuding between groups. It was always Eliza whom everyone trusted to do the right thing. She was well known as the peacemaker, the honest broker. She served in various roles, usually as the Vice President of the group.
She was also a committed and strong Catholic, and she played an important role in the Chinese Catholic Women’s Association. In fact, she and her husband, Martins, received a letter of thanks from the Vatican for the work that they have undertaken on behalf of the Catholic Church.
It was a shock to everyone when Eliza became ill four years ago. She bravely fought the cancer, but had to sell the business. When she finally became bedridden, her son, Mendes, gave up his work to become a full-time carer – a role he has undertaken for the last 12 months.
On behalf of my family, I give my sincerest condolences to Martins and Mendes for the loss of their wife and mother, and record my regret for the loss to the community that the passing of Eliza will bring.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to a public servant who has just retired after serving for 45 years in the Northern Territory. Forty-five years is an amazing effort. It is with pleasure I acknowledge the commendable service of Harry Cook, who is retiring as Asset Accounting Manager for the Department of Corporate Information Services in Alice Springs. Harry, who recently turned 68, is retiring from the public service. I am sure all members will join me in acknowledge his extraordinary achievement.
Harry arrived in Alice Springs with his family in 1946 as a six-year-old. During his first three years in Alice Springs, he boarded at Griffiths House while his parents lived and worked between Aileron and Tennant Creek. Harry rejoined his family in Tennant Creek at age nine.
At age 15, he left school and commenced an apprenticeship with his father’s business, Cook’s Construction and, after six years, became a qualified cabinetmaker. I am told that Harry had intended to join the Navy but, at age 17, suffered a severely broken leg which changed the course of his life.
In 1963, he was offered a job in the mechanical section of the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Works where he works as a transport driver for the road gangs working on the Stuart Highway. Harry went on to hold a number of positions within that department, mainly in the Finance and Accounting area, until he transferred to the Health department in 1973.
Between 1973 and 1983, Harry worked mainly in the finance areas, including ledgers and revenue collection, and it was here he became interested in stores and procurement. In 1984, he was appointed as a works officer for his agency, where he was heavily involved in development systems to manage works programs, assets, phones, vehicles and equipment. When computers were first introduced, he was appointed to assist with the installation and soon became an expert in their application. Harry went on to become Asset Manager for the same agency with whole-of-Territory responsibilities. As Asset Manager, he established stock take programs, together with appropriate procurement procedures and disposal schedules.
Harry remained in this position until he was transferred to the Department of Corporate and Information Services in 1998, where he took up the position of Asset Manager Alice Springs with whole-of-government responsibilities for the region. In his time with Corporate and Information Services, Harry has become a source of expert advise and assistance to people across government and the private sector. His corporate knowledge in his field is unequalled, and his opinion and input will be sadly missed.
Not only was Harry an important employee in the Northern Territory government, he also had strong involvement in the community. Harry Cook and the Alice Springs Show Society are almost synonymous. He has been a tireless worker for the Alice Springs Show Society for more than 20 years - a fact recognised by life membership. Harry has also had a long-term involvement with the Uniting Church where he made a significant contribution for many years. Harry also managed to find time to make a wonderful contribution to the local scouting group, both as the Scout Master and Assistant Commissioner.
The good news is that that Harry has advised he intends retiring in the Territory with his wife, Julie, and is looking forward to spending more quality time with his children and grandchildren, and finishing some of his long-term projects.
I pay tribute to Harry after 45 years of public service to the people of the Northern Territory. I am sure all members will join me in thanking Harry for his magnificent contribution to the Territory.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending a special Anzac Day luncheon at the Coconut Grove Seniors Hall in my electorate of Millner. I was proud to be the host of another fantastic function. We provided lunch. There were over 80 people in attendance, mostly Millner and Coconut Grove residents. Mely Alambo led the rousing rendition of the National Anthem. Terry Hine read the Ode of Remembrance. The hard-working community served the food, and are great at organising seniors events. Thanks to Bridie Kuskey, Ron Mitchell, Helen Hofmann, Bill Parry, Jim Brupaccher, Ginger Delacour and Rhonda Blaser. We were entertained by the Groovy Grans who put on a very professional tribute floor show which depicted the sacrifices of our servicemen and women, as well as recognising the different branches of the services. Many thanks to Dottie Daby and her Groovy Grannies, Lee O’Donnell, Marlene Smith, Marj Duminski, Marj Baxter, Kay W, Joan Angeles, Vic O’Donnell, Maureen Hack and, of course, Pat Bonson.
I also take this opportunity to pay my tributes to the Majid family, on the passing of the late Richard Majid, the family patriarch. I would like to read a few words about Mr Majid and his family, who have been great supporters of mine and my family for many decades. Mr Majid came to the Northern Territory many years ago.
- It was a bright Sunday morning in 1950, my cousin Peggy Hondo, Selina Lewin and myself went fishing in a dinghy to an area known as the ‘Sandbank’ at the northern end of Thursday Island.
We caught enough fish that we decided to return home and while on our way back Selina mentioned she had a niece living at Innisfail, a town in Queensland, and would I be interested in writing to her and if so would she give Seamah’s address to me.
I was 18 years old and had no girlfriend so I accepted her offer and wrote a letter to Seamah and included a photo of me wearing a football guernsey.
It was about ten days later that I received a letter and a photo from Seamah, I felt excited to have a girl pen friend telling me about herself and her family.
We continued writing to each other for nearly a year. I think it was our destiny for what happened after that was meant to be. Two ships arrived in port and the captain of one ship wanted extra crew as he was short handed and wanted to continue travelling south. My friend Mial Bin Garape and myself with a few others signed on and boarded the ship.
Mr Majid then travelled and met Seamah and, of course, they married and formed a loving relationship that lasted many years. It was a fantastic funeral in recognition of Mr Richard Majid’s life and his family: his wife, Seamah, and children, Richard Desmond, Chrysanta Jacqueline, Eleanor, Matthew Darrell, Colin Dale Ferrin, and Samantha Diane
The Majid family are a well-known Millner family, but also a Darwin family with Torres Strait Island roots. They contributed widely to the NT community and to the Darwin social life. Richard was a famous singer in his time and loved all types of music. I will never forget when we had a fundraiser for the local Millner electorate and Richard Majid gave us the opportunity to sing a few songs and showed his talent to the crowd. He thoroughly enjoyed himself.
To his children who are left behind, I know you cared and loved your father deeply and sincerely. From me as the local member and, of course, the Bonson family and other local families, our condolences go out to you and our greatest sympathy. We wish that you and your family remember Mr Richard Majid in the light that the rest of the community did.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as the Heritage minister, in recent weeks it has been my pleasure to attend two functions as the guest of the FNAR, or Friends of the North Australia Railway, a group of volunteers who maintain the Adelaide River Heritage Precinct.
I visited their Berrimah site to launch this year’s Heritage grants. A few days later, it was my pleasure to launch their brand new - and as they described it – drop-dead gorgeous website. I think there is a little marketing involved in that badging!
It is great to see volunteers to dedicated to the Northern Territory’s rich and diverse history and heritage. Mainly based in Darwin, the Friends have a block at Berrimah - courtesy of the most generous benefactors in the form of Peter and Estelle Cornell, whom the Friends describe as ‘rolled gold’ sponsors - at which they undertake extraordinary work on salvaging railway rolling stock with the ultimate aim of placing it all in the precinct at Adelaide River.
Not content with heritage alone, the Friends are closely associated with tourism authorities, and one of their works in progress is a 1936 rail carriage used as an ambulance train in World War II which will be fitted out to be the Adelaide River Visitor Information Centre.
Established in July 2001, the Friends are dedicated to the long-term goal of running a heritage tourism rail from Adelaide River to the World War II Snake Creek Government Depot some 4 km away. They will get there I am sure, and the Top End will be all the richer for it.
Like Robin Hood’s band of merry helpers, the Friends are a small, compact and very diverse group. Their skills range from engineering, to media, to catering, and they achieve a great deal with not much very much more than human perseverance. This year alone they have completed some 3000 hours of volunteer labour. If you give that labour a value of $15 per hour, which is pretty cheap, a minuscule rate by any standards, it amounts to a contribution of $45 000 to the Territory’s heritage tourism.
Once a month during the Dry Season they have Devonshire teas in the precinct to raise money. They have regular newsletters and, as I mentioned, now have a website. They have developed close relationships with other heritage rail organisations and know an impressive range of World War II veterans who have donated photographs, anecdotes, uniforms and a range of other material which would otherwise be lost to the Territory. They also have an impressive range of former North Australia Railway employees in their network and these people range from drivers to gangers, fettlers and engineers.
They cannot function without the support of their very generous sponsors, organisations such as Tourism NT, the Coomalie Community Government Council, the residents and commercial operators at Adelaide River itself and, of course, without the support of the general public. In the past, the Friends have been recipients of Northern Territory Heritage Grants. I saw firsthand how an 1885 Cowans Sheldon Crane has been restored to its former glory in the Berrimah yard.
There are several talented individuals involved with the Friends. They include, but are not limited to: Trevor Horman, the President. Trevor is an engineer and a railway heritage fan. It is beyond doubt that this man’s boundless energy drives the organisation. A man completely incapable of standing still, Trevor represents the Friends on a range of tourism, heritage, professional associations in addition to his tireless physical efforts in the precinct.
The Secretary and Treasurer is Judy Richardson. Judy not only takes care of the paperwork but gathers up material for the newsletter and helps out in the precinct on a regular basis. She wields a mean paint brush, is pretty good on the lawn mower, can turn her hand to waiting on tables, and manages to be the official photographer.
Vice President, Mick Kent, has meticulously documented the history of the Overland Telegraph and is responsible for what some visitors have called ‘the best OT display in Australia’ at the precinct. Mick has also lovingly restored a rail cattle car at the Berrimah yard and is always on hand to help out with lawn mowing and other more mundane but necessary work. On open days, Mick is games master and presents gold dog spikes to the winners of events.
Nola Smith and Estelle Harris are legends who run the Devonshire teas every month, and on open days like the one held on Monday of this week which attracted several hundred visitors. They also keep the troops fed and watered, calling them in from the field when lunch is served or a well deserved cuppa is waiting. Nola and Estelle are also responsible for recruiting ‘Grey Nomad’ caretakers for the precinct by doing the rounds around Darwin caravan parks with position vacant flyers.
Owen Peake and Mike Bowman represent the ‘steam team’ and do a huge job of work on restoring steam locomotives. Peter Poole is a civil engineer and tree clearer extraordinaire. Trevor Menzies, a surveyor, has done a lot of work at the precinct on flood mitigation and exhibit positioning purposes.
There is also another individual who is a great help to the FNAR. That is Robyn Smith who is well known to quite a number of us here in the House. Robyn is currently on leave and is putting a lot of time while she is on leave into helping out with the FNAR. Robyn has contributed in a whole range of ways. She has written the precinct interpretive signage plans, and she researches historical stuff where necessary. She has developed brochures and helps Judy with the newsletter. It was actually Robyn who also got the website up. It is a very good website and I recommend everyone to have a look at it. One of her more endearing works is that she writes the Brolga entries. Unfortunately, she never gets it up there but it does keep their name up in bright lights.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, organisations as the FNAR could not exist without such volunteers, and I commend them to members here for the work that they do. Their tireless effort in helping retain Territory heritage is something that will make us all so much richer as a community. On behalf of all members present, I put on the public record our thanks for their selfless and tireless efforts in helping to maintain Territory heritage.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I will speak on three different matters. The first one is an issue that has appeared in the media recently. I have had the opportunity to meet the gentleman concerned and it points directly at concerns in the delivery of education in our remote communities.
I had a meeting with Robert Bartholomew. It is important I have always found when these matters are brought to our attention to assess these matters by meeting the individuals concerned. I had the good fortune of meeting Robert Bartholomew and assessing the concerns he raised about his time in Ali Curung. His experiences in Ali Curung which were outlined in The Australian newspaper sincerely warrant investigation and deep consideration if we are to take our concerns seriously in order to advance towards a solutions to the problems that beset our community and delivery of education to our indigenous kids particularly.
I will read from a statement that Mr Bartholomew has prepared, and at the end of this I will make some additional comments. This here is the statement made by Mr Robert Bartholomew:
- I would like Marion Scrymgour to conduct an independent investigation into the black listing of two remote teachers after they raised life-threatening issues of health and safety at Ali Curung School earlier this year.
Upon raising these issues, Dr Robert Bartholomew and his wife Zalina were suddenly told their contracts would not be renewed. When they applied for numerous other teaching jobs, they were told there were no openings. They were even interviewed, offered, and accepted positions, only to have these jobs withdrawn within hours of their work visa expiring. At one point, DEET even shipped their belongings to Darwin on the pretext that they had jobs, only to have those jobs taken away. Their belongings remain in storage at their expense.
When union secretary, Adam Lampe, contacted DEET, he was told they were listed as unfit teachers - without any justification or right to respond.
The issues raised by Dr Bartholomew and his wife include an asbestos investigation recommending immediate action, that has not been acted on for three years; and the serial abuse of animals including a dog being kicked to death by students. Other animals were clubbed with bottles, punched, struck with nulla-nullas, and hit with rocks and sticks. While this occurred on a daily basis for six weeks, not one student received a consequence. Among the other issues: not a single working photocopier or computer server for the first four weeks of term 1 - this at the biggest school in the Barkly; students showing up for a few minutes being counted as attending for half a day, while others staying for as little as an hour, being counted for a full day.
Indigenous students going to the toilet had the dehumanizing experience of having to ask for and be given a roll of toilet paper - because they were indigenous kids who couldn’t be trusted. Indigenous staff members were treated like children.
If Marion Scrymgour is serious about addressing the crisis in remote education, she can prove it by conducting an investigation and making the results public, while holding those involved accountable.
While memories of The Stolen Generation begin the fade, we are now confronted with The Wasted Generation in remote Territory schools, where students and their families are being robbed of an entire generation of education - taking from them their hopes and dreams of a better life for themselves and their children.
I add to these comments my own words. Having met Dr Robert Bartholomew, his wife, and children, having assessed his story and been in a position where I have been a leader in an educational community, I assess him as one whose story must be listened to if we are to be taken seriously.
The delivery of education, in any context, is immensely difficult and challenging. We either have the courage to face those challenges or turn from them. I fear, most deeply, that in this case, because the issues that were raised by Dr Robert Bartholomew caused too great a challenge, there was insufficient courage to face the challenge and, instead, sadly, the department turned away and dealt with the one who raised the concern.
It is a time when we need to recognise that there is a need for whistleblowers legislation for protection of those who speak up. There is nothing worse than someone who feels aggrieved and feels the need and the moral obligation to speak up for the needs of those who are being neglected in our education system; and the one who speaks up is then dealt with.
I do not want to support or remain silent in any way. I would be supporting it if I remained silent in this situation. All I ask for, in backing up Robert Bartholomew’s comments and story to me and, as published, is a sincere investigation to weigh it properly – an independent inquiry and investigation of the matters of significant nature that have been raised. I will leave it at that for the moment.
I, with a few other members of this Chamber, attended the Young Achievers Awards for 2008. As others may have said in adjournment debates, it is good to be a part of something like this, to be encouraged by the quality of youth, leadership, and young achievers in a range of areas across the Northern Territory, and to celebrate their achievements. It was a great encouragement to be a part of that event.
My wife and I went away with the words that many spoke on that night; that this was one of the best nights. I will not go through the list of those who received recognition on that night. Comment, as far as possible, has been made directly to those individuals concerned.
One thing occurred on that night which I want to turn my attention to now; that being, the Northern Territory representative for National Youth Week, Amy Robinson, was called upon to give a speech. She presented a speech which I feel needs to be presented here in this Chamber, and I present it on her behalf. I was deeply impressed by her speech. I understood, after speaking to her, where it came from, and it is a message that needs to resonate in this Chamber. I, therefore, place it on the Parliamentary Record. This is a short speech delivered by Amy Robinson. When I spoke to Amy afterwards, having been touched by her words, she immediately thanked me, but turned her comments to include her father who she recognises as her mentor for assisting her in the formation of this speech.
This is Amy Robinson’s speech:
Welcome honourable guests.
‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’.
Ask not what young people can do for you, but what you can do for them. Does this mean giving into the requests and demands of young people to be driven around town and given brand clothing? No. Does this mean entertaining or otherwise providing meaningful activities to the youth in the community? No.
What does it mean? What can you do for the youth? The hardest thing to give actually costs the least, in dollar terms anyway, good leadership, examples of integrity, compassion and humanitarianism, honesty. Young people are aware of the many social problems that exist in our community, and while sometimes thought as being idealistic in our thinking, we do want to be part of the solutions in the future.
If our seniors provide good leadership with honesty, we have a far greater chance of providing a great, a valuable contribution. If not anything else, what the youth of today need is honesty. It may be tough, it may be socially awkward, it may even be embarrassing. At least for Youth Week, please consider what you can give, what you can offer to the future generations. Thank you.
They were Amy Robinson’s words, and from the mouth of a young person, that touched my heart and challenged me. I felt the next thing to do was to acknowledge those words and to put them into the Parliamentary Record for the benefit of honourable members and others who may wish to read them.
Finally, in recognition of the fact that we are global citizens, and we have been talking about the challenges that we face in our own community, we look at what has happened in Burma and we see something that causes us to put our own situations into context. I use the remaining time I have to make some comments about the situation in Burma. I would guess or assume that I am speaking on behalf of honourable members when we extend our sympathy to the people of Burma.
The people of Burma have faced, and are facing, a significant challenge on a couple of fronts. They have been under a military dictatorship for many years, well over 50 years, I believe. They are under a regime that has caused many to flee. In recent times, once again, we have had the good citizens of that nation rise up in protest to restore human dignity and the freedom of an individual to express their view and they have been crushed. And now they have suffered a natural disaster of immense proportions on the same scale as the tsunami. It has gone from bad to worse. The situation, as I found in one report, is very telling. It says that there are two fronts: there is already an agenda for a constitutional referendum to be conducted in Burma. Part of what is called a so-called roadmap to democracy was supposed to go ahead this weekend, and the military junta has decided to continue with that referendum whilst they are attending to an immense catastrophe.
At this point they are now looking at perhaps 60 000 people who will have lost their lives, and 95% of houses in some cities have been destroyed. Some though, being very traditional people, have viewed that this juxtaposition of the natural disaster of catastrophic proportions, and the actions and response of a government continuing with its intent to go down the referendum path, demonstrates the inability or the invalidity of this regime to remain in power. Of course, in all this is Aung San Suu Kyi, who won an election observing this. This well may be a turning point in Burma.
But that aside, with these events being played out, I can only hope that the military authorities will open those doors and allow assistance to be delivered into the heart of Burma to assist those in need, and at this point there seems to be some obstructions. I only hope that those doors open up and that assistance is delivered.
I ask that we spare a thought for those families who are suffering in Burma. There well may be 60 000 who have lost their lives. The impact of that is immense. I hope that those doors open up and help can be delivered to the heart of that nation.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Royal Darwin Hospital said farewell to one of its longest serving employees, Mrs Mary Raymond, who retired on 21 March 2008 after 35 years of invaluable service.
Mary started her employment at Royal Darwin Hospital on 23 March 1973 in the Housekeeping department. During 1980-81, Mary transferred from the Housekeeping to the Catering department where she remained until her retirement.
Mary was born in Darwin and is a traditional Larrakia woman. Mary is mother to eight children - Jane, John, Laurie, Dorrie-Ann, Michael, Tina, Philip and Leon - all of whom were born during her career within the Department of Health and Community Services.
Those who have worked with Mary will know that she is a perfectionist. She excelled in whatever was required. Mary was also a hard worker and continuously strove to improve working conditions not only for herself but for her peers. Mary completed the Diets Certificate, Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points Certificate, and Train the Trainer Certificate. Mary put her learning to daily use in whatever situations arose. Mary worked as the relief Catering Supervisor and Diet Supervisor until the time of her retirement.
Mary Raymond was a great worker, friend and mentor to all who had the pleasure of knowing and working with her. The Royal Darwin Hospital Catering Team will miss her dearly.
Tonight, I also acknowledge the retirement of Carmen McDonald, better known as Suzy Q to her peers, patients and community, and of course that is the community of Nhulunbuy. She is certainly a bundle of life and a bundle of enthusiasm.
Suzy Q retired on 29 February 2008 from the Department of Health and Community Services after 28 years of dedicated service at the Gove Hospital. I thank Suzy for her energy, support and caring contribution to the people of Nhulunbuy and Gove Peninsula.
Suzy Q spent the majority of her employment at Gove Hospital working as a Medical Records Clerk. It is well known that Suzy Q is a very conscientious and dedicated worker. Importantly, and even better known, is Suzy Q’s enthusiasm for life, warm personality and capacity to develop rapport quickly and easily with her work colleagues, patients and community more broadly.
On a personal level, I met Suzy Q when I did some relief pharmacy work at one stage at Gove Hospital and subsequent to that when I was doing research with the Menzies School into the health effects of Kava and looking at all the health records associated with that. Suzy Q certainly was a great help to me. She was very friendly and I certainly enjoyed sitting down having a cup a tea with her and a bit of a laugh. She is a very warm person, with a very infectious sense of humour.
I understand that Suzy Q will be staying in Nhulunbuy after her retirement which is great news for the Nhulunbuy community and fantastic news for the Territory. People make positive contributions in many different ways to their communities through sports, board memberships and volunteering, just to name a few. I am sure Suzy Q will continue to be a positive presence in Nhulunbuy for many years to come.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in acknowledgement of the people I had spoken about last night, John Briscoe and Jenny Francis, and tonight, Mary Raymond and Suzy Q, I congratulate them on their long-standing and dedicated employment to the Department of Health and Community Services and for all their services to the public in the Northern Territory.
I foreshadowed in February that school council elections were in the wind. I take this opportunity to congratulate all the fantastic people who make up the School Councils and Student Representative Councils in my electorate schools.
I will start with the Casuarina Senior College which is led this year by Chairperson, Julie Donohue, and supported by the Acting Secretary and Treasurer, Elise Dungey; parent members, Sigrid Evans, Derek Farrell, Cindy Impelmans, Jac Stirrat, Janet Schmidt, Lynne Cooke, Pamela Hose, Denise Crosby and Jill Watkinson; with Principal, Sue Healy, and staff members, Pasquale Cosentino and Hannah Michaelis.
The very enthusiastic Student Representative Council this year comprises president, Tara Alexander; vice president, Jasmine Tremblay; secretary, Sonia Mu; treasurer, David Creeper; Year 12 representative, John-Paul Arango; Year 11 representative, Kaleb Frost; and the Year 10 representative is Kay Dealwis. I wish them all a very successful and exciting year with their studies and with the student representative council work which they undertake in an effort to improve the quality of school life for all students.
The Jingili school community is chaired by Rhianna Suttie-Gunson, with support from deputy chair, Barbara McKaige; secretary, Juanita Gay; treasurer, Carol Kerr; assisting treasurer, Lorna Dudley; parents members, Michael Duffy, Josh and Jo Davis, Tracey Menhonshen, Bridget Riggs and Jane Black; teacher representatives, Judith Armstrong and Judy Purcher; preschool representative, Angela Minotti; kindy rep, Janine Stevens; and invited member kindergarten director, Liz Howden. The Jingili school community is doing great work. It is building on the work of the previous councils and there is a very bright future for the Jingili school community council.
The formally elected Student Representative Council at Jingili school comprises: Jessica Harpur, Blake Larson, Sarah Mikic, Jordyn Stacey, Jacob Browne, Dylan Brown, Amber Muir-McKay, Shayayla Carne, Ashleigh Lambert, Isabella Charles, Blair Galloway, Abby Smith, Jaz Watson, Nicholas Pond, Gage Ryan and Briony Galloway.
The school and house vice captains are: Samantha Kearney and Gavin Boase, captains of Forest; Claudia Lee and Jarrah Fowler, vice captains of Forest; Jarenzo Davis and Mietta Russell, captains of Ocean; Jade Jewell and Jesse Lai, vice captains Ocean; Breanna Haase and Jordyn Carne, captains of Earth; Daina Brown and Jake Levick, vice captains of Earth.
Congratulations to all those representatives. I wish them all the very best with their work for the Jingili school community, a community well know for its excellent work in fundraising. In fact this year, they have taken on the enormous task of fundraising to send about 30 Year 5s and 6s to Canberra in August, which will give the students an opportunity to visit Parliament House, the Australian War Memorial and the snow just to name a few.
At Moil Primary School this year, the 2008 council is chaired by Michael McRostie with vice chair, Sandra Papadonokis; treasurer is Taya Petsheny; secretary, Lisa Bell; assistant secretary, Bronwyn McRostie; and council members, Megan Luis, Kathy Johnston, Irene O’Meara and Diane Ryan.
They do a great job at Moil Primary School and they have already organised quite a number of good events. It has been my pleasure to attend them over the last year, and I look forward to the ones in the coming year.
The successful candidates voted into the Student Representative Council to represent their peers during the 2008 school year were: Johanna Hayes and Zac Luis from Year 3; Arran Stephens and Noah Roche from Year 4; Tayla Palmer and Chad Dickens from Year 5; Sam Jongue and Ralston Riley from Year 6. Mighty congratulations to all these kids. The other part of the school council comprises the House captains and the successful people this year were: Abby Lee and Elina Mosheni, captains of the Greenwood Greenants; Eliza Morse and Adam Johnston, captains of the Byrne Barras; Billy Browne and Anthony Andreou, captains of the Linde Lorikeets; Justin Bond, assistant captain of the Linde Lorikeets; Chloe Wallent and Clancy Standford, captains of the Wilson Wallabies.
I wish all these students all the very best for a great year in their leadership roles and lots of fun during the year as they represent their peers.
Wagaman Primary School is a great school in my electorate. I congratulate the school council which comprises: Justin Heath, who is returning as chair, who has done a great job over many years; Rose McKenzie, vice chair; Sylvia Mavros, parent representative; Michelle Zagorianos, parent representative; and the new people on the committee, Angie Maxwell, secretary; Lenny Ross, treasurer; Katie Karamanakis, parent representative; Annie Boast, invited member; and teacher representatives, Sally Baker and Lois Ramsay; preschool rep, Sue-Ellen Ling; and Principal, Michelle Cody.
That is a school council that does a lot of good work. They really drill down into the detail and their hearts are really for the school. Wagaman Primary School is really moving ahead under the leadership provided by the school council.
Also, the Wagaman Student Representative Council this year are: president, Tristan Garces; vice president, Hakon Dyrting; secretary, Michelle Kerrin; treasurer, Megan Burke; Year 3 class representatives, Will Heath and Alannah Denaro; Year 3/4 class representative, Luke Van der Velde and Rachael Motter; Year 4/5 representatives, Joshua Kelleher, Mya Stewart; Year 5 representatives, Kyban Baird and Sabrina Ciubal; and Year 6 representatives, Germano Bernadino and Teoni Cantrill.
Congratulations to all these extraordinary school students and the best of luck during the year representing your fellow students.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Anzac Day is a special day for everyone across the whole of Australia and New Zealand, when all of us focus on remembering those who sacrificed their lives for our great country and who, by their actions, have shaped what our nation is today. It is right and proper that we never forget those who fought and died for our nation.
I acknowledge the Anzac commemorations that were held around the Territory last week. On Wednesday, 23 April, I attended the Humpty Doo Primary School Anzac Day Assembly. I was very proud of the students’ participation in, and honour of, this significant historical event. The students conducted an informative assembly, acknowledging the history of the Anzacs with readings, one minute’s silence, The Last Post was played, and class representatives laid wreaths at this most impressive memorial service. I am very proud of the way the students conducted the assembly, and their dedication to studying the history and the true meaning of the Anzac tradition.
On Anzac Day, 25 April, I attended the Litchfield Anzac Day commemorations at the Humpty Doo Village Green, where the Lions Club of Litchfield hosted the morning’s program, starting with a march then a very moving service and wreath laying. The march from Taminmin High School to the Anzac Cenotaph at the village green was proudly led by the Vietnam Veterans, with local schoolchildren, service personnel, ambulance, firefighter volunteers, and representatives of our local community groups participating in the march.
I acknowledge the participation of the following organisations which contributed to the success of the 2008 Anzac Day at Humpty Doo: the Humpty Doo St John Ambulance Cadets; Girraween Primary School and St Francis of Assisi School; Howard Springs and Humpty Doo Scout and Guide groups; the Vietnam Veterans Association; and the Humpty Doo, Koolpinyah, and other rural area volunteer fire brigades.
This month was notable for the 10th anniversary birthday celebrations for the Humpty Doo division of St John Ambulance Cadets. Brian and Joyce Maden, who started the Humpty Doo Division, along with the division’s longest serving member, Vicki MacMillan, were all recognised for their outstanding voluntary work as part of this very important community service organisation. As you all know, St John Ambulance volunteers attend many community and sporting events and contribute many hundreds of voluntary hours to these events. Some of the original young people who attended the very first meeting are still voluntary members, while others are now full-time paramedics with St John Ambulance. This is, indeed, a credit to the division. The 10th anniversary celebration clearly marked a significant milestone for the Humpty Doo St John Ambulance Cadets. On behalf of the Northern Territory parliament, I congratulate and thank them for their meritorious service and their continued dedication to serving this very special need in our rural area.
The Henderson government recently recognised the dedication of another very active volunteer organisation in our rural area when Mr Len Kiely presented the Lambells Lagoon Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade with a $60 000 medium attack fire truck. Along with the truck that has since been donated to the Beatrice Hill Volunteer Brigade, both brigades are now well equipped to ensure they are able to assist landholders by continuing to combat bushfires. I also congratulate and thank these voluntary firefighters for the service they provide, and urge them to take care when out fighting fires this Dry Season.
Humpty Doo Primary School recently completed a dream indigenous calendar garden for their early childhood students. I believe its opening was quite a media event. Each of the new garden beds recognises indigenous seasons by incorporating plantings that bloom in each of the six seasons. The indigenous garden features the six seasons namely Wurrgeng, Gurrung, Gunumeleng, Gudjewg, Banggerreng and Yegge.
The visual creation was the brainchild of local author and artist, Di Lucas, and as described in her book, Walking With the Seasons in Kakadu. This has been a real school community project, with many students and parents assisting with the garden construction and painting the wildlife mural in the walkway leading to the garden. Special thanks go to the parent, Michelle Shugg who designed the garden landscaping. Humpty Doo school principal, Felicity Hancock, said the students have also started a school nursery to help grow some of the plants to place in this garden and around the general gardens of the school.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I advise of several special award recipients from Taminmin High School. In particular, congratulations go to Terry Lim on winning a national Simpson Prize for his essay which encapsulated the true spirit of Anzac. This accolade is awarded annually to the top student from each state. Terry was particularly determined to win this prestigious honour as he was the runner up last year.
Following Terry’s award presentation in Canberra, he was also given the honour of travelling to Turkey and attending the Anzac Dawn Service at Gallipoli. I am sure all members of parliament are truly encouraged by the willingness of our students such as Terry to learn about the history of the Anzacs and our Anzac Day tradition. On behalf of the parliament, I congratulate Terry on his efforts.
The Taminmin High School debating team performed extremely well last month by defeating the Darwin High School debating team. As a result of the team’s debating skills, under the leadership of Jan Sparrow, Emily Holyoake was selected for the NT debating team. On behalf of parliament, I congratulate Taminmin High School debating team, Jan Sparrow and Emily Holyoake on their fantastic achievements.
Emily Holyoake also deserves another notable mention as a participant on the Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. Emily represents many young people from the Taminmin High School’s cohort region. As explained in her extract: ‘It is not very often that a bunch of young people get to decide on what goes on in their Territory. It is a pretty awesome opportunity’.
Another rural representative, Amy Smith, is as excited as Emily to represent young, rural people at the Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. Both these young ladies are very pleased to have the opportunity to work hard with the diverse group of young people from across the Territory to express the views of the Northern Territory youth to government.
I also acknowledge Gemma Benn, a previous student at Taminmin High, who is now the Vice Char of the Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. I know we are all very proud of these talented young rural Territorians, and I look forward with interest to the outcomes of these forums.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016