2008-02-20
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 320 petitioners requesting the proposed council reform amalgamations be delayed.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 62 petitioners relating to the amalgamation of councils. This is similar to previous petitions presented to the Assembly.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed; petition read:
Mr VATSKALIS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, since coming to power in 2001 the Labor government has been committed to overcoming the skills shortage that bedevils the Territory economy and is a problem for the economies of the nation and many nations across the western world.
Through programs such as the Jobs Plan, we have focused efforts to provide training, skills and work for young Territorians. Not only are we funding support for employers of apprentices and trainees, we have also taken on the training and skilling of young people directly. In fact, we have put our money where our mouth is.
I report to the House on a very successful program that has been skilling more and more Territorians. I refer to the apprenticeship program run by the Power and Water Corporation. Over the past seven years, the number of apprentices working with Power and Water has doubled. This is an achievement the government is very proud of. The Power and Water Corporation currently has 64 apprentices and trainees. Nine of these apprentices are directly employed by Power and Water, while 55 are employed by Group Training NT with the Power and Water Corporation as their host employer. Twelve new apprentices commenced with Power and Water Corporation in January.
The apprentices are employed across the Territory. The government believes it is important to ensure that skills and training are spread widely over the whole of the Territory. The breakdown of numbers across the Territory is: 42 in Darwin, three in Tennant Creek; six in Katherine; and 13 in Alice Springs. The apprentices are at varying stages of their apprenticeship. Once apprenticeships are completed, the graduates are either directly employed by Power and Water Corporation or given an opportunity to apply for vacancies.
The Power and Water Corporation provides an opportunity for apprentices and trainees to be skilled in a broad range of areas. They are studying various skills and trades:
Electro-technology (Systems Electrician) – 21 apprentices; Electro-technology (Instrumentation) - two apprentices; Electro-technology (Communications) - one apprentice; ESI Distribution (Power line) 24 apprentices; ESI Distribution (Cable Jointing) – two apprentices; Certificate IV in Business – one apprentice; Certificate III in Business – two apprentices; Certificate III in Plumbing – two apprentices; Certificate III in Automotive (Diesel Fitter) – three apprentices; and Engineering (Mechanical) – six apprentices.
These skills are transferable across the private sector as well. In addition to training young people who work in the government sector, we are also adding to the skills base of the Territory as a whole.
To broaden the apprentices’ knowledge and skills, Power and Water recently held forums in Alice Springs and Darwin for its apprentices focusing on training, health and safety, and team building activities. A highlight of the Darwin forum was a presentation by the federal member for Solomon, Damian Hale MP, himself a past apprentice, who recounted his experiences as an apprentice and as a coach.
We are also training our own to ensure we have people in place to deliver an $814m infrastructure program that will rebuild, expand and strengthen the essential services network across the Territory. This extensive program, the largest in Power and Water’s history, needs people to put into place. Not content to rely on flying in skills from other places, we are investing in developing and growing those skills ourselves. An example of growing our own is the high voltage transmission training program introduced into Power and Water. The Territory now trains its own high voltage line operators rather than relying on seeking these highly sought-after skills across the world.
As an indication of the quality of the young people we have attracted, and in the quality of the training provided, Power and Water apprentices have been successful in winning many awards. This has included Apprentice of the Year and Trainee of the Year in the annual Northern Territory Training Awards. I am very proud of the efforts of Power and Water and the apprentices and trainees we employ. This is a program which is aimed squarely at securing the long-term future of this community we live in.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. This is a good news story. I understand, however, that this was never an initiative of the government. This was, in fact, an initiative of those at Power and Water. Government, as this government does, came along, noticed it, picked it up and has, essentially, claimed it as its own. It is not the case, based on my understanding. In any event, it is a good news story. Training young Territorians is exactly what a government should be assisting and facilitating in any way it can. I thank the minister for his statement.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, last night in adjournment I spoke of a young 17-year-old who had gone through the Pathways program. He was not an apprentice with Power and Water, but illustrates what you are talking about. He has finished his NTCE, but he is also this year starting his third-year apprenticeship with Jarvis Ford. It is great to think that a young person can go through their schooling, do their NTCE, but come out at the end having also completed part of their apprenticeship. That is a good program. I hope you get it in action in Darwin as well.
Now that you have such a huge building program going on in remote communities, why not ensure that young Territorians living in remote communities can link into this Pathways program? If you are providing secondary schooling in remote communities, it would be much more interesting if students could start an apprenticeship. I urge you to do so.
I congratulate Group Training NT, which does a great job in ensuring they place apprentices around the Territory and follow up and ensure they succeed. It is hard to be an apprentice. We have heard many stories of how young apprentices start off but get overcome by the amount that is expected of them, and the attitude of some of the employees and employers. That is what is needed to ensure they eventually do succeed in their apprenticeship.
Yes, I agree; it is needed. The more we can do to get more young people involved in these two-way programs, the better.
Mr VATSKALIS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I agree with the member for Araluen; it is a good story. I also remind the member for Araluen that the Power and Water Corporation is a government-owned corporation. What Power and Water does reflects on the government. I am here to answer when bad things happen in Power and Water but also to tell people the good things the Power and Water Corporation does.
I am a very proud minister, and I have to admit I am very interventionist and I will ensure that Power and Water will continue their training program.
I was very impressed recently to read in the Centralian Advocate of 5 February that Reece Debney, Cameron Kahl and Cassius Romberg, 17- and 18-year-olds from Alice Springs, achieved three places as an electrician, a diesel mechanic and a linesman. I assure members that will continue with Power and Water.
With the big money coming for housing, one of the conditions for people who are applying for tenders will be that they will put in place proper arrangements to train indigenous people, in particular, in building and maintenance.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, the Palmerston region has one of the Northern Territory’s fastest-growing populations with one of the highest proportions of young families in Australia. Even though a wide range of health services are already provided by the Department of Health and Community Services and the non-government sector from the Palmerston Health Precinct and surrounds, there are growing demands for more services and integrated health care in the region.
We know that there is a shortage of general practitioners in the region to deal with the growth of the population. After-hours services are limited, and many families have difficulty affording fees charged by GPs, with few practices bulkbilling to Medicare. In fact, the Solomon electorate has GP bulkbilling rates of 57.8%, well below the Australian average of 76.6%. The provision of GP services is primarily a federal government responsibility, and the Northern Territory government has continued to lobby the federal government for more bulkbilling and after-hours GP services for Palmerston.
I am, therefore, pleased to report to the House that, with the Rudd Labor government, we now have a federal government willing to join with us in cooperation and work together at bringing better health services to Territory families. In recognition of its growth and needs, Palmerston was the first super clinic to be announced by the new Australian government with a commitment of $10m.
I met with the federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, in January in Melbourne, where we agreed to immediately proceed with the development of the super clinic. This will build on the work started in 2006 with the Palmerston region through the Department of Health and Community Services’ Palmerston Regional Plan. Initiatives already implemented include the annual breast screening clinic at Palmerston, a new child and family health nurse at the Community Care Centre, and expanded allied health services at the precinct from Royal Darwin Hospital. An important next step is the development of a master plan for the health precinct.
Mr Alan Bansemer has been engaged by the department to develop this plan through a scoping study and has commenced meeting with stakeholders. I expect a formal report in April. Part of Mr Bansemer’s brief is to look at the new federal government’s commitment for funding for Defence Force families to access medical services as well - a very important election commitment by the Rudd Labor government.
The report will provide a framework for the super clinic development and for future health and community service developments in the Palmerston region. Staff in the Department of Health and Community Services and the Australian government’s Department of Health and Ageing will continue to work closely together to ensure the super clinic provides the highest quality services for the Palmerston region and streamlines access to health services.
The member for Brennan joined me in visiting two state-of-the-art super clinics in Melbourne’s satellite cities of Melton and Craigieburn earlier this month. The super clinics were very impressive and offered a range of specialist multidisciplinary clinics, which include doctors, specialists, a range of allied health professionals, as well as technological resources and integrated care services. We gained a strong understanding of the role a super clinic would play by providing appropriate urgent and coordinated care for people close to home rather than to the nearest hospital.
The other benefit of developing the Palmerston super clinic will be the flow-on reduction of demand on Royal Darwin Hospital’s Emergency and Outpatients Departments.
Government will be consulting closely with the local general practitioners to ensure the super clinic is complementary to the services they provide, bridging the gap between emergency care provided in the hospital and ongoing management of patients in the community ...
Mr Mills interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I know you do not like it, member for Blain, like the waterfront, you just do not like it, do you?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: The Palmerston super clinic has as its parameters: 24-hour urgent care services; chronic disease and complex care management services; enhanced outpatient services visiting from RDH; enhanced general services and allied health services; integrated primary health care with Danila Dilba; and, as I mentioned before, health services for families of Defence personnel.
We welcome the Australian government’s commitment to working with us to build a better primary health system for Territorians. We are also looking forward to working with the local community to ensure the super clinic meets their needs and is offering high-quality health services as quickly as possible.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the Health minister for his report today. It is great to see a newfound collaboration with the federal and the Territory government, and the blame game can stop. I do not know who the government is going to blame if it does not go right - probably this one.
While it is good news for Palmerston, we can be a bit suspicious about closing one clinic to make a political point to open the super clinic. There are no bulkbilling doctors in Central Australia. I know this report was focusing on Palmerston, but there is the broader Northern Territory to consider. I draw the minister’s attention to that. Time will tell about the relationship between the new federal Health minister and the Northern Territory Health minister. We hope it is a prosperous relationship and delivers better health services to the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. Anything that helps improve health services in Palmerston and the rural area will be welcomed by people in the rural area. I get worried when you say super clinics; it reminds me of super councils and I worry every night about those.
You also say scoping studies. I am still waiting for a scoping study on a regional waste facility - how many years ago? I have not heard any more since then. I love that word ‘scoping’. I also ask the minister if it is true that the eye clinic in Palmerston has been closed, or is not working from Palmerston any more. I have had a complaint that, once again, people in the rural area are suffering from a lack of services in that regard. Can the minister tell me if that is true? Would an eye clinic be part of this new super clinic? It is important for people in the rural area to know.
There is a lot of politics in the report you gave. Obviously, that is what is expected. Underneath it all it is something that we can all agree on: there is a need for improved health services in Palmerston and the rural area. From that point of view, I support what you are trying to do.
Mr NATT (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I report on some very important research undertaken in monitoring the health of our barramundi stocks to ensure that fishing continues to be the lure of the Territory.
A study, known as the Barracade, involves research teams travelling to Corroboree Billabong, part of the sprawling Mary River system. Two holding nets are then run across the width of the channel to cordon off a section at one end of the billabong. These holding nets effectively block off or barricade a small section of the billabong in which the study is then undertaken. Once enclosed, nets of difference sizes are strung across the channel where barramundi travel. The nets are checked regularly and well into the night, with researchers recording various details about the fish caught. All barramundi are tagged and then released outside the cordoned-off area. The blocked off nets prevent these barramundi from escaping from the cordoned-off research area.
As the sampling nets continue to be checked the stock in the impound area reduces and researchers can then determine the overall number of barramundi in Corroboree Billabong. A scale is then taken from each barramundi caught and later, back in the laboratory, researchers count the growth rings, like growth rings on tree trunks, to determine the age of the individual fish. This is important research as Corroboree Billabong is a barometer of the health of the barramundi stocks in the Mary River system, and Shady Camp, one of our premier barramundi waterways.
To understand the reasons why, you need to appreciate the life cycle of the barramundi. After hatching, baby barramundi move into the high spring tides into the mangrove and wetland habitats. As the Wet Season comes to an end, and the floodplains begin to dry, juvenile barramundi migrate into the freshwater billabongs, such as Corroboree Billabong, and remain there for two to three years. After this time, most of the freshwater barramundi migrate to the ocean to breed. An annual audit of barramundi numbers at Corroboree Billabong provides a valuable insight into the health of the stocks throughout the entire Mary River system and beyond.
This world-class research has revealed that numbers of the fish in the system depends on many factors. It seems that it is not just how big the Wet Season is; the timing of the Wet Season is also important. The build-up of 2006-07 was very dry, with little rain prior to December. Consistent rainfall in the build-up, or early Wet Season, is thought to favour barramundi numbers and their growth. There is also a real trend involving interactions between the numbers of older fish in the billabong and the numbers of new recruits. In years when there are a large number of fish older than one year, we find only relatively small numbers of new recruits and vice versa. This cyclic trend is due to the fact that the larger barramundi are cannibalistic and can effectively wipe out a proportion of the next year’s crop. It is all part of the natural cycle.
Barracade 2007 showed that the average size of the barramundi was around 55 cm, slightly larger than the previous years. Researchers say that our barramundi stocks in Corroboree Billabong are in good shape, thereby ensuring that fishing continues to be the lure of the Territory. This is all part of the world-leading research being undertaken to ensure that our fish stocks remain healthy. Whether it is barramundi research, inventing gene tagging, intelligent tagging of jewfish to unlock details about their movement, mud crab studies, or the effects of catch and release fishing, our Fisheries scientists are working hard to ensure that the fishing experience available today continues into the future.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the report. Research is very important to allow us to have proper management systems to preserve our assets and to capitalise on the advantages that we have. I am sure members who enjoy their fishing would have heard the rain thundering on the roofs last night knowing that augurs well for a fishing season, and the barramundi are starting to move into the upper reaches. That is good news for this season. It also highlights the variable seasons. That is why it is necessary to have continuity of research efforts.
I would like to hear reference to the forward plan. It is not just a research effort now; to be effective, research needs to be systematic and sequential so that you have five-, 10-, and 15-year plans so you can compare apples with apples, otherwise it is just interesting data collected. You need that point of comparison. Could you also make comment on the survey which will support this data? That is the fishing survey mentioned at the AFANT AGM. Does that have a long-term, sequential, strategic plan so that you can compare apples with apples, that we have that forward projection?
All that you say reinforces the importance of research capacity in the Northern Territory, which leads me, obviously, to talk about your research properties across the Territory. What are the plans of government with regard to research in the primary industry sector in the Northern Territory? You have already made a move on one; there are many rumours about evaluation of existing assets: Coastal Plains Research Farm, Katherine, and Douglas/Daly. There are clearly plans afoot. You can call it a review in place, but we know this government’s form with reviews. The intent is already established: to construct a mechanism called a review process to deliver what you intend to do; and that is to close down our research capacity in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was not sure whether I was listening to a parliamentary version of Tales from the Tinny. That is what it sounded like. I have no problems with what the minister is saying. However, when a report is given which is reasonably technical, it would be nice to have a way of showing people on this side what the minister is going to talk about. We talk in fairly general terms about some of the issues in reports, but that was a fairly technical report. If we have an improvement in the way things are done here, then we can give a real response to what you are reporting. It would be nice to see the report, perhaps a day before, so that we could offer suggestions or constructive criticism. Being such a technical report, it is very hard to respond to everything that is in there, and it would be nice if we could have a bit of a warning of such reports.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I speak on what is a simple and straightforward bill. The code proposed by the bill is not dissimilar to the Department of the Chief Minister’s own guidelines, Guidelines for Public Information Programs Funded by Government Agencies. It says in part, under the heading, ‘Avoiding misuse of public funds’, that:
mentioning the party in government or opposition by name (for example, the Labor government or the Mills opposition)
or
using the name of the Chief Minister to describe the government (for example, the Martin government)
should not occur. This, according to the guidelines, is ‘to avoid actual or perceptual misuse of public funds’. According to this guideline, the use of a pronoun to identify a government by relying on the identification of a persona at the head of government is an actual misuse of government funds or, expressed simply, you cannot use the names to identify government when you are using taxpayers’ funds.
This government will not let a silly little guideline get in the way in the heat of political battle. It does demonstrate the need for this bill.
In order to be fair in this, this is an issue that is breached more than it is adhered to on both sides. I believe it is time for a new approach, so that we can make some inroads into strengthening the integrity of the operations that we are conducting on behalf of Territorians.
All this demonstrates the need for this bill. It is clear from the government’s own abuse of their guidelines that they have no qualms about abandoning their standards when a political point is to be scored. That can be demonstrated. It is time to call in a watch dog, an independent umpire.
Last year, prior to the federal election, we saw the Territory government letterbox dropping, and buying advertising space - that is okay, but it was with taxpayers’ money - in a deliberate and politically-driven advertising campaign that was aimed at bolstering an Australian Labor Party federal candidate in the seat of Solomon. Mission accomplished - congratulations to Mr Hale. However, the point is that it can clearly be demonstrated that there was assistance provided for that campaign that was funded by the taxpayer, in clear breach of the standards that government has held as a way of determining how it administers and uses public funds.
This campaign was run against the $100 limit on the purchase of alcohol before you have to sign for the purchase. This is not a debate about whether that is a good policy or not but, rather, it is a debate about how the ALP government in the Northern Territory covertly used taxpayers’ money to purchase advertising behind a tissue-thin veil of public interest. I probably misused the word ‘covert’ - it was quite overt. This is the offending advertisement, and I use this to illustrate the point. It may not breach any issues of factuality; however, the issue of principle is challenged. If government was genuine in its adherence to the concern about the underlying issue and not the politics surrounding it, why do we not see an advertisement today – because, effectively, the law which government has found offensive has not changed - that says the Rudd government’s $100 takeaway alcohol laws do not work? Why do we not have that, which quite clearly illustrates the political intent behind the running of this taxpayer-funded advertisement? There cannot be a defence mounted that would erode that glaring inconsistency in the application of public funds to achieve, sadly, a political end.
Before members over there get too excited and say: ‘Oh, yes, but you have done it too’, that is the point. It has to stop and we have to find a better way of dealing with this so that we can make some inroads into strengthening the perception that we have even of ourselves and our operation in this Chamber in the best interests of Territorians. I recall what we say before we start this parliament each morning: to advance the best interests of Territorians.
Any reasonable inspection of this campaign could not but lead any reasonable person to conclude that the motive behind the campaign was aimed at nothing other than annoying people into voting against Dave Tollner. Some may argue that the Territory government achieved its intended outcome - perhaps with the assistance of public money.
I have heard nothing from the Kevin Rudd government that this component of the intervention is going to be repealed. Certainly, there are moves by the Prime Minister to reinstate the fortress mentality of the permit system, and he has been quick to move on this. However, if the violence of reaction is a measure of passion by this Territory government then, surely, the singular most important issue in the Chief Minister’s mind must be this issue. They must be, as they demonstrated great concern about this. However, it was only for a season - a political season.
Since the day of the election, this government has remained utterly silent on the matter in all paid messages. I have seen no advertising at all about the policy, and the only public comment made by the Chief Minister has been free-to-air during interviews. This betrays in two ways that the government’s mindset is more politically- than issue-based. The first betrayal is the obvious one; that the timing and the volume of the advertising in relation to the federal election was obvious and, second, betrayal of the fact that most people in this government are actually not stupid. In fact, it was deliberately done.
Look at the guidelines which are within your domain to administer. You deliberately made the decision to breach your own strict guidelines to achieve a political purpose at taxpayers’ expense. The members of this government well understood that there is a raft of issues facing Territorians. These include child sexual abuse of epic proportions, infrastructure building issues, and chronic health and crime issues. If I am to understand this government, the most important thing occupying their mind is whether people are asked for their names and addresses when they buy some booze. From the position of an uninitiated observer, it certainly appears to be the top of my issue for the Territory government. However, of course, it is not. The government has stated its priorities clearly, and this is a mere peripheral issue, an issue that can be used for political capital, political mileage - but taxpayers pay for it. The only time it moves in from the periphery is when the federal election is on. Therefore, if it is a peripheral issue, why did it get the attention it did?
The reason, of course, is very simple. It was the only negative part of the Howard/Brough intervention that was felt in Darwin, and it presented a political opportunity to upset people in the urban electorate of Solomon. That is simple, because if this was actually their top-of-line issue, then they would be roundly criticised for being monumentally vacuous and, what is more, they would still be running the campaign if they were genuine in their concern.
Why are we not seeing a corresponding campaign aimed at the Rudd government? Simply because the political advantage is now zero. In fact, the impact would be in the minus area because, from the government’s perspective, their political mates and our masters in Canberra would not be pleased, and we want to develop a new, wonderful relationship. It is good to have a relationship but it has to be based on some integrity and honesty, and good principles. To run one case one day and a different one the next just to preserve the veneer of something seems to be very insincere. This gloss and hype about having a wonderful, new working relationship - well, nod, nod, wink, wink, whatever it takes, and the poor old taxpayer pays the bill. This dreadful inconsistency is observed by them and all of us.
This raises the additional issue as to where the Chief Minister’s mind is. Is it more aligned with a political party or the outcomes for the Territory? That is a discussion for another day and, I suspect, someday soon - perhaps sooner rather than later.
At last count, this government employed 70 people in its various propaganda or information departments. By way of example, the Department of Health employs 11 people focused on selling the message at a cost to the taxpayer of just under $1m. Amazingly, of the $874 961 spent on that section, $756 599 was in wages.
I now turn my attention to the bill. The bill is designed to do a simple thing: to introduce an independent eye to what the taxpayer is being asked to pay for. It is certainly not about creating some new bureaucracy, because the officers who are to address this issue already exist in two instances. The Auditor-General and the Ombudsman are officers both suited to this form of inquiry. The only addition will be a person who, from time to time, will be required to sit on the committee, and this person will be paid on a consultancy basis unless they choose to provide the service gratis. This committee will then either have the capacity to act upon complaint, or by its own motion, and where they find that the code of practice outlined in the bill is breached. Once a complaint has been investigated and determined as contravening the guidelines, the committee may order that the advertising be pulled or amended, or other recommendation that they determine to be correct.
Further, if the person who is found to have offended the code is not happy with the determination, they can challenge the matter in a local court. The committee will determine when it sits, if at all. Hopefully, the presence of this committee will have the effect of, as the Democrats used to say, keeping the illegitimate ones honest. The committee will have to report annually to the Speaker. As the Auditor-General is an officer of this parliament rather than an organ of government, it would be appropriate for that report to be in the Auditor-General’s annual report. In a perfect world, that would be a one-page report at most, because government decisions regarding advertising would not become a matter for complaint or investigation.
The real departure from the government’s policy is that this code will apply to members of parliament and ministers because, if this is passed, it will have the force of law. The reason there currently has to be a separate code for members and ministers is the public service, quite rightly, does not presume to dictate terms to the elected members and the office bearers of this place.
The defence the government put up to this announcement is that there are already guidelines in place. That defence has been nullified by their conduct and reinforces the need for an independent capacity to safeguard the interests of Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I introduce and speak to a very simple bill. Therefore, it will not be necessary to provide a long speech. The thrust of the bill is to ensure that people who attack public servants, ambulance officers, or those people who drive our commercial passenger vehicles in the course of their duty, go to gaol. It also works very simply in that, once guilt has been determined, the sentencing authority must send that person to gaol for at least two weeks. The people we seek to protect include fire officers, police officers, ambulance officers, bus drivers, taxi drivers and those people who serve the public in the form of our public servants. All too often I have seen the news report that bus drivers, taxi drivers, police officers, nurses, or ambulance officers are being assaulted doing their jobs. Those people serve us and it is our duty as parliamentarians to serve them.
It was my original intention to limit the scope of this bill to public servants. However, I have chosen to follow the government’s lead and include commercial passenger vehicle drivers on this list. The reason that I have chosen to do this is that it is clear from government responses to the regular assaults on these people that they do need to be afforded greater protection. Consequently, they have been added to this bill in an effort to show that we believe that these people should be allowed to go about their business unmolested.
The difference between this approach and the approach espoused by government is that as a matter of policy we will not leave it up to the courts to determine the minimum sentence. I believe we, in this House, all want to see the sort of people who assault our public servants, ambulance officers and commercial drivers go to gaol. Let us grasp this and make it happen. This bill, should it become law, will make that happen. This bill is intended to say to a court, and to the public, that we consider those who serve us to be worthy of protection: a basic, minimum protection, and a consequence for a violation of the rights and responsibilities of those who are positioned to serve us.
The top end sentence for a common assault is one year imprisonment and if that assault satisfies one or more of the circumstances of aggravation listed in section 188 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty is five years imprisonment. This bill will ensure that there is a minimum penalty, and it has the effect of setting us apart from government which has been shy of setting mandatory minimums. We know that the government has no philosophical problem with the concept of mandatory minimum sentences as they have applied the principle to domestic violence legislation. Once a government has crossed the threshold of accepting mandatory minimum sentences, the only issue is not philosophical, but practical. The question then becomes to what should, or would, government apply mandatory minimum sentences? Taking the government’s cue, I brought this matter before the House because I believe that people who assault public servants, ambulance officers and commercial vehicle drivers should do time.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That
Madam Speaker, this is an important matter. It needs to be made clear at the outset that there is no member here who is opposed to there being reform. That has been stated again and again. There is no problem with the proposition that there needs to be reform. I do not recall anyone at any public meeting, no matter how hostile those meetings were, in invariance with that central point. The objective is clear: we all need to have some improvements. The concern is the method that government has employed to bring about that reform. No more will the terms ‘open, honest and transparent’ or ‘consulting the community’ be used because those phrases have been tarnished by the actions of this government.
Everyone would agree that the number of current local government bodies for the population is deemed not to be efficient and there can be better ways. We are also aware that other jurisdictions have rationalised local government, although the intended reform in Queensland has been very controversial, perhaps for similar reasons as we are finding here. We are also aware, for its own reasons, that government did not include Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs in the reform, but it did include Litchfield and Tennant Creek.
Government is seeking to reduce the duplication of services - we can all agree with that – and, therefore, reduce costs in small communities with hub-type provision of services. It is also hoped that local employment will be generated by new councils contracting local people to undertake across shire services - a noble objective.
How we get to that point is the question, not the objective - not the necessity for reform, but how we get to that point. That is the issue. That is why we call upon government to stop and ensure that you can take people with you. The point of reform is not implementing something that you think is a good idea, you have to have the people there to enjoy, live and work through that reform, in fact and in reality. It is something that people need to live out in their own communities. If you have that disconnect you may have achieved an objective of one kind, perhaps satisfying a bureaucratic or a political objective, or a decision of Cabinet. That decision must be then lived out of the lives of those whom it affects directly.
I am not being churlish or trying to find a political point of difference here. I am concerned. I have been to those meetings and I worry that the implementation of a good intention will bear the opposite result because of the lack of engagement in a real way. The decision was made; the machinery was put into gear, and off it lurched across the paddock. When you went to the public meetings, the locals were concerned about some of the details of this reform process and how it would impact upon them. I have said right at the beginning that the minister should have stood in front of the community at the beginning and, basically, held their hand and reassured them that, ‘Though this may be a difficult process, let me put my case and let me argue it through’. The member for Nelson and I did not jump in, in the first instance, to organise a meeting to beat a political drum, to play some political game. The noise was growing very loudly in the community that there was growing concern. It took members on this side to step in to try to bring that issue together, so that we could at least move our way forward.
Anyone who went to that meeting – and I know the members for Daly and Goyder were at that meeting; I think you were at the first meeting, member for Goyder – saw that the intent was one to try to deal with the core problem. People had felt disconnected from what was being done, and they were naturally wary and concerned about change, particularly when change is applied to them, and when the word ‘consultation’ is applied in a sense of ‘Let us consult’. Folk are not silly. They know that when you put a proposition like that to them - once bitten, twice shy - what is really going on behind those words is: ‘We have decided we will go through the exercise, call it consultation and, once we have that part out of the way, we will still implement what it is we have intended to implement in the first instance’. So, the consultation becomes an exercise.
I say: ‘Good on those folk in the Litchfield Shire’. They are fortunate in that they have some very extraordinary leadership, particularly embodied in the member for Nelson, who is uniquely qualified to manage a leadership role at this time. He is the local member of the largest section being affected but, more importantly, he has an intimate knowledge of the workings of local government, particularly as it applies outside the urban areas. He did a good job, without a doubt.
There were questions that were not answered to the satisfaction of those who needed those questions answered. The horse had bolted, because it got off to a bad start, because the consultation was not genuine. That could be taken as insulting, but genuine in the sense that it was real. If you are going to ask someone a question, you have to hear what they say back to you. You do not ask someone a question, ignore what they say and then ask the next question to manage the issue for your own purposes. That is not a genuine consultation.
The messages were clear. My ears are open enough to be able to hear the way the questions were asked and the processes were implemented - and people could see that. They may not deem themselves to be experts in legislation, but they can tell when they are being misused and their sensitivities are being overlooked. That is why you need that person-to-person engagement; to stand before them and say it right at the outset. That did not occur.
The point is that there are a number of issues that have arisen with answers insufficient to be able to allay the concerns. What government has done is decide to cop some political heat, pull the pin on it, cut the members for Goyder and Daly some slack, take the political heat out of this, wear it, and then move on.
To be honest, you have to recognise that the unanswered questions and the improper processes that have been brought to light in that particular area that government has responded to equally apply - and perhaps in a greater measure - to those for whom I have concern, who do not have a strong voice and are not concentrated together or have good means of communication. It was focused on the Litchfield Shire and then government made its calculated, political decision and stepped back. That is where the efforts of consultation must be brought to bear in greater measure. If you want to leave a legacy, you leave that legacy in the lives of the people that you are making decisions for, not a legacy in, ‘We have achieved that and the people just did not get it, and we are ahead of our time’. You can make whatever excuse you like but, effectively, it is about you, it is not about them.
I do not want to go too far down the line without saying that I do believe that those who were involved in the reform process were genuine, but I believe there was a disconnect in the leadership role in connecting with the community. It is clear that change is very difficult to implement. In the Northern Territory I would counsel that, as the Litchfield Shire has demonstrated, ‘crash through or burn’ is not the approach that you take, particularly with this kind of reform. It is so important. If you have underlined the needs for these reforms, as you have clearly articulated, and no one disagrees, you have to then tread carefully and ensure that the people are onside.
Taking a different tack on this, I look back at Groote Eylandt. It is a different situation, but the most remarkable thing about the changes that occurred in the management of the alcohol problems in Groote Eylandt is that it took a long period of time. Compromise, discussion, arguments, changes – and I think there were 13 different versions of the agreement until they came to a point where they could find that common ground, and now you have something that is solid, that is good.
That is the sort of work we need to have. That is the sort of effort that is required to fight on the front line and to understand the people you want to do something to. You are actually doing it for them. They did not understand that. It looked like you have come up with a good idea in some office and you went out there and, basically, told them and ran some exercise to impose it. We need to recognise those issues, and stop it, out of respect to Territorians, so that we can see those benefits lived out in the lives of others.
In fact, it made me consider a number of similar versions of how these sorts of matters are played out and resolved in our community. You have probably all heard about victim/offender conferencing. Many would view the community is the victim here and the offender is the government. If you want to use the model of the victim/offender conferencing, which I believe is the model, if you are going to talk about consultation, to recognise that an offence has been committed in the minds of many Territorians, justified or unjustified in the minds of whoever is involved in this, the fact is there is a problem. Once you recognise that there is a problem, then you have a way of responding to that problem. If you see it in those terms, of a victim/offender conference, there has to be that level of honesty first up. What is the purpose of this activity? If it is reform, and those who feel that they are having the reform done to them think that it is not being implemented or they do not understand what the reform is about, then you have a fair bit of work to do before we can take matters to a different place.
Consultation is about bringing the two parties together, to have a proper talk about it, a real talk, look at each other and sort it out. I am very concerned about those who are remote in this matter, the people in the Barkly, and people in remote communities. What do they really understand about it? How empowered are they in fact, or is it another form of paternalism where something is deemed to be good and then it is done unto? That is the problem that we have seen again and again. Good ideas may be good, but they must connect to the people that you are seeking to improve their lot, their experience. That connection has been missed. Many words can be tossed around to describe that state of mind. The obvious one is arrogance. Arrogance means that your own view is regarded as superior. Therefore, there is little need to consult the view of another because you are confident in your own view.
Once you step down that path you are in serious trouble. Those that you seek to benefit will not be benefited because you have lost their trust. Once bitten, twice shy contains much meaning and people have had much done unto them, particularly those remote, and those who are not as focused and organised as those who were able to have the lines of communication established and the information flow in such as Litchfield. They had their own particular issues, but underlying that were the same problems. Those who have quieter voices, stretched lines of communication, and lack of information are the ones who really should concern a government that has spoken about these matters, about having great concern about those remote.
It is about them, it is not about you, and it is about what you want to do for them. Therefore, I am urging government to stop. To stop it and to ensure that there is a genuine community engagement process put in place before you then move forward. I will say it again: no one disagrees with the objective; it is the way in which it has been done.
You will say all sorts of things and point to all sorts of structures that were put in place. You will say that you put in transitional committees. I have heard it once, twice, 1000 times - transitional committees - but that did not meet the need on the ground. Sadly, if you are in government you develop first a defensive mindset and you will defend your position. But you know how a defensive person is: their ears become blocked to hearing what is coming from the other side. That is why I like to use the concept of victim/offender conferencing so that you can start to develop a hearing capacity to hear what the real problem is.
You know that people do not like change for starters. That is why you have to tread very carefully and work it through, so that you develop their respect and trust. That is what has to occur. Otherwise there will be a lot of expense, a lot of heartache, and we could well be creating a mess for others to clean up.
Those folk who live remote from the urban centres such as Alice Springs, the Top End, and Katherine, are the ones we need to make an extra effort for. That is why we must have that genuine engagement. Authentic consultation is the response to an authentic desire to find an authentic solution to an authentic problem. You have to establish the foundations of this. That has not been done. That kind of work has not occurred. You seem to be excessively confident in the position that you hold in government and the information flying around. Perhaps others have seized the agenda. Perhaps those who are in the department have become excessively enthusiastic about a particular agenda which may have merit, but there is the missing ingredient of how you connect that to the problem and sell that solution.
The very disappointing aspect of this - and there are none so blind as those who will not see or choose not to see – was in Litchfield’s case, the government even trumped up the financial viability argument. Then, great shame, they could not back it up. They tried to run one argument when it came to the dump, if you are in Litchfield, and then changed to a completely reverse argument when it came to the plan to implement forced amalgamation. Two completely different and conflicting positions run by the same government. People can see that. You become desperate, you become, in the judgment and minds of many, dishonest. Your intent becomes more aggressive and you run roughshod over the sensitivities of the good folk who are required to wear the decisions of government. That was offensive. An offence occurred even in the conducting of that particular line of argument.
Life is difficult enough without our community leaders running that kind of confusing and unethical argument just because they want to win the argument. People can stand back and say: ‘Well, I may not have the resources, I may not be able to argue as well as you can, I may not be as educated as you, but I can see the inconsistency as plain as day’. That is offensive. You are required to provide a different kind of leadership, to show that you are genuine in your interest, not to grasp at straws and to cross over your arguments just to suit the particular battlefront you are fighting on at that time.
If you run your own family like that you will find your house divided against itself, but you do not run that kind of agenda in the community: two conflicting stories, it is dead set wrong. There are consequences of that inconsistency, and it erodes your integrity, and diminishes and corrodes trust and confidence in your ability to deal with what everyone is concerned about, which is bringing about some better outcomes in the administration of local government. It seems to be obvious that the minister and government was hostage to a bureaucratic exercise of the department and they ran an ideological line to support it. Authentic engagement and consultation does not attempt to ram a solution down the community’s throat. Read your history books. It does not work.
We spoke of sorry in this Chamber only last week, at this sort of approach to solutions to the indigenous problems in the Territory. It is a similar sort of approach. You know better, implement it, the outcomes and, my goodness, how did that occur? It is because of the same kind of approach. It is an arrogant approach. It is an approach borne out of a disconnect and an excessive confidence in your ability, and a diminishing and a disempowering of those who you are seeking to serve. Authentic engagement and consultation identifies the problem, clearly and honestly, and then works with the community to find a real and workable solution. Take them with you, and then you can go somewhere and achieve something, and leave a proper legacy. It is not a one-size-fits-all.
When I was at university, I remember we would sit around in the evening or the afternoon and sort out all the problems of certain situations. Some of us were studying politics, some philosophy, some psychology and, over a few beers, we basically sorted out serious problems. We could see it so clearly, and nothing would shake our view. We were young and nave, but we were confident and we thought we knew. As we matured, we realised that those ideas were missing something. We were missing an honest appraisal of the circumstances we did not really understand. I feel it is the same approach that has occurred here.
There has been a compounding sense of confidence in the solution you have developed, and you have missed that essential ingredient of how you walk that through with the people who live out there, away from this place. That is the problem. That is the missing gap. If we can fix that then we are going to change the necessity for giving an apology or saying sorry because we have mucked it up. We know what the objective is but we have mucked it up because of that disconnect.
That is why we are calling upon government to stop it and to develop a genuine engagement of the community to achieve the objective. You will do a lot once you have the support of the community. We will still have to play our role and point out areas that we feel need to be strengthened, but we will not withhold areas where we believe you are doing well. You will need to do that. Otherwise, if there is a change of government, I bear this in my forward thinking. I, or someone else in this Chamber, will be left to clean up and manage a very difficult situation. I have a sense of continuity in this. I intend to serve as long as I can with the will of my community in this Chamber - as I am sure the rest of you do. The consequences of a decision made or not changed today will result in challenges into the future that you may not be there to attend to.
The community may say: ‘Enough is enough. We want to get someone else to represent our interests’. Then there is an egg to be unscrambled which can take and absorb a huge amount of resources, time and energy, and corrode goodwill and trust in the community when we have other matters to deal with. We have many serious matters to deal with.
I am urging government to stop, reflect, devise a genuine engagement strategy, and conduct some honest business with the community. We will stand with you as we have all the while. I do not think any member of the community has stood in a different spot. The end point is reform, improvement, and efficiencies, but we need to work on how that is done.
If you are satisfied that pressing the abort button on the implementation as it relates to the Top End Shire is the solution, it is, in fact, the unveiling and the glimpse of the problem. Those people were organised, they had good lines of communication, and there was some leadership. That only reinforces that those who are fewer in number - more remote, who do not have strong lines of communication and do not have the information - are the ones we really should be responding to, if we are honest. They are the ones we must respond to. If you do not put that engagement strategy in place to meet their needs, then we have a very serious problem. You may be able to shut out other thoughts or conflicting arguments and just manage a political situation, crash through and exit stage right, and say: ‘Well, I gave it my best shot’, but you have not really reflected and you have left a mess for others to clean up.
I urge members to seriously consider the flow-on consequences of the political decision I believe was made last week just to manage that, and to recognise that there is a need to stop, then restart, so that you can get to the place you, I and all of us agree we need to be. You have to have the people there with you when you arrive at that destination, otherwise here is the reform over here and the people are all standing angry over there. We all have to get on the bus - and I do not think you can even manage to get them on the bus - if you want to take them somewhere, and go along for the ride to the destination. However, you have to get them on the bus for starters before you take them anywhere. You cannot just go running around, yelling out your own message, mantra and slogans, then drive off and find that you are there but the people are not. We are here to serve the best interests of the community.
Anyway, it will be on your head. In fact, sadly though, it will be on all of our heads if you do not adjust your position on this issue, because the problem will be there. I predict that if it is not addressed; if pride or some other political agenda gets in the way and you think: ‘Oh no, we will just crash through this one and we will cop it’, you might salvage something for yourselves. If your primary objective is that a certain number can stay in power, you might achieve all that. However, I worry about the folk who are a long way from here. They are the ones we really should think more about.
I urge members to support this motion. I gather - oh, let me be surprised, but …
Ms Carney: Live in hope, Millsy.
Mrs Braham: We can all live in hope.
Mr MILLS: Yes, me too. Anyway, I urge members, I trust you have heard what I have said and I look forward to the debate. I will listen to what is said on the other side of the Chamber and weigh it very carefully, because it will have long-term consequences. I urge support of the motion.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I have said before that the CLP government recognised the need for reform in local government. I have said before that the push was started when I was minister and we did have cooperation. We did it on a voluntary basis. There were communities which amalgamated, there were communities which were about to amalgamate. Perhaps the problem with the CLP approach was that we did not say: ‘Yes, you must do it’, and left it voluntary. At least it was inclusive, at least there was communication and many clusters were talking to each other to make the decision about whether they would amalgamate. As you would remember, the Anmatjere Council amalgamated, the Tiwi Island councils did, the West Macs was ready to go when something happened; it fell out of the sky.
We all need to recognise that local government needs reform. There were concerns back then, and there are probably concerns now, about some of the mismanagement of funds, and there were concerns about the influence of families on decision-making. I do not need to go into all the reasons why reform is necessary.
The thing is we consulted well. We had people, as the member for Blain has said, onside. They were coming with us, and we are not seeing that today. People are not saying that they know exactly what is going on and that they are prepared to willingly join in this process.
What we were looking at then were far smaller shires. If I remember, the previous Minister for Local Government in the Labor Party, minister Ah Kit, had a proposal for 21 shires. It was a very good, sensible proposal. Unfortunately, it did not go much further than that. I believe the reaction we are seeing today is because of the size of your shires and the difficulty of ensuring people in those proposed shires hear what you are saying and can be involved in the process.
We have recently heard that Amoonguna is taking the government to court over this amalgamation. They are not keen on amalgamating with the MacDonnell Shire. Perhaps they should be part of the Alice Springs municipality. It is not very far away from Alice Springs. Did anyone talk to the Amoonguna people about this and suggest it to them? Were they given an option? Or were they just told: ‘No, sorry, this is where you are and this is where you will be placed’. It does not hurt to sometimes rethink the way we are going about things. What concerns me most of all is that the government has this firmly stuck in their mind and we are not totally convinced that there has been enough consultation.
I believe you need to slow down. I would like you to do a trial. I would like to see you take the MacDonnell super shire that was so ready to go before and see how it goes, see whether it works - whether there is enough communication, whether there is enough involvement with the people, whether people really understand the business plans. Do they understand what it is all about? Do they understand they will not have their CEO on the ground? Do they understand who they have to refer to now in the decision-making process? Part of the concern of the Anmatjere Council was that transport for members to get to meetings became a difficulty. The transport of people to attend these meetings is going to be difficult as they are from such vast areas of the Territory. I wonder if the operational aspects of what you are buying into have been thought out completely.
I have heard that a number of experienced staff are already leaving communities. You could argue that is a good thing, but you are taking away much of the corporate knowledge from the communities. What are you going to replace it with? I understand that there have already been changes, for instance, in some of the stores with store managers. We have seen the outback stores move into a number of communities and I admit they seem to be doing a good job. They seem to be, with the intervention and the quarantine of income, providing a better service and a healthier store for people. Let us not forget that some stores already did that. I was at Mt Allen one day when the fresh vegetables arrived at the store and people were purchasing because they knew that was the day the stock was coming in.
We cannot say that every community is bad, that every community has corruption, and that every community has mismanagement. There are good communities. I wonder how closely they have been consulted. Why not take a deep breath and do a trial? What is wrong with that? Why do we not say to a group who are willing: ‘You be the model and we will see what glitches there are as you progress’? It may be just for 12 months. What is 12 months in the life of a council out in the bush? Why do you not just give it a go? I am saying to government to slow down. I am not saying stop; I am saying slow down. Think about how you can do it better so that you can get more people onside.
I believe only the minister is responding to this motion. That is a little sad. I would have liked to have heard from some of the members who have rural communities. I would have liked to have heard them say what their particular community is saying to them about this amalgamation. It is important that they put on public record what they are hearing out there. They are elected to represent their people but we are not hearing from them. I believe we are missing part of the debate when the people who have the electorates that are involved in this process are silent. What does the silence tell us? They do not care? Anything goes? They are willing to do whatever government says just to keep their place in this Assembly? Why are you there if you are not prepared to speak up for your people? You cannot tell me that every member of this Assembly has not had some concerns raised with them. I urge other members of the Assembly, if your electorate is one of those communities where there is support, tell us. Just do not hear it from this side of the House. Let us hear your point of view as well.
When you look at the business plans that are on the website and you try to evaluate them, they seem very much the same right across all communities. If I was running a business and I had a number of different stores, I do not know whether that would be the way I would go. I would adjust it to suit the different situations. I am concerned that there has been no consideration given to the differences in communities, in community values, expectations, and hopes of this whole process. How many people in the community actually understand business plans? I have to admit that I have looked at them and thought: ‘How do you take these huge documents …’, - and I am sorry I did not bring one in with me - ’… and say to me that those residents out there actually understand all that is going on’? I do not believe they do. The government should acknowledge that they are difficult, and, for the lay man, very difficult to understand.
I believe the government needs to take a deep breath and slow down. I do not think it is accepted out there in the community. There are many reasons why, and you will hear from people on this side, I am sure. It is a big step. It is going to affect communities for a long time. I suggest that we need to ensure that all communities understand exactly where they are going, what is going to be expected of them, and what they are going to achieve at the end.
Madam Speaker, I know where the opposition is coming from. I have said enough to make you understand that I am in favour of the reform process, that I do not say we need to stop, but that we need to go slower.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I support the motion moved by the Opposition Leader and call on the Chief Minister to engage in some meaningful and genuine community consultation before resuming the Local Government reform process. It is a failed model. That has been demonstrated by the exemption of the Litchfield Shire from the Top End Shire. What you have is some inequity when it comes to rates and such, with some cattle stations paying rates and some not, particularly when they border each other. That is a real concern for other cattle stations - and not just cattle stations, but particularly cattle stations - throughout the Northern Territory. Those 13 are now exempt from such rates, so it certainly does not appear to be fair.
The Northern Territory government has already lost one minister over this; I hope they are not prepared to lose another one over it. Despite the unprecedented concern shown by professional bodies throughout the Northern Territory such as the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the Minerals Council, the Northern Territory Business Council, the Chamber of Commerce of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory government has decided to press on and all those stakeholders, those people living in those communities governed by the Alice Springs Town Council, the Tennant Creek Town Council - which recently weighed into the debate saying they would like to be exempt - the Darwin City Council and the Cox Peninsula Community Council, have had to put up with this forced amalgamation.
I will read some of the correspondence that I have collected over recent months regarding this debate.
The member for Nelson has been exemplary in going into bat for his local constituents in Litchfield. This is a very interesting letter from the former Minister for Local Government, the member for Barkly. It is a letter to the member for Nelson:
It also says:
That was from the former Minister for Local Government. The member for Nelson, through the Information Act, requested proof of that not being viable into the future. This is a letter from the department:
If you could extrapolate that right across the whole of this proposed forced amalgamation, you can see why it is a failed model. I am not sure where the former minister did get his information from, it certainly does not exist.
This is a letter published in the Northern Territory News on 29 October 2007, a full-page letter from the President of the Cox Peninsula Community Government Council, and Garry Lambert, Lord Mayor, Darwin City Council. I can table that if the Assembly would like to see it; I am sure they have. I will not read it all, but it says:
why the minister rejects a cooperative amalgamation when other councils are rejecting forced shire amalgamations?
why the minister is restricting the future growth of Darwin when development from Darwin will logically move across the Darwin Harbour?
why the minister will not listen to the will of the people?
That was on 26 October 2007, published in the NT News on 29 October 2007 by Vic Stow, president of Cox Peninsula Community Government Council and the Lord Mayor of Darwin City Council - some heavy hitters, I would have thought.
Another letter is from the CEO of the Cox Peninsula Community Government Council. I will highlight some of that. It was a letter to me and it said:
There is a series of questions and concerns illustrated by organisations such as the Northern Land Council, the Northern Territory Minerals Council, the Cattlemen’s Association, the Trucking Association of the NT, the Northern Territory Horticultural Association - just to name a few. They have some concerns. Some of these are:
I know that has been brought up many times by the member for Nelson and the Opposition Leader:
A couple of questions there.
And:
A couple of unanswered questions are highlighted by those organisations I just mentioned - too many unanswered questions.
I have some more correspondence. This is from the Alice Springs Town Council, written by the Mayor, Fran Kilgariff, on 9 October 2007. Part of that letter which I will highlight said:
A few questions have been raised by the Northern Territory Minerals Council:
the lack of financial and economic modelling underpinning proposed shire budgets;
the lack of certainty about the level and allocation of road funding;
the uncertainty about what, if any, services will be provided in return for paying rates; and
what tenements are to be considered ‘mining tenements’ and what ones are not;
how the interests of the minerals industry will be represented under the new shire’s structure.
This is from the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory on 22 August 2007:
There are more questions. In fact, this is the conclusion from a group of organisations titled ‘Too Many Unanswered Questions’. Those organisations are the Chamber of Commerce, the Northern Land Council, the NT Cattlemen’s Association, the Territory Construction Association, and many more including the Horticultural Association and Small Business Association. They said:
And we do believe that local government reform is important. We have never opposed reform per se. We believe that local government reform is important, therefore, it needs to be done slowly, carefully, and in consultation with everyone who is affected. We believe the current proposals are seriously flawed, have enormous financial implications for all Territorians, and will not find the efficiencies the government is talking about. If these reforms are rushed, if mistakes are made, all Territorians will eventually pay for them. That is just some of the correspondence that I have collected over the last few months from those organisations.
Too many organisations are, obviously, lined up against these forced amalgamations and there are too many unanswered questions. The former minister was unable to answer questions when under pressure at certain rallies and meetings across the Northern Territory. I attended a few of those, and I know other members here attended most of those, the member for Nelson and the Opposition Leader as well. The Country Liberal Party, of course, supports local government reform, it is an essential part of the growth of the Northern Territory, and I do not believe anyone in this House would dispute that. However, we do not support this forced-style amalgamation, this dictated model. We support a model that recognises performing councils and supports non-performing councils.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion that the Northern Territory government stop the local government reform process and that the Chief Minister outline a genuine engagement strategy to retain the trust of Territorians before resuming the reform process.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would have liked to have heard what the new Local Government minister had to say. After all, this is our day and, sometimes, the roles are reversed. I suppose the government is in the habit of having its way.
The implementation of local government reform may have been for the right reasons, but it has been delivered to Territorians in such a dictatorial and arrogant way that any person who believes in a democratic process, any person who believes in open and transparent government, would be ashamed of what has happened. It is difficult to take any of this seriously if a government that is pushing for statehood and complains about being bossed around by Canberra cannot treat its own people and institutions with respect. The local government reform process has been a key example of that lack of respect.
I believe, in broad terms, that there has been a need for local government reform. With most of the Territory unincorporated and with some Aboriginal community councils - not all, by the way - dysfunctional, then something was needed to change the situation. There is no argument about that. The big question was: what changes would be needed to improve things? In the late 1990s, the CLP government tried to do something with its initial attempts of a unified council on the Tiwi Islands. That appears now, in hindsight, to have been a very costly financial disaster.
Minister Ah Kit brought in the Building Stronger Regions policy, which considered about 22 regional councils and that seemed, with a few exceptions, to disappear into oblivion. I believe it is a policy that should be looked at again. We had a number of Aboriginal regional councils set up. What has now happened to them? It seemed that the slow progress of this policy by councils has been a catalyst for pushing the new reform process, but it was the government’s own fault that the Building Stronger Regions policy did not succeed.
No matter, this government decided to introduce widespread sweeping reforms under the pretext of more jobs, better services, access to Commonwealth funding that could not otherwise be accessed, and low rates. Debate on the truth behind these claims was stifled in regard to the Territory. To achieve this Napoleonic local government plan, the government, controlled by the masterminds of the Department of Local Government, and supported by the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory which seemed to be more worried about its future than its members, decided on the following without any consultation with the community.
There would be nine shires. These will be based on population except in the case of the Tiwi Islands and the Top End Shire. Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs would be exempted. The boundaries of the new super shires, except for some minor changes, would be set in concrete. A timetable was also set in concrete. The Top End Shire’s rates would be capped and the rating system would now include a UCV system of rating, not just a flat rate, which it had for the last 24 years.
The one thing clear from this was there was no community consultation. The government rushed through legislation under urgency to put its reforms in place; legislation which gave enormous power to the minister. The government set up transition committees which were not represented at the community level as happened in the case with the Top End Shire. Two people represented 17 000 people; another 10 people represented 3000 people. It set up the transition committees as a cover for community consultation but the community was not welcome at these meetings. The meetings were held during the day when people were at work anyway. I remember the first time the transition committee sat I was asked to leave.
The shire managers from the Department of Local Government were appointed by the government not the elected council. The CEO and Director of Corporate Affairs were appointed by the government, not by an elected council. The government did not try to set up genuine meetings to ask people what they wanted. It just sent a Labor mate, Sheila O’Sullivan, with all expenses paid, to run meetings. There was only one government-run public meeting in the Litchfield Shire which was at the Taminmin High School library. That was run by Sheila O’Sullivan and was an absolute debacle. There was no doubt about that.
There were other matters such as when the minister said at the Dundee meeting - and I have the notes - that the transition committee will decide the rates. Before they had time to meet, the minister announced the Top End Shire rates and the rating system and, of course, the local members for Goyder and Daly supported that. They wrote nice supportive letters to their constituents, but everyone knew that this was a political stunt to get these unpopular changes passed at the next election. In fact, this is what the new Local Government minister said on ABC on 8 August last year:
The reporter then said:
And then he went on about why he thought Mary Walshe was the problem. But he said:
Even after two rallies, two petitions, one with about 800 signatures and the other with nearly 5000 signatures, and also hundreds of people turning up to non-government run meetings in the rural area, the Chief Minister said on 27 November last year that the people supported the reform agenda. I do not know where he is coming from, but he is doing his best to twist the truth. Look at what he said at the last sittings of parliament. He used quotes from a couple of Katherine aldermen in the Katherine Times saying that they supported the government reform process.
In fact, they were applauding the government in relation to the consultation process with councils, not the community, and they were referring to the new Local Government Act not the reform process. Katherine was not being amalgamated nor did they have to be consulted about the business plans of new shires. They were not being dissolved. The minister just needed to show people’s support of the process. He was simply trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. This is a page from the Katherine Times of 28 November which is where he was getting the article from. If you read it, in the third paragraph you will see:
That is the act:
Also Bill Daw said this was good as well. They were referring to the Local Government Act. That did not come out clearly when the minister was speaking in relation to this. We are talking about the local government reform process. That is a vast difference.
Again, during the last sittings, the then minister said there were in excess of 200 suggested changes which showed there had been a very strong, extensive consultation process right across the Territory. Once again, this is a government blind spot. The 200 suggested changes more than likely came from the transition committee, the non-consultative process, the government pretence and the ‘big con’. It did not come from the community.
You have to remember the business plans are what shapes the new council as they will be set in concrete by the Local Government Act. These plans will set out the functions of the new council, which will have to be funded and paid for by the ratepayers. The community at Litchfield turned up in their hundreds to hear what was in the business plans. What they saw was a government plan that was dictatorial, complicated and bureaucratic. Please, government, tell this parliament how many meetings you have held throughout the Territory which explained to people exactly what was in the business plan. I think there was none. Do not use the transition committee as your excuse. I want to know how many people, ordinary community members of the councils, know exactly what is in there. That is the reason I held the meeting. When people saw what was in there, they were concerned.
For instance, if you pick up the Barkly plan, and it is also in the MacDonnell plan - I have not looked at the others - and you look under ‘commercial services’, you see that horticulture will be a commercial function. I have nothing against horticulture; I spent a fair bit of my life growing vegetables on communities. Small agricultural ventures would be good for these small communities. However, you say, ‘a council will’. This thing here says they will take them over. It means they will have to be funded and paid for by the ratepayers. To say a council will do them is just plain dumb. To think you are going to make a profit which could be ploughed back into the community for other projects is up in the clouds, and that is what it says here. Who questioned this? I am not against horticulture, but is it a commercial function that a council will – it says ‘will’ - take on? Surely that is debatable. ‘May’ if it is necessary. Or is it really someone’s private concern to run a commercial operation? That is just a simple example of where we needed to take this out to communities for someone to question them - not to say the reform should not occur but so people could actually make a decision free - not of the department, but free - or after an independent person went through that with these people. These business plans have been drawn up by someone sitting on a cloud; his feet have never touched the ground. Second, they show that these plans have not been subject to independent scrutiny; and third, the author has never grown vegetables.
If the government had consulted by explanations and consultations with Aboriginal people about these business plans in a manner that Aboriginal people could understand, then maybe I could believe that consultation took place. But I do not believe it.
On the radio the other day, Peter Alleman from the Galiwinku Community Council was saying that for many people in his area, for whom English is a second, third or fourth language, to understand a business plan that is only accessible at the present time on the web, highlights the fact that people do not have a real opportunity to understand what is in the business plans. There is a classic example: a person who is working on an Aboriginal community feels that they do not know what is in these business plans.
We also had the Chief Minister claiming there will be more money for roads. The reality is that unless the NT government can get some special grants for roads, road funding will not increase, because road funding is part of local government funding from Canberra and that funding is based on population. Making the Territory incorporated will mean more roads to be maintained with the same amount of money. LGANT already gets some money and the NT government can hand over some of its own money which it uses on unincorporated roads at the moment. Unless there are special grants, there is no more money.
Minister, in the preliminary plan for the Top End Shire Draft 1, it states: ‘there will be $15m worth of funding’ they hope to get. In the second draft, a few months later, the $15m is gone. That sends a message that they do not have the money. That was money from the federal government they hoped to get. We must remember these are only grants we are talking about. Grants come and go – black spot programs, AusRoads. They usually have to apply for the funds. You might not get them; they are not consistent funds. If we are to have funds that we can use year-in year-out to maintain our roads, I do not know where you are going to get them, because I can gather …
Mr Kiely: They are a formula.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you have to understand the politics of local government funding. It is not necessarily what Canberra says, it is what the states say. They are the ones that have the control. Federal ministers in parliament in Canberra are not going to go against their state counterparts and say that extra money should be going to the Northern Territory. You will hear time and time again, state Premiers say: ‘We do not get enough share of the revenue’. That is a common criticism of the federal government’s methodology for supplying funding for areas in Australia with low populations.
This is all part of the glossy sell. If the government was genuine it would have come out in rural public meetings. Mr Lawrence Ah Toy asked the executive director of the department for proof that Litchfield was not viable, and he still has not received an answer to that. Of course, the minister said on a number of occasions that the government had done some modelling to show that Litchfield was not viable. The member for Greatorex just showed you the letter that came back from the executive director saying that there was no modelling. If one thing annoyed me the most, it was that this government said it was dissolving Litchfield because it would not be viable into the future, with a figure of 10 to 15 years. When asked for the evidence, the evidence has not been forthcoming.
To me, you cannot start a reform process based on a dishonest approach at the beginning. The foundations have to be sound. I am for reform, but if you base reform on a dissolution of a council, based on no evidence - and it has been asked for many times – then do not expect me to support the reform. That is one of the key reasons I did not support the reform of the Top End Shire. There has been no real consultation. This has been a government-exposed process. It has now become a shambles. As Wicking drew in the NT News the other day, we now have local government run by the department of shambles. What this whole mess shows is that government does not understand grassroots local democracy. There is not one member of the government who has ever served as a member of local government in the Territory. The two Independents have.
I am concerned that Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people have also not been fully consulted - certainly not the Aboriginal people of the Top End Shire. The business plans for all councils are similar, and I refer to the people at the Lagoon Road Aboriginal community who knew nothing about what was happening in relation to rates. I do not know anyone at Bulgul who knew anything about what kind of rating system they were going to cop. I did find out in the last draft plan that Belyuen was going to get a rating system called the ‘rating equivalent’ because we cannot rate Aboriginal land. That, in itself, left you wide open to a lot of other issues because, if you argue that you can put a rating equivalent on a house on land that cannot be rated such as Aboriginal land, then you must apply that evenly, otherwise someone would charge you with discrimination. This applies to Commonwealth land where many people live such as Robertson Barracks, Kowandi North and Kowandi South, and your own Northern Territory government land like the Howard Springs Reserve where there are rangers living, and where you have caretakers living on school sites.
There were many serious issues that needed much discussion before this went forward. My feeling is that this is part of the reason the Top End Shire has been pulled out of the reform process. It highlights that this is not a simple process; it is a difficult process and, if you start to exclude people from the debate, which you have, then it will just become more and more difficult.
If the people of Litchfield who, at two non-government business plan meetings, rejected the plans because they thought they were bureaucratic, complicated, moved away from the essence of local government and were being imposed on the people through the Local Government Act, what chance have the people of the other eight shires of understanding these plans? Perhaps you can tell me what was the role of Mr Dodson? Was his job to put an Aboriginal face to this process so that Aboriginal people would think that this reform process must be okay and accept it? If Mr Dodson was the head of the advisory committee, either he was not passing on the feelings of the people to government, or the government was just ignoring him. Whatever, the people of Litchfield took their own advice and said: ‘We want reform, but not this bureaucratic joke’.
However, it is not just Litchfield that is not happy. As I mentioned before, we had the Galiwinku people taking the government to court because the government is taking its association’s assets. The minister might tell me if it is true that the government is also trying to now change the legislation to stop the Galiwinku mob from going to court.
The people at Daly River are saying: ‘Hang on. We do not want a part of what is going on at the moment. We want some brakes put on it’. That is what the 320 people from Peppimenarti, Palumpa and Daly River delivered to this House today. I will read you the last paragraph that went out with the petition: ‘From a participation point of view, local people know they have had no input into the process …’ - these are not my words - ‘… and feel somehow robbed of their democratic rights to have a say in such a major change’. While many agree the changes may be necessary they simply want the changes explained and the opportunity to raise any concerns they have so they can be addressed as early as possible. People will feel calmer once the changes are understood and they know their concerns have been heard. That is exactly what it is all about.
The Tiwi Islands have concerns. I have reports that the new regional management plans basically say a number - and I am not sure of the number - of Tiwis will lose their jobs to the administration centre based in Darwin, and they want a halt. I have also heard something similar coming from the people of Daly River. Their administrative centre is going to be in Katherine and they are concerned about what the future is as well in relation to losing jobs ...
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, the CEO of Elliott has also resigned, and the ABC reported it at the time:
In fact, I have the Barkly figures right here - 323 000 km2:
And please, do not talk to me about local boards. They will be controlled by the council, if you read the business plans, and the Local Government Act, and I do not think that they will be independent.
There have also been concerns from a group that provides services for outstations in the Alice Springs region. I also heard from the member for Braitling that there is a community in the centre that is also considering action against it. We are having problems in the Tennant Creek region with people who are not happy with the changes. Again, quoting from the ABC:
I understand there are some other issues in Tennant Creek. There are some, you might say, internal council issues but I would hope that there is some way that people in Tennant Creek can at least see what is in the business plan, aside from these council issues. To me, that is an internal matter for the council there. But this is where the community misses out. Sometimes councils can have meetings amongst themselves to talk about the Local Government Act, to talk about the business plans, but the people do not always hear about it, and these things affect the people. It affects them in their day-to-day lives and what it will cost.
When I hear the government say it has consulted, I say: ‘With whom?’ When I hear the government say it has support, I say: ‘Who did you ask?’ When I hear this government say it will benefit Aboriginal people, I say: ‘You must be joking’. How, when you have taken jobs to administrative centres in major centres and made the whole thing so complicated you have to employ $180 000 CEOs and $130 000 Director of Corporate Services people to run their bureaucracy?
Control by Aboriginal people is now further away. We should be getting closer and closer, and Aboriginal people need to have a say in what is happening. When I hear you say you could get more money for roads, I ask, where is it? The government’s reform process has come back to bite them on the bum, not because there is no need for reform, but they do not know how to talk to people.
In the dictionary, consultation is about talking to the people. In the Northern Territory dictionary, consultation means the art of conning people into believing that they have had a say in something that they did not have a say in. The government has been driven by a process that has been developed by people not in touch, not understanding, and not driven by a belief in local democracy.
They want to set up something run by the Department of Local Government which will control it. It will nearly become part of the department and, when you read the Local Government Act, look how much power the Local Government department has. This is not local government. No council of 340 000 km could be regarded as local. Regional, maybe, but we are talking about local government. The government and its empire builders have forgotten the pothole and when you forget the pothole you forget local government. As the sticker says: ‘Stop, start again and get it right’.
Debate suspended.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for today and tomorrow for the member for Arafura, as the member will be representing me as Chief Minister at the Council of Federation meeting in Adelaide tomorrow.
Leave granted.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I provide some input into the Leader of the Opposition’s motion regarding local government reform. I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition and the other speakers on the other side of the House. I have noticed that there are two points of discussion. One involves the Top End Shire and the other part involves the bush.
I will take the first part in relation to the Top End Shire. The future of the Top End Shire is very clear. It is totally off the agenda ...
Mr Wood: That is not the future.
Mr KNIGHT: We are moving on with reforming the bush as we should ...
Mrs Miller: So you have two parts to the Territory now.
Mr KNIGHT: There is no further discussion about the Top End Shire ...
Mr Wood: Well, why not? We did not say that. We said start again. You have taken your bat and ball home.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There just seems to be excess of interjection from the opposition benches.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, if we could please have less interjection while we are listening to general business.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, the Top End Shire is off the agenda. We are moving on with the much needed reforms. If those particular councils or areas within the proposed Top End Shire would like to have further discussions amongst themselves with other councils, that is a matter for them. There is more important business to do with this reform than re-engaging with those councils. I know that the member for Nelson has already indicated that he is going to continue the reforms of local government within the Top End Shire and that is good for him, but our focus is on the bush.
The former Minister for Local Government, the member for Barkly, and also the former member for Arnhem, his predecessor, are two people who were born and grew up in the Territory. The member for Barkly was born at No 17 Bore at Elliott, grew up passionate about the bush, and has family in the bush. So …
Mr Wood: I am passionate, too.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Nelson, these two gentlemen understand the needs out in the bush, as do you. You have worked out bush. You understand the conditions which have come over time and where they are today. There is so much need out there, there has been so much money that has gone out bush over time and we still have those conditions today. The motivation for these reforms coming from those two gentlemen has been about getting those much-needed services, consistently and at a high standard, delivered out in the bush to improve the lives of every single person out there, whether they be black or white …
Mr Mills: We agree with that.
Mr KNIGHT: Let me finish, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Mills: Well, get to the point.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: This is a response to a motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition! The minister has the call. Minister, please continue.
Mr Bonson: Let him finish. You are a rude individual. You have changed, Terry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: I listened to you, Leader of the Opposition, in silence and …
Mr Mills: It does not bear any relation to what we have said.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, the minister has the call.
Mr KNIGHT: … I hope that you offer me that as well. Their motivation was to improve the lives out there. The member for Nelson is probably the only one of the people on the other side of the House who has really experienced the bush for a long period of time and intimately. That is where the motivation is coming from.
We must act now. You are saying let us wait a year, let us wait a few years. Well, the CLP had a policy in 1998, 10 years ago. I was involved in that reform working for the community sector. That reform went nowhere. It went absolutely nowhere and the conditions that were out …
Mrs Braham: Not true.
Mr KNIGHT: It has, member for Braitling, it has.
Mrs Braham: How come some councils were amalgamated if it was going nowhere?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Those reforms did not really go anywhere. I said there were a few little groups …
Mrs Braham: So there were no amalgamations?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Braitling, we need widespread, radical, major reform out there to lift that standard up. We just cannot do bits and pieces. We cannot do that. You know what conditions are like out there. You know the amount of government investment that has been wasted out bush. You know the private sector will not go near the place because they have no confidence in investing in the bush. We must act now; we cannot wait another year or two years. We have to do it now, so we provide that investment.
I was thinking about it during Question Time when the Mines and Energy minister was talking about mining investment. The Northern Territory government does not operate mines, but the confidence that the mining industry has in the Northern Territory government to come here and do business, to invest money, is why those mines are starting.
Where you have local shires which are strong in governance and they have confidence, you will get private sector investment. The bush cannot survive on government dollars alone; it has to have massive amounts of private sector investment to change the world out there. That is exactly what we are trying to do now.
I have also heard from the other side of the House that they will support the reforms. Every single person who spoke on the other side of the House said: ‘We support reforms’. The members on the other side have never acted. Where is the policy of the CLP on local government reform? It is nitpicking; it is saying: ‘Let us put it off’. I take huge exception to the Leader of the Opposition correlating this reform to the Stolen Generations. What an absolute insult to what was done to those people based on racial grounds - the colour of your skin. That is a huge put down to members of the Stolen Generations.
You are also insulting the public service by saying that they somehow got together - like you did in university - and had a few beers, got smashed and kicked a few ideas around and came up with a policy. That is virtually what you were saying. You have had a whole range of different organisations come forward - as you have today - saying reform must happen, including the Australian government – both the previous and the current government. There was a huge amount of push and support for this reform by your colleagues at the federal level under the previous government. Why would you want to be putting the brakes on it? Having realised what is happening out there and the conditions there today, why would you want to wait? Why would you want to go another day without putting a structure in place which provides for certainty?
What we are trying to do here is provide a new vehicle to allow people to move forward. We have a vehicle under the current act which is 10 to 20 years old. You cannot move forward in this world with the need out there in a 20-year-old vehicle. We are providing a vehicle where people can move forward with certainty, in comfort, with efficiency. The drivers of that vehicle will be the same people in those communities now. They just have a new mechanism by which they can get to where they want to go and where they need to go.
This reform has been talked about for a long time. It has not just happened in the last 18 months. It has been kicked around and kicked around by not only this government but the government before that, and the government before that. It is not a new thing. It is just that this government has had the courage to say: ‘We are not going to let the bush wither. We are going to do something which is going to attract private investment. We are going to ensure services are provided to men, women and children out bush so that they can have a better life’. That is exactly what we are going to do. The services out bush are many and varied, and individual councils and shires will determine their own future about how much they actually deliver.
These reforms, Leader of the Opposition, will go ahead. I will be travelling extensively over the next couple of months before we debate this bill. I will be going to every major town, every shire committee, every stakeholder group, reassuring them that this government is absolutely committed to these reforms. We want to make a positive difference to the lives of every person in the Northern Territory encapsulated by these reforms. That is our motivation. It is an honourable and positive motivation. We cannot wait. We have to do something now. You are a member of this Assembly and I encourage you to support the bill in April. I am open to discussing the bill with any one of the members on the opposite side of the House. I have given that offer to certain members already, and I hope you take it up. This is about us doing something, historically, for the bush and for local government, our third tier of government, which is absolutely essential.
I reject the motion. I implore you to get on board with these reforms, be part of it. It is good for everybody out bush.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, first, this being a House of debate, the Northern Territory parliament, I would have expected members who are given the responsibility of representing their own constituents, who are directly affected by the decision of government to give voice to the concerns or the feelings of their own constituencies. However, there seems to be an attitude of government where, rather than take the position of representing the views of the community in here - and it may well be the case, I would like to see someone at least stand up and explain from their perspective how their own constituents feel about this - they seem to have the attitude that the responsibility of a member of the Labor Party in this parliament is to represent the views of the Labor Party to their constituents. That is a completely different proposition. That is not how I understand democracy to work.
You are here by the grace of your community, and to reflect those views. I have heard no voice, even if they could articulate a position that demonstrates that they have listened, that they can speak against the propositions that have been put by members on this side, that there has been insufficient engagement - genuine, honest engagement - to win the trust of people so that we can end up at the end point, which is real reform, borne out in those communities, remote from this magnificent parliament in which we have a great honour and responsibility to serve. But no one spoke. The minister took no notes, just sat there, adjusting his jacket and listening, apparently - no notes ...
Mr Knight: I have three pages of notes.
Mr MILLS: If they are notes, they did not feed into your response. Your response did not connect to the proposition that was put by members on this side.
The core issue is the quality of engagement, not the objective. The objective is reform. We all want that. That is not the issue. What we heard, though, despite all the words that have been spoken - and I cannot go any further on that issue of the Stolen Generations - you obviously did not hear …
Mr Knight: I heard you. It was disgusting.
Mr MILLS: Read it again.
Mr Knight: I will.
Mr MILLS: You should. I take offence at that.
Ms Lawrie: We take offence at what you say too.
Mr MILLS: You pipe down. You take offence at everything. I do not care.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The only description that would fit this state of mind of government is the word ‘arrogant’. That is the word that could be used. Another word that could be used would be ‘assuming’ - assuming you know best, being autocratic, taking a cavalier approach, being high-handed, presumptuous and self-important. One comment, made by one person in a government of 19 members, reinforces that state of mind of the Labor Party in government in the Northern Territory - not even the courtesy to stand and defend your position.
In the same manner you have failed to stand and deliver in the presence of your own communities as they were gathered together to express their concerns. You insult them by sending someone, whom you pay for, who was a master at a craft that you call community consultation. It almost sends a shiver up your spine when you see how it operates. It is not genuine. You are dealing with Territorians and they can see it coming a mile off. If you have the courage of your convictions at least you would have fronted up to those public meetings, taken the flak and mounted a credible argument. You would have won some respect. You may have had the majority of that crowd right against you, but you did not have the courage of your convictions. You bring in a gun for hire and you call that consultation. That is dishonest and gutless.
Second, you do not even have the courage of your convictions – oh, did that hurt your feelings, did it?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BONSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not sure if ‘gutless’ is a parliamentary word. I will abide by your ruling but I think the member for Blain is just getting carried away with himself.
Madam SPEAKER: Just pause for a minute.
Mr MILLS: I will withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Please continue.
Mr MILLS: To the second point, if you do not have the courage of your convictions to stand before the people you are given the responsibility to represent and mount your argument, win at least their begrudging respect. You fail to stand in this parliament and give an account of yourselves. That is disgraceful. Anyway, that is my view. You have obviously built a buffer around yourself. You will be impervious even to such views expressed by those who have a different view in the Chamber. Whatever goes on in your Caucus heaven knows; some weird magic occurs in there. No one appears able to speak a view separate from the consensus view that is formed in the Caucus, so you sit there occupying expensive seats, taking valuable time to give nodding assent to something that has no voice called democracy. It is a farce.
Read your first speeches to this parliament again and see whether you really meant what you said. I would expect to have a better response to the motions put before us than we have received now, by way of argument, by way of a range of views from those who are given the responsibility of representing others. We do not have that. The minister did not take his full time in response. He does not prosecute the points of the motion - and that reinforces that arrogant view of ‘I do not care what they think. I do not care what your argument is. I will deliberately mishear and misrepresent and I will take my own way’. It is high-handed, it is autocratic. You will do whatever you like.
Sadly, we will all bear the consequences. All we are asking you to do is to stop, recognise the problems, and then put in a process that re-connects with the community and proceed from that point. We all want to get to the end point.
I urge honourable members to reconsider and to support this motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. The noes have it.
Mr MILLS: Division, Madam Speaker.
A member: Is it supported?
Madam SPEAKER: It does not have to be supported when it is the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Stirling: When did that rule come in? Nick Dondas used to make sure it was supported.
Madam SPEAKER: The rule is that when the Leader of the Opposition calls a division it does not have to be supported because it is accepted that he is representing his party.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 6 Noes 16
Mrs Braham Mr Bonson
Ms Carney Mr Burke
Mr Conlan Dr Burns
Mrs Miller Mr Hampton
Mr Mills Mr Henderson
Mr Wood Mr Kiely
Mr Knight
Ms Lawrie
Ms Martin
Mr McAdam
Ms McCarthy
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Mr Stirling
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion negatived.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move – That:
1. the Northern Territory government acknowledge the growth of litter, the cost of waste management, and the increasing demand for landfill, are major issues for the Northern Territory environment, and its towns and communities;
Madam Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to gauge if government is willing to declare their support for container deposit legislation in the Northern Territory. It is simple, direct; there is no hidden agenda. In fact, the government could agree to each of those three points. There is no time line on part 3. All I am asking is that they consider those three points, as they are three points which the government could agree to.
It comes at a time in the lead-up to Clean Up Australia and reinforces the message from the Chairman, Ian Kiernan, that climate change means Australia has to change its way and that recycling reform is an important part of it. Mr Kiernan urges governments to follow the example of South Australia and introduce a national drink container refund scheme. The Northern Territory government has had continual representation from the Independent members of this parliament but continues to ignore the mountain of evidence as to the necessity of such a program and the vast community support demonstrated in regional centres and remote communities.
Let me give you a recent example. Late last year, the Alice Springs Town Council trialled a ‘cash for cans’ project with a grant of $10 000 courtesy of the Northern Territory government. In four weeks, 200 000 cans - and only cans - were handed in by residents. It was such a success that the trial was extended. The council contributed an additional $10 000 of its own money, such was the demand. In summary, for that short trial period, the council collected 456 000 cans, sold the cans for $3650, and gave out $22 800 in cash. The nett cost to council, including wages and security and their contribution, was $12 800. The council was stunned and amazed at the community response. School kids, itinerants, and the general public all availed themselves of this opportunity - a truly remarkable indication of the support it generated as well as, most of all, a clean river bed and clean parks.
In March 2006, this government awarded a contract to the Centre for Appropriate Technology to investigate the logistics involved in local container deposit schemes in remote communities. The Centre for Appropriate Technology was given a three-month time frame to report by August 2006. It analysed three communities. The results indicated that remote communities would need mechanisms for assistance with transport and labour costs but, ultimately, the benefits of reduced landfill and litter and a less polluted environment were substantial. For example, CAT found the total number of cans sold within communities in one year in Lajamanu was 95 685; Angurugu 107 530; and Atitjere 81 948. These containers ended up in either landfill or as litter, or outside the community in another environment.
What has happened to that report - a very honest report - documenting the complexities of implementing schemes in remote communities? Did government give any consideration to establishing a process for collection and transport of containers to be recycled? All we have seen to date has been minor grants to some communities which were willing to implement voluntary schemes.
The Lajamanu project saw 25 000 cans collected in the first month. They purchased a bale up machine - thanks to the Northern Territory EPA, their own council and their Progress Association. They trained people to operate it, and they opened a litter centre from 3 pm to 4.30 pm and offered their residents a 10 return. This happened every Wednesday. That simple project was so supported by that community that it changed their environment. I am sorry I do not have a larger picture to show you, but the whole place became clear of the litter of cans and containers because there was the incentive for everyone to return their container.
The one-off grants are not addressing the long-term impact of containers as litter in landfill. Although that was successful, one-off short-term grants are not the answer. Government repeatedly says that - and I quote from the previous Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage: ‘A jurisdiction the size of the Territory going it alone does not stack up’, and reverts to that never ending fall-back line: ‘If we were part of a national container deposit scheme it will work’.
I am aware that state and territory ministers for the Environment are meeting in April. I am urging the new minister to come back with a result. If the feds will not introduce CDL, then the Northern Territory government should. The government regularly boasts of the Territory’s growing economy and the rapid development expected in the foreseeable future. Government needs vision. We have heard this repeatedly in this House. We would not be in this beautiful Parliament House if the previous government did not have the vision to build it at a time when people were reluctant to invest and spend.
On a recent trip to South Australia which, I might add, just doubled the refund deposit to 10, I went through a recycling depot. It had up to 11 people employed at any one time as people drove in to return their containers and get their refunds. On a Saturday morning, they handed out $5000 in cash to people. Community groups such as schools use it to generate income. The whole operation was efficient and simple. Recycling industry figures indicate that, each year, more than $20m is paid to South Australians returning their drink containers.
Our government must recognise that to ignore the problem is to create a never-ending cost to local government and ratepayers as they endeavour to control litter. We should be aiming to preserve the pristine environment of the Territory and ensure we contribute to reducing the consumption of those resources which pollute the environment and add to greenhouse gases. This is a problem that can be solved.
There is enough evidence to demonstrate the community will support such a scheme but, more importantly, it would give the government accolades if they were to introduce such a scheme. Let me quote from two of the letters of support I have received this week:
They obviously thought I was doing my bill. I do have draft legislation but I thought at this stage I would not introduce it. I will wait and see what response government gives to this motion.
Another person said:
A scheme such as the container deposit will contribute to cleaner communities, it will provide employment opportunities, it will reduce waste going to the land fill, and savings in the long term of our resources, not to mention the economic benefits to members of the community.
Madam Speaker, I am asking government to commit today to introducing legislation, regardless of whether it is agreed to at the national level. I urge members on both sides of the House to support this motion.
Mr KIELY (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, from the outset, let me say that I appreciate the sentiment and motivation of the member for Braitling in relation to this issue. It is one that she has constantly championed and I commend her for it. However, time and again, we have gone back to this. Now it has come to me.
No one likes to see litter in our communities. Territorians take pride in our communities being clean and tidy, from the streets of our suburbs to the car park entrances of our shopping centres. It makes a big difference to be able to go about our business in a clean and litter-free environment. However, Northern Territory legislation for a container deposit scheme is not the answer.
When newly elected, this government was optimistic about CDL. The government considered an independent report from the University of Technology, Sydney, which indicated significant benefits flowing from CDL. However, we also have to consider the impact on the consumer and the possible legal, taxation and competition challenges that could arise. While the population volume and density in southern states may make state-based CDL schemes viable, the simple fact is that our small population, dispersed over many remote locations, makes it very difficult to cover transport and energy costs back to recycling centres. This would impact on the commercial viability of a container deposit scheme in the Northern Territory. Consequently, this government determined that it would not proceed to introduce CDL on its own, but would work towards keeping CDL on the national agenda and support moves to establish a national scheme.
Having decided this, we have turned our attention to other innovative ideas in the area of litter management. We are enthusiastic participants in the National Environment Protection Measure, the NEPM, and to optimise resource reuse and recovery, and encourage the conservation of virgin materials. We are implementing NEPM through the 2007 Re-thinking Waste Disposal Behaviour and Resource Efficiency Interim Action Plan which, in short, is Re-thinking Waste.
The demographic position of the Northern Territory poses unique challenges when considering waste management, disposal behaviour, and resource recovery issues. Approaches adopted in more populous regions of Australia where waste management is big business may not provide solutions for the Territory. The viability of recycling in most areas of the Territory is severely constrained by the distance to markets and small population. Collection and processing infrastructure is undeveloped and there is no data on the volume of recyclable/reusable materials available to assist analysis of industry development opportunities.
A rethink of our perception of ‘waste’ in industry, in our home and in our shopping centres is long overdue. In recent decades, emerging sustainable technologies have transformed materials previously wasted to landfill into valuable resources for an increasing range of new products, processes and industries. These technologies should be explored seeking industry development opportunities for our remote and regional communities, and seek smart solutions to convert waste problems into energy or valuable commodities such as plastic woods, glass tiles or road surfaces and cement additives.
Re-thinking Waste is a non-legislative approach designed to achieve the goals of the NEPM in a manner considered appropriate to the Northern Territory, in particular dealing with litter and litter behaviour in remote areas. We have a partnership with the industry group, the Packaging Stewardship Forum, which provides funding to assist the Re-thinking Waste Strategy. Re-thinking Waste involves finding opportunities to integrate resource recovery and litter management with regional development and capacity building and represents an initial step in developing a longer-term waste management framework for the Northern Territory. It aims to engage all relevant stakeholders in the pursuit of a collaborative, efficient and effective approach.
The strategy focuses on localised schemes as litter management tools, and the government has supported the implementation of a number of locally-based, voluntary container deposit schemes. The first of these was in the Titjikala community which was supported by the Litter and Recycling Grants program in 2005 and 2006.
In 2006, the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts commissioned an investigation by the Centre for Appropriate Technology into the logistics of local, voluntary container deposit schemes in remote communities. The objective of this project was to develop how-to kits for remote communities wishing to develop local container deposit refund schemes as a litter management tool.
The Re-thinking Waste Strategy, together with the 2007-08 Environment Grants program, is supporting the Lajamanu community to implement a local container deposit scheme with the Centre for Appropriate Technology providing the monitoring role. The project incorporates purchase of a baler which crushes and bales aluminium cans and plastic bottles ready for backloading to Katherine and Alice Springs. This government is contributing $21 000 to that program.
The 2007-08 EnvironmeNT Grants program also supported a ‘cash for cans’ scheme in Alice Springs. The Northern Territory government provided $10 000 as a one-off grant. Within a few months, 200 000 cans had been returned, acquitting the grant. The scheme was very successful with the Alice Springs Town Council contributing $10 000 to keeping the program going. The final report is due in October 2008. Member for Braitling, we are eagerly awaiting this report, because recycling in Alice Springs has not previously been successful. We will wait and see what this report says, and I am eagerly awaiting it.
This government will continue to support local action and also work with our state, territory and federal counterparts to move towards a feasible national container deposit scheme. The election of a Rudd Labor government gives us an ideal opportunity to seek to progress such a national scheme. It is definitely an issue, member for Braitling. I will raise it with the federal Environment minister, Peter Garrett, when I meet with him next week.
We stand firm on our view that a container deposit model would be best developed and applied at a national level. We will not be introducing a scheme which unfairly impacts on Territory consumers. This government will support any investigation in consideration of the feasibility of a national container deposit scheme.
Madam Speaker, the motion is not supported.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, that is disappointing. I thought there would have been a different response. There is an opportunity for one. Just reading the politics of it alone, which you guys are pretty good at doing, you would see that there is quite a good opportunity for you. At this point, with or without the federal government showing you the way, providing you the broader structure that you can belong to, you could start. You could take that step because you can predict it is going to happen. But no, you will just wait until someone else leads the way.
Member for Braitling, I commend you for bringing this on. You have been, as the member for Sanderson correctly identified, a strong and good advocate for this important issue. These are matters that weigh on the minds of those who are thinking of ways of solving problems, particularly of an environmental nature. From the point of view of the CLP, we have had many discussions on this issue. Though our position has been described as support for CDL, what we have not done as yet is to describe the means by which it would be implemented. We support CDL although, as yet, the model to implement CDL has not been unveiled. That is the position of the CLP and it is for that reason we support this motion.
Looking at the Parliamentary Record from 2001-02, I see that the budget speech by the former Treasurer, Mike Reed, indicated support in the event of a favourable finding and, if there was demonstrated strong community support, a CLP government would support CDL. That is the budget speech 2001-02. Whatever the view of the Labor Party is of the CLP, or of former Treasurer Mike Reed, those words are clearly recorded. It is an indication of the CLP’s capacity to read the wind and know that this is the way that, ultimately, we will go as a community because it is a community that desires proactive responses to environmental issues. It was expected that the Labor Party, when coming to office, would go fairly quickly to this position. I think there was that initial rush of blood to the head, and then they got mugged by a reality that, perhaps, it would be difficult because there are those in our community who are opposed to it such as the beverage industry. That is a reality that we face as well, as we are designing a model. Because there would be opposition to it and because that opposition can mount arguments that, perhaps, are persuasive, it does not mean that you must desist and back off.
There are ways around it, as has been found in South Australia. To that end, the CLP have assessed its implementation and practice in South Australia, particularly as it affects the beverage industry and the AHA membership in South Australia, and found that there are ways around it.
I know, as you know, that with the matter of reform of local government, people do not inherently generally accept change. When it is put before them and the argument is mounted, and the public good is responded to, then you have to make a courageous decision. However, you do it in that order. It is for that reason that the CLP must support this bill because, ultimately, this is the place that must be occupied by a progressive government. To waiver the challenge, there will be some difficulties and some opposition, but I can see there will be support for it, as it is the right thing to do. It will inject a new type of economy around this whole area and we will have people who have grown up in different states who have seen that it does work.
I can remember collecting bottles as a kid. I was given a motivation to do so because there was a reward attached to my effort. We need to nourish that basic concept in our community, to build in enterprise, particularly in our young people: reward for effort. That is why I am attracted to it. It brings that important attitude to bear on young minds that if you get out there and do this you will get a reward. It will give many people in remote communities an additional incentive to do something for which they will be directly rewarded according to their effort - and we will all benefit from it. I do not think it is too hard. It does not mean it is easy, but it is not too hard.
Madam former Speaker …
Mrs Braham: Member for Braitling will do.
Mr MILLS: Member for Braitling, I trust that in time to come you will be able to look back at this parliament and see that a progressive government has implemented a CDL scheme.
Mrs Braham: I do not think it will happen in my time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: With those words, I restate the position of the Country Liberal Party, which is that there is support for CDL and it is the model which will be unveiled at a later stage which will determine the way forward on this important matter.
As Opposition Leader, I commend the member for Braitling for bringing this important motion to this Chamber today.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing this motion forward - a motion I have also had a long interest in. In fact, even before I entered the Northern Territory parliament, I produced my own CD called Gerry Cans - great name. It is how container deposit legislation can operate in the Northern Territory. When I was in local government, local governments at that stage were – and still are - great supporters of the concept of container deposit legislation. We were pushing the then government to change its mind and, from what the Opposition Leader said today, they obviously have. However, it was certainly difficult to change their minds in those days in relation to this issue. My CD showed how container deposit could work in the Northern Territory and be effective.
We are not talking about something that has just been dreamed of today, but something that has been around a long time and been discussed in the Territory. It has been in South Australia for twice as long. When I hear the cries of the government which says: ‘We cannot do it unless it is national’ - that was something they invented when they really did not want to get involved.
The beverage industry came to see them one Christmas. I remember when there was a great feeling out there that the Labor Party was going to introduce container deposit legislation. There were some people from the beverage industry who visited town. I know because I had breakfast with one of them. They were trying to convince me to change my mind as well. Not long after that - I think in the new year - all of a sudden there was an announcement by the government that the beverage industry had given the Northern Territory something like $0.5m over three years to look at liquor abatement programs. Oh, dear me, we had been through that for years. Let us not forget, we had the Territory Anti-Litter Committee in the Northern Territory, of which I was a member, running for years. What was the one thing we were not allowed to discuss? We were not allowed to discuss deposits on containers because that was off the agenda as there was an unwritten understanding between the beverage industry and the government of that day that there would be no container deposit legislation in the Northern Territory.
I thought when the Labor Party came to power it would get a little innovative and do some things that the then CLP government would not do. However, when it gained government, it thought: ‘Oh dear, how sad, we might upset the beverage industry and they are offering us some nice money. We will have second thoughts’. So, the whole policy went to: ‘We will introduce liquor abatement schemes. We have the industries onside, we are all pally, and this is a national thing’.
You could ask South Australia, if it is a national thing, why they do not close their scheme down and wait for a national scheme. They operate quite well on their own. Why can’t we? If I hear people arguing that we have distance, I say people who live in remote communities have some form of transport to get goods there; they automatically have some way of getting it back. The transport issue is not a problem. There are other issues - distribution centres and all that sort of thing - which would need to be looked at. It could be done. It is the same old thing: where there is a will, there is a way. But there is no will. There is just an excuse that this is a national issue.
Madam Speaker, we know what the advantages are of having CDL in place in the Northern Territory. It would be great for the environment. The member for Braitling talked about the increasing demand for landfill. I will not get on to the debate about landfill in the rural area, but I was always concerned that landfill was being filled by containers that should not be in the landfill. One way to take that volume of containers out of landfill was to have deposits on those particular containers. Look at the 2 L and 1.25 L plastic bottles that get put into landfill. Imagine the volume they actually take up. That just makes it more and more expensive to have landfill, yet we are not really serious about removing them.
You might talk about the kerbside recycling in Darwin and in Palmerston. That is subsidised recycling by the ratepayers. Most of the Northern Territory does not have kerbside to start with, so you are talking about issues that might be relevant to some places. The beverage industry would argue that you cannot have kerbside recycling and container deposit legislation. Also, as the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries and mining would know - and he must sit there thinking, ‘Oh, oh’ - both those systems apply in South Australia.
I have been to South Australia twice, specifically to look at container deposit legislation, and that is standard, that is how well it is going. Iced coffee cartons now have a 5 deposit on them. I was there at the Scouts shed where they were collecting all the containers and a bloke came on his pushbike with the basket on the front full of iced coffee cartons. He gave them to the person there, they counted them, he got his money and he was away. How simple can you get? Perfect. Why will it be some super complicated system that we do not need to have? I do not know. It is great for recycling, because you get the recyclable products back to where they need to go.
There is a small charge, of course, that is how the whole system works. That charge is enough for us to cover the cost of taking things like plastics back to a centre where they can be recycled. How much glass is recycled in the Northern Territory? Practically none. I went out to Cleanaway on their open day last year and asked if it was true that when they got a skip full of glass, people have to pay. They said yes. I asked: ‘If I bring glass to Cleanaway, is that okay?’ He said: ‘No, we charge you for it’. I asked why. He said: ‘It is a handling cost’. What encouragement is there for people to bring glass bottles back? Darwin people might be okay, the city council does not worry because you pay for it in your rates, the same for Palmerston. However, for people in the rural area, why would you bother taking glass back to Cleanaway when you have to pay them to take it? Yet, if you had a deposit system where there was enough money to transport it south, there would not be the problem. Here we have a system that I believe is failing ...
Mr Kiely: How much by barge?
Mr WOOD: I do not know. Cleanaway said there would be a charge. That is not exactly encouraging people to take it back.
It is interesting that in the core functions of the new local government it has the word ‘litter’ as a function you will have to have. I have always been of the belief that if I was in the council today I would say to the government: ‘I will take on litter as a core function if you introduce container deposit legislation, because I believe you have a responsibility to do something about litter as well. You clean up the highways’. How much money does it cost every year for those little quad bikes to go up and down the highway between Palmerston and Darwin? We hide the amount of litter that is on our roads. If you look at some of the other roads where the rubbish does not get picked up as often, like the Arnhem Highway, at the amount of rubbish on those roads, and you start to have some idea how much litter is on the roads. When the report on Keep Australia Beautiful was released, Ian Kiernan said that the volume of litter - not the numbers of pieces of litter which is always deceptive because litter can be cigarette butts and straws – most prevalent is drink containers.
I do not think we should stick to drink containers. That has been my argument with what the beverage industry puts out. I believe if things can be recycled they should have a deposit on them. So what if it is a can of peaches, or a soap container? What does it matter if it is a can or a glass jar? Why can it not have a deposit on it and encourage all that stuff to be recycled? You see 330 ml bottles of drink which probably cost you $2.50; it takes you five seconds to drink it if it is a hot day and the bottle is thrown into the bin. What an enormous waste. It costs a lot of money to put it together, it costs a lot of money to bring it here, we throw it in the bin and, if we are lucky, it might go back somewhere. The chance of that happening In the Territory is fairly low if you look at the recycling rates for glass.
If you ever want to look at recycling and its relationship with container deposits, you need go no further than aluminium cans. We have a process in the Territory where you can take your cans to a recycling depot, or you can take them to the Scouts, and you get money for them. That is exactly what container deposit is about; in this case it is something like a quarter of a cent for every can you collect. Why is aluminium the highest recycled container product in the Northern Territory? It is not because people drink a lot of it; it is because it is valuable. If you put a value on waste, it will not be wasted. If you have no value on waste, then I am sorry, the environmental heart that you might bleed sometimes about the importance of reducing greenhouse gases and saving the environment will not stay around long. If you hit the pocket of a person and say: ‘You can make money out of your waste if you return it’, you will encourage changes in people’s habits.
I am guilty of this when it comes to the carry bags from the supermarkets - the plastic bags. Yes, I have green bags in the back of the car but I always forget to take them with me, so I take plastic bags out. If you use the Irish method, where you actually hit someone 25, it hurts them in the pocket and, all of a sudden, they change their habits. It works in reverse: it will work where people can be encouraged to make money because they are recycling a product.
South Australia is the perfect answer to it all. I have to tell you that my first trip to South Australia to look at recycling was funded by the beverage industry. They were trying to convince me that this was not the way to go. The rest of us in that party came away from that tour believing 100% that this was the way to go. I do not think they achieved what they wanted. South Australian politicians have said that this is the most popular legislation they have. If they were to try to remove the container deposit legislation in South Australia, I would say that there would be many changes in government if that was the case.
This creates an industry, and it creates a micro-industry that we keep forgetting. The micro-industry that you see in the suburbs of South Australia you would see in the little townships in our remote communities. You would see Aboriginal people collect the cans. Someone would work out a way of getting them into Darwin. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if you are old enough you remember getting money back for cans. What did you do? You would go to the football ground after everyone left and check under the seats, or you would go for a wander along the creek. You would go wherever you knew people congregated in the hope that you could collect enough cans to make money - simple. I cannot for the life of me understand, just because the beverage industry does not like it, why we cannot do something.
I gather there have been a number of efforts by this government to look at pilot programs. I would have been interested to hear the results of those pilot programs. At the Keep Australia Beautiful meeting last year, at the Wesleyan Church in the Botanic Gardens, I know, and I have not been able to get the information, that there was a report given on one community and the results using container deposits within that community. I do not have that report but I know there was a study done and that study would be worth looking at. Those benefits help the community; it cleans up the community. Kids get a little money and they become entrepreneurial. They know that if they do a little work they get some money in return. That is another benefit of container deposit legislation.
People will ask: ‘What about the cost?’ For sure, you pay a little more for your soft drinks or your beer. If you want to see the power of the beverage industry and the breweries, when this nearly happened a couple of years ago, who was making all the noise? The breweries. The beverage industry tried to say it is going to cost extra for a carton of beer, and made an extraordinary claim about it: ‘It is going to cost the worker this much’. (1) they exaggerated the cost, and (2) you knew you could get your money back from the can. You see, as soon as soon as something like this happens, big business gets involved, governments get nervous, they change their minds, and that is what happened.
The minister, who is from South Australia, knows a lot about how container deposits work. Can you tell me if a carton of beer or a carton of coke in South Australia costs any more money than a carton anywhere else? They do not. That was the big fear factor they ran in South Australia, but the reality is some of these costs are absorbed by the breweries and soft drink companies. They are easily absorbed. You cannot tell me Carlton United and Coca-Cola do not make a pretty packet out of the product they sell. They do and some of these costs are quite easily absorbed, and the facts are that is exactly what happens in South Australia.
There are many things thrown about by industry when the government starts to think about doing this particular type of legislation. They get nervous. It is time that they forgot the beverage industry and the container people. They should think of us, our community, the benefits that container deposits bring to our community, both in cleaning it up and the environment. I have not debated this subject for a while. If you look on the list at the times I have debated here, and I pull out the eight or nine pages of times I have spoken here, I have spoken many times. In the last year or so I have not. However, in that last year there has been much emphasis on global warming and the cost of manufacturing. Yet, we still have not advanced in the ways we could change these things. We seem to have taken a step backwards.
I know the minister will talk about - and he has - the wonderful programs we have, but the reality is they are pussyfooting around just to pretend we are doing something. If the government was serious it would take up the motion the member for Braitling has put forward and say: ‘We will give it a go’. It would be beneficial for the Northern Territory and put the wind up the beverage industry and the container industry. They would be up here like a rocket. I say ignore them because if we had container deposit legislation here it would start the ball rolling. Western Australia is having a good look at it at the moment. Soon it will be harder in big states like Victoria and New South Wales because many councils have set up kerbside recycling and have nearly made an industry. For the benefit of the Northern Territory, we should go ahead.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion put forward by the member for Braitling. It is a good motion. It is one that any sensible person in the Northern Territory would support. Minister, you have advisors who would know about the Arid Centre Environment Group and our Environment Centre which both support container deposit legislation to the back teeth. When a survey was done at the Alice Springs Show about 98% of people who filled it in supported it. So you are on a winner. We know there is an election coming up. Here is your chance; put this out as an election promise. You might win.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Braitling’s motion today. I am formerly from South Australia and cannot remember when South Australia did not have CDL. It has been there for a long time. I am a little older than CDL, but it has been in South Australia for a very long time. The member for Drysdale is a former South Australian and he would …
Mr Natt: A proud one, too.
Mrs MILLER: Yes. It is not ‘Go Port’, it is ‘Go South Adelaide’. He would know, deep down, that it is the way to go. You couldn’t possibly not support CDL. The government is a bit titchy about it because of the pressure put on them by the beverage industry. However, I believe that the new minister for Environment has a perfect opportunity to put his mark on something that is very important, and is considered very important by constituents right throughout the Northern Territory. I believe, from an earlier speech, that there is a meeting of all of the state and territory Environment ministers shortly. It would be a good pat on the back for the Northern Territory, and especially for the new minister, to take it up.
There are many positives to CDL, but one of the positives in South Australia is that the place is tidy. The countryside is tidy, all the roadsides are tidy, there are very few bottles or cans lying on the sides of roads. It makes a visible difference. You can pull off the road anywhere on country roads in South Australia and there are no bottles and cans because they are worth money. Usually, anything that is worth money goes back to wherever you can get the money for it. It might not be a significant amount of money for each can or each bottle but, when you multiply them, it adds up to quite a bit.
The member for Drysdale, as a former AFL footballer …
Mr Natt: Why are you picking on me?
Mrs MILLER: Because you should be sticking up for this, member for Drysdale. He would know from football matches and sporting venues that there are many soft drink cans and iced coffee containers lying around after games. You do not find that in South Australia. I was talking about football because I used to go to football as well and you could not even finish your drink and there was some enterprising young fellow asking: ‘Have you were finished with your can yet, lady?’. He would wait for you to finish and take the empty can. You did not have to worry about finding a rubbish bin or, as we see in most cases in the Northern Territory, finding it dropped on the ground. It was clean and tidy.
I travel on country roads in the Territory as many of you know and, in contrast, the amount of rubbish is astounding - cans and bottles many kilometres from a town. Some of them are 150 km to 200 km away. You would not believe the number of bottles and cans. That, in itself, tells me that there is a serious problem in the Northern Territory which needs to be addressed. Those cans and bottles will not be there when CDL is introduced because some enterprising person will be out there with a trailer, loading them up to make sure that they get their money’s worth.
Sporting associations in South Australia benefited from CDL because many of the sporting clubs are clubs with young players who are always trying to raise money for their equipment or for travel. They usually have collections and the parents collect for those sporting associations. A lot of money is raised because each can is worth 5 - and I believe they have doubled it of late, which makes it worth while. It has been a good fundraiser for those sporting clubs.
The minister for the Environment said that shopping centres in Darwin are really looking good, there is not much rubbish around, and they are kept neat, clean and tidy. I invite the minister for the Environment to visit the Oasis Shopping Centre in Katherine, Woolworths car park, where it will be an entirely different story: there are cans and bottles strewn through the park and across the footpath, in the garden areas, through the shopping centre car park because people are too lazy to put them in the bins. If you had CDL, they would not be lying in the car park or on the footpath because people would want to get money for them.
Unfortunately, there is an element in our community with lazy habits developed over a long time who would not go to a rubbish bin or a recycling bin to put their containers in. When there is a reward for what you are taking back, CDL would definitely make a difference to those people’s habits. I could guarantee, with an incentive for a refund on a bottle or can, that there would not be any cans and bottles, for example, in the Woolworths car park in Katherine. I am sure there are plenty of other car parks in Northern Territory shopping centres exactly the same as ours in Katherine.
I will refer to Katherine, because that is where I have had a lot to do with cans and bottles. There are two women in Katherine, Jenny Duggan and Di Jennison who, for quite a few years now, every day when they go for a walk, take plastic bags with them to collect the cans that are lying around Katherine. They take them home, store them and take them to the recycle centre for the refund. Because they are not worth very much as they go by weight, it takes a fair while for the money to accumulate. However, they have raised well over $300 in about three years. That is a lot of cans for those women to be picking up just on the streets of Katherine.
That is in addition to the person who is paid by Katherine Town Council for doing his collection on the median strip along the highways, along the sides of the highways and in the parks in Katherine. It costs over $50 000 a year to pay him to keep the place clean and tidy of cans and bottles. He does paper as well, so it is a very big expense for council to pay him to do that. There is money being paid out now for people to collect them, so it would make a huge difference to what local government has to pay for rubbish collection in our regional towns. When Clean Up Australia comes to Katherine, it is quite upsetting to see the number of cans, bottles and recyclable material that is picked up on that one day a year. It would be nice to think that the place could be clean all the time without waiting for that one day a year.
I am very supportive of this, member for Braitling. I do commend you for bringing this motion to the House today. I hope that the government will listen to you in sincerity and not with blocked ears, and that the new minister for the Environment will take this on as a challenge to himself and his government to really push forward the argument for container deposit in the Northern Territory. I know that it is Labor’s stance to look at a national program, but that is an excuse. I believe that is a fob off. You can take the lead and come up with some very good suggestions for the Northern Territory.
I agree with what the member for Nelson said about putting your fears about the beverage industry away. You need to make this decision for the betterment of the environment, for the people in the Northern Territory. I know that you will be very proud of the way the Northern Territory looks after CDL is introduced.
There was a mention that we have long distances to travel and that it is too difficult to get recycled cans and bottles back to a depot. They would get back there, I can guarantee you. If they are worth money, they will …
Mr Kiely: Too costly, not too difficult.
Mrs Braham: Backloading, it is called.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs MILLER: Sorry?
Mr Kiely: Too costly.
Mrs Braham: Backloading.
Mrs MILLER: They will bring them back, believe me. People will bring them back. They will stick them in plastic bags in their car boot and bring them back. There would be a minimum that would have to come back in bulk.
There has to be way around it rather than putting them into landfill and having our roadsides littered, as they are now. With all of the talk about global warming we do have to do something about it. It would be really good to see the Northern Territory take it up and introduce CDL sooner rather than later.
Member for Braitling, I support your motion for CDL.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the members who have contributed to this debate. I must also commend the minister for being up-front and telling us where he stood, rather than for us to put our arguments forward and him come in at the end. However, I am not surprised at his response. It would have been a great challenge for you if you had agreed. I did not think there was anything in the motion you should not agree to. I was wording it carefully to make it acceptable to government. Regarding some of the arguments you used, you have heard responses from other members, so I am not going to extend the debate further. However, it does not have a great consumer impact, as the member for Katherine, who is from South Australia, said.
You only have to look at the prices of goods in your supermarkets to know that they can change dramatically from week to week, and consumers still purchase them. If you buy a can of coke from a corner shop, it is a lot more expensive than if you buy a dozen from a supermarket, but it does not stop you from buying it, especially if you know you are eventually going to recover a deposit anyway. Consumers do not really think as minutely as: ‘I am not going to buy this can of coke because it has a 5 refund on it’. They do not think that at all.
You also talked about a small population in the Territory. If we continually use that as a marker for not doing anything, we would never do anything. We would not be doing the great exploration programs or the developments. It is not really a sensible argument. It is not a sane one.
You talked about transport costs. There have been surveys done that show that transport companies will backload. They will take things down south much cheaper because they have an empty truck going east or south. You only have to look through some of the research that has been done to know that transport costs are quite minimal because of the agreement with transport companies that they will take these bales back in their trucks which would normally be empty, so at least they are getting some sort of payment. It is not something that should deter us at all.
You talked about the shopping centres. I am glad the member for Katherine brought that up because the litter you see is not just in shopping centres. It is on the highways, in your parks; it is everywhere. I often tell the story of when, I think it was Prince Charles was visiting one year and he was going out, perhaps it was to Hermannsburg, and the patrols went along to make the highways clean. What they did was pick up the cans and throw them further into the bush, because there was no point in them keeping them. That was their answer to cleaning up the environment. Remember, though, that that can will be there for a long time. I purposely only talked about containers. I did not talk about the other waste such as the batteries and other things that are around.
You say you are going to wait until April to see what is happening with the Environment ministers’ meeting. Why is this government relying upon the federal government to make policies for them? You scream about being independent of federal government, so why are you relying on them? Do you like federal government interference in making policies for you? I say to you: that is a strange way to go about things. You talk about the new federal Environment minister. Has he not compromised himself on some of his positions that he used to echo prior to being a member of parliament? You think about him grandstanding when he was part of a rock group. Wow, has he backpedalled madly on some issues now! He has compromised his principles; there is no doubt about that.
I thank the Opposition Leader for his support. As I said, I was very careful not to suggest a model or to present legislation. I just want people to talk to the principles that are involved. I thank the opposition members for doing that because we were hoping that you would come to an agreement and we could all work together to develop a model and legislation that we would all be eager to implement.
I really think you have missed an opportunity. The new Chief Minister has missed an opportunity. If he was to stand up and say, ‘We are going to do it no matter how hard it is, even if it costs us, we are going to put in this particular legislation’, you would be on a winner. There is no doubt about it. You would be on a winner because the community out there wants it.
You might say that the community does not care, but they do. Why are they continually asking you for grants to trial some of these schemes? I am not just talking about the major centres. We know it costs Alice Springs Town Council enormous amounts to have rangers and Tangentyere Council workers clean up the river. Every morning they get up at 5 am, walk up the river and pick up the litter. Cost-effective? When you think about it, you could get a better balance of the money we spend and how we spend it. I really think you should have thought broader, and been a bit more adventurous in your response.
Remember, containers are just one part of the litter that spoils our environment, and the public areas of our towns are often a disgrace. We often have tourists comment on that. They are surprised as they drive up to see litter around bins and on the kerbside because people do not seem to care. As the member for Katherine said, they would care if they knew they were going to get something back. It is that incentive that makes people pick up the cans and communities can make money out of it.
I love the story - I think it was Santa Teresa or Titjikala - where the kids get not just cash for what they bring back, they actually build up credit in the shop. One of the young boys was buying bread and other things his family needed. It was just a wonderful story that this young kid said: ‘I am going to do this because by getting this money, I can provide for my family’. I am not going into why he needed to do that, but it just shows that if there is a will there is a way, and if there is a reason then you will do it. We should be rewarding people like that: yes, you are doing the right thing, now we will do the right thing by you. Unfortunately, we have not.
I thank the member for Nelson for his support. He has been a passionate advocate for a long time. We both seem to be on this a little but it is because we see some sense. I am quite sure the new minister for the Environment can also see the benefits. Western Australia has already passed, I think it is a waste management bill, which does not deal just with CDL, it is dealing with waste on the whole, and that has gone through their Lower and Upper Houses. I suggest that this government look at what they are doing. Perhaps they can borrow from how they are going to go about it. Theirs is a much broader bill than just container deposit legislation. At least they have said they are going to look at it and they have not sat on their backsides waiting for the feds to do it for them. That is the important part about it. Tasmania is also considering it at the moment, and they are probably doing what I was hoping you would do. I was waiting to see how they could implement it as well.
There is a push across the country, minister. We do not have to wait for the feds to tell us how to run the Territory. We do not need to wait for the feds to prompt us, because you might be waiting a long time. I hope I am wrong; I hope you come back from this meeting with a very positive message. We will say: ‘Great’. The reason for making you debate this today is that we want you to go back with some sort of commitment and knowledge that this is a good thing for the Territory. It may cost us some money, and perhaps you have to divert some of the money you normally give in grants to assist this scheme to get up. Once it gets up and running, as they have shown in South Australia, the community will stick by you. The community will do it. You might recall the Alice Springs Arid Lands Environment Centre offered kids 5 for every can at the show. The year they did not do that, there was rubbish everywhere. The year they did do it the response from the kids was great; it cleans up.
Minister, you are basically saying that the government does not want to support this motion. You probably could have supported it because there was nothing in the wording that was not acceptable to you, I am sure, except where I put ‘commit some funding’. Good luck at the Environment ministers’ meeting. Come back and give us some good news but, if you do not have good news, come back and do it yourself.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move the motion.
Motion negatived.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
The Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme was introduced in 1979 to encourage people of retirement age to continue living in the Northern Territory by giving them the opportunity to visit their families interstate every two to four years, depending on their eligibility. I say at the outset that this pensioner and carer travel scheme is considered one of the best travel benefit schemes for pensioners in Australia.
By introducing this motion today to include intra-state travel concessions, I am seeking to make it the very best. I became aware not too long after I arrived here in 1989 that the Territory was looked upon as a place where mainly young people came to work for a few years and then return home interstate. Many young people arrived here to work with stock firms, in banks, or as tradespeople picking up jobs wherever they decided to stop throughout the Territory. Many took the opportunities they saw were available to them and established a business. That is how many of the businesses right throughout the Territory began.
I started working in Katherine in 1990 for one such company, Semrite Constructions, that had been established a couple of years earlier by two tradesmen who had only come to the Territory for a short time to help rebuild Darwin after Cyclone Tracy. They are Greg Wright and Peter Semrau. They both travelled to Katherine at different times, and both got work there, only expecting to be there for a short time. They ended up teaming together, working their partnership out of the back of a ute in the beginning and, eventually, building up to a medium-size construction and maintenance company by the time I came to work for them. Greg Wright’s family, including his mother, Merle Wright, did not take long to follow Greg to live in Katherine, and they are still there. Greg married Darilyn, and they have four sons, all of whom are still living very happily in the Northern Territory.
I am using this example of young people who came for a short time many years ago and ended up making the Territory their home. Fortunately, Greg’s mother, Merle, lives in Katherine too, but there are many other people who came to the Northern Territory, stayed, and left family and friends long distances away. The Territory covers a vast area, as we all know, with Darwin being at the Top End and Alice Springs, the second biggest town, at the southern end, nearly 1500 km away. As we all know, that is a considerable distance. Many members of families have gone their separate ways for whatever reason and established themselves, in some instances, at the other end of the Territory to their parents.
The pensioner concession travel scheme was designed to assist pensioners who have been living in the Territory for two years or more to be able to visit their family and friends interstate. The idea was to encourage more mature residents to remain in the Territory during their senior years. The scheme is aimed at women over 60 years and men over 65 years, an age group of which, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very proud to say that I fall into these days. Believe me, I am quite happy to still be here, it does not matter what the age is.
This scheme is to encourage pensioners to get together with their family and friends at least on a biennial basis. I know many Territory pensioners who have accessed this entitlement over the years, and the difference the travel has made to them being able to visit their families has been exceptional. The cost of living in the Territory is higher than it is to live in southern states and, therefore, less encouraging for people in their retirement years to want to stay here. We spend a lot of time talking about how important seniors are to our communities and how much we value them - and we do - so this travel concession is an important enticement for them to want to spend their more senior years living here rather than moving out of the Territory.
There are many Territory families who are spread out across the Territory and who are in the position of elderly parents living in Darwin with their family living in Alice Springs, or vice versa. That, as we well know, costs a lot of money and is a very significant factor in determining whether they are able to get to see each other.
For the purposes of the current concession scheme, Darwin and Alice Springs are not classified as capital cities. I think that is a bit cute, because Darwin is certainly looked upon as the capital of the Northern Territory, with Alice Springs nearly 1500 km away, the second-largest town. I am sure the members from Central Australia consider Alice Springs the capital of Central Australia.
This motion that I have put before the House today seeks to adjust the criteria by including pensioners who live in either Darwin or Alice Springs with family in the opposite location being able to access the travel concession scheme. I know it would bring much joy to many people who do not at present have the financial capacity to travel biennially to be with their family. The CLP believes that families who have remained living in the Northern Territory who are separated by such distances as between Darwin and Alice Springs should not be disadvantaged by the pensioner concession travel scheme. They should be included with the same conditions as are presently outlined in the Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme, not forgetting that these people will be spending money wherever they travel, so this adjustment to the scheme will contribute to local businesses and tourism within the Northern Territory. That is what we want. It is welcomed.
Therefore, I propose that under the concessions headed Interstate Travel, Overseas Travel, and Private Vehicle Travel, a heading of Intrastate Travel be inserted with the conditions clearly outlined as follows:
I urge all members of government to favourably consider this motion, which will be of great benefit to many pensioners and will remove the disadvantage that is obvious under the present legislation. Let us show our eligible pensioners, in a very positive way, that we value every one of them, not only those whose families live interstate. I urge all members to support the motion.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a position on which I have lobbied the previous Chief Minister on a number of occasions. I have an example that I would like to repeat. There is an elderly Territorian who lives in the Old Timers village in Alice Springs. Her son and daughter live in Darwin. Unfortunately, this lady is not well enough to travel. She would love to see her family but she is just not well enough to travel. She asked if there was any way that her son and daughter could use her fare to visit her in Alice Springs. Of course, the answer was no. That is the sad part. You have made the concession that if you have relatives down south, your relative can use your fare to visit you. You can reverse it so that your auntie or uncle who lives in Adelaide can come to see you in Alice Springs rather than you, as a senior, going to Adelaide to see them. You reversed that, and that was a good decision. That meant that people were able to have their relatives come and see them. It is unfortunate that this very senior Territorian’s family is not in Adelaide because they could have taken advantage of the scheme. They could have visited her under the scheme but, because they live in Darwin, you disadvantaged them.
Why would you want to disadvantage Territorians? Why would you want to do that? I thought this government was here for Territorians and I say it is sensible. If these relatives want to visit this very old lady in the Old Timers home, just because they live in Darwin and not in Adelaide, they should be able to avail themselves of the fare and not be disadvantaged that way. Unfortunately, the answer from the Chief Minister at the time was no.
I know that there are certain requirements for pensioners who can get this particular concession for travelling, but it is not broad enough to do that. The Chief Minister, at the time, said that it was too complex. I am not sure whether she was referring to the fact that there may be a large number of Territorians who are then eligible to travel across the Territory to visit people. Perhaps that was the crux of the matter: that she thought it would open floodgates, and that there would be Territorians all over the place moving backwards and forwards because they were entitled to the scheme. That does not lie with me. Minister, I bet you have relatives who live in other parts of the Territory, who are elderly. Why should you not be able to go and see them by using their fare component?
It is not a big thing the member for Katherine is asking. It is a very simple change to something that is already there. You have already made that change to allow relatives from south to utilise the fare, to do the reverse. That is a positive move by this government.
In this situation, the lady in the Old Timers is just too frail and fragile to travel and would not use her fare to go interstate. She has no reason to so, I suppose, in a way, it is a saving to government. However, she would very much like to assist her son and daughter who have a young family to come and see her. Minister, when you give us your reply, will you keep that in mind? There are some very genuine cases.
People have utilised this well. I have had people who have come in who have driven interstate and they religiously keep their fuel dockets so that they can claim the money when they come back as part of their travel concession. You have allowed that. You do not always have to catch a plane, you can drive, and that has been great. They appreciate that. The only thing they have said is that it is a shame they cannot get the money up-front rather than have to spend it and then claim it.
This motion put forward by the member for Katherine would benefit many Territorians - and they are the people you are here for. They are the people who are your constituents. They are the people who pay their rates and taxes, who keep the Territory running. I support the member for Katherine and when you give her a response, I hope you think of the personal situations of some of our elderly in the Territory. Think of some of the people who are living in hostels who can no longer travel, who might like to utilise their fare to bring their family to see them.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr BONSON (Senior Territorians): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank both members for bringing this motion to the House. It is an issue I am well aware of. The member for Braitling, as a long-term Territorian, understands how deeply this issue affects local Territorians.
There are a number of issues regarding intra-territory travel for members of the Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. It is important that we understand the background. There are a couple of issues I have to address regarding the member for Katherine’s contribution. Yes, there is an historical reason behind why this scheme was introduced in 1979, and that is because of the nature of what the Territory was back then. Basically, people who came to the Territory to work were from down south and the public service in general dominated the workforce in the Territory, in Alice Springs, Darwin and the regional areas. It is an historical situation where governments, both past and present, have encouraged people once they became a senior to take this interstate travel. It is a wonderful initiative and it is very important to support it.
However, unless it was an oversight - obviously, the member was reading from a written statement so I am not sure it was an oversight - it is the only scheme of its type in Australia. The reason why it is the only scheme of its type in Australia is because the other states and territories cannot afford it. However, this Territory government has supported it. I will read through the facts, the amount of money that we put into it, some of the cost issues, and some of the reasons why we cannot support this motion.
The reality is that this government and previous governments recognised that this was a very important scheme, but there is no other scheme anywhere else in Australia, either territory or state. In fact, the Commonwealth government does not have such a scheme. The Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia that provides free flights. It is generous; we all understand that. When you speak to most senior Territorians, they are delighted by the initiatives that we provide them through the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme.
In my position as the local member for Millner, what became very apparent to me was the importance of seniors throughout the community because, in self-interest, I engaged with the seniors - people who have contributed throughout their whole life to the Territory and, in fact, Australia, who have …
Ms Carney: ‘… self-interest, I engaged with the seniors’. You might regret that one. I think we will make a note of that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BONSON: … raised children, had a working career, etcetera, and they are quite intelligent people. They research the schemes right across the board, and they understand that the scheme that the Northern Territory government provides is quite generous, and it is a two-way street. We respect the fact that we need to support our seniors; the seniors respect the fact that we support them. The pensioner concession scheme covers a range of concessions beyond just travel, as we know. Other concessions include electricity, water, sewerage and garbage rates, property rates, motor vehicle registration, motor vehicle licences and spectacles.
I spoke to a seniors group in Palmerston only a few days ago and gave them an undertaking that I would consult with them; that I would engage with them. Some of the issues that I will talk about have been highlighted in this motion under the Pensioner Concession Scheme. However, to a person, we all recognise the fact that, in comparison to other states and territories, the NT government, both historically and at present, support seniors better than any other state or territory. That is not even question marked; that is not even an argument. That is just the fact.
We are seeing two things happening within the population of seniors. One is that the seniors population, as we know, is growing - and it is growing quite quickly if you have a look at the ABS figures. There are a couple of reasons it is growing. One is that people are deciding to stay here in the Territory. Why are they deciding to stay? Because they have had kids and their kids have become adults and married and had children and now their grandchildren are living in the Territory. Then you have people who are migrating to the Northern Territory to access services as seniors. They come to the Territory. They migrate from other states and territories in recognition that the Northern Territory, with its scheme, is way out in front of other states and territories. What this does is create an increase in numbers of seniors. This also increases the pressure on government to provide the same quality of services that we have provided for many years.
I argue, when I read the budgetary figures, that this government has supported the scheme better than any other government in the history of self-government. For example, in 2001, the budget was $4.2m which provided for concessions. Last financial year, the amount was $8.2m. We have almost doubled the size of the scheme. In relation to travel, in 2001, 955 trips were paid for. Last year, there were 1733 trips paid for. It is a significant burden of cost, but we are still meeting that cost. This is, in large part, due to the fact that the government extended the scheme to allow family and friends to travel. Under the CLP, only the actual member of the scheme was entitled to travel. In 2005, the Labor government expanded the scheme so that members could fly their family and friends up to the Territory. As we know, this was applauded by the seniors’ community because, as outlined by the member for Braitling, one of the key issues is that as people get older they do not wish to travel for a variety of reasons. They were able to save their entitlement and bring family members from across Australia, no matter where they were, to visit them. Senior Territorians have said that this is a fantastic initiative.
At this time, the government did not consider very closely the option of expanding the scheme to allow for intra-Territory travel. I will briefly outline some of the considerations that need to be taken into account. First, the fundamental purpose of this scheme is to encourage retired Territorians to stay here. Often, once people have retired, the lure of the family down south, particularly newly-arrived grandkids, proves too much and people relocate. The provision of interstate travel subsidies is to encourage retired Territorians to stay in the Territory. If we were to open it up to intra-Territory travel there would be a number of different issues arising and one of them is logistics - the sheer logistics of keeping track of what is happening, because then we would open it up to a wider group who, historically, were not picked up in this scheme. That would mean an extra cost to all of us, the NT government and the taxpayers, for a scheme that is by far the most generous in Australia.
As with all government funding schemes, it is very important that the proper acquittal processes are followed. This is easy with air travel, where the government books the flight on behalf of the person, there is no need for the government to provide cash up-front, and no need for the member of the scheme to provide any receipts. It is not easy with motor vehicle travel, where the government would need to provide cash up-front and then require the applicant to provide petrol receipts after the trip. Processes would need to be put in place in situations where receipts were not provided.
As I mentioned earlier, the government’s decision to expand the scheme to allow family and friends to use the scheme has increased the number of flights. Under the scheme, a member is eligible for themselves or family and friends to take a return trip to an interstate capital once every four years. Most members of the scheme fully utilise the entitlements. In other words, most members, once every four years, travel interstate, or have family and friends travel from interstate to visit them. Expanding the scheme to include intra-Territory travel would not necessarily expand the scheme for these people, as they would have already fully utilised their entitlement.
It is notable that the motion from the member for Katherine does not make it clear whether she supports expanding the scheme so that members could take both an interstate and an intrastate trip. If she is suggesting this, then she will need to provide costings, which would be considerable, and explain where the additional money would come from. In 2005, we saw the CLP go to an election without costed election commitments, and we saw the result. Until the member for Katherine provides costings for this initiative, then they simply cannot be taken seriously.
This Labor government places great value on the contribution our seniors make to our community. This is why our Pensioner Concession Scheme is fully funded and the most generous in the country.
As government, we often have to make tough decisions but we make them for all the right reasons. We have a limited budget and we have to try to make maximum benefit of that budget. The opposition can say what they want and anyone can test it, but I believe we have the best scheme in Australia by far. It is not even a rating system of who comes first, second, third or fourth. We are light years ahead of anyone else. The reason is because this government supports senior Territorians. We understand the benefit of all senior Territorians. It is my own personal belief that senior Territorians are on the pyramid of our society, and that as we work up in life and gain experience, one day we will reach the top of that pyramid; that is, having a family, raising children, having employment, and gathering the wisdom that you get from life experience.
Every senior Territorian I have spoken to about the scheme has said that they appreciate the scheme, they enjoy the access to it, it is a persuading factor in why they stay in the Territory, and it is one of the reasons why they choose not to retire down south. Many new Territorians have travelled to the Territory to take advantage of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot support the member for Katherine’s motion. We believe that this scheme is a fantastic scheme. We will work to improve it. In my role as Minister for Senior Territorians, I will consult with as many senior Territorians as I can. We should be working together on these issues, and I will be working with the opposition when I can.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an interesting matter, and we now have the opportunity to respond to what government thinks about it. Government has shown us what they think about it by contributing just one speaker. It makes a mockery of General Business Day when government does not actively engage in important matters such as this. When the spokesman from the Labor Party …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition is asserting that government does not engage in General Business Day, that we do not take the issues raised by the opposition and Independents seriously. I can assure this House that each and every one of the propositions that are put before this House on General Business Day is considered very seriously by government. There is discussion within government, within our Caucus, on each and every issue.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Johnston.
Mr MILLS: No, I could have picked that too. That is not a point of order. It is just an opinion and an assertion. It undermines and shows a misunderstanding of what the parliament is about. It seems the Caucus has a pre-eminence over the function of the people’s parliament. We do not have debate in here; you have debate with your superior numbers in another room somewhere and we just get a sanitised and manipulated version ...
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! If the Leader of the Opposition is going to talk about the processes of a political party here he should at least get it right and not mislead this parliament with his failure to understand how the Australian Labor Party works as a political party. It is no different to how the CLP works inasmuch as the party discusses its position and it comes to the parliament for debate. I would prefer it if he would stop misleading this parliament.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! If the member wishes to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of misleading the parliament, as I rightly know, there is a process to do it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, could you please withdraw the word ‘misleading’?
Mr MILLS: Or bring a motion.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw the word ‘misleading’ but he has it wrong. I understood that there is a standing order about not misleading the parliament.
Mr MILLS: Bring a motion then.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Brennan. Leader of the Opposition, continue.
Mr MILLS: The way in which issues have been debated in the people’s parliament has shown, in my view, a lack of respect for the notion of democracy and how we negotiate issues here on the floor of the Chamber.
That being said, what we have had is an outline of the historical genesis of this particular scheme. It must have been difficult but there is no avoiding it: the scheme came into existence before the Australian Labor Party held government in this Chamber. I acknowledge that. I am pleased it has been acknowledged. I also acknowledge that it has been added to in that time, which is reasonable, and it is good that it has been expanded because it is a good scheme. We identified that the purpose of the scheme was to retain seniors in the Northern Territory. That was the reason behind the initial offer to seniors. It appears to be working as we can see from the figures - $4.2m was spent in one point in time, obviously, when the CLP was in power. Now that the Labor Party is in the number is double that which shows that they are jolly good fellows. It also shows that the program is working, that there are more seniors here and that it has been widened and, more importantly, that more seniors are staying here.
There was a sinister threat running through the member’s comments. Many times he referred to it as the ‘only scheme’ in Australia. That set me thinking. He said there is no other scheme like it in the country. He then went on to say that in his curious term of ‘self-interest’ in engaging seniors that they recognised, as he recognised, that it is a generous scheme. ‘We support you’, he tells the seniors, and they know that they are supported. Implied in that is this message that they should be jolly well grateful for what we give them because it is the only scheme in the country, and the large amounts of money that are attributed to this. Then he goes back to the initial leg of that argument that …
Mr BONSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would like the Opposition Leader to put into context what I said. I said that the scheme provided by the NT government is the only scheme in Australia ...
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, there is no point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BONSON: … that provides interstate travel. I did not say that it is the only scheme in Australia, which is repeated five times – the first time, I thought it was a mistake.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, there is no point of order. However, if you wish, you may approach me about making a personal explanation. Leader of the Opposition, please continue.
Mr Mills: I am quite sure, and I think that anyone in the Chamber is quite sure, that there is nothing wrong with this. I am not having a go at you on this point. You described it a number of times, and quite rightly so, as the only scheme of its kind in the country …
Mr Bonson: Interstate travel, yes. Well, say that. Put it on the record, Terry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Cease interjecting, minister. You have the call, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Mills: There is no misunderstanding, just calm down on that. This is the sinister threat: you have stated it clearly that it is the only scheme of its kind in the country, therefore, no other scheme operates in the country of this nature ...
Mr Bonson: Interstate travel. You can say it, Terry.
Mr Mills: That is not the point.
Mr Bonson: You are a joke, a dead set joke.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: If it is the only scheme of its kind, related to travel, member for Millner. It is the only scheme related to travel in the country and no other jurisdiction has it, and that the seniors recognise it as a generous scheme, and ‘We have told them that we support them’, and then they say: ‘Yes, thank you, you support us, that is jolly good, and thank you very much government’. It is implied in there as a threat, as we know the attitude of this government: that if no other jurisdiction has it in place, they would very likely fall into line with southern jurisdictions and scrap it because it does not exist anywhere else. So they better be jolly well grateful because it does not exist anywhere else. That sounds a little like a threat to me.
The purpose of the policy has clearly demonstrated that it is achieving its objectives. The arguments are sensible in showing some respect for seniors. It is not a colossal impost; it is just a sensible modification of an existing program, which is a good and innovative program. I do not think the arguments, which are just explanations of the existing scheme and how and why it operates, have taken on board the proposition that it would not be so difficult to do so, making the grand challenge - easy to assert from the point of view of government – of: ‘Look, we would like to think about it if you get your own Treasury briefings and provide us with the details and then we might consider it’, as if this is just a debating point.
It is the principle of the matter as to whether you would make that modification in the interest of achieving the objective, which is being achieved, but it could be further strengthened if we just made this modification. I believe the arguments are quite sensible. I urge members to relax about it and to at least leave the door open. Perhaps this is not the Chamber of debate that I thought it would be. It is political posturing. You never know what might pop out in the lead-up to an election, depending on what the polling has told them. It is a sensible proposition, but we have not had a sensible debate on it. I urge members, nonetheless, and live in hope that they might support the motion.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I support this motion which all of us, as local members, have had cause to consider over the years. How many times have we had constituents ask us to help in relation to this scheme? The argument is a logical one.
What the minister came up with: ‘Well, it is the only one, so count your lucky stars’, is a ridiculous argument. It is not a competition. This is a government that says, when it suits them, that they are here for Territorians; they are going to deliver for Territorians. You are not delivering for the senior Territorians, for which the member for Millner is minister, by simply saying: ‘We are not going to change it, end of story’.
More significantly, however - and I will order a rush – my note of what the minister said is as follows:
The Minister for Senior Territorians has told this parliament that:
Let us have a look at the definition of ‘self-interest’ from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. I quote as follows:
Mr Mills: Come on! Who can talk about twisting words?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business, there is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, you have the floor.
Ms CARNEY: Let us go just a little further. The definition of ‘self-interested’ is:
Now …
Mr Bonson: What is this, a feather duster?
Ms CARNEY: I would not be interjecting if I were you, member for Millner; you get yourself in trouble.
We knew this would happen, Madam Speaker. The new Chief Minister, who came to his role via what was widely regarded to be dishonourable and dubious means - but he came to it nevertheless - said in his media release dated 30 November in relation to the new minister: ‘I know he will do a good job’. The new Chief Minister, after finally getting the crown he craved for so long, decided that the members for Sanderson and Millner would become ministers. He was urged not to do it, and if ever there was, and there is …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! What is the relevance?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I would like you to come to the point fairly soon and get back to the motion.
Ms CARNEY: The point, Madam Speaker, is that this motion is all about Territory seniors. The motion is clearly all about advancing the interests of Territory seniors. The motion is not about advancing the interests of the Minister for Senior Territorians ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62. The member for Araluen is impugning directly or by innuendo to another member unbecoming conduct or motives. I took it to mean, when the member for Millner used the words ‘self-interest’, he was talking about his own edification, about finding out what his constituency really thinks ...
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker!
Dr BURNS: The member for Araluen is now impugning certain motives to him which are offensive. I do not think she should continue with it.
Mr Wood: That was being tried on me yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen?
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, what the member for Johnston thinks the minister meant is, with the greatest of respect, neither here nor there. The Minister for Senior Territorians said: ‘… in self-interest I engaged with the seniors’. I say that subject to checking the rush, but I did make a note of it. With respect, the member for Johnston does not have a point of order. I would like to finish this very important point I am making in relation to a motion about senior Territorians and the comments of the minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I will indulge you for a short period of time, but I ask you to get to the point, and be relevant, very quickly.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, and I am towards the end in any event.
Given that members opposite said in relation to General Business Day - and I think it was the member for Brennan - that members of the government do seriously assess what is on the Notice Paper on a General Business Day - this motion being just one of them, I now call on the new Chief Minister to get the Minister for Senior Territorians to publicly apologise to senior Territorians for his remarks. I urge the Chief Minister that, in the event that the Minister for Senior Territorians fails to do so, he be otherwise reprimanded. Senior Territorians have every right to be offended - especially during a debate about advancing their interests - to be revolted and offended by their very own minister saying, in essence: ‘I am not …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: … worried about your interests, I will pursue my own’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, please pause.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Araluen is putting her interpretation on words that the minister said. The member for Johnston has already pointed out that government certainly finds her words offensive and in breach of Standing Order 61. I have already called a point of relevance. We are happy to hear a debate around provisions of services to seniors, but this is ridiculous.
Madam SPEAKER: In relation to the Minister for Senior Territorians, I advised him that if he wished to he could approach me to make a personal explanation.
Member for Araluen, I advised you that you would need to come to the point very quickly because it is fairly irrelevant.
Ms CARNEY: I have finished, Madam Speaker.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, goodness gracious me, who would have ever dreamed that something so simple as making it good for senior Territorians who live in the Territory with their families from one end of the Territory to the other could have caused such a ruckus? Seniors will be appalled, absolutely appalled. As a matter of fact, I am in a bit of state of shock as to what has happened.
How difficult was it for the minister to get up and say what a great idea it is to make this the best travel scheme in Australia? I do not give a rip what other states have. I really do not care. I just care about what happens to seniors in the Territory. Minister, it is a good scheme. If you had listened to what I had said, I said it is the best. It is the best and the seniors absolutely love it. When it was recently upgraded to include carers in the last session of parliament, that made it absolutely superb. That is why the figures that the minister put forward today show such a significant increase. It is great. It is well received by seniors in the Territory.
He brought figures forward to say the cost factor would come into it, and I needed to go to Treasury and talk to them about the costings for this. There are very few seniors that this would relate to. I am talking about seniors who live within the Territory, with their families and friends within the Territory, who would gain from accessing this concession that I have put forward today.
The minister also brought up that I needed to tell him whether they wanted to travel interstate, or whether they wanted to just travel intrastate. Could I please make that clear - how would I know? Let us go and ask them. The choice is theirs. It would not make much difference whether they are going to travel interstate or intrastate. It would not make much difference at all. You still have to put the concession in place. It was a bit of a one-sided argument.
He was implying that there is a large number of Territorians, and I argue that there is not. What it does do is disadvantage the Territorians who have chosen to live here and who have all their family here. They are disadvantaged. When I retire one of these centuries, and I have my mother living in South Australia and I decide to visit her, I have an advantage. However, someone who lives here and has their mother or a sick relative or sick mother or father in Alice Springs, cannot get to see them and receive that same entitlement. It is a minor change that would make this scheme absolutely fantastic for those seniors who live in the Territory.
The member for Millner, who is also the new Minister for Senior Territorians, said that seniors are coming to the Territory because of the schemes that we have. Minister, you have not been the Minister for Senior Territorians for very long and I do not know that the previous Minister for Senior Territorians would have had many people rock up on her door to say: ‘I have come to the Territory solely because of the pensioner concession schemes that you have here’. That is a little fanciful. It is not that fantastic that people are moving here purely because of that, Minister for Senior Territorians. They are coming here because they have family here, or because they lived here many years ago and they want to come back, or because they like the climate. They are not coming here because they love the pensioner concession scheme, even though it is a very good one. There was no argument from me or the CLP that it is not a good scheme. It is.
I thank the member for Braitling for her support for this motion. The member for Braitling, as other members from Central Australia, has obviously had people put their case of unfairness about this scheme for senior Territorians. I thank her for her support. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support. I know that other members of the CLP definitely support senior Territorians and the content, purpose and intent of this motion. I thank the member for Araluen for responding to, I consider, the unfair comments made by the member for Millner, the Minister for Senior Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I am extremely disappointed at the lack of interest shown in this motion except for the argy-bargy going on across the floor. It has taken away from the serious intent that I had to make this travel concession scheme the best for all senior Territorians, not just those who have family living interstate.
Motion negatived.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move –
I talk about the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme and cancer sufferers and their families in Central Australia particularly. After much discussion with organisations such as Bosom Buddies, the Leukaemia Foundation, as well as cancer sufferers and their families, there is an overwhelming consensus that whilst PATS is appreciated and has certainly served the Northern Territory well over many years, there is plenty of room for improvement; namely, allowing those diagnosed with cancer to continue to use Adelaide hospital as a preferred option for treatment despite the completion of the Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin - at this stage earmarked for the end of 2009.
The relationship that Alice Springs and Central Australia has with Adelaide cannot be underestimated. As a consequence of that relationship and that bond between the two cities and the two regions of South Australia and Central Australia, for some cancer sufferers Adelaide provides a more familiar surrounds and, therefore, can only aid in the recovery of cancer sufferers.
While the Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin, once it is completed, must be patronised by Territorians - the Country Liberal Party certainly understands and agrees that it must be to grow Northern Territory health services - I cannot believe that the number of cancer sufferers in Central Australia using PATS and wanting to use Adelaide hospital as the treatment option is so huge that it would stymie the growth of Northern Territory health services. I would be very surprised if that number was 20, 30, or even 50. I am in the process of trying to define those numbers at the moment. I will let the minister know once I do, but it is only a very small number.
I have said before in this Assembly, that cancer is a ruthless and deadly killer of Territorians. This is not chicken pox; this is a very serious disease that affects many Territorians. Why is it that the Northern Territory government cannot show some compassion and sensitivity to those in Central Australia by offering a choice of Adelaide or Darwin for treatment? It is a great opportunity for the new Chief Minister to show some sensitivity and compassion for those cancer sufferers in Central Australia. Obviously, the geographical distances are almost identical and airfares are much the same. In fact, a quick check on the website today shows a Qantas super saver fare is $10 cheaper from Adelaide to Alice Springs than Alice Springs to Darwin. So air travel, obviously, is not an issue.
Madam Speaker, I refer to my response to the Health Minister’s statement, Building Better Hospitals, in the October sittings. I quote:
The statement went on. While Centralians are, obviously, very proud Territorians, and proud to be part of the mighty Northern Territory, the Centre and the Top End are two very different parts of the Northern Territory, and to lump them into one basket, I believe, is a mistake. It is insensitive to the unique needs of both communities and cultures.
The minister is also Minister for Alcohol Policy and he has said over the last few days of sittings that you cannot implement a one-size-fits-all approach to particular issues. This is a chance to apply that theory to the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme.
Minister, in this motion I propose that the Northern Territory government continue to allow those handful of patients - as I said I do not have the numbers with me, but I would be very surprised if it were any more than 50 in Central Australia who have been diagnosed with cancer and need oncology services - to be allowed to continue to use Adelaide hospital if they so choose. I firmly believe that the number of patients wanting to opt for Adelaide hospital is so few that they are not enough to impede the growth of the Northern Territory health services.
I know that is a major and genuine concern for the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory Health department. I do not think it is enough to significantly dent the health budget. If it costs an extra $1000 to $3000, then that is not a lot of money when we are talking about the care of Territorians.
I argue that patients in Central Australia wanting to opt for treatment in Adelaide would be at such a level that it would be inconsequential to the growth of the Northern Territory health sector, although it would be of the utmost benefit to the palliative care of cancer sufferers and their recovery, and to the families of those suffering from cancer. If there is one thing that can make that transition from life to death that little easier to deal with and to accept for families, it is knowing that you are there with your loved ones right up to the very end. One could only imagine what it would be like and the benefit and comfort it would give to the patient when you approach that time.
Such support is not exclusive to those with terminal cancer. It also applies and is required for cancer sufferers overall and their families. An example of that - and this is an example that I have had in Central Australia, through one of my constituents – is if one parent is in hospital undergoing treatment for cancer, the other parent is left at home to care for children, go to work, and maintain the house. The emotional burden this brings would be greatly eased knowing that your spouse has had a choice of hospital in Adelaide or Darwin and, hence, is surrounded by other family and friends, and in a familiar environment of their choice.
There is a very good case to include the hospital choice anywhere in Australia, in fact, to substantiate the argument. However, this motion has come about as a result of the overwhelming desire for cancer sufferers to have the option of Adelaide as well as Darwin. I believe that if Royal Brisbane, Royal Perth or any other major hospital with oncology services were an option it would also have a minuscule impact on the growth of Northern Territory health services and the Northern Territory health budget - purely because of the limited numbers of cancer sufferers in Central Australia wanting to use that option. The Northern Territory government should be considering anything that eases the suffering and aids in the recovery of cancer sufferers.
As I said, this motion has come about as a result of the overwhelming desire by cancer sufferers to have Adelaide as an option. It is not hard to understand why when you consider the bond between the two cities as I highlighted before.
Also in this motion, I moved that the minister increase the rate of PATS, which is, I think, around the $33 per day mark. While I appreciate it is an assistance and it has served the Territory well, and I also believe that it is a little more than other jurisdictions are offering – and that is clearly appreciated - $33 has been the rate for a very long time. It does not go very far these days. I feel that the rate should be increased. I also know that the scheme allows for a spouse or family member to be with the patient, at a clinician’s discretion, particularly for terminally-ill patients. I feel that decisions should not be exclusive to the clinician; it should also be with the patient as well as the doctor. If a patient is desperate for their husband, or their wife, or their next-of-kin to be with them, they should be allowed to have that choice, and make that choice themselves if it will aid in their recovery. They are the best ones to say whether it will aid in their emotional recovery. However, the choice is blocked if the doctor does not think it is necessary. I also believe that the rate should be expanded to the spouse and that family member.
It is the responsibility of governments to look after their own; to look after Territorians and help them when they need it most, not to alienate them for the sake of empire building. The emotional side of care for cancer sufferers in Central Australia seems to have been overlooked by this government as a result of not allowing the Adelaide hospital to continue to be an option for those requiring radiation oncology services once the oncology unit in Darwin is operational. At this stage, that will be by the end of 2009. I have a petition running in my office at the moment. It is getting quite a few signatures and I hope to table that in parliament in April.
Madam Speaker, I move, on the grounds that I have just highlighted, that the minister review the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme in the areas of the rate of assistance, expanding that assistance to a spouse and family member and allowing cancer sufferers in Central Australia to continue to use Adelaide hospital despite the completion of a Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I support this motion. There are many reasons, but so many of them, for my part, cannot be put. However, as a member from Central Australia, this is an important motion, and it is put to government on two levels. One is that the amount of PATS that is paid is not adequate - pretty much everyone knows that - and it needs to be adjusted upwards. Second, there needs to be a choice for those in Central Australia; so many of whom would feel adrift and alone if they were forced to come to Darwin. Some might not, but they need to have that fundamental choice. We should all be about choice in this parliament. Is this an issue of conscience? Maybe, maybe not. Surely, the government will allow the people of Central Australia some choice in this issue?
I remember, either on Radio National several weeks ago, or possibly AM, the PATS issue had been discussed. It got a national airing through some forum, and the minister may have heard it as well. I cannot remember who it was, but it was someone, from memory, who was regarded as an expert when it came to the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme and so on. From memory - and I do not have it in front of me so I stand to be corrected - I am pretty sure that that person said words to the effect of the amount paid for patient assistance travel generally throughout the country was just not enough and that governments of any political colour should do something about it.
Finally, I note that members of government have, in the last week or so, started to get a mantra together, usually associated with pre-election. One is referring to the opposition as a policy-free zone. I strongly reject that, and members on the other side who have listened in this Chamber over the last two-and-a-half years will know that a number of policies have been put forward. Those policies do not need to be wrapped up in glossies. We all know that parties package policies closer to elections although, of course, parties and oppositions tend to do it well before elections as well. We have done both, and the General Business Days are an opportunity for the opposition to put forward what will be alternative policies.
Today, we have had the member for Katherine talk about the pensioner travel scheme, a good policy in and of itself, to improve it. That was rejected by government, but supported by the opposition. Today, we have a motion to improve the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme. Frankly, I will be genuinely amazed if government opposes this, as I fear they will, because I am hard pressed to see on what logical basis it can be opposed. In the event that government opposes it, the opposition will stand by its commitment to this area. Of course, during this General Business Day, there have been other initiatives put forward by the opposition to the government which have been rejected. I use that as an example of completely refuting any suggestion that the opposition does not have policies. We do and you know it.
In any event, I look forward, minister, to hearing what you have to say. I urge you to support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support this motion. This motion raises some interesting issues. About 85% to 90% of the funding for the Northern Territory comes from the Commonwealth. If we were to look at Australia without all those funny little lines that go across maps, we are all Australian, and our hospital services are, basically, funded by the Commonwealth. Even though we might say that these are our hospitals, we are Territorians, in fact, if you look directly at what is actually happening, our hospitals are funded by the Commonwealth. I suppose most hospitals in Australia are funded by the Commonwealth through the GST.
We all should be able to access those hospitals. I understand that there will be other complications. I presume that there is some waiting when it comes to funding in relation to the isolation of the area, and where people come from, and there would be other complications like that which I am not necessarily on top of. I am saying that because we have a case where we are saying Alice Springs people would like to go to Adelaide, and one can understand that. It can also apply the other way around, to people living in the Kimberleys, in Kununurra, Wyndham, or Halls Creek. When we were arguing about the benefits of having an oncology unit in the Northern Territory, they would be able to access our oncology unit in Darwin because it would be much closer than taking a trip to Perth. So I see a counter-argument.
If the government says it is not a good idea for Alice Springs people to have a choice to go to Alice Springs, how do we apply that thinking to people in Kununurra? If we had a regular flight, as we used to have many years ago, through Mt Isa, we might have Mt Isa people coming here. To throw another little spanner in the works, I suppose, is that we are also looking at our Asian neighbours using the facility here. So it is not just the case that this is for the Territory only. We are looking at feeding off a global or regional area for the use of this particular oncology unit.
Between states and territories there has to be, you would hope, a fair bit of flexibility. I do not know what the scheme is in Western Australia, but I hope that the Western Australian government would not say to people in Kununurra, or on one of the cattle stations that borders on the Northern Territory, that they cannot get any support from the Western Australian government because they must go to Perth for treatment. I hope that when we are dealing with these issues we are dealing with common sense. The government should be flexible in relation to this.
This is not quite to the point of what is happening today, but I was talking to a lady from a cattle station who wants to send her children to an interstate boarding school. Basically, she cannot get assistance for that because she was told she has to send her children to a boarding school in the Territory. She lives a long way from anywhere. In fact, it is quicker for her to send her children to Brisbane than it is to send them to the nearest school in the Northern Territory. So, whilst we might make rules which appear on the surface to be about protecting our Territory people, the reality is that that is not the way this whole world works.
We live in Australia. Boundaries are purely artificial. The geography of where we live should be the basis on which we make these decisions. Kununurra is a one-hour flight from Darwin. It is a four-hour flight to Perth. It is in Western Australia. So do we apply the logic that it is in Western Australia, it is a state? That is it? We do not give any concessions to anyone in Kununurra who comes to Darwin for treatment?
We have to have a flexible system that allows for people in Central Australia to be able to go to Adelaide if they wish. People in Kununurra can do the same. If they wish to go to Perth they can, and if they think it would be much better to come to Darwin, they can. That is where we need to take this particular motion: that we have a system which is flexible enough to allow for those kinds of situations.
In relation to the section of the motion which reads: ‘to increase and expand the rates to allow for a spouse or family member to accompany patients’, I mentioned this in the adjournment debate recently. I have been approached by the mother of a 27-year-old daughter. Unfortunately, she has cervical cancer. She has a child who is five months old. The reality is that she has to go to Adelaide at the present time. The reality is also she needs her husband. They are a young family and she does not know anyone in Adelaide but she needs support. He has to give up his job. He is fortunate enough that someone said ‘We will keep you a job’, but he is obviously not getting income. So, you have to find an airfare for the mother, which can be reimbursed. I will stand corrected, minister, if I am wrong, but this is the story I was given: he also would have to pay his own airfare down and then apply to get reimbursed and there is not always a guarantee that that is going to happen very easily. They also told me that they only get $10 a day for accommodation. Again, I will stand corrected, but that was the figure that was given to me. If I am wrong, please tell me, minister.
They have to take all these things into consideration: the stress of the sickness; having to find money because, sometimes, even though you are going to get reimbursed some people have a lot of trouble getting $1000 that they need for an airfare; and to find accommodation and to pay for that accommodation. If the subsidy is small, accommodation is going to eat away at one’s savings quite substantially if you have to stay there for a long time. My understanding is that although patients may only be there for a short time, sometimes the cost of coming home again is a problem as well. So they either stay there with no friends, paying for accommodation, or they come back paying airfares and then go back again when they need to. It is something that needs much more consideration. There is the stress of all this as well - which we forget. We are talking about an economic problem at the moment. There is also the stress related with trying to find the money, with no job, and the actual sickness which adds another layer to the complexity of the problem. If the government can ease some of this pain by making it easier for people financially that would be a great thing.
I do not know how many people this applies to. A particular lady came to me recently and I have said I would raise it in parliament. I am interested to know whether there are many cases and if this causing the Territory a big financial loss, or is it basically, overall each year, a relatively small cost? The government might say: ‘We have 1000 people who need to do this, this year. Our budget is only so big and we cannot afford it’. However, if we look from a statistical point of view how many of this particular case - like the one I am talking about - actually come up each year? Is it really a big cost to the Northern Territory government? I sometimes look at what we spend money on and think maybe we should think about our priorities. Maybe we spend money on public works that, perhaps, could wait a little longer, and some of that money could go into helping these particular people.
These are Territorians who need help. In this case, I see that as the role of the government. I hope that even the little I and other members have said today can get the government to seriously look at modifying the existing PATS system so it can be improved and relieve some of the financial and psychological burden that many people have.
Minister, I realise that, in many cases, the government does not support motions that the opposition and Independents put forward. I do not disagree with you if the government will look at it seriously. It is simply asking you to review – that is not a bad word to use. They are not asking him to do it with a guarantee that something will happen but, at least review it. There is good reason to increase and expand the rates. Perhaps you could advise when those rates were last increased. Are we due for some change in those rates simply because time has moved on and costs have gone up?
Madam Speaker, I support the motion from the member for Greatorex.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I did not realise that the government had decided to refuse PATS for patients from Central Australia wanting to go to Adelaide rather than Darwin. I say that because the previous Minister for Health, Dr Toyne, had a lot of conversations and correspondence with Bosom Buddies, and it was my understanding that he said fairly clearly that when the oncology unit is built in Darwin they will still have the option of going south. Perhaps the member for Stuart might be able to nod his head if he remembers that conversation. It was my understanding that that was going to stand. Perhaps the government has decided to change that policy. I know Bosom Buddies pushed and lobbied the minister very hard on this as patients in Alice Springs had established a relationship with the accommodation people in Adelaide and understood the support services available to them there, and there is not the same level of support and accommodation in Darwin. The minister at the time said he would let them have the option. I need to ask you, minister, whether along the way that decision was reversed or changed for some reason?
We have also had problems of people who live on pastoral properties who need to come into Alice Springs for mammograms, and whether they should be entitled to PATS or some sort of assistance with travel. It is quite expensive driving or flying in from pastoral properties into a centre to have a mammogram. We lobbied very hard and it was my understanding that those people living on pastoral properties could access PATS for travel into Alice Springs. Perhaps you could confirm with me whether that still stands.
You have heard all the arguments, and it is really important that we give some sort of comfort to people who, when they or a family member are ill, do not need the added financial stress. That is what is occurring in many cases. It is hard enough to cope with the problem of having an illness, no matter what it is, without worrying about whether you can afford to get there for treatment. We have heard stories about accommodation being most unsuitable and, if you move out of the accommodation that is provided, you then have to pay a fairly large amount extra for that accommodation. Minister, if you could just clarify that for me because I am concerned.
Madam Speaker, I certainly support the motion from the member from Greatorex.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, this is a very important issue and I thank the member for Greatorex for raising it. Before I very explicitly lay out the government’s position on this issue, I will say that, yes, I do recognise that a very special relationship exists between Alice Springs and Adelaide and the reasons underlying that. I also recognise the importance of family support and of having family support during times when people are receiving treatment for cancer. The member for Greatorex also asked about the numbers of patients in Central Australia who require this sort of treatment and I will come to that.
The member for Nelson raised some very good issues in relation to what is called cross-border costs and arrangements between states and territories and the treatment of patients. Obviously, we have a cross-border relationship with Adelaide. I also emphasise that it is just not the cost of the person’s travel to that hospital or the PATS. The Northern Territory actually pays for that person’s treatment in that hospital. Looking at the costs of the PATS itself does not really give an indication of the total costs that are involved.
The member for Braitling has questioned the government’s position and brought up what Peter Toyne might have said in relation to this. I will clarify the government’s position in relation to that.
The government will be opposing this motion. I will lay out very clearly for members - as I was requested to do by the member for Araluen - why government is opposing it:
(c) it would actually result in Territory taxpayers paying twice for a radiation service: once to provide the high-quality service established in Darwin and, second, to cover the costs of patients who would access the same service interstate through cross-border charges.
There is already provision for people to accompany family members, but it is subject to being deemed appropriate by the medical practitioners.
That is not to say, as members opposite said, that costs move and reviews are in order. I will cover that issue. I recognise that it is a financial impost on people. What I am saying here is that government is continually reviewing the PAT scheme and the concerns that members have raised here are concerns that have been put directly to me by members of the community.
First, I will talk about PATS and the Radiation Oncology Unit. The Territory provides patient assistance travel, or PATS, in a similar manner and level of support as exists across Australia. The Territory government offers one of the highest accommodation rebates of all states and territories, $33 per night. In the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia, it is $35; it is $30 in New South Wales and Victoria. In addition, we offer support to patients who choose to stay with family or friends when travelling away from home for health care where many other jurisdictions offer no support under the same circumstances. The scheme also provides assistance for a family member or carer to escort the patient, as I have said, in a situation where it has been assessed by the medical practitioner to be warranted.
This government is working hard with the Australian government towards the establishment of a Radiation Oncology Unit for all Territorians. I will come a bit later on in my response to the actual figures that are involved here, as the member for Greatorex asked. In short, Central Australian patients comprise 25% of the patient numbers, and will continue to do so. This is a very significant proportion of the numbers of patients. So, the government’s position is: to take the numbers away in Central Australia would really put at risk the viability of the Radiation Oncology Unit which is for all Territorians. We are committed to doing the hard work to ensure that it is a safe, sustainable and high-quality service.
As a responsible government, we have listened to the expert advice on how to establish a unit, with the expert report by Professors Barton and Frommer. The report documented the medical demand for a Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin. It also highlighted a significant risk associated with operating such a facility such as access to specialist staff; under-utilisation of expensive equipment if some patients are referred elsewhere, leading to an unsustainable higher unit cost for service delivery; and providing adequate support services.
We have addressed those risks in our proposal with the Australian government. First, the service in Darwin will be high quality and safe, run by an already established experienced, high-quality unit, providing the NT with access to highly experienced staff and back-up. Second, to ensure the unit is financially viable and sustainable, the business case is being built on figures for the incidence of cancer and the entire NT population accessing the unit. Third, the Northern Territory government has committed to an additional $1m per year to allied health and community nursing support services, plus we are developing high-quality patient accommodation options equivalent to medical accommodation facilities interstate. Fourth, once the oncology unit is operational, transitional arrangements will be in place to ensure the minimum disruption to patients. Anyone who has commenced treatment interstate will be able to continue and finish their treatment interstate and receive PATS.
There are also some cancers that require highly specialised treatment which will not be available in the Darwin unit. The Northern Territory will continue to support those patients to receive that specialist treatment interstate, which is likely to be in Adelaide.
I am not sure what undertakings Peter Toyne may or may not have given, or what statements he made. He may have possibly been referring to this. To clarify the matter, in parliament last year in Alice Springs, I laid on the public record very straight and unequivocally that, with the establishment of a Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin, patients from Alice Springs would be expected to travel to Darwin and would receive support to travel to Darwin. I am sure I made that statement during the Alice Springs’ sittings last year; it may have been another sittings. I have a very strong recollection, member for Braitling, in response to a question, that I laid that very squarely on the record then.
I understand Central Australians’ concern, as I said. I understand their relationship with Adelaide and their desire to go to Adelaide. These things are also governed by the Australian Health Care Agreement. If we are offering services in the Northern Territory, Territorians are expected to access those services, whether they are in Darwin, or in Alice Springs. What happens if someone in Darwin says: ‘I do not really want to have the treatment in Darwin. My family is in Brisbane and I want to go to Brisbane’? You just cannot have that for any medical service. Let us leave radiation oncology to one side. I know it is a specific case where people need a lot of support. However, there are rules and agreements governing the Australian Health Care Agreement, and this is a Radiation Oncology Unit for all Territorians.
I want to outline our commitment to patient travel. The Patient Assistance Travel Scheme operates to enable access to local medical services. That is for intra-Territory people who live outside the limit, which currently might be 200 km. Where these services are not available in the Territory, assistance is provided to access services interstate when referred by a hospital medical officer or specialist. PATS is designed to provide assistance to patients as a contribution towards travel and accommodation costs for people in the Northern Territory requiring planned specialist health care. The scheme is not a fully-funded travel service and cannot cover all costs.
The Northern Territory currently provides $10.8m for the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme with approximately 16 000 Territorians accessing the scheme annually. In cases where a patient is seeking a referral to a particular doctor or hospital this is considered beyond the scope of the scheme and the patient will need to progress this as a private patient if they are able.
An escort is a person who is regarded by the requesting practitioner and/or treating specialist as being appropriate and responsible for the patient’s needs during the period of transport and/or accommodation and during treatment. The escort must be able to facilitate and participate directly in the patient’s care. If an escort is deemed appropriate, the cost will be met as per the PATS guidelines to the same level as the patient. In 2006-07, there were 5100 escorts provided with financial assistance to accompany and support their spouse or family member undergoing medical care.
On 20 September 2007, the Senate report, Highway to Health: Better Access for Rural, Regional and Remote Patients, indicated that the accommodation and travel assistance provided by the Northern Territory PATS is comparable with other jurisdictions.
As I have said previously, the rate of accommodation assistance provided to patients and escorts is $33 including GST per night for commercial accommodation. This is the rate charged for accommodation by such excellent facilities as Cancer Council of South Australia’s Greenhill and Flinders Lodges, and by Aboriginal Hostels.
If people are privately insured they can elect, as I said before, to be treated in the hospital of their choice, or by the doctor of their choice. In those cases, travel to access these services will be at their own cost when the Territory has the capacity to provide their treatment locally. I emphasise, however, and this is what I was alluding to before; that the Territory government is continually assessing the scheme and is committed to improving the support provided to Territorians through the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme.
Turning directly to the questions asked by the member for Greatorex in relation to population and number of patients in Central Australia, the Barton-Frommer Report 2004, using 2001 population and health data, reported that there were 448 new cases identified with cancer per year, and 347 of those will require radiotherapy; and 25% of this patient group are identified from Central Australia.
One of the most important elements here, member for Greatorex, is that the Radiation Oncology Unit, particularly the very expensive linear accelerators, require approximately 400 patients per year. As you can see, the viability of this Radiation Oncology Unit is heavily dependent on patients coming from Central Australia. A very good point was raised by the member for Nelson regarding patients from the Kimberly in Western Australia being able to come here and how that can occur if we are saying people cannot go to Adelaide. That will be through an arrangement with the Western Australian government in relation to cross-border charges. In other words, a similar arrangement to what we have with South Australia now. That is how that will occur. Numbers from the Kimberly, and possibly from the Asian region, will bolster the numbers and, we believe, make this service viable. I have placed on the record just what the figures are.
Once the Radiation Oncology Unit is built in Darwin the service will then be available in the Territory and patients who require treatment will be referred to Darwin - this is through the public system, of course. The viability of this service is dependent on the projected patient activity levels for the Northern Territory. Patients who do have it can use private health insurance, as I have said. Under public health service arrangements only access to services is the commitment under Medicare, not the choice of location or doctors. What that is saying is that the Radiation Oncology Unit will be basing its activities on the medical benefits scheme which has these parameters about choice of location and doctor.
Mention has been made of support groups such as the Bosom Buddies, and I have made contact with them. I have assured them the service in Darwin will be high quality and safe, and will take into account the needs of Central Australian cancer patients in setting up the unit. Last October, I undertook a visit to Adelaide with representatives from the Cancer Council NT and Bosom Buddies to look at the cancer support services that Territorians currently access such as accommodation, information, counselling, and transport through the Cancer Council SA, Leukaemia Foundation, Ronald McDonald House, and Aboriginal Hostels. These advocates provided useful insights into the services and we were impressed by the variety of services available and how they address the needs of different patients and families.
I give an undertaking, as I have previously in this Assembly, that I will work to ensure that our new facilities in Darwin, that is the support and accommodation facilities, will match or exceed the level of support currently provided to Territorians interstate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in summary, I understand the position of Central Australians, but I believe I have outlined very clearly in my response why the government is unable to support this motion. I have also outlined and foreshadowed that government is continually reviewing the PATS program. We have heard what members are saying, we have heard what the public is saying, and we want the best PATS program to support Territorians.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to this very important issue. I thank the minister for taking some time to highlight the reasons why, or rather why not, he will not support this motion. We hear that this is a ‘can do’ government and they find a way to solve problems for all Territorians. Perhaps, instead of highlighting the reasons why we cannot achieve this, it would be nice on behalf of those people suffering from cancer in Central Australia to find a way that we can achieve this.
The minister talked about numbers such as 25%. I did say in my remarks that I understand, after having a briefing with the department, that we do not want to stymie the growth of NT Health. Of course, the Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin must be patronised by Northern Territorians. The minister said a large chunk of that is dependent on those patients in Central Australia. He mentioned the figure of 25% of 300. I argue though, that once the unit in Darwin is open, those wanting to use the facility in Adelaide would decrease to a significant amount, to a point where it would not stymie the growth and operation of radiation oncology services in Darwin.
The CLP is committed to reviewing PATS. I had a rather robust briefing with the department a couple of weeks ago on this particular issue. I know that there is room to move, minister. I know that there is political room to move; that this is a policy decision by the Australian Labor Party of the Northern Territory. I know that there is room for you to move, and that you can, if you desire, find a way forward and through this and make this happen for those in Central Australia.
While I appreciate what you have said - and I believe everyone on this side of the House understands that the Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin must be patronised - I do not see that the numbers in Central Australia are of great significance, despite the 25% figure and the figures that you threw up; or that, once the unit in Darwin is open, those wanting to use the service in Adelaide would stymie the growth of NT Health.
Minister, you say you understand the relationship between those in Central Australia and Adelaide. However, I respectfully say it does sound a bit academic. If you did understand and you were committed to showing some sensitivity and compassion to Territorians and those in Central Australia, we can find a way forward to allow those cancer sufferers to use the option of Adelaide hospital. I did mention that they could use any hospital. However, this motion has come about exclusively because of the overwhelming response I have had in Alice Springs and the broader Central Australian region for use of Adelaide.
I thank all members, particularly the members for Araluen and Braitling for their contribution. I am not sure if we have an answer whether the former Minister for Health, Peter Toyne, said that he would stay committed to that. It is a shame, because I know that many people will be devastated to hear that. I have 200 or 300 signatures already on a petition in my office, which I hope to table in parliament in April. I know those people will be absolutely devastated to hear that the government will not budge.
We all appreciate the academics that we have heard, and we understand that it is academic. I know that there is room to move. This is political and it is policy so those people will be devastated. However, the CLP is committed to reviewing PATS and showing sensitivity and compassion to those in Central Australia, and we will continue to do that.
This particular NT government should be considering anything - anything at all - that eases the suffering and aids in the recovery of those cancer sufferers throughout Northern Territory and in Central Australia. As I said, this is a ruthless killer of Territorians. If there is one thing that can aid in the recovery of these people, and relieve those who are terminally ill, it is knowing that you are with family and friends. I appreciate the minister’s comments. The CLP will continue to fight for Central Australians when it comes to this issue. We are committed to reviewing PATS.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. I know the government will reject this motion, but I now move the motion.
Motion negatived.
Mrs Miller: Oh, that is right, there was only one voice.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion was reported on the voices.
Mr Conlan: There was only one on the other side.
Members interjecting.
Ms Carney: Terrific, the motion passed, well done.
A member: It was not passed.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We did not satisfactorily resolve the earlier motion. We did hear that this side had more voices than the other.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, it was called on the voices. It was up to you to call a division at the time.
Mr Conlan: Two voices on that side, six on this side, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Did you want to call for a division? It was called on the voices and it was a no.
Continued from 10 October 2007.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for introducing this bill into the House. It is a response to the difficult and painful experience of early pregnancy loss, what many people call miscarriage. It is something that touches many families. I am sure that there are many people in this House, and many people listening to this broadcast, who have been touched by the sadness. My own family is no exception. When I was about 12, my mother communicated her sadness and loss when she told me that a few years before I was born she had miscarried a boy. She called him Anthony. She never forgot and neither have I.
To Fiona Peters and her husband, Craig Redriff, and her two young children, all of us recognise what a tough time you have gone through with your loss of Kaden. I also recognise the member for Blain has made a genuine, compassionate effort to assist the family through this period and has sought, through this bill, to make this easier for them.
It is with regret that I inform the House that the government will not be supporting the bill. The former Attorney-General, Syd Stirling, and I met with Fiona Peters and Craig Redriff last year and personally outlined why government is unable to support this bill. Whilst we are very sympathic to their cause, we also have the difficult duty as legislators to ensure the laws we pass are workable and consistent. We also need to recognise that changing laws is not necessarily the most effective way to support people through difficult situations. However, as ministers, we also recognise the need to change policies within our departments to ensure that painful situations such as early pregnancy loss are dealt with sensitively, and families receive the necessary support and information to guide them through a very difficult period.
Before turning to the legislative aspects of the proposed bill, I will outline the changes that have been implemented since Fiona and Craig were aggrieved at the circumstances surrounding the loss of Kaden.
First, the investigation through Royal Darwin Hospital. Following a thorough investigation into Fiona and Craig’s complaint, a report by the Royal Darwin Hospital’s Board identified a number of issues, namely: the clinical weighing procedure was not performed in this case; inadequate counselling support provided in the emergency department; lack of guidance about the appropriate way to deal with Kaden’s remains when they went home; and hospital staff did not have policies or procedures to guide them in such instances.
There was also a departmental review of policy. In addition to the investigation by the hospital board, the Department of Health and Community Services has conducted a review at the hospital regarding the procedures concerning early pregnancy loss. It was apparent that a new policy to guide staff caring for families in this situation was required. A new policy entitled The Early Pregnancy Loss (Spontaneous Miscarriage) Policy, has been developed in collaboration with Ms Peters and is being implemented to address the pain and loss of early pregnancy loss such as that experienced by the family. Apart from input from Ms Peters and Mr Redriff, extensive consultation in the form of the policy also occurred with interstate hospitals, clinical staff and support agencies such as Cradle NT and SIDs and Kids NT.
I believe it is a comprehensive and caring policy which ensures: appropriate care of mother and management of the remains from stillbirth or miscarriage; parents are provided with information to support them to make informed choices regarding the care of foetal remains; parents and families are referred to the appropriate counselling; and referral options are made available. I table a copy of this policy for the information of members.
Despite the identification of a number of issues of the investigation that followed the family’s loss, we must also acknowledge that staff in every emergency department have an extremely difficult job. I am sure they will also welcome the identification of issues through this process and the development of this policy with its clear guidelines and procedures.
I now turn to the content of the bill. The bill aims to amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act so as to allow for the registration of the birth and death of a stillborn before 20 weeks, or with a body weight of less than 400 g. The bill seeks to amend the definition of a stillborn child as provided for in section 4 of the act to include a child or foetus that exhibits no sign of respiration or heartbeat, or other sign of life after birth, irrespective of gestation period or body mass. It is important to point out that no Australian jurisdiction allows registration of a stillborn using this criteria. No Australian jurisdiction allows for registration of a stillborn child below 20 weeks or 400 g body mass. Only Western Australia and Queensland allow a death certificate to be issued following a stillbirth, and even then only when the stillborn child is 20 weeks or above, or has a 400 g body mass. I am advised that 20 weeks or 400 g body mass is used as a threshold because these are nationally accepted clinical criteria linked to the medical evidence of the viability of the foetus to survive.
Turning back to the bill, a new part 8A and section 48A proposes to allow for the registration of the birth and death of a stillborn child before 20 weeks or under 400 g upon application by a parent of the child to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. The application must be made within 60 days of the stillbirth and be accompanied by a doctor’s certificate in a form approved by the Registrar, certifying the cause of the foetal death.
In my view and my opinion, I do not believe it is appropriate for an Attorney-General to make the judgments set out in the bill for the registration of birth and death of a stillborn child. This is particularly the case because there are no clear criteria set out in this bill to assist in that decision-making role. I have also been informed that there are no other Australian jurisdictions that require the relevant minister to take on any role of this sort.
This particular legislation - by changing the births, deaths and marriages scheme as this one does – could, potentially, have unintended but widespread negative consequences for the Territory. The clearest and most immediate effect of such a change in the boundaries of births and deaths classification would put the Territory at odds with the nationally agreed births and deaths registration system. Uniform registration processes mean that the figures for births, deaths and stillbirths are able to be fed into a national picture by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The criteria used to register births and deaths are also used nationally to form part of the definition of stillbirth established for statistical purposes by the National Perinatal Statistics Unit of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and contained in the National Health Data Dictionary.
These statistics are important because they reflect the standards of obstetric and paediatric care as well as the effectiveness of public and primary health care. They are important indicators that allow health authorities to target policy development and implement effective health services. Changes to the definition of stillbirth at the Territory level would compromise the Territory’s ability to be included in the national reporting of perinatal deaths and would impact on the comparability of perinatal statistics between jurisdictions. Such a change will, potentially, give the perception of an inflated perinatal death rate in the Territory which would, in turn, call into question the quality of our antenatal and delivery care based on a change of numbers rather than changes in the level of care and health status.
Ultimately, if the way in which the statistics are gathered in the Territory differs from that in other jurisdictions we run the risk of being excluded from such figures on a national basis. If the changes proposed in this bill were accepted, in order for NT statistics to remain comparable with other jurisdictions it would probably be necessary to separate the data to establish almost a dual system for recording births and deaths, thus exacerbating the very sensitive issue that this bill purports to solve.
In other words, the instances that are proposed in this bill would be included in figures within the Territory but be excluded in the collection of Commonwealth data. The practical usefulness of the statistics in the Territory will also be questionable if these changes are accepted as we will be unable to accurately plan for the prioritisation and funding of various programs or ensure their effectiveness.
I and the government understands - leaving this bill to one side - that families do need to receive recognition and closure for their loss. When families have felt this loss I do not think they are interested in statistics per se; they are interested in their loss and they are interested in receiving recognition for their loss. That is part of the reason why the member for Blain has moved this particular bill.
The Department of Justice Births, Deaths and Marriages Unit has developed and implemented a Commemorative Certificate which is now available at no cost from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to any parents who find themselves in the situation similar to Ms Peters and Mr Redriff, acknowledging their loss. Parents may complete an application form and supply a letter from a medical practitioner confirming the delivery. Births, Deaths and Marriages consulted with Cradle NT, a number of health professionals, the Department of Health and Community Services, and Ms Peters in the development of the Commemorative Certificate. I am informed that the family have now obtained a Commemorative Certificate.
In conclusion, it is with sadness, as I said before, that the government is unable to support these amendments. We believe that the proposed amendments are problematic because they lack proper definition and are contrary to accepted clinical criteria. Furthermore, the government believes that it is inappropriate for an Attorney-General to, ultimately, be making determinations in such matters.
I thank Ms Peters and her family for her commitment to this issue and for the role that she has played in bringing the issue to the attention of the Assembly and the public of the Northern Territory generally. Furthermore, your efforts have resulted in the development of what we believe is a sensible, compassionate policy to support families during the difficult period following early pregnancy loss.
This policy will be implemented in all Territory hospitals. Through its introduction and the introduction of Commemoration Certificates, I believe you will achieve much of your goal of increasing the recognition and suffering of families in your situation. You have done a great service to those who find themselves similarly faced with sad circumstances through early pregnancy loss in the future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also recognise Fiona and Craig in the gallery today. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his second reading, it is undoubtedly a difficult matter. I suppose that, to some extent, is an understatement.
This is a difficult issue for all of us. It touches at the very heart of some of the debates we have had in this parliament. I quote from the Leader of the Opposition’s second reading speech:
That is an issue that I have spoken about here before. When you talk about when life starts and finishes, obviously, people have different points of view. From my perspective, life starts at conception. That is my belief and, from my point of view, that should be recognised. If someone has a miscarriage, you might say that is a medical term for a life passing away. There needs to be some way to recognise that.
I am fairly sure my mother had six miscarriages and, possibly, that is why she had to have a hysterectomy towards the end of her childbearing days. Of course, my mother would not tell us that; it was something we found out as we got older. She kept that to herself, and the sorrow that came from those miscarriages she will keep until the day she dies. As a male, that is hard for me to understand, except what is passed on to me from women who have gone through that.
The essential point the Leader of the Opposition has made is that a life has finished, and it has caused pain, especially for the parents. He simply wanted to achieve, I believe, a number of goals. One is recognition of that life; that there is some way that we, as a society, officially recognise a life that has passed away. Another was to say that we had failed, perhaps, in the way we looked after Fiona and Craig when they were in our hospital. The Leader of the Opposition has put an enormous effort into trying to turn things around to help his constituents - and not just because they are constituents. The Leader of the Opposition wants to help them because they are fellow human beings. It is always easy to say we just help people because they are voters. I know the Leader of the Opposition would not have done it for any ulterior purpose.
I also thank the Minister for Health for his comments. I have just received a copy of the policy that he has passed across. It is difficult for me to say who is right and who is wrong in relation to whether this policy, and what the minister said, would satisfy both Fiona and Craig and the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot make any comment on whether what you have handed me is a better concept than that put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
I am no medical expert, and I do not stand here with any pretence to say I am. I note that in section 48A the heading is ‘Registration of birth and death of still-born child’. Section 48A(1) reads:
It is not saying you will have to do this. It is saying that according to the circumstances a parent - a mother, a father - may be able to apply. It is not something that will have to happen; it is something that gives choice. It is important to remember that is there. We are not telling people that they have to do this. It is something that each person would have to make a decision about.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support what the Leader of the Opposition has done. He has raised an important issue. If you went further than Fiona and Craig’s sadness and grief and what they have been through, it has bigger implications on the way we look at what life is. To some extent, what the Leader of the Opposition has done by bringing forward what you might say in theory is a technical thing, this legislation, also gives us a chance to reflect from our own points of view exactly what human life is all about. As I said before, many of you may disagree with me, but I believe human life is the most precious gift we have. We should live it to the full. Little Kaden lived life to the full and we should remember that.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the government for what I take to be a reference to deliberate and careful consideration of this matter and your response. I will talk more about that in a moment. Member for Nelson, thank you for the understanding way in which you have approached it. I acknowledge Craig and Fiona. They carry with them, in a physical form, the memory of a life that was lived very briefly.
I understand and appreciate the sensitivity with which government has approached this, and acknowledge the changes that have occurred as a result of the lobbying and activity which was very well done by Fiona and Craig. They are to be admired. They have made a very genuine effort to meet members of the Assembly to explain what they have gone through, what it means, and not just to them. I was surprised to hear the member for Nelson’s personal insights into this, as all of us would have been. It is an issue that lies beneath the surface. It is not until we look at it or talk about it that it comes to the fore. We can either put a lid back on it, trust that it will go away and try to walk away from it, or be honest and recognise that it will not. It sits there beneath the surface. Every family has had to deal with this grief in one form or another. It comes to the point of legislative mechanisms to achieve an objective. The objective is a profound one; that being the notion of choice that the mother has in that, in her view, she has given birth and she simply seeks to have that birth recognised - that it was a life, it was born and then it died - and that is with a birth certificate and a death certificate. That is the position of the mother. If you think about it and walk through it sensitively, that is an understandable position.
I am not a master legislator, and I gave reference to that in previous discussions on this matter. If there are technical problems in the construct of the Kaden bill as presented here to achieve that objective, then I foreshadowed and invited the government to find a solution to problems, rather than identify the technical difficulties and the consequences of the way it was constructed.
I am pleased to say, though - and I will say this to Craig and Fiona too, and all the others in our community who, as a result of the great efforts of Craig and Fiona, have felt that there is some dialogue and conversation about an important and difficult matter - that I will take on board what the government has said in response to this, and will continue to work to find ways of meeting that objective.
There must be other ways. I take hope, not because we can say no other jurisdiction has this so, therefore, we cannot. I do not accept that as a proposition. I see this in other jurisdictions in other places like the United States. In 2001, this issue was brought to the fore and there was lobbying of legislators in Arizona. There was a legislative solution to that problem which satisfied this issue. Since then, that has moved into other states of the United States.
It is a simple proposition: foundational, choice, choosing to have a birth and a death certificate for the child who was born prematurely stillborn. Now, in this realm, it is almost offensive to consider that we externally apply an arbitrary line. At some stage, it would have to be applied. I widen it and, after discussion perhaps there is another way of approaching this: second and third trimester. Ultimately, we value choice. In another debate of a similar nature, choice holds the day: the choice to remove a child by changing the definition of it. Others see that it is still a living person. I do not want to go into that but choice holds the argument on that proposition. But over this side, the choice is not protected.
So, if the mechanism that has been placed before this Chamber is inadequate, that will not be the end of the matter. I would like to continue this. I feel that it is necessary to continue with it and to find other ways of working through this. I know that Fiona and Craig would likely be weary and, perhaps at this point, discouraged. However, many others stand behind them around the country. You would be surprised how many people are calling for some kind of leadership to break through this. In the Northern Territory, Fiona and Craig have given birth to something; that being significant and very important changes to policy. If it had not been for the stubborn attention to the requirement to fix a problem as they saw it, it is unlikely there would be the change and the minister would not have been able to table that changed policy as a result of the concerted and passionate activity of Craig and Fiona.
If we had more of that in our community, we would see a change in our community: people who see a problem and tackle it and move forward. That is why I am inspired to continue. There must be other ways of approaching this. I do not believe it is impossible to find a construct whereby, on the basis of choice, the birth and the death can be formally recognised.
Another advance that has arisen as a result of the activities and the lobbying of Craig and Fiona is the issuing of the Commemorative Certificate. I believe members would know that that does not go to the heart of the issue; it is acknowledged and thanks for going to that stage. However, we are talking about something a little deeper than this. It strikes right to the core when you recognise that this Commemorative Certificate technically and legally does not subscribe any recognition that there was a life, that on the family tree, legally and technically, Kaden does not exist. That is a decision that has been made and they have to live with it. As far as Fiona and Craig are concerned, as far as I am concerned, Kaden was born and Kaden died. May he rest in peace.
This will continue. We have made some significant progress from the day Fiona and Craig walked into my office and that will continue. I may instead ask if the Attorney-General would be willing to meet privately on this so we could look at it in other ways. Perhaps he could explain to me in more detail, with additional briefings of a more complex nature, the legal obstacles he referred to such as inter-jurisdictional problems and so on, so that I can get a better grasp of it, so that I can continue in formulating a solution to a real conundrum. I believe problems have solutions, so we will continue. Kaden, rest in peace.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 10 October 2007.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, this legislation and the proposed amendments to the Electoral Act would seek to include expenditure incurred with the authority of the candidate’s party for a particular election as opposed to the current Electoral Act which requires political parties to make declarations on an annual basis. The member for Braitling, in her introduction of these amendments, has made a case that the Independents, as a result of them being independent when they put their declarations through, is very clear in which seat that expenditure occurred.
The threshold issue for the government is that, since we came into office in 2001, we have sought to have a nexus between the disclosure provisions in our legislation and the disclosure provisions required by the Commonwealth parliament. We did undertake extensive reform to the Electoral Act in the Northern Territory when we came to government in 2001 and that was a public process. There was much consultation in regards to that. The main feature of the reforms we took through in 2001 was to have the Electoral Commission as a stand-alone agency of government and not part of the Chief Minister’s office. We also took a policy position that in and around the disclosure provisions, our legislation should have a nexus with the Commonwealth parliament.
The previous federal government amended the financial disclosure provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act some six or eight months prior to the last election. At the moment we are out of kilter with the current Commonwealth legislation. Amendments that the Howard government made to the financial disclosure provisions include: the abolition of returns by publishers and broadcasters; extensions of the definition of associated entity to include members of a registered political party, or those acting on behalf of such persons, and persons who have voting rights in a registered political party; the introduction of annual returns for third parties; and an increase to the standard reporting disclosure threshold from $1500 to above $10 000 indexed annually and rounded for both candidates and registered political parties.
Post the 2005 general election in the Northern Territory, the Electoral Commission made a report to this House and recommended a number of changes to the Electoral Act. We still have that report and those recommendations under review. I am also advised and aware that the incoming new federal government has flagged an intention to make further amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act around disclosure provisions.
The government is not going to support this bill because, from a policy perspective, the policy of the government is to maintain a nexus between the Northern Territory disclosure provisions and those that apply through the Commonwealth parliament. We understand that the incoming government is going to make changes to those provisions. We will wait and see what those changes are that will be made by the Commonwealth government. Then, we will reconsider our position regarding further amendments that may be required to our act around financial disclosure, as well as considering recommendations made by our own Electoral Commission’s report to the 2005 election.
I understand where the member for Braitling is trying to get to with this. However, as I said, for ease of reporting we have decided, from a policy level, to have a nexus with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. There are going to be further reforms in that area. We will wait to see those reforms before we consider our own legislation. The government, unfortunately for the member for Braitling, will not be supporting this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, we are all equal but some of us are more equal than others. That is what this is really about. I thank the member for Braitling for raising this important democracy issue; that is, the side of democracy which this government always talks about - the openness and transparency of this government. Here is an opportunity for this government to do exactly that. The minister has just said that the reason we are doing this is because there is a nexus with the Commonwealth, there are also going to be some changes to the federal Electoral Act, and we will wait till that happens ...
Mrs Braham: They cannot think for themselves.
Mr WOOD: Let us come to that.
I believe the nexus is more with the Labor Party in the Commonwealth government. The nexus is that it is much better for the parties not to disclose where their money is coming from in the same way as Independents do. To say that it is easier to do it, more or less says: ‘Too bad, Independents’.
We have to do it. Surely, when an election is called, the whole idea behind an election is to elect a member of parliament who represents an electorate. I represent an electorate; members on the other side represent electorates. I, as a member of that electorate, simply because I do not belong to a party, am discriminated against in the manner in which I must do my returns. Surely people expect the individual person in their electorate to do exactly what I have to do; that is, allow those people in the electorate to see exactly where their donations came from. Surely that is open and transparent government.
What this really is - I doubt very much if the CLP would support this particular bill – we would see …
Mr Kiely: What about the Nationals?
Mr WOOD: I do not know. Are there any here, member for Sanderson?
Mr Kiely: One standing, I believe.
Mr WOOD: Oh. Yes, thank you, member for Sanderson. You can live in fairyland. All you are doing is throwing up a smokescreen to show that this is about parties. This is about parties protecting their own. They are quite happy to talk about openness and transparency but, when it comes to the crunch, party loyalty goes above everything else ...
Mr Conlan: Come on, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it does, I am sorry, member for Greatorex. I have known this. I have been around a little while in politics and I can tell you the CLP certainly binds together when it needs to under the banner of its party. What happens is the so-called great ideals we have about democracy and open and transparent government all die when it comes to which comes first. The party comes first; democracy always comes second.
Here is a classic example. When we ask that people in the electorate are treated the same - that is, they have the ability to see what their member of parliament has received in election donations - it is only the Independents who can tell that to their members, but not the parties. What kind of democracy is that?
The minister spoke about the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, and how wonderful it was of this government to now make it an independent authority. That is a very good move, but it is no good making it an independent authority and then ignoring its findings. It is no good saying: ‘We are still looking at them’. Well, this would not take long. You do not have to put into being everything the Northern Territory Electoral Commission has put forward at the one time. You could do it piece by piece.
Here is a classic statement by the Northern Territory Electoral Commissioner in relation to what we are now debating:
Well, that is certainly going to look good when someone in the electorate picks up their local member’s return and it says nil, and they say: ‘Gee, you have done well. You have not had to get any donations’. Then it says:
What comes first in the minds of the government? Practical convenience. Do they support open and transparent government? Do they support equality for all candidates in this House? No, they support practical convenience. Why? Because that benefits their party and that is what this is about. It is about supporting the party.
Unfortunately, I know we are not going to get anywhere. However, if people knew what this bill was about, if this was publicised a bit more, if I went out into an electorate and asked if each member, regardless of whether they belong to a party, have to declare where their donations came from, the same as Independents, I bet they would say: ‘Of course’. However, because this is one of these hairy fairy grey bits of legislation that is not the sort of thing you talk about at the local pub on a Thursday night, nobody cares.
The reality is that it is important legislation the member for Braitling is trying to put through. It is important, as I said before, because it gets to the basis of democracy, the democracy that you keep talking about in your party platforms: openness and transparency. This amendment supports your party policy platform - open and transparent government. I will be able to tell people that the member for Braitling put forward an amendment, which is supported by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, which was defeated by the parties because they do not want their individual people to disclose exactly what donations they received. So they will see, as they probably would have seen in the last election, that my dear mother, she has been mentioned before here, gave me $1000. Everyone knows that, but if someone else’s mother gave them $1000, would they know? It disappears into this great party annual return. From my point of view, it is a bit rough that I have to tell everyone if my brothers or sisters or aunts or uncles gave me a bit of money to help me out, whilst others in parties do not have to do that. That is inequality. That is what the member for Braitling is putting forward today to change.
I am surprised that the reasons the Chief Minister has given are so weak. The member for Braitling interrupted me a minute ago. She said: ‘Of course, they could do this themselves. They do not have to wait for the new federal Electoral Act that is coming down at some future date’. We all keep saying how wonderful it is to be Territorians, how different we are. We can stand on our own feet. We do not need those people in Canberra telling us what to do. Oh sorry, it says here we are going to have to wait until those Canberra people tell us what to do before we do what we are going to do. Well, talk about holding hands with Canberra. That is what it looks like here. We could change this ourselves. We do not need Canberra to tell us the Electoral Act is going to be changed. We do not even know what is going to be in that new Electoral Act. It might not change the section of the act at all, so then we would be still back to square one.
This sounds like container deposit legislation: ‘No, we cannot do it ourselves. We have to wait for the national government to do it and then we will all agree with it’. This is not as complicated as container deposit legislation. This is pretty simple. Pass this legislation and, believe it or not, all the politicians in the Northern Territory would all be on an equal footing. Perhaps that is not what suits the parties and perhaps that is what this is all about.
Sadly, I will be able to tell my constituents and others that there is one rule for the Independents, that is openness and transparency, and there is another rule for parties - it is not that.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Why am I not surprised, Madam Speaker, that no one else is speaking? You cannot even see the opposition. I do not know where they have vanished to. It is interesting, isn’t it? Then again, parties tend to be parties no matter what side of the House.
This government promised they would establish an independent Electoral Commission, and they kept their word. It was an election promise. We thought: ‘Great!’ As soon as the independent Electoral Commission puts out its report with recommendations – which, might I add, came out after I had introduced my first bill - they said: ‘No, we are going to wait for Canberra to tell us what to do’. This has been a bit of a song today. The minister for the Environment also said that he was going to wait to see what the federal government does, and we had the Chief Minister saying: ‘We are going to wait and see what the federal government does’. What is this? Is this a new ‘forget statehood, we are just going to wait for the federal government to tell us what rules we should have’?
I thought we were Territorians. I thought that is what you were voted in for: to represent Territorians, not to represent the federal government. The government is saying that more and more. More and more, they are relying on the federal government to say what their policies should be. Perhaps it is all to do with how much money you are getting. I am not sure.
This bill is a simple, democratic, open bill: all candidates in all elections should be treated the same. It should be fair. I looked at the Greatorex by-election return for candidates: Jane Clark, Greens, nil return; Matt Conlon, CLP, nil return; Jo Nixon, ALP, nil return; Paul Herrick – as an Independent what he spent is all detailed. How unfair is that? Why shouldn’t all candidates disclose what they spend on broadcasting, publishing, productions, mailing, and so on? Wouldn’t it give the people some idea of how much money is going into these elections, how much parties are spending to get their numbers up?
There just seems to me to be a contradiction that this government will not support this bill but, as I said, I am not surprised. I am certainly not surprised that the opposition have disappeared so quickly when it comes to this.
In the former Chief Minister’s speech about the new electoral bill, she said:
She said it is ‘an essential component of our democratic rights’. Well, what has happened to those democratic rights today? They have gone out the window - which is a real indictment upon this government. They cannot see that something as simple as this says to the people in the electorate that, yes, we have an open and transparent government; yes, we are willing to treat all candidates, whether they are party or non-party, the same; yes, we shall tell you the information that we expect them to tell you. No, we are not doing that. It is the party that decides. Today, we see a case of not just the party deciding but the federal government deciding as well.
Madam Speaker, there is no point in my going on. We get the message fairly clearly. General Business Day is interesting, isn’t it? You put up good ideas and think we are going to get government to do this and, then, the government says: ‘No, we will do it our way’. The message we will be sending very clearly to the electorate - and I assure you we will be telling them - is that this government and the opposition will not support financial disclosure of all candidates the same as Independents have to. We are going to tell them that so they may even think there is a certain concealment of what is being spent on elections. When you get that sort of financial disclosure not being open and transparent, you wonder why it is being hidden. You question what it is all about.
I am disappointed but, let me assure government and opposition members that we will be getting that message out to people in the Northern Territory. This government is not honest, open and transparent as they claim. They are waiting for the federal government again to tell them what to do. Why Territorians elected them I am not quite sure. Maybe Territorians thought that they would be making decisions for them, not relying upon another government to do so.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 10 October 2007.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I have previously said and reiterate tonight, that I believe General Business Day fulfils an extremely important function within parliament: it enables opposition and the Independents to put forward legislation on issues they consider important. The government takes every proposal they put forward very seriously. General Business Day also challenges opposition and Independent members to appreciate that the successful development of policy and legislation requires more than good intent. It involves analysis of existing laws, assessment of consequences and potential risks, and consultation with experts and, most importantly, the community.
The intent of the member for Nelson in introducing his Residential Parks Bill is to fill a gap in the rights of long-term residents of caravan parks. I state up-front that the government commends the member for Nelson’s stated aim. Both long-term residents and owners of caravan parks deserve a greater level of legal stability and clarity regarding their respective rights and obligations.
This legislative gap has existed since the repeal of the Caravan Parks Act, an act which commenced in 1975 and was repealed by legislation enacted in the dying days of the previous CLP government. The act provided limited protection for caravan park residents. For example, the person operating a caravan park or camping area was obliged to maintain the land in a clean and hygienic condition, free of fire, health and safety hazards, and free of excessive vegetation. The Tenancy Act enacted in 1979 also provided some regulation for owners or operators of caravan parks and residents, such as the determination of fair rents by the commissioner, length of notice periods on termination of a lease on prescribed and unspecified grounds, and warrants of ejectment in certain circumstances. The residential component of the Tenancy Act was superseded by the Residential Tenancies Act in 2000, but the latter act expressly excluded from its operation persons living in caravans or mobile homes located in caravan parks.
In the Territory, we have a higher than average proportion of people who have long-term residences in caravan parks. We all know caravan occupations can last a long time, sometimes because of the lower cost factors and sometimes because people travel here in their caravan and like the place so much they never want to leave. In either situation, residents should possess some standard rights of residency.
The member for Nelson’s bill, however, does not satisfactorily resolve this issue, either in its content or the way the member consulted with industry and other interested parties during its development. The government will, therefore, not be supporting the bill for the following reasons.
The bill contains both internal discrepancies and inconsistencies with provisions in similar legislation. For example, there are significant differences in the required notice periods on termination of periodic and fixed-term tenancies by landlord and tenant between this bill and the Residential Tenancies Act. The member’s second reading speech does not allude to this discrepancy, let alone make any compelling policy argument for the difference. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, if a landlord or tenant wishes to terminate a fixed-term tenancy, they must give the other party 14 days notice. Under this bill, however, the parties are required to give the other 28 days notice - a doubling of the time for that of an apartment or house.
In the case of periodic tenancies, the situation is compounded by internal inconsistencies within the bill. If the landlord wishes to terminate a periodic tenancy, he or she is required to give the tenant 42 days notice under the Residential Tenancies Act. A landlord wishing to terminate a periodic agreement under the bill we have before us tonight must give 60 days if the agreement is a tenancy agreement, or 90 days if the agreement is a site agreement.
Similar inconsistencies exist when a tenant wishes to terminate a tenancy. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the tenant is required to give 14 days notice while, under the bill, a tenant under a tenancy agreement must give 21 days notice, and a tenant under a site agreement must give 28 days notice. These inconsistencies are quite onerous to understand and comply with, and seem, on the surface, completely unnecessary. Tenancy notice periods should be consistent unless there are good policy reasons for them not to be.
The bill also anticipates the operational use of the Commissioner of Tenancies being given the additional title of the Residential Parks Commissioner and his staff. Given that the commissioner and the Department of Justice were not consulted during the development of the bill, the additional costs and workload associated with the implementing of the proposed legislation such as more inquiries, hearings, compliance and enforcement, has not been assessed.
Of much greater concern is the sporadic and haphazard consultation the member for Nelson apparently conducted with affected parties, with the result that the caravan park owners across the Territory have strongly condemned the bill and warn that it could actually lead to long-term residents being forced out of caravan parks; that is, this legislation carries the very substantial risk of producing an outcome which is the exact opposite to its stated intent.
To the issue of consultation first. The member for Nelson has had a fair bit to say about what constitutes a proper consultation process over the past few months. On 17 October 2007, in the Parliamentary Record, he described a good reform process as one that ‘brought the community along with it’. He also exhorted government to ‘call some public meetings; allow people to have their say; allow people to put up ideas’; and, later, ‘take in a lot of what people are saying’. On 10 October 2007, in the Parliamentary Record, the member said: ‘From the beginning to the end we have had little or no community consultation …’. He went on to demand: ‘… real community consultation not gammon consultation’. He was discussing the important issue of local government reform which has been going on over a period of some 14 to 15 months, to which the government has responded to concerns of residents in relation to the Top End Shire.
We are dealing with very serious issues here as well. We are dealing with people’s homes and livelihoods, and it is something we need to get right. We need to get the correct balance between the rights and responsibilities of tenants, and the rights and responsibilities of caravan park operators. Notwithstanding the deep concerns of the owners and operators of caravan parks, the member for Nelson appears tonight to be pressing on regardless. Let us examine the process of consultation undertaken for this legislation by the member for Nelson.
My understanding from the member’s second reading speech and the letter he posted to caravan park owners on 20 December 2007 is that consultation on the bill consisted of an initial survey form dropped in to some caravan parks earlier in 2007. I am advised that it was probably during April 2007. I am further advised that, during this initial consultation, little detail of the legislation we have before us today was given to people, particularly caravan park owners and operators. In addition, I have been informed that the member promised some operators that he would send a draft version of this legislation prior to introduction in October of last year.
So, let us go through the picture: he had some consultation; he can confirm this or whatever. Earlier in 2007, probably April, he went around, he dropped off forms, presumably he had conservations with people, and then, as part of that initial consultation, he promised he would be giving the operators a draft version of the legislation prior to introduction, which was in October.
I have a few questions for the member for Nelson. Could the member for Nelson provide the Assembly the details that were given to people as part of his initial consultation process? Can the member for Nelson also advise if he undertook to send a draft version of the legislation to operators prior to the introduction in October 2007? If so, did the member send a draft to the operators and, if not, why not? There are some pretty clear-cut questions there, member for Nelson. Could the member for Nelson also advise exactly how many responses he received to his initial survey in early 2007, particularly from caravan park owners? Are the returns from the survey reflected in the bill before the Assembly? This last point is particularly important because of what the member for Nelson claimed in his second reading speech in October 2007. I quote:
What is certain is that there was a mail-out of the bill in December last year, not prior to introduction in October - notably well after it had been introduced in parliament in October. In the letter that he wrote - and I have a copy here; I will table this - this is the bill that he tabled on 20 December. He requested comments or amendments before the bill was debated and this was well after it was introduced in October.
I have other questions, member for Nelson. Are you bringing forward any amendments today to reflect the overwhelmingly negative response of the industry that you received once you sent them out the draft bill? Are you proposing any amendments today to reflect those negative responses? You certainly have not discussed any amendments with government. We extend to you the courtesy always, when we have amendments, of offering you a briefing and discussing them with you prior to us introducing amendments.
I ask this because I believe all members have received a fair bit of correspondence from caravan park owners on this issue, of which I am sure the member for Nelson would be aware. I have one letter here, amongst others, addressed to the member. While many operators recognise the need for some legal clarity and reform, they were unanimously and adamantly opposed to the bill before the House to the extent that they were concerned it would force them not to offer long-term tenancies. I have a letter from the NT Caravan Park Association, which clearly sets that out. They had a meeting in Alice Springs on 24 January with the Alice Springs members of the NT Caravan Park Association. The letter says:
My office contacted owners of major caravan parks across the Territory, mainly those that have a significant component of tenants commonly known as permanent residents. In an afternoon, someone from my office rang 12 operators in the Top End, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs - pretty easy, just out of the telephone book. Ten of these operators were very concerned and opposed the member for Nelson’s bill. The other two were not contactable. One of those is already on the public record - this is the President of the NT Caravan Park Association - vehemently opposing the member’s bill. Here is the article from the Sunday Territorian, 13 January 2008; this is Viv Lavender:
She then detailed a whole range of things and called some of the rules ‘silly’. So here is criticism: 11 out of the 12 people who were contacted. I am not sure the member for Nelson actually contacted the peak organisation but he will be able to tell us about that. He certainly wrote a letter to the Editor in response to Ms Lavender’s comments and tried to put her down. Basically, there are many questions about this, member for Nelson.
Here are some further views of the operators. I have already quoted from the letter from Paul and Lynette Coffey of Alice Springs Heritage Caravan and Tourist Park. They said:
She went on to say that if this legislation goes ahead they will no longer have permanent residents. As the article in the Sunday Territorian made clear, if this was to happen, and I quote:
I have a letter from Brendan Heenan who is representing the NT Caravan Park Association. I have already quoted that the park operators all came to the conclusion that if this legislation in its present form comes into effect then the park operators will feel it will be in their best interest not to have any permanent residents at all.
Probably the most interesting comes from Mr Rod Cramer of Temple Bar Caravan Park. I quote:
He went on to say:
As pointed out previously, this viewpoint was reflected when my office recently conducted discussions with a wide cross-section of industry to gain support for reform in this area. All operators contacted were very strongly opposed to the bill in its present form.
This inadequate, questionable consultation process does not reflect well on the member for Nelson, particularly given his criticism of others in regard to community consultations. Here is a proposed change in legislation that is relatively well defined which, apart from residents, affects a fairly small group of caravan park owners and operators. What we have in front of us is a bill that is unworkable and incredibly divisive. The member for Nelson has some explaining to do. I have already asked a whole series of questions of the member for Nelson. I might repeat them all. I seem to have a fair bit of time there.
I was reminded of Molire’s wise saying which, as parliamentarians, I think we should all consider, and I quote:
That is very wise and, as parliamentarians, we should remember Molire’s wise words. Or, as Montaigne once said:
I will say that again because it is a very wise saying that all of us as parliamentarians should heed. He said:
As a government, we have a responsibility to introduce legislation that is workable. One way to ensure this is through consultation with affected parties in the wider community. Sure, it can be a difficult process and we have found that out through the local government reforms. I am not saying we are perfect. Sometimes, government must act urgently, and lengthy consultation is not possible, but that is something for which government also accepts ultimate responsibility. We take political responsibility for what we do in that regard. However, with bills such as this, when people’s homes and livelihoods are at stake, we need to get it right. This bill, as it stands, is not right.
As I said previously, General Business Day also compels opposition and Independent members to appreciate that the successful development of policy and legislation requires more than good intent. It involves analysis of existing laws, assessment of consequences, and potential risk and consultations with experts and communities.
The former Attorney-General, Dr Peter Toyne, gave an undertaking to develop policy in this area and to introduce reform at some point in the future. I can assure the Assembly that this is progressing. Government will keep working to standardise and clarify the rights and obligations of residents and operators, and ensure we have widespread acceptance for these reforms when we do.
In essence, the bill as it has been put forward is flawed, but even more flawed is the consultation process. I am particularly interested to hear from the member for Nelson. The quote from Rod Cramer is quite straightforward. He is not the only one who has said that operators were promised by the member for Nelson that he would send them a draft of the legislation prior to its introduction. That does not seem to have occurred. I am asking the member for Nelson to clarify this issue in relation to the consultation.
Madam Speaker, government does give the undertaking that we recognise the intent of this bill, which is good. People living in caravan parks do need protection in their tenancy, but I believe that there is a better bill that can do it - and through consultation. Everyone might not get everything they want but I believe we can get a more balanced approach to this whole issue.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I put on the record that Independents do not always agree on everything. That is why we are Independents ...
Mr Stirling: Bailing out of this one, Loraine. Jumping off the ship.
Mrs BRAHAM: Why not? That is what it is all about.
Members interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: The intent of the bill – hey, come on, we are not a party. We do not do what you lot do.
Mr Stirling: No, no, but I see strong unity between the Independents.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nhulunbuy!
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, we normally are but I am allowed to have my opinion and the member for Nelson is allowed to have his.
I agree with the intent of the bill. As the minister said, people living in caravan parks should have protection. What the government needs to remember is that caravan parks offer accommodation to people who cannot afford the higher rents, or to those who cannot find accommodation elsewhere. It also offers accommodation to people who particularly like that lifestyle. There are many permanent residents in caravan parks throughout the Territory and they, as you say, minister, need protection the same way as anyone renting a unit or a house.
The member for Nhulunbuy might remember this: in 1990 the Tenancy Act 1979 was reviewed resulting in the current Residential Tenancies Act enacted in 2000. During discussions for the new act, it was anticipated that caravan park residents would be included but this never eventuated. In fact, we do not have legislation protecting caravan park owners and residents. All states except Tasmania and the Northern Territory have legislation doing just that but we do not. Perhaps we have to wait again for the Commonwealth to tell us what to do? Who knows, that has been the theme song today.
I have received as many letters as you have from people who are concerned about it.
The member for Nelson is always sincere in what he does and his intent. You do not always have to agree with him, I know that, and many of you do too. However, he has worked hard on this bill, regardless of whether the minister thinks there has been enough consultation. He will tell you about the survey and the responses. I do not have it with me as it was such a huge document.
As you said, minister, he also received a letter in 2006 from the then minister for Justice confirming that no current Territory laws applied in renting caravans in a park and, consequently, there was no protection for residents in matters of fee increases or mandatory tenancy agreements. The then minister stated that the matter was currently being examined and it may result in law reform at some future stage. That was 2006; it is now 2008. There has been no public announcement about this review until you stood in parliament today and said that.
There does need to be legal protection for owners and residents of caravan parks. I can understand why this particular bill has caused concern. I give the member for Nelson credit for raising it. If it does nothing else, it might get government members off their butts to do something about it and introduce legislation of their own.
Madam Speaker, I let the member for Nelson know that I am not supporting the legislation. However, I need to make the point very clearly that, sometimes, the member for Nelson probably does not support what I put forward. It is called being Independent.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, where do I start? Perhaps with a quote since the minister decided to give me some quotes. One is: ‘“Vengeance is mine”, says the Lord’. If you were listening to the tone of this debate, you would say this had less to do with what is in my legislation and more to do with: ‘We will get you back for what you did to the minister in relation to the Local Government Act’. That is what it smelt of ...
Mr Kiely: Do not flatter yourself.
Mr WOOD: That is what it smelt of. There was all this stuff about consultation - this, this and this. Here we have serious debate about a bill, and there was a smell of vengeance right through it. Instead of getting to the core of what this legislation is about - which is to protect the battlers, the poor, those on a low income, the lonely people who live in caravan parks - you ignored them.
You are the Labor Party and you ignored the key to what I am trying to do. It is a social justice issue here, which you say you are proud of. There might be problems with what I am putting forward; there might be difficulties for owners. However, there is something more important in here; that is, there are Territorians who need some protection. They are the sort of people you should be talking about. You can kick me all you like; I do not mind. In the debate that I heard from that side, the biggest thing that disappoints me is so very little emphasis was placed on the people who need your protection. The people that I found out …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: The people I found out about …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: … the consultation that I had by going to a caravan park. That was the Sundowner. When I got a phone call from the Sundowner Caravan Park one day to say: ‘Our rent is being put up $10 for any person who has …
Mr Kiely: And you jumped on it as an election issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: … that has their own washing machine – instant’. They were told that day: ‘You will pay next week $10 extra per week if you have your own washing machine’. The reason was because the manager, not the owner, wanted to get those people to use the coin-operated washing machines in the caravan park. I thought this was unfair. I looked at the legislation. This is legislation, by the way, you people in 2006 - two years ago - said you would do something about. Well, you had not done anything about it. That is why I started to look at why there was nothing done. I thought it was time to look after the poorer people, the people we should be looking after. This really should have been your job, because you actually knew it was around and you had done nothing about it. So, I tried. I might have failed because I know that when I bring legislation here I fail. There is very little legislation that has ever gone through this parliament from this side …
Dr Burns: What about the consultation? Answer the questions.
Mr WOOD: It does not matter who I - I will answer the questions. Okay? But that is peripheral to what we are talking about, because you missed ….
Dr Burns: It is to your credibility.
Mr WOOD: You deliberately missed the reason for this legislation.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: You missed the reason this legislation should go through.
Mr Stirling: You should not be haranguing us. He is shouting.
Mrs Braham: Why did you not get up and speak then?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Mr WOOD: I learned it from the member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nhulunbuy, cease interjecting!
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think that the member for Nelson’s pitch and tone of voice is hard to cop. He does not have to harangue the House. He can explain quietly why he failed to consult on these issues without shouting at us.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I would like you to direct your comments through the Chair, please, remembering that all comments are meant to be directed through the Chair and not at individual members across the Chamber. I ask members to cease interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I will do that, Madam Speaker. I will try to tone down but, I must admit, some of my skills were learned from the member for Nhulunbuy, who can speak with a lot of passion as well.
It is a passionate thing; that is where this came from, and that is the reality of it. We had someone who needed help. All right, they were constituents of mine. I have a written speech here; I probably will not worry about it now. I will be honest with you. I did not have much to do with the people in the Sundowner Caravan Park. They are part of my electorate. You drop a bunch of newsletters off at the office and ask if they can be dropped around. I did not know the people in there until this lady, Annie, came and said: ‘Look at what they are doing’. I found, much to my amazement, that there is no legislation. The Residential Tenancies Act did not cover these people.
I started to look at what should we do. In the meantime, the Sundowner was going to be sold. People did not know. They were told that the place was going to stay open. It was only a verbal guarantee, but they were told that the place was going to stay. In fact, it was going to be closed down at Christmas 2006. I went around there with another lady, Susie. She was the one who informed me that the park was going to be closed down. I delivered some fliers to those people. I know this is probably not the sort of consultation you were talking about, minister, but this is the consultation I had.
We had a meeting and, in fact, the Chief Minister came to one of the meetings to discuss this issue. We had people, some of whom had been there 15 years, who were told ‘goodbye’. They were told to get out of their homes, with no protection at all. They had their pets; some of them paid quite large sums of money to be sub-tenants. I stand corrected if someone is reading this, but there was a person there who had paid somewhere in the order of $25 000 to buy a site and, within about two or three months of living there, they were told that the park was closing down.
I spent a considerable length of time - and I appreciate the help the Chief Minister gave us, on extending that time. There was a community there. People had lived there, not only for a long time, but had made their little spot into a home. They had a caravan, usually on blocks, they had built annexes - probably not legal – and they had pot plants, tables and chairs. They had pets - very few caravan parks in the Top End will take pets. They had a caravan park where they could have a pet, and that was unique. It was under the flight path - not everybody’s cup of tea - but that did not worry them. They had a bus stop outside and they could go to Casuarina, Darwin or Palmerston from where they lived. For many it was very convenient.
You also have to realise the sort of people who were there. It was a mixed bag of people: widows, widowers, couples, single people, married people, lonely people, black people, white people - all sorts. If you want to get a cross-section of society, you will get it at a caravan park, especially a permanent caravan park. I saw people who were being removed from a caravan park without any protection at all from the law. That is why I put forward this legislation, to see if something could happen.
It is too late for the Sundowner Caravan Park. For those who go past there, you might be surprised to see a sign up which says ‘future place for development’. Shops are going to go there, to be completed December 2007. Here we are, February 2008, and you have a paddock there full of weeds. No caravans, no one lives there any more. These people were moved out of their homes and they have had to find other places. For many of them, that was extremely difficult, but they have eventually.
That is why I did what I did. The first thing I did was to put together a caravan park survey. I can get you a better copy of this, minister, if you would like. I can get it in colour. This is the black and white version. We could do a colour version where the graphs show up better. You can go to here and assess where we got our information. This is a fairly long document. I cannot read it all out tonight. I am quite happy to give it to the government because, minister, even though you are going crook at me - no, I will give you a better version. I can table this but it is not in colour and the coloured graphs come out better, you can understand them better. I am quite happy to give the government a coloured version of that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, do you wish to table that? You need to seek leave.
Mr WOOD: If they want me to table the black and white version I can. I will just give a guarantee to the minister that I will get a better version for him. I will not table it.
Madam SPEAKER: So you are not tabling?
Mr WOOD: No, but I will ask my research officer to do that for him.
That caravan park survey took me around two or three months to deliver. I delivered to every caravan park in the Darwin area including the rural area. I went to every caravan park from here to Alice Springs. I did not go to Borroloola, Timber Creek, the Douglas Daly area, or to Uluru. I visited all the other caravan parks. I went to each park individually. I asked them if they had permanent residents at that park. If they did, I asked them if I could leave some of these surveys at that park. That was the initial consultation.
Where I could speak to owners, I did. Not all owners were in. In the case of Temple Bar, I left one or two - I have to check the records. Some surveys were left where I thought the office was because when I went out to a couple of long-term caravan parks out to the west of Alice Springs, from memory at one of them I could not find anyone to give it to so I left it there. I will answer the questions about what Rod Cramer mentioned in his letter.
I worked with the Parliamentary Counsel. We put this report together after people had returned the survey forms. In the introduction of this particular document it says survey forms were received from 19 owner/managers and 23 permanent residents. I would have liked to have visited more permanent residents but it was not as easy as you think. It was a very in-depth survey and we received results from many people. Reading from the report on the survey:
There was a whole range of questions in there. I am quite happy for the minister to look at it and, if he thinks it might help in some future process to bring in some legislation, I would be happy to give it to him.
I will mention a couple of things. The minister spoke about the history. I also want to just say a few things about the history of where we are today with caravan park legislation.
The Tenancy Act 1979, since repealed, possessed contradictory clauses, whereby the act covered residents in caravans but not those living in tourist caravan parks; that is in Definitions. In section 41, the definition of 'premises' included:
In 1989, the then minister, Mr Hatton, announced a working group to review the Tenancy Act with the intention of bringing tenancy provisions up to date. The NT election of 1990 delayed events but the working group was reconvened in January 1991. A discussion paper was released in October 1992 with a report issued in November 1993. The final report of the review made these comments in particular reference to caravan park residents:
Recommendation 2(c) said:
Recommendation 2(b):
Recommendation 3:
In 1996, the draft Residential Tenancy Bill was released for public comment receiving more than 800 submissions. In early 1999, the government tabled a further draft Residential Tenancy Bill as a reworked version based upon the results of consultation. In August of that year, the final version was introduced, being passed in October and receiving assent in 2000.
In his second reading of the bill, the then Minister for Business and Industry, Mr Baldwin, explained that caravan park residents were excluded from the legislation. I am quoting from what he said:
He later said:
Thus, the current Residential Tenancies Act 1999 specifically excludes caravan park residents. Section 6 says under the heading ‘Agreements to which the Act does not apply’:
This Act does not apply to an agreement –
…
Although it was superseded by an updated version in 1999, the Tenancy Act was not repealed until 2003 through a schedule in the Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act 2003. No comment was made by the minister in his second reading speech so, presumably, the repeal was just a clean-up of …
Dr Burns: You still have not answered my question.
Mr Stirling: No. Cannot answer it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: … was just a clean-up of legislation. In effect, it means that since 2003 there has been no coverage for people who live in caravans …
Dr Burns: So, that is a yes?
Mr WOOD: I will get to that in my own time, thank you, minister. I am happy to answer the question. But this is not what this is about. This is about getting back at Gerry Wood. This is not about debating the importance of this legislation ...
Mr Stirling: Yes, it is.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not.
Dr Burns: It is about your credibility.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not. It is about you getting back at me. You can get back all you like but I will tell people what this is really about: all you are interested in is having a go at me. I am happy with that. Why I brought this legislation …
Dr Burns: Once again, you are misrepresenting what is happening.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Why I brought this legislation forward was to protect …
Dr Burns: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nelson is saying here that he is going to go out and misrepresent what has happened in the debate in this parliament. He is also misrepresented a lack of concern that he is asserting on my part about caravan park residents. Let me tell the member for Nelson, that I actually go down to a caravan park on my holidays three weeks every year. I know people in caravan parks. Do not start lecturing me about who lives in caravan parks.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, would you mind directing your comments through the Chair and not across the Chamber?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling: He is very hurt that you did not support him.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nhulunbuy!
Mrs Braham: What was that?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Mr Stirling: I am not allowed to speak.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: I would just like to get to some of the issues that Mr Cramer from the Temple Bar Caravan Park spoke about.
For instance, he said there was difficulty getting a copy of the questionnaire. Our answer to that was that copies were left at most caravan parks. I presume his caravan park was the one where I could not find the owner. Anyone who rang our office seeking a copy was either faxed or mailed a copy. We did our best to ensure that people received a copy of the survey.
You said that Mr Cramer’s opinion was not reflected in the bill. Our response is that a total of 160 forms were distributed, 42 were returned - not every caravan park has permanent residents, hence not all forms would have been returned. The bill reflects the majority of views in the returned forms. There were some comments that could not be included because they were inflammatory, contradictory to the spirit or aims of the bill, or would have been illegal. The bill has also been drafted with consideration to similar successful interstate legislation. Mr Cramer complained that the bill was not distributed before being presented in parliament. My response is that, after consultation through the survey and face-to-face discussions with the residents and owner/managers, the bill was introduced on 10 October 2007. It would not be scheduled for debate until four months later, during which time further consultation was undertaken and changes considered.
Madam Speaker, I believe he is right; I did not deliver the bill before the legislation was introduced to parliament. That was something that was not intentional. It was something that I simply did not get time to do. I also realise that, in the case of General Business Day, one can introduce legislation and you know that there is going to be a long period before it is introduced in parliament.
There were other issues. Mr Cramer mentioned in paragraph 4 about a vicarious liability clause that had no practical mechanism for enforcement. Clause 48 declares that it is a term of the residential park agreement that a resident is responsible for acts or omissions by persons who are on the rented property with the consent or invitation of the resident. This is a term of the agreement. This means that if the person commits an act or omission that is a breach of the agreement, the resident is liable; thus the clauses concerning procedures and action to take place where there is a breach of the agreement are enacted, for example, giving the resident notice to terminate the agreement or immediate dismissal from the caravan park.
In paragraph 5, Mr Cramer said ‘occupants have so much power under the bill’. My reply is that while residents may, with the consent of the owner, form a residents committee to which to present concerns and discussions with the owner, the manager/owner is likewise given many legal rights and powers to set standards of behaviour and conduct and deal with residents in cases where a residential park agreement is breached. This is the model successfully used by landlords and tenants in houses and units under the Residential Tenancies Act. At the moment, without any legal backing, owners have no legal recourse for dealing with breaches. The bill gives them that backing.
In paragraph 5 of Mr Cramer’s letter, he said: ‘Long-term residents keep us open through the summer’. My reply is that many caravan park owners recognise the importance of continued income from long-term residents. The bill does not threaten this arrangement; it merely recognises that those owners and residents have separate rights and responsibilities as part of a legal contract between the parties. The paying of money for a service - that is, the renting of a site or dwelling - gives certain rights to those paying the money. At the same time, they have certain responsibilities in recognition of the owner’s rights.
In paragraph 7, Mr Cramer mentioned having to go through all sorts of red tape to remove residents from your premises. My reply is that the sections regarding termination have been drafted with consideration of comments and consultation, interstate legislation, and similar provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act. In cases of serious breaches of the residential tenancy agreement, the owner may terminate an agreement immediately. In less serious circumstances, the owner or resident may apply to the commissioner for a termination of the agreement. Experience in the Residential Tenancies Commission is that a similar system for houses and units works well.
In paragraph 8, Mr Cramer mentioned having to give 60 days notice to increase service charges or rent. My reply is that clause 24 allows the agreement to stipulate when increases in rent may be made; that is, there does not have to be 60 days notice if the agreement sets out a different process for varying the rent. Clause 47 states that the residential agreement may declare that residents may pay for metered services such as water or electricity or gas, thus, if the relevant utility increases these charges, the resident will be liable to have to pay the increased amount. This survey revealed that there are very few permanent sites that do not have metered services. In fact, nearly all respondents stated there must be meters. However, the bill does cover circumstances where there may not be metered sites under clause 47(4).
I will skip a couple to save time. Madam Speaker, am I allowed an extension?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I believe so.
Mr WOOD: In paragraph 10, Mr Cramer talked about the notice of sale of park. My reply is that the period in question takes into consideration that property sales on this scale are usually known well in advance. The time period also takes into account settlement period, etcetera. At heart is the termination of a legal contract and, rightly so, there should be provisions to protect parties in the event of change.
Mr Cramer went on with quite a few other matters. I will read my overall comment:
I thank Mr Cramer for his letter. He was one of the few people who contacted me in relation to this bill with issues that he felt needed addressing. We have put forward comments on what he had said and there is some of what I wrote today.
In relation to consultation, I spoke with Mr Frank Morandini. We had a meeting about the bill. You have to remember that we sent the bill out to everyone we could think of who responded asking for comments. You have to remember that sometimes we got no addresses back with our survey forms, but we sent them to those places that had permanent caravan parks. I was asking for comment. I realise that, in the case of an Independent putting forward legislation, there is a lot longer period than the government normally allows; there was four months. I would have been willing to delay this legislation even longer if that was the case.
I have travelled the length and breadth of the Territory. I would have been happy to sit down with the Caravan Park Association in Alice Springs and discuss the issues with them. You have to remember that I spoke to many managers asking them what they thought about caravan park legislation. In some cases, like one park I went to, there were people managing the park because the owners were away, so I would talk to them. Of course, when the managers came back they may have had no idea what was going on because I was not speaking to them. I spoke to Brian Hill at Manbulloo Station. I had dinner with him and discussed matters with the bill. He raised a number of issues. I attempted to get back to him in relation to those issues but, unfortunately, he is on holidays.
Regarding the Caravan Park Association, well, the lady that the minister mentioned lives in my electorate; she happens to be the owner of the Howard Springs Caravan Park. I knew that there was no hope of this legislation going too far because when the survey forms were sent out, she wrote me a letter basically saying that this legislation was not welcome. That was on 6 March. So I knew that the owner of that caravan park was absolutely against any changes and, as the president of the association, she obviously would have put forward those views, which she is entitled to, to the Caravan Park Association. I would have been very happy if I had been given an invitation by any caravan park owner in relation to this bill. That is why I had discussions with Frank Morandini; that is why I had discussions with Brian Hill. If the Caravan Park Association had asked me to come to a meeting to discuss this, I would have gone straightaway; I had no hesitation.
Madam Speaker, I fully accept that this legislation is not perfect. We have spent many hours with the Parliamentary Counsel. It is not as though I drew this up by myself. We asked far more learned people to look at caravan park legislation throughout Australia. I had input into that, trying to reflect the issues that the caravan park people had told me. They told me in consultation what they thought, because they sent back their survey forms. Many times they told me to get stuffed. I knew what they were thinking. Not all of them were like that, but some were. Some, basically, told me to go take a jump in the lake. That is what it was about.
There was consultation, minister, and I have done my best to consult personally. I did not post this out to people. I drove up and down the highway into every caravan park I could find, and tried to talk with every manager. That took a fair bit of time, and that was with the Alice Springs sittings coming up as well. It was a fairly hectic time to do all that.
I received the letters you have. Regardless of whether I agree with him, only Mr Cramer had the decency to say: ‘There are sections of this act I think are wrong. What’s your answer?’ Other people gave me various holistic approaches where they said: ‘We think we will lose our identity’. That is nice but it is not telling me very much about my legislation. Unfortunately, there are some business people out there who really do not want any legislation at all ...
Mrs BRAHAM: Madam Speaker, I move the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I accept the criticism that not everything was perfect, and I did not do it as well as I should. I accept that and I will take it. Even if I had not done it perfectly, I did try to mend it by making sure people received the legislation that we have here today. I have not brought forward any amendments. Once I received letters from the business side of things I knew that my legislation was not going to get past square one. I am not going to spend my entire day in this parliament trying to introduce amendments that are going to go nowhere. You have to use a little common sense when going through these issues.
The previous Attorney-General made a promise to me in a letter saying: ‘I can confirm that the issue of caravan parks is currently being examined and may result in law reform in some future stage’. I hope that that future stage is not far off because you have not done anything. I at least had a go, and that is something. I will take the criticism. I do not mind taking the criticism from the parks, but the people who own parks also have to understand that the people who live in parks call those parks their home and have some entitlement to protection. If it can happen in other parts of Australia - after all, we are all Australians - why can it not happen to Territorian Australians? It does not; it is a glaring example.
I will read to you, minister, something that turned up on my desk from a caravan park. I will read out who it is from. If there is one thing that made me more determined that there is a need for this legislation it was this attitude. I received this not long after I sent out the legislation for comment. It is from the Oasis Tourist Park:
Mr Gerry Wood
That is the Oasis Caravan Park.
If people are going to attempt to blackmail me by telling people that if I try to put regulations on our caravan park will kick the long-term people out, I say there needs to be legislation. No one should have the right to do that to people - no one. That is what this legislation is about: it is protecting those who are the most vulnerable. There are some people who can only afford to be in caravan parks. Some people like that lifestyle. If any of you had walked around the Sundowner Caravan Park you would have seen those people. Those people need the protection of this government to ensure that attitude cannot happen.
I accept that what I have done might not have been perfect, minister. I accept your criticism. I probably could have done it better from the point of view of letting them know a little earlier. However, I do put that into context that we had nearly three or four months for people to look at my legislation. I asked for comments. I would have been willing to take pieces out if they were wrong, to amend it. I would have been willing to delay the bill. I would have been happy to do all that. I still remember the e-mails and the people who lived in caravan parks who have said to me that they wanted this legislation. They felt that, for too long, they were at the whim of an owner who could kick them off at any point in time because there is no legislation that says they cannot.
I understand that owners need protection. I have tried to put forward balanced legislation which will give owners protection. Owners have no protection, for instance, going into a caravan. If they go in, they could probably be sued. We put rules in this legislation which said that you can enter another person’s caravan for these particular reasons. What we tried to do was to protect both sides. I have no hesitation in saying that, whilst owners need protecting, they are not as vulnerable as some of the people who live in these caravan parks.
Opposition members are not speaking on this, but I hope they have received all the letters I have received. I know that some of those letters have come from people close to their hearts, politically, and there would be very little doubt in my mind that they would have supported this bill. I ask all people to consider what they would have done in my circumstances. Would they have told the people in the Sundowner Caravan Park that it is just too bad? Would they have sat there and watched people’s houses torn down when they could not find another place to stay? I do not think any other member of parliament would have done that. It just happens it was in my electorate and it has made me more conscious that there are many people out there for whom land and houses are becoming impossible. In many cases, this is the only place people can stay. I have said this before: we need more permanent caravan parks.
I will give a plug for what I think is an excellent caravan park. It is The Mill in Katherine. I went there and it is a well run, permanent caravan park - neat, tidy, the owner has set the rules, and has set up industrial sheds where people can park their caravans in both ends with toilet, shower and laundry facilities in the centre. They all have a little lawn and garden around them. It is a lifestyle that some people enjoy. If you cannot afford to rent a house or a unit, or you cannot buy a block of land, it is an alternative. It is a place where you will find a cross-section of life.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. To the member for Nhulunbuy, I have calmed down, but I was expressing passion about an issue we need to do something about. Instead of saying: ‘Yes, we are going to do something about it’, I hope that very soon, before the next election, this government brings forward its version of what should be done. I hope that it goes out to every caravan park up and down the track and consults, puts out its legislation for comment, and then takes heed of those comments and changes legislation. I hope the government does everything it told me that I should have done. I feel that most of what I have done is adequate. I hope they do the same and introduce legislation which will protect Territorians.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 10 October 2007.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the proposals put forward by the member for Braitling, essentially, they fall in two parts. The first part is to amend section 41(2), Determination of order of candidates names. The current act requires that the draw for positions on the ballot paper take place in public at the Electoral Commission’s office in Darwin as soon as practicable after the close of nominations and this provision applies to both general elections and by-elections. The member seeks to make an amendment and proposes that the draws for positions on the ballot paper be at a place decided by the commissioner as notified in the Gazette. It is a small change that has been proposed by the member for Braitling, and also a recommendation by the Electoral Commissioner.
We are considering the Electoral Commissioner’s report in regards to a comprehensive response. This is one of those issues under consideration. Later this year, I will be releasing a comprehensive response to the Electoral Commissioner. Therefore, we will not be supporting this part of the amendment …
Mrs Braham: You support it in principle?
Mr HENDERSON: We are having a good look at it. It is a small issue. We will not have to use this requirement for some time. There are good reasons to do it. We will give it due consideration in the comprehensive response to the Electoral Commissioner’s report.
The second issue goes to the financial threshold for mandatory reporting of gifts, donations, and anonymous gifts to candidates, which is $200. Under the act, the threshold for reporting such payments to registered political parties is $1000. The member for Braitling suggests there is an inequity there and her bill proposes the threshold for all three types of payments to candidates be similarly raised to $1000. There are some issues here. You can run the broad equity arguments but, regarding people who donate to political parties as opposed to people who donate to individual candidates, a $1000 donation to a political party just gets swallowed up in the overall amounts of money that are donated and would not have any undue influence in regards to particular candidates. The donation is to the party and the party runs the campaign.
However, you have to consider whether $1000 is significant or whether it has the capacity to influence an individual candidate in what somebody is trying to achieve by way of donation. It is not a simple equity argument - $200 versus $1000 - in the context of why people choose to support political parties or to support individual candidates. When people donate to political parties it gets gobbled up in the overall campaign funding that the party has and would have no capacity to influence individual candidates because it is part of the expenditure the party takes. However, $1000 is a lot of money to a lot of people and, in handing that money over to an individual candidate, there could be the capacity for questioning, I suppose, whether that donation has the capacity to influence.
In being transparent in regard to the capacity for donations to influence people, that is certainly something to consider. It is not a simple equity argument.
In relation to the threshold issues regarding disclosure and reporting, we are out of nexus with the Commonwealth at the moment. The Commonwealth has raised their disclosure thresholds to $10 000 and have indexed that annually and rounded up that indexation for both candidates and registered political parties. There is a view that donations of up to $10 000 should have some disclosure. Obviously, the previous government had a view the other way.
In regard to where we are going in our Electoral Act, again this issue of thresholds, donations and disclosure is not an issue. I will pick up on the fairly inane comments - with all due respect to the member for Braitling whom I have a lot of personal respect for - that we are just taking a lead from the Commonwealth and being run from Canberra and all of that nonsense that the CLP used to go on with and now the Independents are going on with. There are very good reasons to have a nexus around Australia in regard to how elections are run and the reporting requirements for candidates and political parties. It makes a lot of sense to have uniform legislation around Australia with those issues of openness and transparency. It is not a case of having your strings pulled from Canberra. It really is a policy issue. It makes sense, like in so many other areas, that we have uniform electoral laws and disclosure laws across Australia that maximise openness and transparency. To say that we are just dancing to Canberra’s tune is absolute nonsense.
We have the report from the Electoral Commissioner. There are a whole heap of recommendations in there that go to these issues as well. Government is not proposing to consider these issues in isolation of what broader reform we might seek to undertake as a result of the Electoral Commissioner’s report and recommendations. For those reasons, the government will not be supporting this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, surprise, surprise! I will not repeat too much of what we said before. It is, basically, the same argument for the first bill the member for Braitling put forward. Regardless of what the government has said about the nexus, the government should be listening to the Northern Territory Electoral Commission which it set it up.
Mr Henderson: We have not said we won’t. We said we are still considering his report.
Mr WOOD: That is right. But that could mean ‘one day it will rain’. It is one of those broad statements …
Mr Henderson: But it does not say we are ignoring it.
Mr WOOD: But it has taken a while for the government to do something. When we are putting forward the …
Mr Henderson: We have many priorities.
Mr WOOD: When we were putting forward our case today, we noted that it was in 2005 when the Electoral Commission said these things. That is three years ago. It is taking a while then, priorities excepted.
I support what the member for Braitling is doing. They are sensible changes and they bring in the concept of equality between candidates, nothing to do with parties because we are elected as individuals. You may have a party name written across the top of your posters at the election time, but your name is written on the ballot paper as Mr Smith or Mrs Smith, or whatever, and that is the way people vote for you.
That is the way donations should also be looked at - from the individual perspective not from the party’s.
I thank the member for Braitling for bringing forward these amendments. It is hard when you put forward something and you know it is going to get knocked on the head. We hope that it does …
Mrs Braham: You have experienced that often.
Mr WOOD: I have, yes. I hope it brings government’s attention to some of these bills we are bringing forward which we believe are important. I know that the government later on accepts that what we are putting forward is of benefit. We then find that it comes back in a different form with a different name on it and we are quite happy to accept that as well.
I thank our - and I say that as an Independent - research officer for all the work she has done. General Business Day is a pretty heavy day for all of us. She has done a marvellous job in putting all this information together for us. From a personal point of view, the amount of work she put into the caravan park survey and legislation has been fantastic. I appreciate the work she has done, and I put that on record.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I take it that there is no one else to speak for the bill, even if they might agree with it in principle. Perhaps the member for Nhulunbuy might have a few words to say as he would …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRAHAM: Madam Speaker, there has been no surprise. I appreciate the sensible way in which the Chief Minister has presented his argument on why he is not supporting it. He has not been emotive and bagging the Independents, as we heard a little around the place today. He has done it in a very precise way. I appreciate that he has given the reasons for it. Yes, we are looking forward to the time when he does bring in the legislation which covers most of the matters we have raised.
It is not a big thing to have the draw done in the most appropriate place. I imagine this will come back. The by-elections were classic. When the draw was being held for the position on the paper, it was held in Darwin rather than in the Centre where the members for Stuart and Greatorex were. It also helps the Electoral Commission officers concerned. They would prefer to have them regionalised rather than in one central place. It is a sensible amendment.
I am not quite sure what you have to do to get an amendment through this place ...
Mrs Miller: You have to be Labor.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes. It may come back in a different form. It is also disappointing that the number of contributors to this debate on General Business Day has been so small. What the member for Nelson says is true; we put in a lot of work. We do expect a lot from our poor research officer. She is sometimes torn because she knows that he and I have different opinions, needs and wants. I also put on the record my appreciation for Caroline and for what she has done.
It is a question of equity whether the parties think it or not: the question of whether you are a party or a non-party person, you should declare donations. Size should not matter. It should be the same level for everyone. To suggest that $1000 to a party will not influence them but $1000 to a non-party person might influence is nave. More people may donate to Independents if they knew it was going to be anonymous. We found this very much in the by-elections; that people felt that the major parties would almost penalise them if they felt they were giving to an Independent. That is why it should be the same threshold for everyone. Independents use a lot of their own money – it is as simple as that. If we raised the threshold for donations perhaps it might enable them to collect more.
I understand parties have huge banks; they borrow a lot. It is always interesting to see the financial disclosure of parties. We have just seen the huge donations to the federal government by unions and others to mount their campaigns. That is part of the game. An Independent would never reach that level of donations. At least give them a fair go. That is all we are asking for: let us give them a fair go.
What would this Assembly be like? It would be dull if you did not have the member for Nelson. Let us face it, he brings colour. Independents contribute to the whole party. There were a couple of debates today where members were sitting there and wanted to say, ‘Yes, we agree with that’ but, because they are a member of the party, they said nothing. That is the sad part. Regardless of whether the member for Nhulunbuy thinks that Independents should agree on everything I bet he does not agree with everything that goes on in this House. Come on, it is about time you stood up and had a say and really said what you felt about certain matters rather than just bag people.
It has been an interesting day. It is not quite over but we did not think we would get our bills up. We just felt that in a democratic society we are entitled to have our say, and put things forward that we felt were sensible. I look forward to the government putting forward these amendments in their own way in the very near future. Whether it will be before the next election will depend on the Chief Minister’s decision of when he wants to go. So, if it does not come within the next six months or so, I guess we can read something into it.
Madam Speaker, I thank the people who contributed to the debate for today. I am disappointed that there have been so few people contributing to the debate. It has been a very interesting day. We have had many good debates on different matters and they have flowed very quickly. I urge people to get up and have a go. Do not just sit there and pretend that you are not involved. There are some people in this House today who have not said a word. That is a shame. They are in here to debate topics.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s February 2008 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; report printed.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a report to the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of the Administrative Arrangements for the provision of travel, motor vehicle, communications, postage and childcare entitlements for members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory - annual schedule containing government payments for each member for travel at government expense, and for satellite and mobile phones for 2007. I also table a letter dated 20 February 2008 from the Chief Minister containing a schedule of ministerial phone expenses for 2007.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; report printed.
Mr KIELY (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
It is Wednesday of the second week of sittings. Tomorrow is our last day and we go back to our electorates all the more wiser for what we have been deliberating over these last two weeks. It is very easy to forget that just a week or so ago we had the opening of parliament. What a grand day that was. The days just slip by. We let them go into our memory and not really mark the spot.
I was pleased that day to see three schools from my area in the public gallery. I am heavily involved with Wulagi Primary School, Anula Primary School and Marrara Christian School. It was great to see students from these schools in the gallery at the opening of parliament. I was even more chuffed when I looked through the newsletters from those schools and saw the comments from the students who attended. I would just like to put on the record their thoughts of the opening day of parliament for 2008.
Ms Tania Kolomitsev was accompanied by four students from Wulagi Primary School. This is Cindy Mu’s recollection of the day:
This is from Isaac Cammarano:
From Javadd Anderson:
From Isobel Cammarano:
This was the contribution from Anula Primary School, written by Harry Littman and Tate Robins. The students were accompanied by Mrs Judy Evans, their teachers were Petra Kostkova, Phoebe Botica, Harry Littman and Grace Capitaine. Harry and Tate wrote:
This is from Marrara Christian School:
They are three pretty big questions asked by the Marrara students. They are three questions I do not think I will attempt to hazard an answer at this time of the sittings cycle. I thank the teachers who accompanied the students: Mrs Kolomitsev from Wulagi; Mrs Evans from Anula; and Mr Taylor from Marrara Christian College.
When the opening of parliament was announced and we were advised that we could invite guests if we let Madam Speaker know - and it was open to the public, as well - I thought what a great opportunity. I was wondering how I could get my schools involved without it being an imposition upon them. It came to me that four is a good number - four students and one teacher - because they could all fit in one car. The school could choose the captains or other students they thought warranted this special trip. It was good to see that the schools picked up on the idea and that they put stories into their newsletters.
I recommend and put forward the idea to Madam Speaker that next year and the following years, for our openings, we send invitations for four children and one teacher from all our schools in the Darwin, Palmerston or greater Darwin area to attend. It is a good number; it can be organised relatively easy. However, it does rely on the goodwill of the teachers, of which teachers seem to have an abundant supply these days.
I thank those schools for attending. I was pleased to see them here. I am glad the students enjoyed the quiche, orange juice and scones. I hope to see representatives of the schools next year when we have the lion dance, the smoking ceremony and the prayers.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, returning to life as a local member has been a rich and rewarding experience over the past few months. It has taken me back to where I started and reminded me of that most basic truism of political life: politics is about people and representing your electorate. I am refreshed by it and I look forward to continuing in that role for the remainder of this term.
These past few months have also given me an opportunity to reflect on my time as a minister, and I want to place on the record thanks and appreciation to the many departmental and ministerial staff I worked with and who were so important to me over a period of six years - not all of whom I was able to thank when I stood down.
Serving the people of the Territory as a minister has been a tremendous and unique privilege and I thank the people of the Nhulunbuy electorate for their loyalty in returning me over the 11 years in opposition before making it to government.
Those early months in government were frantic, chaotic and fabulous. In the first four months, I held down Deputy Chief Minister; Minister for Employment, Education and Training; Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Tourism; Parks and Wildlife; and Aboriginal Affairs.
In those early days, we were well served by a range of senior officials from other parts of Australia, all keen to get the first ever Labor government in the Territory off to the best possible start. We were also extremely well-served from the very outset by the head of the Department of the Chief Minister and Cabinet Secretary, Paul Tyrrell. I attended Paul’s farewell recently, and testament to his ability and reputation was the number of people who attended that farewell including many people from interstate. As a new government, we relied heavily on Paul Tyrrell to teach us the basic functions and mechanics of even how Cabinet worked. We owe Paul Tyrrell a huge debt of thanks.
I want to particularly mention former Tasmanian Premier, Michael Field, who played an important role in his own right in our winning government, and his wife, Jan, for their enormous support in getting my ministerial office up and running. We had barely been sworn in when we were confronted with the 11 September attacks in the US and, three days later, the total collapse of Ansett leaving people and freight stranded all over the Territory. They were testing times for a new government but they did prepare us well for the time ahead in the sense that things really could not get much tougher.
I mention Gerard Butler, whom Michael Field recruited to my office as Chief of Staff, and Tony Mayell, then head of the Tourist Commission, and Rod Nelson from Transport and Works Aviation for their tremendous commitment and support during those trying times. By the year’s end, we had Virgin locked in assisting to fill the aviation hole left by Ansett.
We gradually pulled a strong team together in the minister’s office. I mention Mary Fall, who had come to us from Queensland, who became an outstanding ministerial advisor in addition to her media role. She remains one of the most loyal, strong, hardworking and committed staff I have ever had the privilege to work with.
In Education and Training, Rob Picton, Elizabeth Desailly and Peter O’Hagan combined to form a strong and informed advisory team. I always appreciated their input on specific matters: Elizabeth, on higher education and vocational training; Rob, for his long experience as a teacher in remote indigenous schools, and his enlightened approach to education and schooling; and Peter for his input across employment and training in general. The strength and support from these three, plus Chief of Staff, Alf Leonardi, allowed us to pull together middle schools, tackle illiteracy in indigenous schools, implement proper secondary education into remote indigenous schools, and commence the process towards the remote area learning partnership, an initiative that commenced with Rob Picton, and one of the most empowering initiatives, I believe, I undertook as a minister.
On the department side, I appreciate the efforts of Ken Simpson, Ken Davies, Sue Murphy, John Hassad in Employment and Training, and Margaret Banks who, as Chief Executive, strongly embraced all of our reform processes. She pushed as hard as us, alongside the minister’s office, to implement them.
In relation to implementing secondary education in remote Indigenous communities, I pay tribute to the singular efforts of George and Robyn Hewitson at Kalkarindji, who refused to be deterred in their efforts to produce the first Year 12 graduates in a remote indigenous community. Their persistence opened the door to opportunity for their three graduates but, more importantly, by showing us all what was possible. Their diligence and hard work has led to substantial and sustained growth in Year 12 graduate numbers on the back of their pioneering efforts coming from schools right across the Territory.
In October 2002, I became Treasurer. The Chief Minister discussed this early in the year. Whilst I readily agreed, it was with some trepidation and reluctance, because I had, for all my working life to that point, been able to avoid responsibility for any monetary, financial or budgeting business, which I had always found a daunting prospect. I was understandably nervous about my ability to get on top of Treasury as a minister. It was a process that did, indeed, take time. From day one, however, I was wonderfully supported by the Under Treasurer, Jennifer Prince, and Treasury staff.
Jennifer was a tolerant, patient and understanding teacher, and instilled the same qualities in each of her staff. Jodie Kirkman always knew where the money was and, most importantly, where it had gone. John Montague was astute custodian of Territory Investments, and I enjoyed his company on investment trips to Singapore and interstate. Craig Vukman and Ivan Basei in Revenue battled bravely prior to the budget each year to try to get me to understand the detail and mechanics of obscure revenue raising measures. Most times, due credit to them, I did finally get to understand most of it. I also appreciated the efforts of Linda McKenzie and Peter Caldwell, a long-serving senior Treasury official whom I will always hold in the highest regard.
Of all the jobs I did as a minister, Treasury was the best because it inevitably placed you in the middle of everything government was doing. Although relatively small in terms of staff numbers, Treasury, by the nature of its work, the high levels of skills and experience, the depth of intellectual clout within it, sits alongside the Department of Chief Minister as the engine room of government. When you stand around with a group of Treasury officials, you are surrounded by more degrees than a thermometer. That is the depth of talent they have there.
I was also fortunate to see the Treasurer’s job from all sides: from a struggling economy in 2001, 2002, and 2003 to a robust and growing economy over the past five years. I remain more proud of my efforts in Treasury than of any of my other achievements because of the challenge, the learning and personal development required to get on top of the job. Treasury staff are a special breed. They work hard, particularly in the run-up to the budget. They play hard when they get the opportunity. It was a special privilege to work with them.
With the retirement of Peter Toyne I became Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, a role I had played as shadow minister for five years in the lead-up to the 2001 election. As with Treasury, I learned much about the law, its enforcement, court processes, and the delicacy of that relationship between the executive and the judiciary. My thanks to Chief Executive, Greg Shanahan, a home town boy made good; and Terry Dreier, the Justice numbers man who knew where the money was and did not like parting with it. I particularly enjoyed the inevitable mental sparring matches with Terry’s very dry and combative sense of humour whenever we got around the conference table. Terry will retire soon and I wish him and his partner all the best for the future.
I was pleased when John Daulby came into Justice to head up Community Corrections following a distinguished career in our police force. John is a terrific fit to strengthen and grow our community corrections efforts. I am convinced he will make a big and positive difference.
Kevin Raby came to us from South Australia. He has provided strong leadership to our prison officers as Superintendent of Darwin prison. I trust he, too, will have a long and successful career with Justice.
Elizabeth Morris was a great support. I always appreciated her input across Racing, Gaming and Licensing, as well as her knowledge of law and legal process in general.
Within the minister’s office, I was fortunate to inherit young Michael Cook and Marita from Peter Toyne’s office, and Lisa Coffey from the department came as a legal adviser. I thank each of them for their support and advice. It was a very busy time but we managed to have some fun along the way.
Up until this time there has been one strong constant in the office, Alf Leonardi, whom I have known since prior to my election in October 1990. Alf was a terrific manager. He chose staff with great care. He looked out for their development needs and he built a close knit, hard-working and tremendously supportive team. I thank Alf for all the hours he put in, his people skills, his perception, and for leaving his NT News on my desk each morning. I never felt less than 100% supported by all of the staff and I thank Alf for that. Michael became Chief of Staff when Alf went across to the Chief Minister and he, Marita and Lisa remain with the current Attorney-General.
Andrew Blakey with his network of business contacts across the NT, Shelly Priore, Tiani, Carly, Kristen, Carol, and Tracey were others who gave unselfishly in the best interests of the office and, with the exception of Kristen and Tiani, each are still with the government all these years later. I thank them, I wish them well, and I still miss Tracey’s cups of tea.
To be effective as the minister requires not only a great commitment in terms of personal hard work but close team work in the minister’s office and a close and collaborative relationship with the minister’s office, the chief executive and senior management of the agency. For much of my time as the minister, Alf Leonardi was the key coordinator of our activities at any one time and the key to those relationships being effective across the different agencies that we worked with. I learned so much from Alf in our time together. I will always value his loyalty and friendship.
There is one other person to thank for my ministerial career and that is former Chief Minister, Clare Martin. In February 1999, I was surprised but absolutely delighted when Clare invited me to be her deputy when it was clear that she had support for the leadership following Maggie Hickey’s resignation. It was the beginning of a trusting partnership that was to last almost nine years - not bad in political life these days - and a leadership team that took us through the 2001 and 2005 elections. I thank you, Clare, for the trust you placed in me and for the tremendously high quality of the working relationship we were able to share.
One other key to a minister’s effectiveness is the drivers downstairs, Gary, Thor, Yani, George and, more recently, Ben, and the others, for years they have been delivering ministers safely to and from their destinations. You simply could not do the job without them. I thank them for their efforts. It is a tremendous relief to know you are going to get there and get back safely and not have to worry about where the place is. They do it all for you.
One of the most difficult parts of stepping down from the ministry is the immediate loss of those intensely supportive relationships with staff. It is immediately offset by the opportunity to resume a more normal and balanced lifestyle with your partner.
Politician’s partners do it tough. They sacrifice time with their partners in the interests of the job. They are rarely thanked and acknowledged and it would not be possible to effectively carry out the job without the full support of your partner.
Jennifer has for years put up with my constant absences from home during my time as a minister. I cannot say she never complained. She did - and loudly - each Sunday night when we drove to the airport for me to come back to Darwin. However, she supported me 150% in the job. I will be forever thankful for that and for her love and loyalty. We are now enjoying much more time in our home in the electorate. I say to Jennifer, hang in there. I am determined to make up in the future for those prolonged absences from home over the past six and a bit years.
In case this speech is misconstrued in any way as a farewell speech, I say it is. It is a farewell speech but not from this parliament. It is a farewell speech to my former life as a minister and signals a return to my former, former life as the local member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to talk about a number of issues very important to my electorate of Millner. We have had some significant monsoonal rain through this week. We know how wet it was yesterday. It was a good, old fashioned Wet Season downpour. We have all seen the pictures of flooding in various parts of Darwin. Flood waters affected both Ludmilla and Millner Primary Schools in my electorate.
Acting Principal of Ludmilla, Tony Clegg, reports that flooding in his school was restricted to the car park. I hope to visit that site tomorrow to inspect it for myself. I was fortunate enough to get time this morning to visit Millner Primary School which was not so lucky to make a firsthand assessment of the situation. I spent some time with the Principal, Terry Quong, and Bronwyn and Pam, teachers from Transition.
Terry Quong and his staff at Millner Primary School are doing a fantastic job. We are very lucky to have such a dedicated team teaching the children of Millner. Terry showed me the aftermath of yesterday’s flooding of the three classes. These three classrooms are all occupied by the Early Childhood group; some 54 youngsters are affected by the flooding. Those students have been temporarily relocated to the studio. Terry Quong estimates it will take about two weeks to get things back in order. I am committed to doing whatever I can to help the school work through this setback.
I congratulate Terry Quong and the staff of Millner Primary School for the professional way they have handled this challenge. The Education minister has given an undertaking that we will do whatever it takes to fix the problems affecting Millner School and Ludmilla School in terms of future flooding. I say to the residents of Millner and the teachers, the parents, the children who have been affected by these two incidents that we are on the job and we will attempt to fix the problem as soon as possible.
Millner Primary School is a fantastic primary school. This year, the school has a vision: Building Respect and Achieving Together. They will be working towards this vision in 2008. Some of the innovations for 2008 include the National Accelerated Literacy program; Millner Studio for Dance and Music including a new Year 4 Music Learning program; and a Family Group program.
Some of the ongoing exciting and highly successful initiatives from 2007 are the Healthy Eating program; Small Steps program; School Chaplaincy program; Gateways to Literacy program; Peer Tutoring Reading program; Minmarama Play Learn program; Indonesian Language program; arts program; singing and instrumental; dance program including The Beat and completion of the $1m hall refurbishment which is an election promise. I look forward to being there once this is completed. I know the working group from the Millner School Council has come up with the designs in conjunction with Terry Quong and his staff, and are doing a fantastic job of ensuring that that $1m is spent on an environmentally friendly design for the benefit of Millner Primary School.
I attended a magnificent function called the Ludmilla Neighbourhood Connections which I was heavily involved with and am a member. More than 200 adults and children came to the Ludmilla neighbourhood Christmas party held at Ludmilla Primary School. This highly successful event was the result of a group of long-term residents approaching me with an idea of creating a more connected and friendly neighbourhood.
I acknowledge the Ludmilla residents who helped plan the event, gave their support or helped on day: Gretchen Ennis, Rod Balaam, Debbie Hudson, Robyn Hopkins, Anne Lardi, Mary McAlpine, James Gaykamangu, Peggy and Valda Gaykamangu, Mary Searle, Mike Purcell, Danielle Taylor, Gonnie Keogh, Kris Keogh, Bill Searle, and all the others too many to mention.
I was pleased to make a donation for the event. A big thank you to the Jape Homemaker Village, the Jape family, and Darwin International Airport for their donations which ensured there was plenty of food and drinks, lots of craft activity, presents for the kids, and a jumping castle. Isobel and David Gawler worked to have the Bagot Victory Church Choir perform. Leah Flanagan and her band entertained, as well as the Gaykamangu family dancers. The NT Music School provided the sound. Staff from Anglicare manned the barbecue and kept the food coming –a great effort. Thanks to Stefanie Bradley, Gavin Coehn, Trish Ross, Tina Kelly, Ruth Amerasekera, and Russell Wilson from Chris Natt’s office who provided the barbecue. Thank you, Chris and Russell. Thanks also to Ludmilla Primary School Principal, Helen Southam, Marnie Richards and Noel Johnson.
I performed the happy job of being Santa with my Santa’s helper, Mike Purcell. We gave out many goodies to excited children, including gifts from the Fred Hollows Foundation, which did a fantastic job providing presents for a wonderful event. Saskia Strange from Kidsafe helped with craft activities, and Peter Kearns of SIDS and Kids chipped in to help. It was a pleasure to work with the residents group and see some real community spirit in action. More community-based activities are planned in the future. Ludmilla Neighbourhood Connections is about bringing strong communities together. I look forward to being a part of that.
Finally, I would like to talk about a great Territorian and local legend in Rugby League. This person I will pay tribute to was a public servant who recently retired after serving for 27 years in the Northern Territory. It is very important that the House recognises public servants who have made a significant contribution. It is with pleasure that I acknowledge 27 years of meritorious service to the Territory by Arthur Leslie Boland. I am sure all parliamentarians will join me in acknowledging Arthur’s contribution and achievements.
Arthur’s NT Public Service career commenced in 1980 when he arrived in Darwin from Victoria to work in the Public Service Commissioner’s Office as an Industrial Advocate. He is still remembered by many in IR industry circles for his memorable line during negotiations with unions: ‘What more do you want; you get paid every fortnight, don’t you?’. I am sure many union officials would remember this as well. Arthur is well-known throughout the public service for his industrial relations skills, and was instrumental in some earlier reforms led by the then Public Service Commissioner, David Hawkes, in the 1980s.
Arthur joined the newly-established Department of Correctional Services in 1984 and then the original Department of Health and Community Services in 1986, with the amalgamation of a number of agencies including Corrections.
There is at least one determination that I know of that Arthur signed in 1985 as a delegate of the Public Service Commissioner which is still in use today. That determination relates to on-call arrangements for specialist IT technicians. It also happens to be in my portfolio as Minister for Corporate and Information Services.
Arthur might best be remembered for in recent times, in which he was a crucial player, and which also relates to my current portfolio, is the eventual formation of the DCIS, the Department of Corporate and Information Services. Through his forceful reputation as an industrial guru, in 1998 Arthur was picked to be a key advisor to the subcommittee of the deputy secretaries who were charged with establishing a model for a central corporate support unit. This then evolved into the DCIS as we know it today. This group also included Sarah Butterworth, who went on to be the DCIS CEO for five years; Ken Simpson, now the Public Service Commissioner; and Graham Symons, the current CEO of DCIS.
When the formation of DCIS was announced on 14 October 1998, the department really consisted of just three people: Arthur Boland, Sarah Butterworth and Ken Simpson, who was the DCIS General Manager and oversaw IT outsourcing. I am told that this gang of three would meet each day at 5 pm in the conference room of what was then the Department of Transport and Works office in the Carlton building, still known as the Beaufort to long-term Territorians. There they would plan the next steps in the formation of a new department. The challenge this group faced was not insignificant.
They were tasked with building a new department to service all NT government agencies’ corporate service requirements and have it functioning by the first week of December, essentially, build a new department in six weeks – no mean feat by any measure. This target was achieved and Arthur’s energy and determination were major contributing factors. In those early days, Arthur had the unenviable task of reconciling the list of people from agencies who were coming or not coming to the new agency of DCIS. He was known as the ‘keeper of the list’ by both Ken and Sarah. Even to this day, when they meet socially, they greet each other with, ‘Don’t mention the list’!
The shared services model for delivery of corporate services in the Northern Territory has often been described as the envy of other jurisdictions. Much of the success DCIS enjoys today is a tribute to the foundations laid by Arthur and his senior colleagues in those early years. True to his commitment to see a project through, Arthur stayed on in DCIS to see all that effort achieve a modicum of success. Arthur has been a key contributor to the DCIS management board in the 9 years he has worked with them. During this time, he racked up an impressive list of achievements, too many to mention individually, and was respected by his colleagues and staff. Arthur has always been available to provide advice and assistance to not only his staff, but also to the broader public sector. His vast knowledge and years of experience in the Public Service Commissioner’s Office ensured his skills did not lie idle in one agency.
Whilst I am talking about Arthur as an important employee in the Northern Territory government, I must also refer to Arthur’s life outside work, in particular his involvement with Rugby League as a referee. This is where I first came to know of Arthur Boland. Arthur has been an avid sportsman all his life. I am told that he often stated that sport is really a microcosm of life; I agree with him. He often used sporting analogies in his working life, and took an active interest in developing the talent of young employees placed under his stewardship. He deplored the term ‘mentoring’ and preferred to be seen in the role of coach where, with both stick and carrot, he brought out the very best in the people who worked with him. I believe the term ‘captain/coach’ would be more appropriate as he was not shy to remind those who had the most stripes. Despite this, he engendered a fierce sense of loyalty in those who worked with him.
For those who knew Arthur well, I am told he always believed that you should enjoy what you do and have fun at work. Perhaps what he will best be remembered for is his keen wit, his frank and fearless advice, his larrikin sense of humour and the friendships he takes with him.
It is also well known that Arthur was not one for self-aggrandisement. Arthur’s last day with the public service was 24 January 2008, and I believe that he bowed out exactly as he intended, with a quiet drink and repartee with a few friends. So, Arthur, 27 years of public service to the people of the Northern Territory is a huge testament. Congratulations and all the members of this House join with me and the government in thanking you for your service.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, today is General Business Day for parliament. It gives the opportunity for the opposition and Independents to put forward motions and to propose legislation. As usual, we do not anticipate any of our proposals will be accepted because that is just the nature of what happens in this place. However, it is very rewarding when you receive communication from a member of the public quickly after you have finished talking about something you have delivered with passion and believe strongly in. It is very rewarding to hear from the public that they were listening and want to put their comments forward.
I have received an e-mail this evening, as did the Chief Minister, from Sandra Wanka. I have rung Sandra to ask if she minds if I read this into the Parliamentary Record. She is very happy for me to do this. I will read what Sandra has written to me this afternoon:
I hope the government realises how discriminatory this legislation is; how it requires little to change it and how simple those changes would be. I would like to put that on the Parliamentary Record. I am very glad to have done that for Sandra.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight, I would like to recognise a number of people in my electorate who received Australia Day awards, particularly the Student Citizens Awards. At the Douglas Daly School, young Ben Hart received an award. Ben was nominated and received the Student Citizen Award for showing excellent leadership qualities and for being a strong and positive role model in the school. Last year, Ben was the most senior student in Year 4 and his mateship towards other students was to be commended. Congratulations to you, Ben.
At the Katherine School of the Air, Amy Harding was given the award this year. The middle school teachers, the ESL Coordinator and the Librarian put forward Amy Harding as the Middle School Australian Citizen of the Year. Amy is an active member of the student representative council and has taken on the role of the chairperson for the past few years. Amy participates in all aspects of the school and shows outstanding leadership as well as respecting her peers. Amy is an exemplary student working consistently beyond her year level.
Amy received high distinctions in the New South Wales Maths and Science Competition held in 2007. She is also a successful and active member of her local community working with the primary school at Mataranka to complete a leadership project as part of her personal learning. She negotiated to organise, choreograph and prepare a group of students from Mataranka to attend the National 2007 Eisteddfod in Darwin. She is committed to sporting groups, such as the Mataranka Magics, the junior secondary netball team. She actively participates in local camp drafts and the polocrosse team. She also volunteers her time to take younger children trail horse riding on the weekends. She raises funds in her local community for associations such as the Canteen Cancer Foundation, Make a Wish Foundation and the Canberra excursion that they went on. She has sound communication and leadership skills. Congratulations, Amy, for all your work and dedication.
At the Nganmarriyanga School, Renee Modikin received the Australia Day Award this year. Renee excels in maths, she finishes work quickly, and stays on task. She is quick to help clean up the classroom, is well-mannered and an excellent role model to her peers. Congratulations, Renee.
The Pine Creek School Achiever Award was won by Jasmyn Isaac. This was for her citizenship and positive attitude to all areas of school work. Pine Creek is a great community and it is good to see Jasmyn doing so well.
Martina Balmana was given the award for being an excellent role model to all other students in her attitude to school work and her positive behaviour. Congratulations, Martina.
Other students from my electorate receiving recognition for their conscientious attitude to school work and their positive contribution to their school, teachers and fellow students were: at the Berry Springs Primary School, Lilly Thompson and Nina Ruzsicska; at the Mataranka Primary School, Darcie Boon; at the Middle Point School, Nelissa Downs; and at Woolianna Primary School, Donna Foster. Congratulations to all those students. They have obviously done a lot of work this year and it is great to see that they are receiving recognition for that.
Regarding the Local Government Awards, this year at Mataranka, the Citizen of the Year was won by Clair O’Brien. In the brief four years since Clair made her home in Mataranka community, she had been an active and useful member of its society at social, business, environmental, and governance level. She has made considerable, noteworthy contributions and given outstanding service to Mataranka and the surrounding communities during this time.
To summarise her service:
she has been the Chair of the Roper River Landcare Group, a position she has held since 2004. Under her leadership, the Roper River Landcare Group was successful in winning the 2007 NT Landcare Community of the Year Award. Congratulations on receiving that award;
Congratulations to Clair. She has a great bed and breakfast establishment. I encourage anyone who is down that way to make use of the great little spot she has.
At Mataranka, the Youth Citizen of the Year was won by Jessica Sullivan. Jessica has received the Northern Territory Administrator’s Medal for her efforts for the 2007 year in the Rivers Region clusters of schools. These awards recognise students who make a significant contribution to the school and the broader community through outstanding citizenship, whilst also achieving academic excellence. During 2007, Jessica made a large contribution in organising the end-of-school concert, prize giving and barbecue. In confirmation of her eligibility for being awarded the Administrator’s Medal, Jessica had a leadership role at the school and was identified as being influential in calming situations that had the potential to become tense. Jessica’s willingness to be involved in activities like Anzac Day, the NT Eisteddfod, and the Mataranka Magic netball team also contributed to her selection in the 2008 Mataranka Youth Citizen of the Year.
The Community Event of the Year at Mataranka was won by the Mataranka Toad Population Limiters. Since the Toad Population Limiters started in September 2006, Bradley Lewis, Thynne MacFarlane and around 10 others have sought to minimise the impact of toads on the environment around Mataranka. Between October and December 2007, 704 toads had been removed from the Mataranka township. In 2007, 4420 toads were collected compared to 3724 collected in 2006. Over a three-month period, 547 were collected from one private residence and, during one hour of one night in January 2008, they collected 174 toads from the Northern Cement lime plant. Their efforts have been recognised by the Kimberley ToadBusters and FrogWatch NT and have been displayed on those organisations’ websites.
To continue on with the Australia Day Awards, I attended the ceremonies at Nauiyu community at Daly River. The Citizen of the Year was won by Mark Casey who is with the NT Police there and does a fabulous job. He lives on the community and is available for assistance day or night to help keep the community safe and secure. This can be a thankless job when dealing with family and people well known to you. Mark is very good at talking to people, providing local knowledge and assistance to diffuse any situation that arises. He assists the police force by conducting cross-cultural training to new police recruits visiting the community. Mark has contributed to the community as council president for the past few years. He has continued to assist the community and be a friendly presence around the town. Congratulations to you, Mark, well deserved.
The Young Citizen of the Year was won by Joel Mullins. He is a local boy who grew up in Nauiyu. He has shown initiative to do his training as an Essential Services Officer for the community. This involves a 24 hour emergency service, in addition to the day-to-day management of the powerhouse and related activities. It is encouraging to see a young Aboriginal male taking up this position, and managed with minimal mentoring. Joel was available straight after Cyclone Helen to begin the cleanup of the community and assist in restoring the water supply. So, congratulations to you, Joel. You are certainly a role model for other young men at the community, and continue the work.
The Community Event of the Year was won by Strong Spirit, Strong Body. This targeted the children from St Francis Xavier School and was aimed at education about drug and alcohol abuse. Assistance was received from the Drugs and Alcohol Unit in Darwin, and the Red Dust Program who made a CD around the theme. As a form of evaluation, the children did a fence painting exercise. Bags were printed by local artists. Girls Business and Boys Business sections were held with the older children at the Nauiyu Health Clinic. Congratulations to all who participated in that. Thanks to St Francis Xavier School for their leadership in that area.
At Timber Creek, the Citizen of the Year Award was won by Chantal Fischer. Chantal supports every cause, function and event in Timber Creek. She went out of her way to assist individuals and community groups where possible. No job is too daunting for Chantal, no event is too much of an imposition to her personal life. Chantal contributed to the social wellbeing of residents through openness and her approachability and to the physical wellbeing of the town through her support and encouragement of community activities. She added to the camaraderie of the community by contributing to and being available for every sausage sizzle, flea market, cricket match and town picnic. Congratulations to you, Chantal.
The Junior Citizen of the Year was won by Mikey Smiler. He was given this award because he worked hard to ensure his education at school, as well as support his classmates and younger students to improve their education outcomes. Mikey supports the youth of Timber Creek as both a role model for individual achievement and as a leader by spending a lot of his time with his fellow students. So congratulations, Mikey, keep up the good work.
The Community Event of the Year was awarded to an organisation as a participatory group rather than an actual event. It was won by the Timber Creek Fire and Emergency Response Group. It is led by the indomitable Unit Captain, Steve Hennessy. The FERG Unit provides a high level of community service as well as support for community events. This team of volunteers carries out search and rescue services across the northern VRD and cannot be praised highly enough for their tireless and often thankless contribution to the safety and wellbeing of the Timber Creek residents and visitors. I was there for the handover of their new fire truck. They were given a lot of support from the local community, so thanks to them. They need to be recognised for their fundraising sausage sizzle and their social and sporting events. So, congratulations to all members of the Timber Creek FERG group. It is an organisation which we should all try to support throughout our communities.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to talk about two matters related to Corrections here in the Territory. One relates specifically to the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. I will start with that. I should preface my remarks by saying that I raise these matters in parliament tonight because I have been asked to do so and the reasons, I believe, will become apparent.
Following from a police investigation into an Ombudsman complaint about the Alice Springs Correctional Centre well over a year ago, I ask the minister: why has the community support program continued to practice, I am advised inappropriately, with work programs that do not support or promote the community, or to put it another way, do not do or have not done, at least on one occasion, what they are intended to do?
I am advised that, as recently as late last year, prisoners working in the community support program were taken to the Alice Springs Prison Officers Social Club to clean it up. That club is not a part of government. As I understand it, the club is independently and separately run by prison officers. It has been put to me, and in the absence of any material to the contrary I agree, that cleaning up the social club by prisoners is improper and something that does not meet the objectives of the community support program about which members have talked in this parliament before.
In Alice Springs, the community support program sees prisoners doing a range of activities for the community: cleaning up the river, helping senior Territorians with their maintenance of their homes, and so on. It was never intended to support private organisations and, in particular, the prison officers social club. I seek leave to table an e-mail dated 21 December 2007 which I am advised was addressed to everyone at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre from the president of the social club thanking the community support program staff and the work parties for attending the social club to cleanup the rubbish and the area after a function was held for off duty prison staff and invited guests.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: This does raise, in a fundamental way, the question of whether it is appropriate. Does the minister know about it? What action has he taken, if he does know? What assurances can he give the people of the Northern Territory that the prisoners of the Territory are not being used in ways that are, I believe, on any analysis, improper. I stress that this is based on information that has been provided to me.
I further understand that senior management have been given guidelines as to what the community support program is intended to do. I ask whether the minister is familiar with those guidelines and whether, in his view, the work I have described being undertaken by Territory prisoners in Alice Springs is appropriate. If it is not appropriate in his view, I ask what on earth he proposes to do about it, and whether there has been any investigation into it. If there has not been, I and others would urge him to undertake one, or to ensure one is undertaken.
These are matters of concern. I am advised that the Department of Correctional Services does have the guidelines, and we ask the obvious question: why haven’t any of the recommendations from the guidelines been implemented? That is the first issue in relation to the Alice Springs Correctional Centre.
The second issue relates to the Integrated Offender Management System, referred to as IOMS. This goes back some time. One of the former Attorneys-General, Peter Toyne, referred to IOMS on a number of occasions, both in the Chamber and in Estimates. I will read extracts from what Dr Toyne said in parliament on 24 August 2006. He said:
I say again, Dr Toyne made these remarks on 24 August 2006.
Dr Toyne went on:
In response, on 24 August 2006, I said:
I also said that he would forgive me if I remained a little sceptical because I had heard him talk in parliament before about how and when IOMS would be implemented. That is the background. It is the case that Dr Toyne and the government started to talk about IOMS from about 2002.
I am advised that the Department of Justice was allocated around $18m in 2004 to implement, over a four year period, recommendations from the review of the Northern Territory Correctional Services Adult Custodial Operations Report, a report which we discussed in this parliament. It was a little controversial with the Prison Officers Association which had some less than flattering comments to make about it.
Recommendation 62 of that report was to purchase an electronic integrated offender management data system. I understand that Correctional Services purchased an Integrated Offender Management System - that is IOMS - from Queensland Corrections for approximately $1.3m over 18 months ago and has spent further funding on its introduction. I also understand that a lead manager in control of the project has recently resigned. I am led to believe that, due to conflict with executive management within the agency, he leaves the supporting team in a state of disarray.
The questions, as a result of recent information that has been provided to me and tracking the history of IOMS, are as follows: why has the project been stalled, and why has it not been rolled out to staff running the centres? Is the budget for the system overspent by $0.5m and, if so, why is the system not in use and why not, after spending so much money to date? And further, why has the government spent a large amount of money which is clearly not helping staff at the centres that would enable them to support and provide a clear sentence plan for inmates? I ask those questions in parliament tonight because they are important questions, and I have been asked to do so.
In respect of IOMS, clearly I will be following this matter up at Estimates. However, I now formally ask the minister for Justice to answer the questions I have put in respect of IOMS. I suspect he will not. Government has form when it comes to not answering questions. Whether they are asked by opposition in this Chamber during Question Time or, indeed, invariably, in my case at least, not responding to correspondence.
I can only hope that by raising this matter in parliament and that by circulating the Hansard of the matters I have raised tonight to prison officers around the Territory, that that might lead to some pressure or at least a level of embarrassment on the minister’s part that might prompt him to address these issues, that is, IOMS and, what appears on the information with which I have been provided to be a level of impropriety with the community support program.
I will leave it at that. We will live in hope that the minister will respond in due course. He can rest assured that I will be distributing this information to people with a very clear interest in it.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITIONS
Proposed Council Reforms
and Amalgamations
Proposed Council Reforms
and Amalgamations
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 320 petitioners requesting the proposed council reform amalgamations be delayed.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- We the undersigned request that the government delay the introduction of the proposed council reforms and the amalgamations proposed for the Northern Territory because it will be to the detriment of the people of the Daly River area; it will have an adverse affect on local employment; and there has been a lack of adequate consultation.
Amalgamation of Councils
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 62 petitioners relating to the amalgamation of councils. This is similar to previous petitions presented to the Assembly.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed; petition read:
- We the undersigned request that the government stop the forced amalgamations of our councils now.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Power and Water Corporation Apprentices
Power and Water Corporation Apprentices
Mr VATSKALIS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, since coming to power in 2001 the Labor government has been committed to overcoming the skills shortage that bedevils the Territory economy and is a problem for the economies of the nation and many nations across the western world.
Through programs such as the Jobs Plan, we have focused efforts to provide training, skills and work for young Territorians. Not only are we funding support for employers of apprentices and trainees, we have also taken on the training and skilling of young people directly. In fact, we have put our money where our mouth is.
I report to the House on a very successful program that has been skilling more and more Territorians. I refer to the apprenticeship program run by the Power and Water Corporation. Over the past seven years, the number of apprentices working with Power and Water has doubled. This is an achievement the government is very proud of. The Power and Water Corporation currently has 64 apprentices and trainees. Nine of these apprentices are directly employed by Power and Water, while 55 are employed by Group Training NT with the Power and Water Corporation as their host employer. Twelve new apprentices commenced with Power and Water Corporation in January.
The apprentices are employed across the Territory. The government believes it is important to ensure that skills and training are spread widely over the whole of the Territory. The breakdown of numbers across the Territory is: 42 in Darwin, three in Tennant Creek; six in Katherine; and 13 in Alice Springs. The apprentices are at varying stages of their apprenticeship. Once apprenticeships are completed, the graduates are either directly employed by Power and Water Corporation or given an opportunity to apply for vacancies.
The Power and Water Corporation provides an opportunity for apprentices and trainees to be skilled in a broad range of areas. They are studying various skills and trades:
Electro-technology (Systems Electrician) – 21 apprentices; Electro-technology (Instrumentation) - two apprentices; Electro-technology (Communications) - one apprentice; ESI Distribution (Power line) 24 apprentices; ESI Distribution (Cable Jointing) – two apprentices; Certificate IV in Business – one apprentice; Certificate III in Business – two apprentices; Certificate III in Plumbing – two apprentices; Certificate III in Automotive (Diesel Fitter) – three apprentices; and Engineering (Mechanical) – six apprentices.
These skills are transferable across the private sector as well. In addition to training young people who work in the government sector, we are also adding to the skills base of the Territory as a whole.
To broaden the apprentices’ knowledge and skills, Power and Water recently held forums in Alice Springs and Darwin for its apprentices focusing on training, health and safety, and team building activities. A highlight of the Darwin forum was a presentation by the federal member for Solomon, Damian Hale MP, himself a past apprentice, who recounted his experiences as an apprentice and as a coach.
We are also training our own to ensure we have people in place to deliver an $814m infrastructure program that will rebuild, expand and strengthen the essential services network across the Territory. This extensive program, the largest in Power and Water’s history, needs people to put into place. Not content to rely on flying in skills from other places, we are investing in developing and growing those skills ourselves. An example of growing our own is the high voltage transmission training program introduced into Power and Water. The Territory now trains its own high voltage line operators rather than relying on seeking these highly sought-after skills across the world.
As an indication of the quality of the young people we have attracted, and in the quality of the training provided, Power and Water apprentices have been successful in winning many awards. This has included Apprentice of the Year and Trainee of the Year in the annual Northern Territory Training Awards. I am very proud of the efforts of Power and Water and the apprentices and trainees we employ. This is a program which is aimed squarely at securing the long-term future of this community we live in.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. This is a good news story. I understand, however, that this was never an initiative of the government. This was, in fact, an initiative of those at Power and Water. Government, as this government does, came along, noticed it, picked it up and has, essentially, claimed it as its own. It is not the case, based on my understanding. In any event, it is a good news story. Training young Territorians is exactly what a government should be assisting and facilitating in any way it can. I thank the minister for his statement.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, last night in adjournment I spoke of a young 17-year-old who had gone through the Pathways program. He was not an apprentice with Power and Water, but illustrates what you are talking about. He has finished his NTCE, but he is also this year starting his third-year apprenticeship with Jarvis Ford. It is great to think that a young person can go through their schooling, do their NTCE, but come out at the end having also completed part of their apprenticeship. That is a good program. I hope you get it in action in Darwin as well.
Now that you have such a huge building program going on in remote communities, why not ensure that young Territorians living in remote communities can link into this Pathways program? If you are providing secondary schooling in remote communities, it would be much more interesting if students could start an apprenticeship. I urge you to do so.
I congratulate Group Training NT, which does a great job in ensuring they place apprentices around the Territory and follow up and ensure they succeed. It is hard to be an apprentice. We have heard many stories of how young apprentices start off but get overcome by the amount that is expected of them, and the attitude of some of the employees and employers. That is what is needed to ensure they eventually do succeed in their apprenticeship.
Yes, I agree; it is needed. The more we can do to get more young people involved in these two-way programs, the better.
Mr VATSKALIS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I agree with the member for Araluen; it is a good story. I also remind the member for Araluen that the Power and Water Corporation is a government-owned corporation. What Power and Water does reflects on the government. I am here to answer when bad things happen in Power and Water but also to tell people the good things the Power and Water Corporation does.
I am a very proud minister, and I have to admit I am very interventionist and I will ensure that Power and Water will continue their training program.
I was very impressed recently to read in the Centralian Advocate of 5 February that Reece Debney, Cameron Kahl and Cassius Romberg, 17- and 18-year-olds from Alice Springs, achieved three places as an electrician, a diesel mechanic and a linesman. I assure members that will continue with Power and Water.
With the big money coming for housing, one of the conditions for people who are applying for tenders will be that they will put in place proper arrangements to train indigenous people, in particular, in building and maintenance.
Palmerston Super Clinic
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, the Palmerston region has one of the Northern Territory’s fastest-growing populations with one of the highest proportions of young families in Australia. Even though a wide range of health services are already provided by the Department of Health and Community Services and the non-government sector from the Palmerston Health Precinct and surrounds, there are growing demands for more services and integrated health care in the region.
We know that there is a shortage of general practitioners in the region to deal with the growth of the population. After-hours services are limited, and many families have difficulty affording fees charged by GPs, with few practices bulkbilling to Medicare. In fact, the Solomon electorate has GP bulkbilling rates of 57.8%, well below the Australian average of 76.6%. The provision of GP services is primarily a federal government responsibility, and the Northern Territory government has continued to lobby the federal government for more bulkbilling and after-hours GP services for Palmerston.
I am, therefore, pleased to report to the House that, with the Rudd Labor government, we now have a federal government willing to join with us in cooperation and work together at bringing better health services to Territory families. In recognition of its growth and needs, Palmerston was the first super clinic to be announced by the new Australian government with a commitment of $10m.
I met with the federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, in January in Melbourne, where we agreed to immediately proceed with the development of the super clinic. This will build on the work started in 2006 with the Palmerston region through the Department of Health and Community Services’ Palmerston Regional Plan. Initiatives already implemented include the annual breast screening clinic at Palmerston, a new child and family health nurse at the Community Care Centre, and expanded allied health services at the precinct from Royal Darwin Hospital. An important next step is the development of a master plan for the health precinct.
Mr Alan Bansemer has been engaged by the department to develop this plan through a scoping study and has commenced meeting with stakeholders. I expect a formal report in April. Part of Mr Bansemer’s brief is to look at the new federal government’s commitment for funding for Defence Force families to access medical services as well - a very important election commitment by the Rudd Labor government.
The report will provide a framework for the super clinic development and for future health and community service developments in the Palmerston region. Staff in the Department of Health and Community Services and the Australian government’s Department of Health and Ageing will continue to work closely together to ensure the super clinic provides the highest quality services for the Palmerston region and streamlines access to health services.
The member for Brennan joined me in visiting two state-of-the-art super clinics in Melbourne’s satellite cities of Melton and Craigieburn earlier this month. The super clinics were very impressive and offered a range of specialist multidisciplinary clinics, which include doctors, specialists, a range of allied health professionals, as well as technological resources and integrated care services. We gained a strong understanding of the role a super clinic would play by providing appropriate urgent and coordinated care for people close to home rather than to the nearest hospital.
The other benefit of developing the Palmerston super clinic will be the flow-on reduction of demand on Royal Darwin Hospital’s Emergency and Outpatients Departments.
Government will be consulting closely with the local general practitioners to ensure the super clinic is complementary to the services they provide, bridging the gap between emergency care provided in the hospital and ongoing management of patients in the community ...
Mr Mills interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I know you do not like it, member for Blain, like the waterfront, you just do not like it, do you?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: The Palmerston super clinic has as its parameters: 24-hour urgent care services; chronic disease and complex care management services; enhanced outpatient services visiting from RDH; enhanced general services and allied health services; integrated primary health care with Danila Dilba; and, as I mentioned before, health services for families of Defence personnel.
We welcome the Australian government’s commitment to working with us to build a better primary health system for Territorians. We are also looking forward to working with the local community to ensure the super clinic meets their needs and is offering high-quality health services as quickly as possible.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the Health minister for his report today. It is great to see a newfound collaboration with the federal and the Territory government, and the blame game can stop. I do not know who the government is going to blame if it does not go right - probably this one.
While it is good news for Palmerston, we can be a bit suspicious about closing one clinic to make a political point to open the super clinic. There are no bulkbilling doctors in Central Australia. I know this report was focusing on Palmerston, but there is the broader Northern Territory to consider. I draw the minister’s attention to that. Time will tell about the relationship between the new federal Health minister and the Northern Territory Health minister. We hope it is a prosperous relationship and delivers better health services to the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. Anything that helps improve health services in Palmerston and the rural area will be welcomed by people in the rural area. I get worried when you say super clinics; it reminds me of super councils and I worry every night about those.
You also say scoping studies. I am still waiting for a scoping study on a regional waste facility - how many years ago? I have not heard any more since then. I love that word ‘scoping’. I also ask the minister if it is true that the eye clinic in Palmerston has been closed, or is not working from Palmerston any more. I have had a complaint that, once again, people in the rural area are suffering from a lack of services in that regard. Can the minister tell me if that is true? Would an eye clinic be part of this new super clinic? It is important for people in the rural area to know.
There is a lot of politics in the report you gave. Obviously, that is what is expected. Underneath it all it is something that we can all agree on: there is a need for improved health services in Palmerston and the rural area. From that point of view, I support what you are trying to do.
Barracade - Barramundi Research
Mr NATT (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I report on some very important research undertaken in monitoring the health of our barramundi stocks to ensure that fishing continues to be the lure of the Territory.
A study, known as the Barracade, involves research teams travelling to Corroboree Billabong, part of the sprawling Mary River system. Two holding nets are then run across the width of the channel to cordon off a section at one end of the billabong. These holding nets effectively block off or barricade a small section of the billabong in which the study is then undertaken. Once enclosed, nets of difference sizes are strung across the channel where barramundi travel. The nets are checked regularly and well into the night, with researchers recording various details about the fish caught. All barramundi are tagged and then released outside the cordoned-off area. The blocked off nets prevent these barramundi from escaping from the cordoned-off research area.
As the sampling nets continue to be checked the stock in the impound area reduces and researchers can then determine the overall number of barramundi in Corroboree Billabong. A scale is then taken from each barramundi caught and later, back in the laboratory, researchers count the growth rings, like growth rings on tree trunks, to determine the age of the individual fish. This is important research as Corroboree Billabong is a barometer of the health of the barramundi stocks in the Mary River system, and Shady Camp, one of our premier barramundi waterways.
To understand the reasons why, you need to appreciate the life cycle of the barramundi. After hatching, baby barramundi move into the high spring tides into the mangrove and wetland habitats. As the Wet Season comes to an end, and the floodplains begin to dry, juvenile barramundi migrate into the freshwater billabongs, such as Corroboree Billabong, and remain there for two to three years. After this time, most of the freshwater barramundi migrate to the ocean to breed. An annual audit of barramundi numbers at Corroboree Billabong provides a valuable insight into the health of the stocks throughout the entire Mary River system and beyond.
This world-class research has revealed that numbers of the fish in the system depends on many factors. It seems that it is not just how big the Wet Season is; the timing of the Wet Season is also important. The build-up of 2006-07 was very dry, with little rain prior to December. Consistent rainfall in the build-up, or early Wet Season, is thought to favour barramundi numbers and their growth. There is also a real trend involving interactions between the numbers of older fish in the billabong and the numbers of new recruits. In years when there are a large number of fish older than one year, we find only relatively small numbers of new recruits and vice versa. This cyclic trend is due to the fact that the larger barramundi are cannibalistic and can effectively wipe out a proportion of the next year’s crop. It is all part of the natural cycle.
Barracade 2007 showed that the average size of the barramundi was around 55 cm, slightly larger than the previous years. Researchers say that our barramundi stocks in Corroboree Billabong are in good shape, thereby ensuring that fishing continues to be the lure of the Territory. This is all part of the world-leading research being undertaken to ensure that our fish stocks remain healthy. Whether it is barramundi research, inventing gene tagging, intelligent tagging of jewfish to unlock details about their movement, mud crab studies, or the effects of catch and release fishing, our Fisheries scientists are working hard to ensure that the fishing experience available today continues into the future.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the report. Research is very important to allow us to have proper management systems to preserve our assets and to capitalise on the advantages that we have. I am sure members who enjoy their fishing would have heard the rain thundering on the roofs last night knowing that augurs well for a fishing season, and the barramundi are starting to move into the upper reaches. That is good news for this season. It also highlights the variable seasons. That is why it is necessary to have continuity of research efforts.
I would like to hear reference to the forward plan. It is not just a research effort now; to be effective, research needs to be systematic and sequential so that you have five-, 10-, and 15-year plans so you can compare apples with apples, otherwise it is just interesting data collected. You need that point of comparison. Could you also make comment on the survey which will support this data? That is the fishing survey mentioned at the AFANT AGM. Does that have a long-term, sequential, strategic plan so that you can compare apples with apples, that we have that forward projection?
All that you say reinforces the importance of research capacity in the Northern Territory, which leads me, obviously, to talk about your research properties across the Territory. What are the plans of government with regard to research in the primary industry sector in the Northern Territory? You have already made a move on one; there are many rumours about evaluation of existing assets: Coastal Plains Research Farm, Katherine, and Douglas/Daly. There are clearly plans afoot. You can call it a review in place, but we know this government’s form with reviews. The intent is already established: to construct a mechanism called a review process to deliver what you intend to do; and that is to close down our research capacity in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was not sure whether I was listening to a parliamentary version of Tales from the Tinny. That is what it sounded like. I have no problems with what the minister is saying. However, when a report is given which is reasonably technical, it would be nice to have a way of showing people on this side what the minister is going to talk about. We talk in fairly general terms about some of the issues in reports, but that was a fairly technical report. If we have an improvement in the way things are done here, then we can give a real response to what you are reporting. It would be nice to see the report, perhaps a day before, so that we could offer suggestions or constructive criticism. Being such a technical report, it is very hard to respond to everything that is in there, and it would be nice if we could have a bit of a warning of such reports.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ADVERTISING BILL
(Serial 139)
(Serial 139)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I speak on what is a simple and straightforward bill. The code proposed by the bill is not dissimilar to the Department of the Chief Minister’s own guidelines, Guidelines for Public Information Programs Funded by Government Agencies. It says in part, under the heading, ‘Avoiding misuse of public funds’, that:
mentioning the party in government or opposition by name (for example, the Labor government or the Mills opposition)
or
using the name of the Chief Minister to describe the government (for example, the Martin government)
should not occur. This, according to the guidelines, is ‘to avoid actual or perceptual misuse of public funds’. According to this guideline, the use of a pronoun to identify a government by relying on the identification of a persona at the head of government is an actual misuse of government funds or, expressed simply, you cannot use the names to identify government when you are using taxpayers’ funds.
This government will not let a silly little guideline get in the way in the heat of political battle. It does demonstrate the need for this bill.
In order to be fair in this, this is an issue that is breached more than it is adhered to on both sides. I believe it is time for a new approach, so that we can make some inroads into strengthening the integrity of the operations that we are conducting on behalf of Territorians.
All this demonstrates the need for this bill. It is clear from the government’s own abuse of their guidelines that they have no qualms about abandoning their standards when a political point is to be scored. That can be demonstrated. It is time to call in a watch dog, an independent umpire.
Last year, prior to the federal election, we saw the Territory government letterbox dropping, and buying advertising space - that is okay, but it was with taxpayers’ money - in a deliberate and politically-driven advertising campaign that was aimed at bolstering an Australian Labor Party federal candidate in the seat of Solomon. Mission accomplished - congratulations to Mr Hale. However, the point is that it can clearly be demonstrated that there was assistance provided for that campaign that was funded by the taxpayer, in clear breach of the standards that government has held as a way of determining how it administers and uses public funds.
This campaign was run against the $100 limit on the purchase of alcohol before you have to sign for the purchase. This is not a debate about whether that is a good policy or not but, rather, it is a debate about how the ALP government in the Northern Territory covertly used taxpayers’ money to purchase advertising behind a tissue-thin veil of public interest. I probably misused the word ‘covert’ - it was quite overt. This is the offending advertisement, and I use this to illustrate the point. It may not breach any issues of factuality; however, the issue of principle is challenged. If government was genuine in its adherence to the concern about the underlying issue and not the politics surrounding it, why do we not see an advertisement today – because, effectively, the law which government has found offensive has not changed - that says the Rudd government’s $100 takeaway alcohol laws do not work? Why do we not have that, which quite clearly illustrates the political intent behind the running of this taxpayer-funded advertisement? There cannot be a defence mounted that would erode that glaring inconsistency in the application of public funds to achieve, sadly, a political end.
Before members over there get too excited and say: ‘Oh, yes, but you have done it too’, that is the point. It has to stop and we have to find a better way of dealing with this so that we can make some inroads into strengthening the perception that we have even of ourselves and our operation in this Chamber in the best interests of Territorians. I recall what we say before we start this parliament each morning: to advance the best interests of Territorians.
Any reasonable inspection of this campaign could not but lead any reasonable person to conclude that the motive behind the campaign was aimed at nothing other than annoying people into voting against Dave Tollner. Some may argue that the Territory government achieved its intended outcome - perhaps with the assistance of public money.
I have heard nothing from the Kevin Rudd government that this component of the intervention is going to be repealed. Certainly, there are moves by the Prime Minister to reinstate the fortress mentality of the permit system, and he has been quick to move on this. However, if the violence of reaction is a measure of passion by this Territory government then, surely, the singular most important issue in the Chief Minister’s mind must be this issue. They must be, as they demonstrated great concern about this. However, it was only for a season - a political season.
Since the day of the election, this government has remained utterly silent on the matter in all paid messages. I have seen no advertising at all about the policy, and the only public comment made by the Chief Minister has been free-to-air during interviews. This betrays in two ways that the government’s mindset is more politically- than issue-based. The first betrayal is the obvious one; that the timing and the volume of the advertising in relation to the federal election was obvious and, second, betrayal of the fact that most people in this government are actually not stupid. In fact, it was deliberately done.
Look at the guidelines which are within your domain to administer. You deliberately made the decision to breach your own strict guidelines to achieve a political purpose at taxpayers’ expense. The members of this government well understood that there is a raft of issues facing Territorians. These include child sexual abuse of epic proportions, infrastructure building issues, and chronic health and crime issues. If I am to understand this government, the most important thing occupying their mind is whether people are asked for their names and addresses when they buy some booze. From the position of an uninitiated observer, it certainly appears to be the top of my issue for the Territory government. However, of course, it is not. The government has stated its priorities clearly, and this is a mere peripheral issue, an issue that can be used for political capital, political mileage - but taxpayers pay for it. The only time it moves in from the periphery is when the federal election is on. Therefore, if it is a peripheral issue, why did it get the attention it did?
The reason, of course, is very simple. It was the only negative part of the Howard/Brough intervention that was felt in Darwin, and it presented a political opportunity to upset people in the urban electorate of Solomon. That is simple, because if this was actually their top-of-line issue, then they would be roundly criticised for being monumentally vacuous and, what is more, they would still be running the campaign if they were genuine in their concern.
Why are we not seeing a corresponding campaign aimed at the Rudd government? Simply because the political advantage is now zero. In fact, the impact would be in the minus area because, from the government’s perspective, their political mates and our masters in Canberra would not be pleased, and we want to develop a new, wonderful relationship. It is good to have a relationship but it has to be based on some integrity and honesty, and good principles. To run one case one day and a different one the next just to preserve the veneer of something seems to be very insincere. This gloss and hype about having a wonderful, new working relationship - well, nod, nod, wink, wink, whatever it takes, and the poor old taxpayer pays the bill. This dreadful inconsistency is observed by them and all of us.
This raises the additional issue as to where the Chief Minister’s mind is. Is it more aligned with a political party or the outcomes for the Territory? That is a discussion for another day and, I suspect, someday soon - perhaps sooner rather than later.
At last count, this government employed 70 people in its various propaganda or information departments. By way of example, the Department of Health employs 11 people focused on selling the message at a cost to the taxpayer of just under $1m. Amazingly, of the $874 961 spent on that section, $756 599 was in wages.
I now turn my attention to the bill. The bill is designed to do a simple thing: to introduce an independent eye to what the taxpayer is being asked to pay for. It is certainly not about creating some new bureaucracy, because the officers who are to address this issue already exist in two instances. The Auditor-General and the Ombudsman are officers both suited to this form of inquiry. The only addition will be a person who, from time to time, will be required to sit on the committee, and this person will be paid on a consultancy basis unless they choose to provide the service gratis. This committee will then either have the capacity to act upon complaint, or by its own motion, and where they find that the code of practice outlined in the bill is breached. Once a complaint has been investigated and determined as contravening the guidelines, the committee may order that the advertising be pulled or amended, or other recommendation that they determine to be correct.
Further, if the person who is found to have offended the code is not happy with the determination, they can challenge the matter in a local court. The committee will determine when it sits, if at all. Hopefully, the presence of this committee will have the effect of, as the Democrats used to say, keeping the illegitimate ones honest. The committee will have to report annually to the Speaker. As the Auditor-General is an officer of this parliament rather than an organ of government, it would be appropriate for that report to be in the Auditor-General’s annual report. In a perfect world, that would be a one-page report at most, because government decisions regarding advertising would not become a matter for complaint or investigation.
The real departure from the government’s policy is that this code will apply to members of parliament and ministers because, if this is passed, it will have the force of law. The reason there currently has to be a separate code for members and ministers is the public service, quite rightly, does not presume to dictate terms to the elected members and the office bearers of this place.
The defence the government put up to this announcement is that there are already guidelines in place. That defence has been nullified by their conduct and reinforces the need for an independent capacity to safeguard the interests of Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
(ASSAULTS ON PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES, AMBULANCE OFFICERS AND DRIVERS OF COMMERCIAL
PASSENGER VEHICLES) BILL
(Serial 136)
(ASSAULTS ON PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES, AMBULANCE OFFICERS AND DRIVERS OF COMMERCIAL
PASSENGER VEHICLES) BILL
(Serial 136)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I introduce and speak to a very simple bill. Therefore, it will not be necessary to provide a long speech. The thrust of the bill is to ensure that people who attack public servants, ambulance officers, or those people who drive our commercial passenger vehicles in the course of their duty, go to gaol. It also works very simply in that, once guilt has been determined, the sentencing authority must send that person to gaol for at least two weeks. The people we seek to protect include fire officers, police officers, ambulance officers, bus drivers, taxi drivers and those people who serve the public in the form of our public servants. All too often I have seen the news report that bus drivers, taxi drivers, police officers, nurses, or ambulance officers are being assaulted doing their jobs. Those people serve us and it is our duty as parliamentarians to serve them.
It was my original intention to limit the scope of this bill to public servants. However, I have chosen to follow the government’s lead and include commercial passenger vehicle drivers on this list. The reason that I have chosen to do this is that it is clear from government responses to the regular assaults on these people that they do need to be afforded greater protection. Consequently, they have been added to this bill in an effort to show that we believe that these people should be allowed to go about their business unmolested.
The difference between this approach and the approach espoused by government is that as a matter of policy we will not leave it up to the courts to determine the minimum sentence. I believe we, in this House, all want to see the sort of people who assault our public servants, ambulance officers and commercial drivers go to gaol. Let us grasp this and make it happen. This bill, should it become law, will make that happen. This bill is intended to say to a court, and to the public, that we consider those who serve us to be worthy of protection: a basic, minimum protection, and a consequence for a violation of the rights and responsibilities of those who are positioned to serve us.
The top end sentence for a common assault is one year imprisonment and if that assault satisfies one or more of the circumstances of aggravation listed in section 188 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty is five years imprisonment. This bill will ensure that there is a minimum penalty, and it has the effect of setting us apart from government which has been shy of setting mandatory minimums. We know that the government has no philosophical problem with the concept of mandatory minimum sentences as they have applied the principle to domestic violence legislation. Once a government has crossed the threshold of accepting mandatory minimum sentences, the only issue is not philosophical, but practical. The question then becomes to what should, or would, government apply mandatory minimum sentences? Taking the government’s cue, I brought this matter before the House because I believe that people who assault public servants, ambulance officers and commercial vehicle drivers should do time.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Local Government Reform Process
Local Government Reform Process
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That
- This Assembly call upon -
- (a) the Northern Territory government to stop the Local Government reform process; and
(b) the Chief Minister to outline a genuine community engagement strategy to regain the trust of Territorians before resuming the Local Government reform process.
Madam Speaker, this is an important matter. It needs to be made clear at the outset that there is no member here who is opposed to there being reform. That has been stated again and again. There is no problem with the proposition that there needs to be reform. I do not recall anyone at any public meeting, no matter how hostile those meetings were, in invariance with that central point. The objective is clear: we all need to have some improvements. The concern is the method that government has employed to bring about that reform. No more will the terms ‘open, honest and transparent’ or ‘consulting the community’ be used because those phrases have been tarnished by the actions of this government.
Everyone would agree that the number of current local government bodies for the population is deemed not to be efficient and there can be better ways. We are also aware that other jurisdictions have rationalised local government, although the intended reform in Queensland has been very controversial, perhaps for similar reasons as we are finding here. We are also aware, for its own reasons, that government did not include Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs in the reform, but it did include Litchfield and Tennant Creek.
Government is seeking to reduce the duplication of services - we can all agree with that – and, therefore, reduce costs in small communities with hub-type provision of services. It is also hoped that local employment will be generated by new councils contracting local people to undertake across shire services - a noble objective.
How we get to that point is the question, not the objective - not the necessity for reform, but how we get to that point. That is the issue. That is why we call upon government to stop and ensure that you can take people with you. The point of reform is not implementing something that you think is a good idea, you have to have the people there to enjoy, live and work through that reform, in fact and in reality. It is something that people need to live out in their own communities. If you have that disconnect you may have achieved an objective of one kind, perhaps satisfying a bureaucratic or a political objective, or a decision of Cabinet. That decision must be then lived out of the lives of those whom it affects directly.
I am not being churlish or trying to find a political point of difference here. I am concerned. I have been to those meetings and I worry that the implementation of a good intention will bear the opposite result because of the lack of engagement in a real way. The decision was made; the machinery was put into gear, and off it lurched across the paddock. When you went to the public meetings, the locals were concerned about some of the details of this reform process and how it would impact upon them. I have said right at the beginning that the minister should have stood in front of the community at the beginning and, basically, held their hand and reassured them that, ‘Though this may be a difficult process, let me put my case and let me argue it through’. The member for Nelson and I did not jump in, in the first instance, to organise a meeting to beat a political drum, to play some political game. The noise was growing very loudly in the community that there was growing concern. It took members on this side to step in to try to bring that issue together, so that we could at least move our way forward.
Anyone who went to that meeting – and I know the members for Daly and Goyder were at that meeting; I think you were at the first meeting, member for Goyder – saw that the intent was one to try to deal with the core problem. People had felt disconnected from what was being done, and they were naturally wary and concerned about change, particularly when change is applied to them, and when the word ‘consultation’ is applied in a sense of ‘Let us consult’. Folk are not silly. They know that when you put a proposition like that to them - once bitten, twice shy - what is really going on behind those words is: ‘We have decided we will go through the exercise, call it consultation and, once we have that part out of the way, we will still implement what it is we have intended to implement in the first instance’. So, the consultation becomes an exercise.
I say: ‘Good on those folk in the Litchfield Shire’. They are fortunate in that they have some very extraordinary leadership, particularly embodied in the member for Nelson, who is uniquely qualified to manage a leadership role at this time. He is the local member of the largest section being affected but, more importantly, he has an intimate knowledge of the workings of local government, particularly as it applies outside the urban areas. He did a good job, without a doubt.
There were questions that were not answered to the satisfaction of those who needed those questions answered. The horse had bolted, because it got off to a bad start, because the consultation was not genuine. That could be taken as insulting, but genuine in the sense that it was real. If you are going to ask someone a question, you have to hear what they say back to you. You do not ask someone a question, ignore what they say and then ask the next question to manage the issue for your own purposes. That is not a genuine consultation.
The messages were clear. My ears are open enough to be able to hear the way the questions were asked and the processes were implemented - and people could see that. They may not deem themselves to be experts in legislation, but they can tell when they are being misused and their sensitivities are being overlooked. That is why you need that person-to-person engagement; to stand before them and say it right at the outset. That did not occur.
The point is that there are a number of issues that have arisen with answers insufficient to be able to allay the concerns. What government has done is decide to cop some political heat, pull the pin on it, cut the members for Goyder and Daly some slack, take the political heat out of this, wear it, and then move on.
To be honest, you have to recognise that the unanswered questions and the improper processes that have been brought to light in that particular area that government has responded to equally apply - and perhaps in a greater measure - to those for whom I have concern, who do not have a strong voice and are not concentrated together or have good means of communication. It was focused on the Litchfield Shire and then government made its calculated, political decision and stepped back. That is where the efforts of consultation must be brought to bear in greater measure. If you want to leave a legacy, you leave that legacy in the lives of the people that you are making decisions for, not a legacy in, ‘We have achieved that and the people just did not get it, and we are ahead of our time’. You can make whatever excuse you like but, effectively, it is about you, it is not about them.
I do not want to go too far down the line without saying that I do believe that those who were involved in the reform process were genuine, but I believe there was a disconnect in the leadership role in connecting with the community. It is clear that change is very difficult to implement. In the Northern Territory I would counsel that, as the Litchfield Shire has demonstrated, ‘crash through or burn’ is not the approach that you take, particularly with this kind of reform. It is so important. If you have underlined the needs for these reforms, as you have clearly articulated, and no one disagrees, you have to then tread carefully and ensure that the people are onside.
Taking a different tack on this, I look back at Groote Eylandt. It is a different situation, but the most remarkable thing about the changes that occurred in the management of the alcohol problems in Groote Eylandt is that it took a long period of time. Compromise, discussion, arguments, changes – and I think there were 13 different versions of the agreement until they came to a point where they could find that common ground, and now you have something that is solid, that is good.
That is the sort of work we need to have. That is the sort of effort that is required to fight on the front line and to understand the people you want to do something to. You are actually doing it for them. They did not understand that. It looked like you have come up with a good idea in some office and you went out there and, basically, told them and ran some exercise to impose it. We need to recognise those issues, and stop it, out of respect to Territorians, so that we can see those benefits lived out in the lives of others.
In fact, it made me consider a number of similar versions of how these sorts of matters are played out and resolved in our community. You have probably all heard about victim/offender conferencing. Many would view the community is the victim here and the offender is the government. If you want to use the model of the victim/offender conferencing, which I believe is the model, if you are going to talk about consultation, to recognise that an offence has been committed in the minds of many Territorians, justified or unjustified in the minds of whoever is involved in this, the fact is there is a problem. Once you recognise that there is a problem, then you have a way of responding to that problem. If you see it in those terms, of a victim/offender conference, there has to be that level of honesty first up. What is the purpose of this activity? If it is reform, and those who feel that they are having the reform done to them think that it is not being implemented or they do not understand what the reform is about, then you have a fair bit of work to do before we can take matters to a different place.
Consultation is about bringing the two parties together, to have a proper talk about it, a real talk, look at each other and sort it out. I am very concerned about those who are remote in this matter, the people in the Barkly, and people in remote communities. What do they really understand about it? How empowered are they in fact, or is it another form of paternalism where something is deemed to be good and then it is done unto? That is the problem that we have seen again and again. Good ideas may be good, but they must connect to the people that you are seeking to improve their lot, their experience. That connection has been missed. Many words can be tossed around to describe that state of mind. The obvious one is arrogance. Arrogance means that your own view is regarded as superior. Therefore, there is little need to consult the view of another because you are confident in your own view.
Once you step down that path you are in serious trouble. Those that you seek to benefit will not be benefited because you have lost their trust. Once bitten, twice shy contains much meaning and people have had much done unto them, particularly those remote, and those who are not as focused and organised as those who were able to have the lines of communication established and the information flow in such as Litchfield. They had their own particular issues, but underlying that were the same problems. Those who have quieter voices, stretched lines of communication, and lack of information are the ones who really should concern a government that has spoken about these matters, about having great concern about those remote.
It is about them, it is not about you, and it is about what you want to do for them. Therefore, I am urging government to stop. To stop it and to ensure that there is a genuine community engagement process put in place before you then move forward. I will say it again: no one disagrees with the objective; it is the way in which it has been done.
You will say all sorts of things and point to all sorts of structures that were put in place. You will say that you put in transitional committees. I have heard it once, twice, 1000 times - transitional committees - but that did not meet the need on the ground. Sadly, if you are in government you develop first a defensive mindset and you will defend your position. But you know how a defensive person is: their ears become blocked to hearing what is coming from the other side. That is why I like to use the concept of victim/offender conferencing so that you can start to develop a hearing capacity to hear what the real problem is.
You know that people do not like change for starters. That is why you have to tread very carefully and work it through, so that you develop their respect and trust. That is what has to occur. Otherwise there will be a lot of expense, a lot of heartache, and we could well be creating a mess for others to clean up.
Those folk who live remote from the urban centres such as Alice Springs, the Top End, and Katherine, are the ones we need to make an extra effort for. That is why we must have that genuine engagement. Authentic consultation is the response to an authentic desire to find an authentic solution to an authentic problem. You have to establish the foundations of this. That has not been done. That kind of work has not occurred. You seem to be excessively confident in the position that you hold in government and the information flying around. Perhaps others have seized the agenda. Perhaps those who are in the department have become excessively enthusiastic about a particular agenda which may have merit, but there is the missing ingredient of how you connect that to the problem and sell that solution.
The very disappointing aspect of this - and there are none so blind as those who will not see or choose not to see – was in Litchfield’s case, the government even trumped up the financial viability argument. Then, great shame, they could not back it up. They tried to run one argument when it came to the dump, if you are in Litchfield, and then changed to a completely reverse argument when it came to the plan to implement forced amalgamation. Two completely different and conflicting positions run by the same government. People can see that. You become desperate, you become, in the judgment and minds of many, dishonest. Your intent becomes more aggressive and you run roughshod over the sensitivities of the good folk who are required to wear the decisions of government. That was offensive. An offence occurred even in the conducting of that particular line of argument.
Life is difficult enough without our community leaders running that kind of confusing and unethical argument just because they want to win the argument. People can stand back and say: ‘Well, I may not have the resources, I may not be able to argue as well as you can, I may not be as educated as you, but I can see the inconsistency as plain as day’. That is offensive. You are required to provide a different kind of leadership, to show that you are genuine in your interest, not to grasp at straws and to cross over your arguments just to suit the particular battlefront you are fighting on at that time.
If you run your own family like that you will find your house divided against itself, but you do not run that kind of agenda in the community: two conflicting stories, it is dead set wrong. There are consequences of that inconsistency, and it erodes your integrity, and diminishes and corrodes trust and confidence in your ability to deal with what everyone is concerned about, which is bringing about some better outcomes in the administration of local government. It seems to be obvious that the minister and government was hostage to a bureaucratic exercise of the department and they ran an ideological line to support it. Authentic engagement and consultation does not attempt to ram a solution down the community’s throat. Read your history books. It does not work.
We spoke of sorry in this Chamber only last week, at this sort of approach to solutions to the indigenous problems in the Territory. It is a similar sort of approach. You know better, implement it, the outcomes and, my goodness, how did that occur? It is because of the same kind of approach. It is an arrogant approach. It is an approach borne out of a disconnect and an excessive confidence in your ability, and a diminishing and a disempowering of those who you are seeking to serve. Authentic engagement and consultation identifies the problem, clearly and honestly, and then works with the community to find a real and workable solution. Take them with you, and then you can go somewhere and achieve something, and leave a proper legacy. It is not a one-size-fits-all.
When I was at university, I remember we would sit around in the evening or the afternoon and sort out all the problems of certain situations. Some of us were studying politics, some philosophy, some psychology and, over a few beers, we basically sorted out serious problems. We could see it so clearly, and nothing would shake our view. We were young and nave, but we were confident and we thought we knew. As we matured, we realised that those ideas were missing something. We were missing an honest appraisal of the circumstances we did not really understand. I feel it is the same approach that has occurred here.
There has been a compounding sense of confidence in the solution you have developed, and you have missed that essential ingredient of how you walk that through with the people who live out there, away from this place. That is the problem. That is the missing gap. If we can fix that then we are going to change the necessity for giving an apology or saying sorry because we have mucked it up. We know what the objective is but we have mucked it up because of that disconnect.
That is why we are calling upon government to stop it and to develop a genuine engagement of the community to achieve the objective. You will do a lot once you have the support of the community. We will still have to play our role and point out areas that we feel need to be strengthened, but we will not withhold areas where we believe you are doing well. You will need to do that. Otherwise, if there is a change of government, I bear this in my forward thinking. I, or someone else in this Chamber, will be left to clean up and manage a very difficult situation. I have a sense of continuity in this. I intend to serve as long as I can with the will of my community in this Chamber - as I am sure the rest of you do. The consequences of a decision made or not changed today will result in challenges into the future that you may not be there to attend to.
The community may say: ‘Enough is enough. We want to get someone else to represent our interests’. Then there is an egg to be unscrambled which can take and absorb a huge amount of resources, time and energy, and corrode goodwill and trust in the community when we have other matters to deal with. We have many serious matters to deal with.
I am urging government to stop, reflect, devise a genuine engagement strategy, and conduct some honest business with the community. We will stand with you as we have all the while. I do not think any member of the community has stood in a different spot. The end point is reform, improvement, and efficiencies, but we need to work on how that is done.
If you are satisfied that pressing the abort button on the implementation as it relates to the Top End Shire is the solution, it is, in fact, the unveiling and the glimpse of the problem. Those people were organised, they had good lines of communication, and there was some leadership. That only reinforces that those who are fewer in number - more remote, who do not have strong lines of communication and do not have the information - are the ones we really should be responding to, if we are honest. They are the ones we must respond to. If you do not put that engagement strategy in place to meet their needs, then we have a very serious problem. You may be able to shut out other thoughts or conflicting arguments and just manage a political situation, crash through and exit stage right, and say: ‘Well, I gave it my best shot’, but you have not really reflected and you have left a mess for others to clean up.
I urge members to seriously consider the flow-on consequences of the political decision I believe was made last week just to manage that, and to recognise that there is a need to stop, then restart, so that you can get to the place you, I and all of us agree we need to be. You have to have the people there with you when you arrive at that destination, otherwise here is the reform over here and the people are all standing angry over there. We all have to get on the bus - and I do not think you can even manage to get them on the bus - if you want to take them somewhere, and go along for the ride to the destination. However, you have to get them on the bus for starters before you take them anywhere. You cannot just go running around, yelling out your own message, mantra and slogans, then drive off and find that you are there but the people are not. We are here to serve the best interests of the community.
Anyway, it will be on your head. In fact, sadly though, it will be on all of our heads if you do not adjust your position on this issue, because the problem will be there. I predict that if it is not addressed; if pride or some other political agenda gets in the way and you think: ‘Oh no, we will just crash through this one and we will cop it’, you might salvage something for yourselves. If your primary objective is that a certain number can stay in power, you might achieve all that. However, I worry about the folk who are a long way from here. They are the ones we really should think more about.
I urge members to support this motion. I gather - oh, let me be surprised, but …
Ms Carney: Live in hope, Millsy.
Mrs Braham: We can all live in hope.
Mr MILLS: Yes, me too. Anyway, I urge members, I trust you have heard what I have said and I look forward to the debate. I will listen to what is said on the other side of the Chamber and weigh it very carefully, because it will have long-term consequences. I urge support of the motion.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I have said before that the CLP government recognised the need for reform in local government. I have said before that the push was started when I was minister and we did have cooperation. We did it on a voluntary basis. There were communities which amalgamated, there were communities which were about to amalgamate. Perhaps the problem with the CLP approach was that we did not say: ‘Yes, you must do it’, and left it voluntary. At least it was inclusive, at least there was communication and many clusters were talking to each other to make the decision about whether they would amalgamate. As you would remember, the Anmatjere Council amalgamated, the Tiwi Island councils did, the West Macs was ready to go when something happened; it fell out of the sky.
We all need to recognise that local government needs reform. There were concerns back then, and there are probably concerns now, about some of the mismanagement of funds, and there were concerns about the influence of families on decision-making. I do not need to go into all the reasons why reform is necessary.
The thing is we consulted well. We had people, as the member for Blain has said, onside. They were coming with us, and we are not seeing that today. People are not saying that they know exactly what is going on and that they are prepared to willingly join in this process.
What we were looking at then were far smaller shires. If I remember, the previous Minister for Local Government in the Labor Party, minister Ah Kit, had a proposal for 21 shires. It was a very good, sensible proposal. Unfortunately, it did not go much further than that. I believe the reaction we are seeing today is because of the size of your shires and the difficulty of ensuring people in those proposed shires hear what you are saying and can be involved in the process.
We have recently heard that Amoonguna is taking the government to court over this amalgamation. They are not keen on amalgamating with the MacDonnell Shire. Perhaps they should be part of the Alice Springs municipality. It is not very far away from Alice Springs. Did anyone talk to the Amoonguna people about this and suggest it to them? Were they given an option? Or were they just told: ‘No, sorry, this is where you are and this is where you will be placed’. It does not hurt to sometimes rethink the way we are going about things. What concerns me most of all is that the government has this firmly stuck in their mind and we are not totally convinced that there has been enough consultation.
I believe you need to slow down. I would like you to do a trial. I would like to see you take the MacDonnell super shire that was so ready to go before and see how it goes, see whether it works - whether there is enough communication, whether there is enough involvement with the people, whether people really understand the business plans. Do they understand what it is all about? Do they understand they will not have their CEO on the ground? Do they understand who they have to refer to now in the decision-making process? Part of the concern of the Anmatjere Council was that transport for members to get to meetings became a difficulty. The transport of people to attend these meetings is going to be difficult as they are from such vast areas of the Territory. I wonder if the operational aspects of what you are buying into have been thought out completely.
I have heard that a number of experienced staff are already leaving communities. You could argue that is a good thing, but you are taking away much of the corporate knowledge from the communities. What are you going to replace it with? I understand that there have already been changes, for instance, in some of the stores with store managers. We have seen the outback stores move into a number of communities and I admit they seem to be doing a good job. They seem to be, with the intervention and the quarantine of income, providing a better service and a healthier store for people. Let us not forget that some stores already did that. I was at Mt Allen one day when the fresh vegetables arrived at the store and people were purchasing because they knew that was the day the stock was coming in.
We cannot say that every community is bad, that every community has corruption, and that every community has mismanagement. There are good communities. I wonder how closely they have been consulted. Why not take a deep breath and do a trial? What is wrong with that? Why do we not say to a group who are willing: ‘You be the model and we will see what glitches there are as you progress’? It may be just for 12 months. What is 12 months in the life of a council out in the bush? Why do you not just give it a go? I am saying to government to slow down. I am not saying stop; I am saying slow down. Think about how you can do it better so that you can get more people onside.
I believe only the minister is responding to this motion. That is a little sad. I would have liked to have heard from some of the members who have rural communities. I would have liked to have heard them say what their particular community is saying to them about this amalgamation. It is important that they put on public record what they are hearing out there. They are elected to represent their people but we are not hearing from them. I believe we are missing part of the debate when the people who have the electorates that are involved in this process are silent. What does the silence tell us? They do not care? Anything goes? They are willing to do whatever government says just to keep their place in this Assembly? Why are you there if you are not prepared to speak up for your people? You cannot tell me that every member of this Assembly has not had some concerns raised with them. I urge other members of the Assembly, if your electorate is one of those communities where there is support, tell us. Just do not hear it from this side of the House. Let us hear your point of view as well.
When you look at the business plans that are on the website and you try to evaluate them, they seem very much the same right across all communities. If I was running a business and I had a number of different stores, I do not know whether that would be the way I would go. I would adjust it to suit the different situations. I am concerned that there has been no consideration given to the differences in communities, in community values, expectations, and hopes of this whole process. How many people in the community actually understand business plans? I have to admit that I have looked at them and thought: ‘How do you take these huge documents …’, - and I am sorry I did not bring one in with me - ’… and say to me that those residents out there actually understand all that is going on’? I do not believe they do. The government should acknowledge that they are difficult, and, for the lay man, very difficult to understand.
I believe the government needs to take a deep breath and slow down. I do not think it is accepted out there in the community. There are many reasons why, and you will hear from people on this side, I am sure. It is a big step. It is going to affect communities for a long time. I suggest that we need to ensure that all communities understand exactly where they are going, what is going to be expected of them, and what they are going to achieve at the end.
Madam Speaker, I know where the opposition is coming from. I have said enough to make you understand that I am in favour of the reform process, that I do not say we need to stop, but that we need to go slower.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I support the motion moved by the Opposition Leader and call on the Chief Minister to engage in some meaningful and genuine community consultation before resuming the Local Government reform process. It is a failed model. That has been demonstrated by the exemption of the Litchfield Shire from the Top End Shire. What you have is some inequity when it comes to rates and such, with some cattle stations paying rates and some not, particularly when they border each other. That is a real concern for other cattle stations - and not just cattle stations, but particularly cattle stations - throughout the Northern Territory. Those 13 are now exempt from such rates, so it certainly does not appear to be fair.
The Northern Territory government has already lost one minister over this; I hope they are not prepared to lose another one over it. Despite the unprecedented concern shown by professional bodies throughout the Northern Territory such as the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the Minerals Council, the Northern Territory Business Council, the Chamber of Commerce of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory government has decided to press on and all those stakeholders, those people living in those communities governed by the Alice Springs Town Council, the Tennant Creek Town Council - which recently weighed into the debate saying they would like to be exempt - the Darwin City Council and the Cox Peninsula Community Council, have had to put up with this forced amalgamation.
I will read some of the correspondence that I have collected over recent months regarding this debate.
The member for Nelson has been exemplary in going into bat for his local constituents in Litchfield. This is a very interesting letter from the former Minister for Local Government, the member for Barkly. It is a letter to the member for Nelson:
- Dear Gerry,
I am writing in respect to your ongoing request that I provide you with financial modelling regarding the long-term financial viability of Litchfield Shire Council if it were not to join the Top End Shire …
…
I stand by my belief - as stated in the Legislative Assembly earlier this year - that the ‘Litchfield Shire is probably not viable into the future …’
You would also recall that in answer to a question from you on 11 October, I said in the Assembly that in terms of the long-term … viability of the Litchfield Shire ‘it is not a case of a model; it is expert advice that has been forthcoming over a very long period of time’.
It also says:
- The Top End Shire, with the inclusion of currently unincorporated areas, will be much stronger financially and organisationally than the Litchfield Shire Council on its own …
That was from the former Minister for Local Government. The member for Nelson, through the Information Act, requested proof of that not being viable into the future. This is a letter from the department:
- Dear Mr Wood,
- In accordance with section 19(1)(b) of the Information Act we provide you with the attached Notice of Decision in relation to your application requesting a copy of the Local Government model which shows that Litchfield Shire Council is not viable into the future.
An extensive search for all information relating to your request has been conducted throughout this department and after taking all reasonable steps to identify the information, we believe the information does not exist.
If you could extrapolate that right across the whole of this proposed forced amalgamation, you can see why it is a failed model. I am not sure where the former minister did get his information from, it certainly does not exist.
This is a letter published in the Northern Territory News on 29 October 2007, a full-page letter from the President of the Cox Peninsula Community Government Council, and Garry Lambert, Lord Mayor, Darwin City Council. I can table that if the Assembly would like to see it; I am sure they have. I will not read it all, but it says:
- Now minister McAdam has ‘flip-flopped’ on the issue and rejects the amalgamation. Darwin and Cox Peninsula citizens need to know:
why the minister rejects a cooperative amalgamation when other councils are rejecting forced shire amalgamations?
why the minister is restricting the future growth of Darwin when development from Darwin will logically move across the Darwin Harbour?
why the minister will not listen to the will of the people?
That was on 26 October 2007, published in the NT News on 29 October 2007 by Vic Stow, president of Cox Peninsula Community Government Council and the Lord Mayor of Darwin City Council - some heavy hitters, I would have thought.
Another letter is from the CEO of the Cox Peninsula Community Government Council. I will highlight some of that. It was a letter to me and it said:
- The report prepared on the proposed Top End Shire is a joke and does not provide any confidence that the new shire will work or that it will be financially sustainable once government support funding is withdrawn.
There is a series of questions and concerns illustrated by organisations such as the Northern Land Council, the Northern Territory Minerals Council, the Cattlemen’s Association, the Trucking Association of the NT, the Northern Territory Horticultural Association - just to name a few. They have some concerns. Some of these are:
- Strong councils must have a sense of community - not stretch from Queensland to the West Australian border.
I know that has been brought up many times by the member for Nelson and the Opposition Leader:
- The super shires are the size of Victoria and appear to have been based on statistical boundaries, not communities of interest. How on earth can a shire the size of Victoria adequately give representation to the hundreds of dispersed communities and pastoral properties? How is this efficient?’
A couple of questions there.
- How does throwing several dysfunctional councils together create a functional council, and what happens to the many well-run community councils thrown in with the poor ones?
And:
- The super shires’ creation has not been done on indigenous family or skin/clan basis. The Northern Land Council is concerned that the government has split ‘country’. This reform has been done at the expense of ‘community’.
A couple of unanswered questions are highlighted by those organisations I just mentioned - too many unanswered questions.
I have some more correspondence. This is from the Alice Springs Town Council, written by the Mayor, Fran Kilgariff, on 9 October 2007. Part of that letter which I will highlight said:
- The Alice Springs Town Council has not even been formally provided with a copy of the draft act, so it can be safely said that there has been … no intention to consult with regard to that document.
A few questions have been raised by the Northern Territory Minerals Council:
- While the Minerals Council accepts the need for reform, our key concerns are as follows:
the lack of financial and economic modelling underpinning proposed shire budgets;
the lack of certainty about the level and allocation of road funding;
the uncertainty about what, if any, services will be provided in return for paying rates; and
what tenements are to be considered ‘mining tenements’ and what ones are not;
how the interests of the minerals industry will be represented under the new shire’s structure.
This is from the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory on 22 August 2007:
- … the Northern Territory’s largest and most representative business organisation … today condemned the Northern Territory government for the introduction of the first Local Government Amendment Bill without any consultation whatsoever from stakeholders or interested parties.
There are more questions. In fact, this is the conclusion from a group of organisations titled ‘Too Many Unanswered Questions’. Those organisations are the Chamber of Commerce, the Northern Land Council, the NT Cattlemen’s Association, the Territory Construction Association, and many more including the Horticultural Association and Small Business Association. They said:
- We believe that local government reform is important ...
And we do believe that local government reform is important. We have never opposed reform per se. We believe that local government reform is important, therefore, it needs to be done slowly, carefully, and in consultation with everyone who is affected. We believe the current proposals are seriously flawed, have enormous financial implications for all Territorians, and will not find the efficiencies the government is talking about. If these reforms are rushed, if mistakes are made, all Territorians will eventually pay for them. That is just some of the correspondence that I have collected over the last few months from those organisations.
Too many organisations are, obviously, lined up against these forced amalgamations and there are too many unanswered questions. The former minister was unable to answer questions when under pressure at certain rallies and meetings across the Northern Territory. I attended a few of those, and I know other members here attended most of those, the member for Nelson and the Opposition Leader as well. The Country Liberal Party, of course, supports local government reform, it is an essential part of the growth of the Northern Territory, and I do not believe anyone in this House would dispute that. However, we do not support this forced-style amalgamation, this dictated model. We support a model that recognises performing councils and supports non-performing councils.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion that the Northern Territory government stop the local government reform process and that the Chief Minister outline a genuine engagement strategy to retain the trust of Territorians before resuming the reform process.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would have liked to have heard what the new Local Government minister had to say. After all, this is our day and, sometimes, the roles are reversed. I suppose the government is in the habit of having its way.
The implementation of local government reform may have been for the right reasons, but it has been delivered to Territorians in such a dictatorial and arrogant way that any person who believes in a democratic process, any person who believes in open and transparent government, would be ashamed of what has happened. It is difficult to take any of this seriously if a government that is pushing for statehood and complains about being bossed around by Canberra cannot treat its own people and institutions with respect. The local government reform process has been a key example of that lack of respect.
I believe, in broad terms, that there has been a need for local government reform. With most of the Territory unincorporated and with some Aboriginal community councils - not all, by the way - dysfunctional, then something was needed to change the situation. There is no argument about that. The big question was: what changes would be needed to improve things? In the late 1990s, the CLP government tried to do something with its initial attempts of a unified council on the Tiwi Islands. That appears now, in hindsight, to have been a very costly financial disaster.
Minister Ah Kit brought in the Building Stronger Regions policy, which considered about 22 regional councils and that seemed, with a few exceptions, to disappear into oblivion. I believe it is a policy that should be looked at again. We had a number of Aboriginal regional councils set up. What has now happened to them? It seemed that the slow progress of this policy by councils has been a catalyst for pushing the new reform process, but it was the government’s own fault that the Building Stronger Regions policy did not succeed.
No matter, this government decided to introduce widespread sweeping reforms under the pretext of more jobs, better services, access to Commonwealth funding that could not otherwise be accessed, and low rates. Debate on the truth behind these claims was stifled in regard to the Territory. To achieve this Napoleonic local government plan, the government, controlled by the masterminds of the Department of Local Government, and supported by the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory which seemed to be more worried about its future than its members, decided on the following without any consultation with the community.
There would be nine shires. These will be based on population except in the case of the Tiwi Islands and the Top End Shire. Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs would be exempted. The boundaries of the new super shires, except for some minor changes, would be set in concrete. A timetable was also set in concrete. The Top End Shire’s rates would be capped and the rating system would now include a UCV system of rating, not just a flat rate, which it had for the last 24 years.
The one thing clear from this was there was no community consultation. The government rushed through legislation under urgency to put its reforms in place; legislation which gave enormous power to the minister. The government set up transition committees which were not represented at the community level as happened in the case with the Top End Shire. Two people represented 17 000 people; another 10 people represented 3000 people. It set up the transition committees as a cover for community consultation but the community was not welcome at these meetings. The meetings were held during the day when people were at work anyway. I remember the first time the transition committee sat I was asked to leave.
The shire managers from the Department of Local Government were appointed by the government not the elected council. The CEO and Director of Corporate Affairs were appointed by the government, not by an elected council. The government did not try to set up genuine meetings to ask people what they wanted. It just sent a Labor mate, Sheila O’Sullivan, with all expenses paid, to run meetings. There was only one government-run public meeting in the Litchfield Shire which was at the Taminmin High School library. That was run by Sheila O’Sullivan and was an absolute debacle. There was no doubt about that.
There were other matters such as when the minister said at the Dundee meeting - and I have the notes - that the transition committee will decide the rates. Before they had time to meet, the minister announced the Top End Shire rates and the rating system and, of course, the local members for Goyder and Daly supported that. They wrote nice supportive letters to their constituents, but everyone knew that this was a political stunt to get these unpopular changes passed at the next election. In fact, this is what the new Local Government minister said on ABC on 8 August last year:
- Look, I am so concerned about this, and I know that Ted Warren is also, is that we are having a meeting with the Local Government minister when he gets back off leave to talk to him seriously about our concerns about a member of the Litchfield Shire Council possibly going to put an unfair rating system into this transitional committee and try and get her, and try and get these rates frozen until we get a newer council on board that people elect about the rates and so they can elect people directly who they have chosen to represent them about a new rating model.
The reporter then said:
- Rob, are you saying that Mary Walshe is the problem here?
And then he went on about why he thought Mary Walshe was the problem. But he said:
- … the transitional committee are the ones that are going to make a recommendation about rates and also about representation and about services so I don’t know why she is blaming Elliot McAdam about this because it is within the power of the transitional committee members to make the recommendation. Now I am of the firm belief that we should freeze the rates until the new council is elected at the end of 2008 …
Even after two rallies, two petitions, one with about 800 signatures and the other with nearly 5000 signatures, and also hundreds of people turning up to non-government run meetings in the rural area, the Chief Minister said on 27 November last year that the people supported the reform agenda. I do not know where he is coming from, but he is doing his best to twist the truth. Look at what he said at the last sittings of parliament. He used quotes from a couple of Katherine aldermen in the Katherine Times saying that they supported the government reform process.
In fact, they were applauding the government in relation to the consultation process with councils, not the community, and they were referring to the new Local Government Act not the reform process. Katherine was not being amalgamated nor did they have to be consulted about the business plans of new shires. They were not being dissolved. The minister just needed to show people’s support of the process. He was simply trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. This is a page from the Katherine Times of 28 November which is where he was getting the article from. If you read it, in the third paragraph you will see:
- Mayor Anne Shepherd said she did not understand some of the criticism from councils in Darwin’s rural area because the government had listened to her.
- ‘It is the first time ever that legislation …
That is the act:
- … has been amended again and again and again before it’s been tabled in parliament …’ she said.
‘A lot of effort has gone into it.’
- Alderman Trevor Ford said the consultation was ‘a real credit … I think they are really trying’, referring to the government …
Also Bill Daw said this was good as well. They were referring to the Local Government Act. That did not come out clearly when the minister was speaking in relation to this. We are talking about the local government reform process. That is a vast difference.
Again, during the last sittings, the then minister said there were in excess of 200 suggested changes which showed there had been a very strong, extensive consultation process right across the Territory. Once again, this is a government blind spot. The 200 suggested changes more than likely came from the transition committee, the non-consultative process, the government pretence and the ‘big con’. It did not come from the community.
You have to remember the business plans are what shapes the new council as they will be set in concrete by the Local Government Act. These plans will set out the functions of the new council, which will have to be funded and paid for by the ratepayers. The community at Litchfield turned up in their hundreds to hear what was in the business plans. What they saw was a government plan that was dictatorial, complicated and bureaucratic. Please, government, tell this parliament how many meetings you have held throughout the Territory which explained to people exactly what was in the business plan. I think there was none. Do not use the transition committee as your excuse. I want to know how many people, ordinary community members of the councils, know exactly what is in there. That is the reason I held the meeting. When people saw what was in there, they were concerned.
For instance, if you pick up the Barkly plan, and it is also in the MacDonnell plan - I have not looked at the others - and you look under ‘commercial services’, you see that horticulture will be a commercial function. I have nothing against horticulture; I spent a fair bit of my life growing vegetables on communities. Small agricultural ventures would be good for these small communities. However, you say, ‘a council will’. This thing here says they will take them over. It means they will have to be funded and paid for by the ratepayers. To say a council will do them is just plain dumb. To think you are going to make a profit which could be ploughed back into the community for other projects is up in the clouds, and that is what it says here. Who questioned this? I am not against horticulture, but is it a commercial function that a council will – it says ‘will’ - take on? Surely that is debatable. ‘May’ if it is necessary. Or is it really someone’s private concern to run a commercial operation? That is just a simple example of where we needed to take this out to communities for someone to question them - not to say the reform should not occur but so people could actually make a decision free - not of the department, but free - or after an independent person went through that with these people. These business plans have been drawn up by someone sitting on a cloud; his feet have never touched the ground. Second, they show that these plans have not been subject to independent scrutiny; and third, the author has never grown vegetables.
If the government had consulted by explanations and consultations with Aboriginal people about these business plans in a manner that Aboriginal people could understand, then maybe I could believe that consultation took place. But I do not believe it.
On the radio the other day, Peter Alleman from the Galiwinku Community Council was saying that for many people in his area, for whom English is a second, third or fourth language, to understand a business plan that is only accessible at the present time on the web, highlights the fact that people do not have a real opportunity to understand what is in the business plans. There is a classic example: a person who is working on an Aboriginal community feels that they do not know what is in these business plans.
We also had the Chief Minister claiming there will be more money for roads. The reality is that unless the NT government can get some special grants for roads, road funding will not increase, because road funding is part of local government funding from Canberra and that funding is based on population. Making the Territory incorporated will mean more roads to be maintained with the same amount of money. LGANT already gets some money and the NT government can hand over some of its own money which it uses on unincorporated roads at the moment. Unless there are special grants, there is no more money.
Minister, in the preliminary plan for the Top End Shire Draft 1, it states: ‘there will be $15m worth of funding’ they hope to get. In the second draft, a few months later, the $15m is gone. That sends a message that they do not have the money. That was money from the federal government they hoped to get. We must remember these are only grants we are talking about. Grants come and go – black spot programs, AusRoads. They usually have to apply for the funds. You might not get them; they are not consistent funds. If we are to have funds that we can use year-in year-out to maintain our roads, I do not know where you are going to get them, because I can gather …
Mr Kiely: They are a formula.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you have to understand the politics of local government funding. It is not necessarily what Canberra says, it is what the states say. They are the ones that have the control. Federal ministers in parliament in Canberra are not going to go against their state counterparts and say that extra money should be going to the Northern Territory. You will hear time and time again, state Premiers say: ‘We do not get enough share of the revenue’. That is a common criticism of the federal government’s methodology for supplying funding for areas in Australia with low populations.
This is all part of the glossy sell. If the government was genuine it would have come out in rural public meetings. Mr Lawrence Ah Toy asked the executive director of the department for proof that Litchfield was not viable, and he still has not received an answer to that. Of course, the minister said on a number of occasions that the government had done some modelling to show that Litchfield was not viable. The member for Greatorex just showed you the letter that came back from the executive director saying that there was no modelling. If one thing annoyed me the most, it was that this government said it was dissolving Litchfield because it would not be viable into the future, with a figure of 10 to 15 years. When asked for the evidence, the evidence has not been forthcoming.
To me, you cannot start a reform process based on a dishonest approach at the beginning. The foundations have to be sound. I am for reform, but if you base reform on a dissolution of a council, based on no evidence - and it has been asked for many times – then do not expect me to support the reform. That is one of the key reasons I did not support the reform of the Top End Shire. There has been no real consultation. This has been a government-exposed process. It has now become a shambles. As Wicking drew in the NT News the other day, we now have local government run by the department of shambles. What this whole mess shows is that government does not understand grassroots local democracy. There is not one member of the government who has ever served as a member of local government in the Territory. The two Independents have.
I am concerned that Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people have also not been fully consulted - certainly not the Aboriginal people of the Top End Shire. The business plans for all councils are similar, and I refer to the people at the Lagoon Road Aboriginal community who knew nothing about what was happening in relation to rates. I do not know anyone at Bulgul who knew anything about what kind of rating system they were going to cop. I did find out in the last draft plan that Belyuen was going to get a rating system called the ‘rating equivalent’ because we cannot rate Aboriginal land. That, in itself, left you wide open to a lot of other issues because, if you argue that you can put a rating equivalent on a house on land that cannot be rated such as Aboriginal land, then you must apply that evenly, otherwise someone would charge you with discrimination. This applies to Commonwealth land where many people live such as Robertson Barracks, Kowandi North and Kowandi South, and your own Northern Territory government land like the Howard Springs Reserve where there are rangers living, and where you have caretakers living on school sites.
There were many serious issues that needed much discussion before this went forward. My feeling is that this is part of the reason the Top End Shire has been pulled out of the reform process. It highlights that this is not a simple process; it is a difficult process and, if you start to exclude people from the debate, which you have, then it will just become more and more difficult.
If the people of Litchfield who, at two non-government business plan meetings, rejected the plans because they thought they were bureaucratic, complicated, moved away from the essence of local government and were being imposed on the people through the Local Government Act, what chance have the people of the other eight shires of understanding these plans? Perhaps you can tell me what was the role of Mr Dodson? Was his job to put an Aboriginal face to this process so that Aboriginal people would think that this reform process must be okay and accept it? If Mr Dodson was the head of the advisory committee, either he was not passing on the feelings of the people to government, or the government was just ignoring him. Whatever, the people of Litchfield took their own advice and said: ‘We want reform, but not this bureaucratic joke’.
However, it is not just Litchfield that is not happy. As I mentioned before, we had the Galiwinku people taking the government to court because the government is taking its association’s assets. The minister might tell me if it is true that the government is also trying to now change the legislation to stop the Galiwinku mob from going to court.
The people at Daly River are saying: ‘Hang on. We do not want a part of what is going on at the moment. We want some brakes put on it’. That is what the 320 people from Peppimenarti, Palumpa and Daly River delivered to this House today. I will read you the last paragraph that went out with the petition: ‘From a participation point of view, local people know they have had no input into the process …’ - these are not my words - ‘… and feel somehow robbed of their democratic rights to have a say in such a major change’. While many agree the changes may be necessary they simply want the changes explained and the opportunity to raise any concerns they have so they can be addressed as early as possible. People will feel calmer once the changes are understood and they know their concerns have been heard. That is exactly what it is all about.
The Tiwi Islands have concerns. I have reports that the new regional management plans basically say a number - and I am not sure of the number - of Tiwis will lose their jobs to the administration centre based in Darwin, and they want a halt. I have also heard something similar coming from the people of Daly River. Their administrative centre is going to be in Katherine and they are concerned about what the future is as well in relation to losing jobs ...
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, the CEO of Elliott has also resigned, and the ABC reported it at the time:
- Linda Keane says it has been a smoke and mirrors process, where the Territory government set up a consultation process and then ignored it. She says when the nine new super shires are created this year, Elliott will have only one representative on a council governing 250 000 km2.
In fact, I have the Barkly figures right here - 323 000 km2:
- ‘I feel it is going to really be the death knell of remote communities and it is also a step in the direction of sidelining indigenous people from having a say in local government,’ she said.
And please, do not talk to me about local boards. They will be controlled by the council, if you read the business plans, and the Local Government Act, and I do not think that they will be independent.
There have also been concerns from a group that provides services for outstations in the Alice Springs region. I also heard from the member for Braitling that there is a community in the centre that is also considering action against it. We are having problems in the Tennant Creek region with people who are not happy with the changes. Again, quoting from the ABC:
- There is growing pressure for Tennant Creek to be excluded from the transition to shires later this year. The Tennant Creek Council is due to be dissolved at the end of June when it will become part of a much larger Barkly shire. The CEO of the council, John Hunter, said: ‘Several delegates expressed concern about the change at today’s Barkly shire transitional meeting, particularly in the light of the Territory government’s decision not to proceed with the Top End shire’. At least one delegate, Rosie Kunoth-Monks, walked out of the meeting.
I understand there are some other issues in Tennant Creek. There are some, you might say, internal council issues but I would hope that there is some way that people in Tennant Creek can at least see what is in the business plan, aside from these council issues. To me, that is an internal matter for the council there. But this is where the community misses out. Sometimes councils can have meetings amongst themselves to talk about the Local Government Act, to talk about the business plans, but the people do not always hear about it, and these things affect the people. It affects them in their day-to-day lives and what it will cost.
When I hear the government say it has consulted, I say: ‘With whom?’ When I hear the government say it has support, I say: ‘Who did you ask?’ When I hear this government say it will benefit Aboriginal people, I say: ‘You must be joking’. How, when you have taken jobs to administrative centres in major centres and made the whole thing so complicated you have to employ $180 000 CEOs and $130 000 Director of Corporate Services people to run their bureaucracy?
Control by Aboriginal people is now further away. We should be getting closer and closer, and Aboriginal people need to have a say in what is happening. When I hear you say you could get more money for roads, I ask, where is it? The government’s reform process has come back to bite them on the bum, not because there is no need for reform, but they do not know how to talk to people.
In the dictionary, consultation is about talking to the people. In the Northern Territory dictionary, consultation means the art of conning people into believing that they have had a say in something that they did not have a say in. The government has been driven by a process that has been developed by people not in touch, not understanding, and not driven by a belief in local democracy.
They want to set up something run by the Department of Local Government which will control it. It will nearly become part of the department and, when you read the Local Government Act, look how much power the Local Government department has. This is not local government. No council of 340 000 km could be regarded as local. Regional, maybe, but we are talking about local government. The government and its empire builders have forgotten the pothole and when you forget the pothole you forget local government. As the sticker says: ‘Stop, start again and get it right’.
Debate suspended.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Arafura
Member for Arafura
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for today and tomorrow for the member for Arafura, as the member will be representing me as Chief Minister at the Council of Federation meeting in Adelaide tomorrow.
Leave granted.
MOTION
Local Government Reform Process
Local Government Reform Process
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I provide some input into the Leader of the Opposition’s motion regarding local government reform. I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition and the other speakers on the other side of the House. I have noticed that there are two points of discussion. One involves the Top End Shire and the other part involves the bush.
I will take the first part in relation to the Top End Shire. The future of the Top End Shire is very clear. It is totally off the agenda ...
Mr Wood: That is not the future.
Mr KNIGHT: We are moving on with reforming the bush as we should ...
Mrs Miller: So you have two parts to the Territory now.
Mr KNIGHT: There is no further discussion about the Top End Shire ...
Mr Wood: Well, why not? We did not say that. We said start again. You have taken your bat and ball home.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There just seems to be excess of interjection from the opposition benches.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, if we could please have less interjection while we are listening to general business.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, the Top End Shire is off the agenda. We are moving on with the much needed reforms. If those particular councils or areas within the proposed Top End Shire would like to have further discussions amongst themselves with other councils, that is a matter for them. There is more important business to do with this reform than re-engaging with those councils. I know that the member for Nelson has already indicated that he is going to continue the reforms of local government within the Top End Shire and that is good for him, but our focus is on the bush.
The former Minister for Local Government, the member for Barkly, and also the former member for Arnhem, his predecessor, are two people who were born and grew up in the Territory. The member for Barkly was born at No 17 Bore at Elliott, grew up passionate about the bush, and has family in the bush. So …
Mr Wood: I am passionate, too.
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Nelson, these two gentlemen understand the needs out in the bush, as do you. You have worked out bush. You understand the conditions which have come over time and where they are today. There is so much need out there, there has been so much money that has gone out bush over time and we still have those conditions today. The motivation for these reforms coming from those two gentlemen has been about getting those much-needed services, consistently and at a high standard, delivered out in the bush to improve the lives of every single person out there, whether they be black or white …
Mr Mills: We agree with that.
Mr KNIGHT: Let me finish, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Mills: Well, get to the point.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: This is a response to a motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition! The minister has the call. Minister, please continue.
Mr Bonson: Let him finish. You are a rude individual. You have changed, Terry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: I listened to you, Leader of the Opposition, in silence and …
Mr Mills: It does not bear any relation to what we have said.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, the minister has the call.
Mr KNIGHT: … I hope that you offer me that as well. Their motivation was to improve the lives out there. The member for Nelson is probably the only one of the people on the other side of the House who has really experienced the bush for a long period of time and intimately. That is where the motivation is coming from.
We must act now. You are saying let us wait a year, let us wait a few years. Well, the CLP had a policy in 1998, 10 years ago. I was involved in that reform working for the community sector. That reform went nowhere. It went absolutely nowhere and the conditions that were out …
Mrs Braham: Not true.
Mr KNIGHT: It has, member for Braitling, it has.
Mrs Braham: How come some councils were amalgamated if it was going nowhere?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Those reforms did not really go anywhere. I said there were a few little groups …
Mrs Braham: So there were no amalgamations?
Mr KNIGHT: Member for Braitling, we need widespread, radical, major reform out there to lift that standard up. We just cannot do bits and pieces. We cannot do that. You know what conditions are like out there. You know the amount of government investment that has been wasted out bush. You know the private sector will not go near the place because they have no confidence in investing in the bush. We must act now; we cannot wait another year or two years. We have to do it now, so we provide that investment.
I was thinking about it during Question Time when the Mines and Energy minister was talking about mining investment. The Northern Territory government does not operate mines, but the confidence that the mining industry has in the Northern Territory government to come here and do business, to invest money, is why those mines are starting.
Where you have local shires which are strong in governance and they have confidence, you will get private sector investment. The bush cannot survive on government dollars alone; it has to have massive amounts of private sector investment to change the world out there. That is exactly what we are trying to do now.
I have also heard from the other side of the House that they will support the reforms. Every single person who spoke on the other side of the House said: ‘We support reforms’. The members on the other side have never acted. Where is the policy of the CLP on local government reform? It is nitpicking; it is saying: ‘Let us put it off’. I take huge exception to the Leader of the Opposition correlating this reform to the Stolen Generations. What an absolute insult to what was done to those people based on racial grounds - the colour of your skin. That is a huge put down to members of the Stolen Generations.
You are also insulting the public service by saying that they somehow got together - like you did in university - and had a few beers, got smashed and kicked a few ideas around and came up with a policy. That is virtually what you were saying. You have had a whole range of different organisations come forward - as you have today - saying reform must happen, including the Australian government – both the previous and the current government. There was a huge amount of push and support for this reform by your colleagues at the federal level under the previous government. Why would you want to be putting the brakes on it? Having realised what is happening out there and the conditions there today, why would you want to wait? Why would you want to go another day without putting a structure in place which provides for certainty?
What we are trying to do here is provide a new vehicle to allow people to move forward. We have a vehicle under the current act which is 10 to 20 years old. You cannot move forward in this world with the need out there in a 20-year-old vehicle. We are providing a vehicle where people can move forward with certainty, in comfort, with efficiency. The drivers of that vehicle will be the same people in those communities now. They just have a new mechanism by which they can get to where they want to go and where they need to go.
This reform has been talked about for a long time. It has not just happened in the last 18 months. It has been kicked around and kicked around by not only this government but the government before that, and the government before that. It is not a new thing. It is just that this government has had the courage to say: ‘We are not going to let the bush wither. We are going to do something which is going to attract private investment. We are going to ensure services are provided to men, women and children out bush so that they can have a better life’. That is exactly what we are going to do. The services out bush are many and varied, and individual councils and shires will determine their own future about how much they actually deliver.
These reforms, Leader of the Opposition, will go ahead. I will be travelling extensively over the next couple of months before we debate this bill. I will be going to every major town, every shire committee, every stakeholder group, reassuring them that this government is absolutely committed to these reforms. We want to make a positive difference to the lives of every person in the Northern Territory encapsulated by these reforms. That is our motivation. It is an honourable and positive motivation. We cannot wait. We have to do something now. You are a member of this Assembly and I encourage you to support the bill in April. I am open to discussing the bill with any one of the members on the opposite side of the House. I have given that offer to certain members already, and I hope you take it up. This is about us doing something, historically, for the bush and for local government, our third tier of government, which is absolutely essential.
I reject the motion. I implore you to get on board with these reforms, be part of it. It is good for everybody out bush.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, first, this being a House of debate, the Northern Territory parliament, I would have expected members who are given the responsibility of representing their own constituents, who are directly affected by the decision of government to give voice to the concerns or the feelings of their own constituencies. However, there seems to be an attitude of government where, rather than take the position of representing the views of the community in here - and it may well be the case, I would like to see someone at least stand up and explain from their perspective how their own constituents feel about this - they seem to have the attitude that the responsibility of a member of the Labor Party in this parliament is to represent the views of the Labor Party to their constituents. That is a completely different proposition. That is not how I understand democracy to work.
You are here by the grace of your community, and to reflect those views. I have heard no voice, even if they could articulate a position that demonstrates that they have listened, that they can speak against the propositions that have been put by members on this side, that there has been insufficient engagement - genuine, honest engagement - to win the trust of people so that we can end up at the end point, which is real reform, borne out in those communities, remote from this magnificent parliament in which we have a great honour and responsibility to serve. But no one spoke. The minister took no notes, just sat there, adjusting his jacket and listening, apparently - no notes ...
Mr Knight: I have three pages of notes.
Mr MILLS: If they are notes, they did not feed into your response. Your response did not connect to the proposition that was put by members on this side.
The core issue is the quality of engagement, not the objective. The objective is reform. We all want that. That is not the issue. What we heard, though, despite all the words that have been spoken - and I cannot go any further on that issue of the Stolen Generations - you obviously did not hear …
Mr Knight: I heard you. It was disgusting.
Mr MILLS: Read it again.
Mr Knight: I will.
Mr MILLS: You should. I take offence at that.
Ms Lawrie: We take offence at what you say too.
Mr MILLS: You pipe down. You take offence at everything. I do not care.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The only description that would fit this state of mind of government is the word ‘arrogant’. That is the word that could be used. Another word that could be used would be ‘assuming’ - assuming you know best, being autocratic, taking a cavalier approach, being high-handed, presumptuous and self-important. One comment, made by one person in a government of 19 members, reinforces that state of mind of the Labor Party in government in the Northern Territory - not even the courtesy to stand and defend your position.
In the same manner you have failed to stand and deliver in the presence of your own communities as they were gathered together to express their concerns. You insult them by sending someone, whom you pay for, who was a master at a craft that you call community consultation. It almost sends a shiver up your spine when you see how it operates. It is not genuine. You are dealing with Territorians and they can see it coming a mile off. If you have the courage of your convictions at least you would have fronted up to those public meetings, taken the flak and mounted a credible argument. You would have won some respect. You may have had the majority of that crowd right against you, but you did not have the courage of your convictions. You bring in a gun for hire and you call that consultation. That is dishonest and gutless.
Second, you do not even have the courage of your convictions – oh, did that hurt your feelings, did it?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BONSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not sure if ‘gutless’ is a parliamentary word. I will abide by your ruling but I think the member for Blain is just getting carried away with himself.
Madam SPEAKER: Just pause for a minute.
Mr MILLS: I will withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Please continue.
Mr MILLS: To the second point, if you do not have the courage of your convictions to stand before the people you are given the responsibility to represent and mount your argument, win at least their begrudging respect. You fail to stand in this parliament and give an account of yourselves. That is disgraceful. Anyway, that is my view. You have obviously built a buffer around yourself. You will be impervious even to such views expressed by those who have a different view in the Chamber. Whatever goes on in your Caucus heaven knows; some weird magic occurs in there. No one appears able to speak a view separate from the consensus view that is formed in the Caucus, so you sit there occupying expensive seats, taking valuable time to give nodding assent to something that has no voice called democracy. It is a farce.
Read your first speeches to this parliament again and see whether you really meant what you said. I would expect to have a better response to the motions put before us than we have received now, by way of argument, by way of a range of views from those who are given the responsibility of representing others. We do not have that. The minister did not take his full time in response. He does not prosecute the points of the motion - and that reinforces that arrogant view of ‘I do not care what they think. I do not care what your argument is. I will deliberately mishear and misrepresent and I will take my own way’. It is high-handed, it is autocratic. You will do whatever you like.
Sadly, we will all bear the consequences. All we are asking you to do is to stop, recognise the problems, and then put in a process that re-connects with the community and proceed from that point. We all want to get to the end point.
I urge honourable members to reconsider and to support this motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. The noes have it.
Mr MILLS: Division, Madam Speaker.
A member: Is it supported?
Madam SPEAKER: It does not have to be supported when it is the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Stirling: When did that rule come in? Nick Dondas used to make sure it was supported.
Madam SPEAKER: The rule is that when the Leader of the Opposition calls a division it does not have to be supported because it is accepted that he is representing his party.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 6 Noes 16
Mrs Braham Mr Bonson
Ms Carney Mr Burke
Mr Conlan Dr Burns
Mrs Miller Mr Hampton
Mr Mills Mr Henderson
Mr Wood Mr Kiely
Mr Knight
Ms Lawrie
Ms Martin
Mr McAdam
Ms McCarthy
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Mr Stirling
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Container Deposit Legislation
Container Deposit Legislation
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move – That:
1. the Northern Territory government acknowledge the growth of litter, the cost of waste management, and the increasing demand for landfill, are major issues for the Northern Territory environment, and its towns and communities;
Madam Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to gauge if government is willing to declare their support for container deposit legislation in the Northern Territory. It is simple, direct; there is no hidden agenda. In fact, the government could agree to each of those three points. There is no time line on part 3. All I am asking is that they consider those three points, as they are three points which the government could agree to.
It comes at a time in the lead-up to Clean Up Australia and reinforces the message from the Chairman, Ian Kiernan, that climate change means Australia has to change its way and that recycling reform is an important part of it. Mr Kiernan urges governments to follow the example of South Australia and introduce a national drink container refund scheme. The Northern Territory government has had continual representation from the Independent members of this parliament but continues to ignore the mountain of evidence as to the necessity of such a program and the vast community support demonstrated in regional centres and remote communities.
Let me give you a recent example. Late last year, the Alice Springs Town Council trialled a ‘cash for cans’ project with a grant of $10 000 courtesy of the Northern Territory government. In four weeks, 200 000 cans - and only cans - were handed in by residents. It was such a success that the trial was extended. The council contributed an additional $10 000 of its own money, such was the demand. In summary, for that short trial period, the council collected 456 000 cans, sold the cans for $3650, and gave out $22 800 in cash. The nett cost to council, including wages and security and their contribution, was $12 800. The council was stunned and amazed at the community response. School kids, itinerants, and the general public all availed themselves of this opportunity - a truly remarkable indication of the support it generated as well as, most of all, a clean river bed and clean parks.
In March 2006, this government awarded a contract to the Centre for Appropriate Technology to investigate the logistics involved in local container deposit schemes in remote communities. The Centre for Appropriate Technology was given a three-month time frame to report by August 2006. It analysed three communities. The results indicated that remote communities would need mechanisms for assistance with transport and labour costs but, ultimately, the benefits of reduced landfill and litter and a less polluted environment were substantial. For example, CAT found the total number of cans sold within communities in one year in Lajamanu was 95 685; Angurugu 107 530; and Atitjere 81 948. These containers ended up in either landfill or as litter, or outside the community in another environment.
What has happened to that report - a very honest report - documenting the complexities of implementing schemes in remote communities? Did government give any consideration to establishing a process for collection and transport of containers to be recycled? All we have seen to date has been minor grants to some communities which were willing to implement voluntary schemes.
The Lajamanu project saw 25 000 cans collected in the first month. They purchased a bale up machine - thanks to the Northern Territory EPA, their own council and their Progress Association. They trained people to operate it, and they opened a litter centre from 3 pm to 4.30 pm and offered their residents a 10 return. This happened every Wednesday. That simple project was so supported by that community that it changed their environment. I am sorry I do not have a larger picture to show you, but the whole place became clear of the litter of cans and containers because there was the incentive for everyone to return their container.
The one-off grants are not addressing the long-term impact of containers as litter in landfill. Although that was successful, one-off short-term grants are not the answer. Government repeatedly says that - and I quote from the previous Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage: ‘A jurisdiction the size of the Territory going it alone does not stack up’, and reverts to that never ending fall-back line: ‘If we were part of a national container deposit scheme it will work’.
I am aware that state and territory ministers for the Environment are meeting in April. I am urging the new minister to come back with a result. If the feds will not introduce CDL, then the Northern Territory government should. The government regularly boasts of the Territory’s growing economy and the rapid development expected in the foreseeable future. Government needs vision. We have heard this repeatedly in this House. We would not be in this beautiful Parliament House if the previous government did not have the vision to build it at a time when people were reluctant to invest and spend.
On a recent trip to South Australia which, I might add, just doubled the refund deposit to 10, I went through a recycling depot. It had up to 11 people employed at any one time as people drove in to return their containers and get their refunds. On a Saturday morning, they handed out $5000 in cash to people. Community groups such as schools use it to generate income. The whole operation was efficient and simple. Recycling industry figures indicate that, each year, more than $20m is paid to South Australians returning their drink containers.
Our government must recognise that to ignore the problem is to create a never-ending cost to local government and ratepayers as they endeavour to control litter. We should be aiming to preserve the pristine environment of the Territory and ensure we contribute to reducing the consumption of those resources which pollute the environment and add to greenhouse gases. This is a problem that can be solved.
There is enough evidence to demonstrate the community will support such a scheme but, more importantly, it would give the government accolades if they were to introduce such a scheme. Let me quote from two of the letters of support I have received this week:
- Congratulations on your intention to introduce a bill for container deposit legislation in the NT. This is long overdue. I was very disappointed at the NT government shelving this issue several years ago and I hope it gets up this time.
They obviously thought I was doing my bill. I do have draft legislation but I thought at this stage I would not introduce it. I will wait and see what response government gives to this motion.
Another person said:
- Thank you so much for promoting a container deposit scheme. I have long believed that such a scheme would be of major benefit in cleaning up the Northern Territory and other parts of Australia as well. Originally from South Australia, I remember collecting cans when I was a uni student and, I must say, it was a big help in extending my budget.
A scheme such as the container deposit will contribute to cleaner communities, it will provide employment opportunities, it will reduce waste going to the land fill, and savings in the long term of our resources, not to mention the economic benefits to members of the community.
Madam Speaker, I am asking government to commit today to introducing legislation, regardless of whether it is agreed to at the national level. I urge members on both sides of the House to support this motion.
Mr KIELY (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, from the outset, let me say that I appreciate the sentiment and motivation of the member for Braitling in relation to this issue. It is one that she has constantly championed and I commend her for it. However, time and again, we have gone back to this. Now it has come to me.
No one likes to see litter in our communities. Territorians take pride in our communities being clean and tidy, from the streets of our suburbs to the car park entrances of our shopping centres. It makes a big difference to be able to go about our business in a clean and litter-free environment. However, Northern Territory legislation for a container deposit scheme is not the answer.
When newly elected, this government was optimistic about CDL. The government considered an independent report from the University of Technology, Sydney, which indicated significant benefits flowing from CDL. However, we also have to consider the impact on the consumer and the possible legal, taxation and competition challenges that could arise. While the population volume and density in southern states may make state-based CDL schemes viable, the simple fact is that our small population, dispersed over many remote locations, makes it very difficult to cover transport and energy costs back to recycling centres. This would impact on the commercial viability of a container deposit scheme in the Northern Territory. Consequently, this government determined that it would not proceed to introduce CDL on its own, but would work towards keeping CDL on the national agenda and support moves to establish a national scheme.
Having decided this, we have turned our attention to other innovative ideas in the area of litter management. We are enthusiastic participants in the National Environment Protection Measure, the NEPM, and to optimise resource reuse and recovery, and encourage the conservation of virgin materials. We are implementing NEPM through the 2007 Re-thinking Waste Disposal Behaviour and Resource Efficiency Interim Action Plan which, in short, is Re-thinking Waste.
The demographic position of the Northern Territory poses unique challenges when considering waste management, disposal behaviour, and resource recovery issues. Approaches adopted in more populous regions of Australia where waste management is big business may not provide solutions for the Territory. The viability of recycling in most areas of the Territory is severely constrained by the distance to markets and small population. Collection and processing infrastructure is undeveloped and there is no data on the volume of recyclable/reusable materials available to assist analysis of industry development opportunities.
A rethink of our perception of ‘waste’ in industry, in our home and in our shopping centres is long overdue. In recent decades, emerging sustainable technologies have transformed materials previously wasted to landfill into valuable resources for an increasing range of new products, processes and industries. These technologies should be explored seeking industry development opportunities for our remote and regional communities, and seek smart solutions to convert waste problems into energy or valuable commodities such as plastic woods, glass tiles or road surfaces and cement additives.
Re-thinking Waste is a non-legislative approach designed to achieve the goals of the NEPM in a manner considered appropriate to the Northern Territory, in particular dealing with litter and litter behaviour in remote areas. We have a partnership with the industry group, the Packaging Stewardship Forum, which provides funding to assist the Re-thinking Waste Strategy. Re-thinking Waste involves finding opportunities to integrate resource recovery and litter management with regional development and capacity building and represents an initial step in developing a longer-term waste management framework for the Northern Territory. It aims to engage all relevant stakeholders in the pursuit of a collaborative, efficient and effective approach.
The strategy focuses on localised schemes as litter management tools, and the government has supported the implementation of a number of locally-based, voluntary container deposit schemes. The first of these was in the Titjikala community which was supported by the Litter and Recycling Grants program in 2005 and 2006.
In 2006, the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts commissioned an investigation by the Centre for Appropriate Technology into the logistics of local, voluntary container deposit schemes in remote communities. The objective of this project was to develop how-to kits for remote communities wishing to develop local container deposit refund schemes as a litter management tool.
The Re-thinking Waste Strategy, together with the 2007-08 Environment Grants program, is supporting the Lajamanu community to implement a local container deposit scheme with the Centre for Appropriate Technology providing the monitoring role. The project incorporates purchase of a baler which crushes and bales aluminium cans and plastic bottles ready for backloading to Katherine and Alice Springs. This government is contributing $21 000 to that program.
The 2007-08 EnvironmeNT Grants program also supported a ‘cash for cans’ scheme in Alice Springs. The Northern Territory government provided $10 000 as a one-off grant. Within a few months, 200 000 cans had been returned, acquitting the grant. The scheme was very successful with the Alice Springs Town Council contributing $10 000 to keeping the program going. The final report is due in October 2008. Member for Braitling, we are eagerly awaiting this report, because recycling in Alice Springs has not previously been successful. We will wait and see what this report says, and I am eagerly awaiting it.
This government will continue to support local action and also work with our state, territory and federal counterparts to move towards a feasible national container deposit scheme. The election of a Rudd Labor government gives us an ideal opportunity to seek to progress such a national scheme. It is definitely an issue, member for Braitling. I will raise it with the federal Environment minister, Peter Garrett, when I meet with him next week.
We stand firm on our view that a container deposit model would be best developed and applied at a national level. We will not be introducing a scheme which unfairly impacts on Territory consumers. This government will support any investigation in consideration of the feasibility of a national container deposit scheme.
Madam Speaker, the motion is not supported.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, that is disappointing. I thought there would have been a different response. There is an opportunity for one. Just reading the politics of it alone, which you guys are pretty good at doing, you would see that there is quite a good opportunity for you. At this point, with or without the federal government showing you the way, providing you the broader structure that you can belong to, you could start. You could take that step because you can predict it is going to happen. But no, you will just wait until someone else leads the way.
Member for Braitling, I commend you for bringing this on. You have been, as the member for Sanderson correctly identified, a strong and good advocate for this important issue. These are matters that weigh on the minds of those who are thinking of ways of solving problems, particularly of an environmental nature. From the point of view of the CLP, we have had many discussions on this issue. Though our position has been described as support for CDL, what we have not done as yet is to describe the means by which it would be implemented. We support CDL although, as yet, the model to implement CDL has not been unveiled. That is the position of the CLP and it is for that reason we support this motion.
Looking at the Parliamentary Record from 2001-02, I see that the budget speech by the former Treasurer, Mike Reed, indicated support in the event of a favourable finding and, if there was demonstrated strong community support, a CLP government would support CDL. That is the budget speech 2001-02. Whatever the view of the Labor Party is of the CLP, or of former Treasurer Mike Reed, those words are clearly recorded. It is an indication of the CLP’s capacity to read the wind and know that this is the way that, ultimately, we will go as a community because it is a community that desires proactive responses to environmental issues. It was expected that the Labor Party, when coming to office, would go fairly quickly to this position. I think there was that initial rush of blood to the head, and then they got mugged by a reality that, perhaps, it would be difficult because there are those in our community who are opposed to it such as the beverage industry. That is a reality that we face as well, as we are designing a model. Because there would be opposition to it and because that opposition can mount arguments that, perhaps, are persuasive, it does not mean that you must desist and back off.
There are ways around it, as has been found in South Australia. To that end, the CLP have assessed its implementation and practice in South Australia, particularly as it affects the beverage industry and the AHA membership in South Australia, and found that there are ways around it.
I know, as you know, that with the matter of reform of local government, people do not inherently generally accept change. When it is put before them and the argument is mounted, and the public good is responded to, then you have to make a courageous decision. However, you do it in that order. It is for that reason that the CLP must support this bill because, ultimately, this is the place that must be occupied by a progressive government. To waiver the challenge, there will be some difficulties and some opposition, but I can see there will be support for it, as it is the right thing to do. It will inject a new type of economy around this whole area and we will have people who have grown up in different states who have seen that it does work.
I can remember collecting bottles as a kid. I was given a motivation to do so because there was a reward attached to my effort. We need to nourish that basic concept in our community, to build in enterprise, particularly in our young people: reward for effort. That is why I am attracted to it. It brings that important attitude to bear on young minds that if you get out there and do this you will get a reward. It will give many people in remote communities an additional incentive to do something for which they will be directly rewarded according to their effort - and we will all benefit from it. I do not think it is too hard. It does not mean it is easy, but it is not too hard.
Madam former Speaker …
Mrs Braham: Member for Braitling will do.
Mr MILLS: Member for Braitling, I trust that in time to come you will be able to look back at this parliament and see that a progressive government has implemented a CDL scheme.
Mrs Braham: I do not think it will happen in my time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: With those words, I restate the position of the Country Liberal Party, which is that there is support for CDL and it is the model which will be unveiled at a later stage which will determine the way forward on this important matter.
As Opposition Leader, I commend the member for Braitling for bringing this important motion to this Chamber today.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing this motion forward - a motion I have also had a long interest in. In fact, even before I entered the Northern Territory parliament, I produced my own CD called Gerry Cans - great name. It is how container deposit legislation can operate in the Northern Territory. When I was in local government, local governments at that stage were – and still are - great supporters of the concept of container deposit legislation. We were pushing the then government to change its mind and, from what the Opposition Leader said today, they obviously have. However, it was certainly difficult to change their minds in those days in relation to this issue. My CD showed how container deposit could work in the Northern Territory and be effective.
We are not talking about something that has just been dreamed of today, but something that has been around a long time and been discussed in the Territory. It has been in South Australia for twice as long. When I hear the cries of the government which says: ‘We cannot do it unless it is national’ - that was something they invented when they really did not want to get involved.
The beverage industry came to see them one Christmas. I remember when there was a great feeling out there that the Labor Party was going to introduce container deposit legislation. There were some people from the beverage industry who visited town. I know because I had breakfast with one of them. They were trying to convince me to change my mind as well. Not long after that - I think in the new year - all of a sudden there was an announcement by the government that the beverage industry had given the Northern Territory something like $0.5m over three years to look at liquor abatement programs. Oh, dear me, we had been through that for years. Let us not forget, we had the Territory Anti-Litter Committee in the Northern Territory, of which I was a member, running for years. What was the one thing we were not allowed to discuss? We were not allowed to discuss deposits on containers because that was off the agenda as there was an unwritten understanding between the beverage industry and the government of that day that there would be no container deposit legislation in the Northern Territory.
I thought when the Labor Party came to power it would get a little innovative and do some things that the then CLP government would not do. However, when it gained government, it thought: ‘Oh dear, how sad, we might upset the beverage industry and they are offering us some nice money. We will have second thoughts’. So, the whole policy went to: ‘We will introduce liquor abatement schemes. We have the industries onside, we are all pally, and this is a national thing’.
You could ask South Australia, if it is a national thing, why they do not close their scheme down and wait for a national scheme. They operate quite well on their own. Why can’t we? If I hear people arguing that we have distance, I say people who live in remote communities have some form of transport to get goods there; they automatically have some way of getting it back. The transport issue is not a problem. There are other issues - distribution centres and all that sort of thing - which would need to be looked at. It could be done. It is the same old thing: where there is a will, there is a way. But there is no will. There is just an excuse that this is a national issue.
Madam Speaker, we know what the advantages are of having CDL in place in the Northern Territory. It would be great for the environment. The member for Braitling talked about the increasing demand for landfill. I will not get on to the debate about landfill in the rural area, but I was always concerned that landfill was being filled by containers that should not be in the landfill. One way to take that volume of containers out of landfill was to have deposits on those particular containers. Look at the 2 L and 1.25 L plastic bottles that get put into landfill. Imagine the volume they actually take up. That just makes it more and more expensive to have landfill, yet we are not really serious about removing them.
You might talk about the kerbside recycling in Darwin and in Palmerston. That is subsidised recycling by the ratepayers. Most of the Northern Territory does not have kerbside to start with, so you are talking about issues that might be relevant to some places. The beverage industry would argue that you cannot have kerbside recycling and container deposit legislation. Also, as the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries and mining would know - and he must sit there thinking, ‘Oh, oh’ - both those systems apply in South Australia.
I have been to South Australia twice, specifically to look at container deposit legislation, and that is standard, that is how well it is going. Iced coffee cartons now have a 5 deposit on them. I was there at the Scouts shed where they were collecting all the containers and a bloke came on his pushbike with the basket on the front full of iced coffee cartons. He gave them to the person there, they counted them, he got his money and he was away. How simple can you get? Perfect. Why will it be some super complicated system that we do not need to have? I do not know. It is great for recycling, because you get the recyclable products back to where they need to go.
There is a small charge, of course, that is how the whole system works. That charge is enough for us to cover the cost of taking things like plastics back to a centre where they can be recycled. How much glass is recycled in the Northern Territory? Practically none. I went out to Cleanaway on their open day last year and asked if it was true that when they got a skip full of glass, people have to pay. They said yes. I asked: ‘If I bring glass to Cleanaway, is that okay?’ He said: ‘No, we charge you for it’. I asked why. He said: ‘It is a handling cost’. What encouragement is there for people to bring glass bottles back? Darwin people might be okay, the city council does not worry because you pay for it in your rates, the same for Palmerston. However, for people in the rural area, why would you bother taking glass back to Cleanaway when you have to pay them to take it? Yet, if you had a deposit system where there was enough money to transport it south, there would not be the problem. Here we have a system that I believe is failing ...
Mr Kiely: How much by barge?
Mr WOOD: I do not know. Cleanaway said there would be a charge. That is not exactly encouraging people to take it back.
It is interesting that in the core functions of the new local government it has the word ‘litter’ as a function you will have to have. I have always been of the belief that if I was in the council today I would say to the government: ‘I will take on litter as a core function if you introduce container deposit legislation, because I believe you have a responsibility to do something about litter as well. You clean up the highways’. How much money does it cost every year for those little quad bikes to go up and down the highway between Palmerston and Darwin? We hide the amount of litter that is on our roads. If you look at some of the other roads where the rubbish does not get picked up as often, like the Arnhem Highway, at the amount of rubbish on those roads, and you start to have some idea how much litter is on the roads. When the report on Keep Australia Beautiful was released, Ian Kiernan said that the volume of litter - not the numbers of pieces of litter which is always deceptive because litter can be cigarette butts and straws – most prevalent is drink containers.
I do not think we should stick to drink containers. That has been my argument with what the beverage industry puts out. I believe if things can be recycled they should have a deposit on them. So what if it is a can of peaches, or a soap container? What does it matter if it is a can or a glass jar? Why can it not have a deposit on it and encourage all that stuff to be recycled? You see 330 ml bottles of drink which probably cost you $2.50; it takes you five seconds to drink it if it is a hot day and the bottle is thrown into the bin. What an enormous waste. It costs a lot of money to put it together, it costs a lot of money to bring it here, we throw it in the bin and, if we are lucky, it might go back somewhere. The chance of that happening In the Territory is fairly low if you look at the recycling rates for glass.
If you ever want to look at recycling and its relationship with container deposits, you need go no further than aluminium cans. We have a process in the Territory where you can take your cans to a recycling depot, or you can take them to the Scouts, and you get money for them. That is exactly what container deposit is about; in this case it is something like a quarter of a cent for every can you collect. Why is aluminium the highest recycled container product in the Northern Territory? It is not because people drink a lot of it; it is because it is valuable. If you put a value on waste, it will not be wasted. If you have no value on waste, then I am sorry, the environmental heart that you might bleed sometimes about the importance of reducing greenhouse gases and saving the environment will not stay around long. If you hit the pocket of a person and say: ‘You can make money out of your waste if you return it’, you will encourage changes in people’s habits.
I am guilty of this when it comes to the carry bags from the supermarkets - the plastic bags. Yes, I have green bags in the back of the car but I always forget to take them with me, so I take plastic bags out. If you use the Irish method, where you actually hit someone 25, it hurts them in the pocket and, all of a sudden, they change their habits. It works in reverse: it will work where people can be encouraged to make money because they are recycling a product.
South Australia is the perfect answer to it all. I have to tell you that my first trip to South Australia to look at recycling was funded by the beverage industry. They were trying to convince me that this was not the way to go. The rest of us in that party came away from that tour believing 100% that this was the way to go. I do not think they achieved what they wanted. South Australian politicians have said that this is the most popular legislation they have. If they were to try to remove the container deposit legislation in South Australia, I would say that there would be many changes in government if that was the case.
This creates an industry, and it creates a micro-industry that we keep forgetting. The micro-industry that you see in the suburbs of South Australia you would see in the little townships in our remote communities. You would see Aboriginal people collect the cans. Someone would work out a way of getting them into Darwin. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if you are old enough you remember getting money back for cans. What did you do? You would go to the football ground after everyone left and check under the seats, or you would go for a wander along the creek. You would go wherever you knew people congregated in the hope that you could collect enough cans to make money - simple. I cannot for the life of me understand, just because the beverage industry does not like it, why we cannot do something.
I gather there have been a number of efforts by this government to look at pilot programs. I would have been interested to hear the results of those pilot programs. At the Keep Australia Beautiful meeting last year, at the Wesleyan Church in the Botanic Gardens, I know, and I have not been able to get the information, that there was a report given on one community and the results using container deposits within that community. I do not have that report but I know there was a study done and that study would be worth looking at. Those benefits help the community; it cleans up the community. Kids get a little money and they become entrepreneurial. They know that if they do a little work they get some money in return. That is another benefit of container deposit legislation.
People will ask: ‘What about the cost?’ For sure, you pay a little more for your soft drinks or your beer. If you want to see the power of the beverage industry and the breweries, when this nearly happened a couple of years ago, who was making all the noise? The breweries. The beverage industry tried to say it is going to cost extra for a carton of beer, and made an extraordinary claim about it: ‘It is going to cost the worker this much’. (1) they exaggerated the cost, and (2) you knew you could get your money back from the can. You see, as soon as soon as something like this happens, big business gets involved, governments get nervous, they change their minds, and that is what happened.
The minister, who is from South Australia, knows a lot about how container deposits work. Can you tell me if a carton of beer or a carton of coke in South Australia costs any more money than a carton anywhere else? They do not. That was the big fear factor they ran in South Australia, but the reality is some of these costs are absorbed by the breweries and soft drink companies. They are easily absorbed. You cannot tell me Carlton United and Coca-Cola do not make a pretty packet out of the product they sell. They do and some of these costs are quite easily absorbed, and the facts are that is exactly what happens in South Australia.
There are many things thrown about by industry when the government starts to think about doing this particular type of legislation. They get nervous. It is time that they forgot the beverage industry and the container people. They should think of us, our community, the benefits that container deposits bring to our community, both in cleaning it up and the environment. I have not debated this subject for a while. If you look on the list at the times I have debated here, and I pull out the eight or nine pages of times I have spoken here, I have spoken many times. In the last year or so I have not. However, in that last year there has been much emphasis on global warming and the cost of manufacturing. Yet, we still have not advanced in the ways we could change these things. We seem to have taken a step backwards.
I know the minister will talk about - and he has - the wonderful programs we have, but the reality is they are pussyfooting around just to pretend we are doing something. If the government was serious it would take up the motion the member for Braitling has put forward and say: ‘We will give it a go’. It would be beneficial for the Northern Territory and put the wind up the beverage industry and the container industry. They would be up here like a rocket. I say ignore them because if we had container deposit legislation here it would start the ball rolling. Western Australia is having a good look at it at the moment. Soon it will be harder in big states like Victoria and New South Wales because many councils have set up kerbside recycling and have nearly made an industry. For the benefit of the Northern Territory, we should go ahead.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion put forward by the member for Braitling. It is a good motion. It is one that any sensible person in the Northern Territory would support. Minister, you have advisors who would know about the Arid Centre Environment Group and our Environment Centre which both support container deposit legislation to the back teeth. When a survey was done at the Alice Springs Show about 98% of people who filled it in supported it. So you are on a winner. We know there is an election coming up. Here is your chance; put this out as an election promise. You might win.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Braitling’s motion today. I am formerly from South Australia and cannot remember when South Australia did not have CDL. It has been there for a long time. I am a little older than CDL, but it has been in South Australia for a very long time. The member for Drysdale is a former South Australian and he would …
Mr Natt: A proud one, too.
Mrs MILLER: Yes. It is not ‘Go Port’, it is ‘Go South Adelaide’. He would know, deep down, that it is the way to go. You couldn’t possibly not support CDL. The government is a bit titchy about it because of the pressure put on them by the beverage industry. However, I believe that the new minister for Environment has a perfect opportunity to put his mark on something that is very important, and is considered very important by constituents right throughout the Northern Territory. I believe, from an earlier speech, that there is a meeting of all of the state and territory Environment ministers shortly. It would be a good pat on the back for the Northern Territory, and especially for the new minister, to take it up.
There are many positives to CDL, but one of the positives in South Australia is that the place is tidy. The countryside is tidy, all the roadsides are tidy, there are very few bottles or cans lying on the sides of roads. It makes a visible difference. You can pull off the road anywhere on country roads in South Australia and there are no bottles and cans because they are worth money. Usually, anything that is worth money goes back to wherever you can get the money for it. It might not be a significant amount of money for each can or each bottle but, when you multiply them, it adds up to quite a bit.
The member for Drysdale, as a former AFL footballer …
Mr Natt: Why are you picking on me?
Mrs MILLER: Because you should be sticking up for this, member for Drysdale. He would know from football matches and sporting venues that there are many soft drink cans and iced coffee containers lying around after games. You do not find that in South Australia. I was talking about football because I used to go to football as well and you could not even finish your drink and there was some enterprising young fellow asking: ‘Have you were finished with your can yet, lady?’. He would wait for you to finish and take the empty can. You did not have to worry about finding a rubbish bin or, as we see in most cases in the Northern Territory, finding it dropped on the ground. It was clean and tidy.
I travel on country roads in the Territory as many of you know and, in contrast, the amount of rubbish is astounding - cans and bottles many kilometres from a town. Some of them are 150 km to 200 km away. You would not believe the number of bottles and cans. That, in itself, tells me that there is a serious problem in the Northern Territory which needs to be addressed. Those cans and bottles will not be there when CDL is introduced because some enterprising person will be out there with a trailer, loading them up to make sure that they get their money’s worth.
Sporting associations in South Australia benefited from CDL because many of the sporting clubs are clubs with young players who are always trying to raise money for their equipment or for travel. They usually have collections and the parents collect for those sporting associations. A lot of money is raised because each can is worth 5 - and I believe they have doubled it of late, which makes it worth while. It has been a good fundraiser for those sporting clubs.
The minister for the Environment said that shopping centres in Darwin are really looking good, there is not much rubbish around, and they are kept neat, clean and tidy. I invite the minister for the Environment to visit the Oasis Shopping Centre in Katherine, Woolworths car park, where it will be an entirely different story: there are cans and bottles strewn through the park and across the footpath, in the garden areas, through the shopping centre car park because people are too lazy to put them in the bins. If you had CDL, they would not be lying in the car park or on the footpath because people would want to get money for them.
Unfortunately, there is an element in our community with lazy habits developed over a long time who would not go to a rubbish bin or a recycling bin to put their containers in. When there is a reward for what you are taking back, CDL would definitely make a difference to those people’s habits. I could guarantee, with an incentive for a refund on a bottle or can, that there would not be any cans and bottles, for example, in the Woolworths car park in Katherine. I am sure there are plenty of other car parks in Northern Territory shopping centres exactly the same as ours in Katherine.
I will refer to Katherine, because that is where I have had a lot to do with cans and bottles. There are two women in Katherine, Jenny Duggan and Di Jennison who, for quite a few years now, every day when they go for a walk, take plastic bags with them to collect the cans that are lying around Katherine. They take them home, store them and take them to the recycle centre for the refund. Because they are not worth very much as they go by weight, it takes a fair while for the money to accumulate. However, they have raised well over $300 in about three years. That is a lot of cans for those women to be picking up just on the streets of Katherine.
That is in addition to the person who is paid by Katherine Town Council for doing his collection on the median strip along the highways, along the sides of the highways and in the parks in Katherine. It costs over $50 000 a year to pay him to keep the place clean and tidy of cans and bottles. He does paper as well, so it is a very big expense for council to pay him to do that. There is money being paid out now for people to collect them, so it would make a huge difference to what local government has to pay for rubbish collection in our regional towns. When Clean Up Australia comes to Katherine, it is quite upsetting to see the number of cans, bottles and recyclable material that is picked up on that one day a year. It would be nice to think that the place could be clean all the time without waiting for that one day a year.
I am very supportive of this, member for Braitling. I do commend you for bringing this motion to the House today. I hope that the government will listen to you in sincerity and not with blocked ears, and that the new minister for the Environment will take this on as a challenge to himself and his government to really push forward the argument for container deposit in the Northern Territory. I know that it is Labor’s stance to look at a national program, but that is an excuse. I believe that is a fob off. You can take the lead and come up with some very good suggestions for the Northern Territory.
I agree with what the member for Nelson said about putting your fears about the beverage industry away. You need to make this decision for the betterment of the environment, for the people in the Northern Territory. I know that you will be very proud of the way the Northern Territory looks after CDL is introduced.
There was a mention that we have long distances to travel and that it is too difficult to get recycled cans and bottles back to a depot. They would get back there, I can guarantee you. If they are worth money, they will …
Mr Kiely: Too costly, not too difficult.
Mrs Braham: Backloading, it is called.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs MILLER: Sorry?
Mr Kiely: Too costly.
Mrs Braham: Backloading.
Mrs MILLER: They will bring them back, believe me. People will bring them back. They will stick them in plastic bags in their car boot and bring them back. There would be a minimum that would have to come back in bulk.
There has to be way around it rather than putting them into landfill and having our roadsides littered, as they are now. With all of the talk about global warming we do have to do something about it. It would be really good to see the Northern Territory take it up and introduce CDL sooner rather than later.
Member for Braitling, I support your motion for CDL.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the members who have contributed to this debate. I must also commend the minister for being up-front and telling us where he stood, rather than for us to put our arguments forward and him come in at the end. However, I am not surprised at his response. It would have been a great challenge for you if you had agreed. I did not think there was anything in the motion you should not agree to. I was wording it carefully to make it acceptable to government. Regarding some of the arguments you used, you have heard responses from other members, so I am not going to extend the debate further. However, it does not have a great consumer impact, as the member for Katherine, who is from South Australia, said.
You only have to look at the prices of goods in your supermarkets to know that they can change dramatically from week to week, and consumers still purchase them. If you buy a can of coke from a corner shop, it is a lot more expensive than if you buy a dozen from a supermarket, but it does not stop you from buying it, especially if you know you are eventually going to recover a deposit anyway. Consumers do not really think as minutely as: ‘I am not going to buy this can of coke because it has a 5 refund on it’. They do not think that at all.
You also talked about a small population in the Territory. If we continually use that as a marker for not doing anything, we would never do anything. We would not be doing the great exploration programs or the developments. It is not really a sensible argument. It is not a sane one.
You talked about transport costs. There have been surveys done that show that transport companies will backload. They will take things down south much cheaper because they have an empty truck going east or south. You only have to look through some of the research that has been done to know that transport costs are quite minimal because of the agreement with transport companies that they will take these bales back in their trucks which would normally be empty, so at least they are getting some sort of payment. It is not something that should deter us at all.
You talked about the shopping centres. I am glad the member for Katherine brought that up because the litter you see is not just in shopping centres. It is on the highways, in your parks; it is everywhere. I often tell the story of when, I think it was Prince Charles was visiting one year and he was going out, perhaps it was to Hermannsburg, and the patrols went along to make the highways clean. What they did was pick up the cans and throw them further into the bush, because there was no point in them keeping them. That was their answer to cleaning up the environment. Remember, though, that that can will be there for a long time. I purposely only talked about containers. I did not talk about the other waste such as the batteries and other things that are around.
You say you are going to wait until April to see what is happening with the Environment ministers’ meeting. Why is this government relying upon the federal government to make policies for them? You scream about being independent of federal government, so why are you relying on them? Do you like federal government interference in making policies for you? I say to you: that is a strange way to go about things. You talk about the new federal Environment minister. Has he not compromised himself on some of his positions that he used to echo prior to being a member of parliament? You think about him grandstanding when he was part of a rock group. Wow, has he backpedalled madly on some issues now! He has compromised his principles; there is no doubt about that.
I thank the Opposition Leader for his support. As I said, I was very careful not to suggest a model or to present legislation. I just want people to talk to the principles that are involved. I thank the opposition members for doing that because we were hoping that you would come to an agreement and we could all work together to develop a model and legislation that we would all be eager to implement.
I really think you have missed an opportunity. The new Chief Minister has missed an opportunity. If he was to stand up and say, ‘We are going to do it no matter how hard it is, even if it costs us, we are going to put in this particular legislation’, you would be on a winner. There is no doubt about it. You would be on a winner because the community out there wants it.
You might say that the community does not care, but they do. Why are they continually asking you for grants to trial some of these schemes? I am not just talking about the major centres. We know it costs Alice Springs Town Council enormous amounts to have rangers and Tangentyere Council workers clean up the river. Every morning they get up at 5 am, walk up the river and pick up the litter. Cost-effective? When you think about it, you could get a better balance of the money we spend and how we spend it. I really think you should have thought broader, and been a bit more adventurous in your response.
Remember, containers are just one part of the litter that spoils our environment, and the public areas of our towns are often a disgrace. We often have tourists comment on that. They are surprised as they drive up to see litter around bins and on the kerbside because people do not seem to care. As the member for Katherine said, they would care if they knew they were going to get something back. It is that incentive that makes people pick up the cans and communities can make money out of it.
I love the story - I think it was Santa Teresa or Titjikala - where the kids get not just cash for what they bring back, they actually build up credit in the shop. One of the young boys was buying bread and other things his family needed. It was just a wonderful story that this young kid said: ‘I am going to do this because by getting this money, I can provide for my family’. I am not going into why he needed to do that, but it just shows that if there is a will there is a way, and if there is a reason then you will do it. We should be rewarding people like that: yes, you are doing the right thing, now we will do the right thing by you. Unfortunately, we have not.
I thank the member for Nelson for his support. He has been a passionate advocate for a long time. We both seem to be on this a little but it is because we see some sense. I am quite sure the new minister for the Environment can also see the benefits. Western Australia has already passed, I think it is a waste management bill, which does not deal just with CDL, it is dealing with waste on the whole, and that has gone through their Lower and Upper Houses. I suggest that this government look at what they are doing. Perhaps they can borrow from how they are going to go about it. Theirs is a much broader bill than just container deposit legislation. At least they have said they are going to look at it and they have not sat on their backsides waiting for the feds to do it for them. That is the important part about it. Tasmania is also considering it at the moment, and they are probably doing what I was hoping you would do. I was waiting to see how they could implement it as well.
There is a push across the country, minister. We do not have to wait for the feds to tell us how to run the Territory. We do not need to wait for the feds to prompt us, because you might be waiting a long time. I hope I am wrong; I hope you come back from this meeting with a very positive message. We will say: ‘Great’. The reason for making you debate this today is that we want you to go back with some sort of commitment and knowledge that this is a good thing for the Territory. It may cost us some money, and perhaps you have to divert some of the money you normally give in grants to assist this scheme to get up. Once it gets up and running, as they have shown in South Australia, the community will stick by you. The community will do it. You might recall the Alice Springs Arid Lands Environment Centre offered kids 5 for every can at the show. The year they did not do that, there was rubbish everywhere. The year they did do it the response from the kids was great; it cleans up.
Minister, you are basically saying that the government does not want to support this motion. You probably could have supported it because there was nothing in the wording that was not acceptable to you, I am sure, except where I put ‘commit some funding’. Good luck at the Environment ministers’ meeting. Come back and give us some good news but, if you do not have good news, come back and do it yourself.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move the motion.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Pensioner Travel Scheme –
Inclusion of Intra-State Travel
Pensioner Travel Scheme –
Inclusion of Intra-State Travel
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
- That this Assembly call upon the Territory government to extend the operation of the pensioner travel scheme to include intra-state travel.
The Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme was introduced in 1979 to encourage people of retirement age to continue living in the Northern Territory by giving them the opportunity to visit their families interstate every two to four years, depending on their eligibility. I say at the outset that this pensioner and carer travel scheme is considered one of the best travel benefit schemes for pensioners in Australia.
By introducing this motion today to include intra-state travel concessions, I am seeking to make it the very best. I became aware not too long after I arrived here in 1989 that the Territory was looked upon as a place where mainly young people came to work for a few years and then return home interstate. Many young people arrived here to work with stock firms, in banks, or as tradespeople picking up jobs wherever they decided to stop throughout the Territory. Many took the opportunities they saw were available to them and established a business. That is how many of the businesses right throughout the Territory began.
I started working in Katherine in 1990 for one such company, Semrite Constructions, that had been established a couple of years earlier by two tradesmen who had only come to the Territory for a short time to help rebuild Darwin after Cyclone Tracy. They are Greg Wright and Peter Semrau. They both travelled to Katherine at different times, and both got work there, only expecting to be there for a short time. They ended up teaming together, working their partnership out of the back of a ute in the beginning and, eventually, building up to a medium-size construction and maintenance company by the time I came to work for them. Greg Wright’s family, including his mother, Merle Wright, did not take long to follow Greg to live in Katherine, and they are still there. Greg married Darilyn, and they have four sons, all of whom are still living very happily in the Northern Territory.
I am using this example of young people who came for a short time many years ago and ended up making the Territory their home. Fortunately, Greg’s mother, Merle, lives in Katherine too, but there are many other people who came to the Northern Territory, stayed, and left family and friends long distances away. The Territory covers a vast area, as we all know, with Darwin being at the Top End and Alice Springs, the second biggest town, at the southern end, nearly 1500 km away. As we all know, that is a considerable distance. Many members of families have gone their separate ways for whatever reason and established themselves, in some instances, at the other end of the Territory to their parents.
The pensioner concession travel scheme was designed to assist pensioners who have been living in the Territory for two years or more to be able to visit their family and friends interstate. The idea was to encourage more mature residents to remain in the Territory during their senior years. The scheme is aimed at women over 60 years and men over 65 years, an age group of which, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very proud to say that I fall into these days. Believe me, I am quite happy to still be here, it does not matter what the age is.
This scheme is to encourage pensioners to get together with their family and friends at least on a biennial basis. I know many Territory pensioners who have accessed this entitlement over the years, and the difference the travel has made to them being able to visit their families has been exceptional. The cost of living in the Territory is higher than it is to live in southern states and, therefore, less encouraging for people in their retirement years to want to stay here. We spend a lot of time talking about how important seniors are to our communities and how much we value them - and we do - so this travel concession is an important enticement for them to want to spend their more senior years living here rather than moving out of the Territory.
There are many Territory families who are spread out across the Territory and who are in the position of elderly parents living in Darwin with their family living in Alice Springs, or vice versa. That, as we well know, costs a lot of money and is a very significant factor in determining whether they are able to get to see each other.
For the purposes of the current concession scheme, Darwin and Alice Springs are not classified as capital cities. I think that is a bit cute, because Darwin is certainly looked upon as the capital of the Northern Territory, with Alice Springs nearly 1500 km away, the second-largest town. I am sure the members from Central Australia consider Alice Springs the capital of Central Australia.
This motion that I have put before the House today seeks to adjust the criteria by including pensioners who live in either Darwin or Alice Springs with family in the opposite location being able to access the travel concession scheme. I know it would bring much joy to many people who do not at present have the financial capacity to travel biennially to be with their family. The CLP believes that families who have remained living in the Northern Territory who are separated by such distances as between Darwin and Alice Springs should not be disadvantaged by the pensioner concession travel scheme. They should be included with the same conditions as are presently outlined in the Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme, not forgetting that these people will be spending money wherever they travel, so this adjustment to the scheme will contribute to local businesses and tourism within the Northern Territory. That is what we want. It is welcomed.
Therefore, I propose that under the concessions headed Interstate Travel, Overseas Travel, and Private Vehicle Travel, a heading of Intrastate Travel be inserted with the conditions clearly outlined as follows:
- The applicant eligible under the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme, at the time of the application …
- … the applicant has resided in the Northern Territory for two years or more to be entitled to a 50% concession. The applicant is not entitled to a concession for travel expenses from any other source including from a spouse’s employer. Private vehicle travel excludes taxes and GST. Concessions are for travel expenses only and no other expenses such as accommodation, meals, insurances, booking or cancellation fees. Concessions are not available for one way journeys.
I urge all members of government to favourably consider this motion, which will be of great benefit to many pensioners and will remove the disadvantage that is obvious under the present legislation. Let us show our eligible pensioners, in a very positive way, that we value every one of them, not only those whose families live interstate. I urge all members to support the motion.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a position on which I have lobbied the previous Chief Minister on a number of occasions. I have an example that I would like to repeat. There is an elderly Territorian who lives in the Old Timers village in Alice Springs. Her son and daughter live in Darwin. Unfortunately, this lady is not well enough to travel. She would love to see her family but she is just not well enough to travel. She asked if there was any way that her son and daughter could use her fare to visit her in Alice Springs. Of course, the answer was no. That is the sad part. You have made the concession that if you have relatives down south, your relative can use your fare to visit you. You can reverse it so that your auntie or uncle who lives in Adelaide can come to see you in Alice Springs rather than you, as a senior, going to Adelaide to see them. You reversed that, and that was a good decision. That meant that people were able to have their relatives come and see them. It is unfortunate that this very senior Territorian’s family is not in Adelaide because they could have taken advantage of the scheme. They could have visited her under the scheme but, because they live in Darwin, you disadvantaged them.
Why would you want to disadvantage Territorians? Why would you want to do that? I thought this government was here for Territorians and I say it is sensible. If these relatives want to visit this very old lady in the Old Timers home, just because they live in Darwin and not in Adelaide, they should be able to avail themselves of the fare and not be disadvantaged that way. Unfortunately, the answer from the Chief Minister at the time was no.
I know that there are certain requirements for pensioners who can get this particular concession for travelling, but it is not broad enough to do that. The Chief Minister, at the time, said that it was too complex. I am not sure whether she was referring to the fact that there may be a large number of Territorians who are then eligible to travel across the Territory to visit people. Perhaps that was the crux of the matter: that she thought it would open floodgates, and that there would be Territorians all over the place moving backwards and forwards because they were entitled to the scheme. That does not lie with me. Minister, I bet you have relatives who live in other parts of the Territory, who are elderly. Why should you not be able to go and see them by using their fare component?
It is not a big thing the member for Katherine is asking. It is a very simple change to something that is already there. You have already made that change to allow relatives from south to utilise the fare, to do the reverse. That is a positive move by this government.
In this situation, the lady in the Old Timers is just too frail and fragile to travel and would not use her fare to go interstate. She has no reason to so, I suppose, in a way, it is a saving to government. However, she would very much like to assist her son and daughter who have a young family to come and see her. Minister, when you give us your reply, will you keep that in mind? There are some very genuine cases.
People have utilised this well. I have had people who have come in who have driven interstate and they religiously keep their fuel dockets so that they can claim the money when they come back as part of their travel concession. You have allowed that. You do not always have to catch a plane, you can drive, and that has been great. They appreciate that. The only thing they have said is that it is a shame they cannot get the money up-front rather than have to spend it and then claim it.
This motion put forward by the member for Katherine would benefit many Territorians - and they are the people you are here for. They are the people who are your constituents. They are the people who pay their rates and taxes, who keep the Territory running. I support the member for Katherine and when you give her a response, I hope you think of the personal situations of some of our elderly in the Territory. Think of some of the people who are living in hostels who can no longer travel, who might like to utilise their fare to bring their family to see them.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr BONSON (Senior Territorians): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank both members for bringing this motion to the House. It is an issue I am well aware of. The member for Braitling, as a long-term Territorian, understands how deeply this issue affects local Territorians.
There are a number of issues regarding intra-territory travel for members of the Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. It is important that we understand the background. There are a couple of issues I have to address regarding the member for Katherine’s contribution. Yes, there is an historical reason behind why this scheme was introduced in 1979, and that is because of the nature of what the Territory was back then. Basically, people who came to the Territory to work were from down south and the public service in general dominated the workforce in the Territory, in Alice Springs, Darwin and the regional areas. It is an historical situation where governments, both past and present, have encouraged people once they became a senior to take this interstate travel. It is a wonderful initiative and it is very important to support it.
However, unless it was an oversight - obviously, the member was reading from a written statement so I am not sure it was an oversight - it is the only scheme of its type in Australia. The reason why it is the only scheme of its type in Australia is because the other states and territories cannot afford it. However, this Territory government has supported it. I will read through the facts, the amount of money that we put into it, some of the cost issues, and some of the reasons why we cannot support this motion.
The reality is that this government and previous governments recognised that this was a very important scheme, but there is no other scheme anywhere else in Australia, either territory or state. In fact, the Commonwealth government does not have such a scheme. The Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia that provides free flights. It is generous; we all understand that. When you speak to most senior Territorians, they are delighted by the initiatives that we provide them through the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme.
In my position as the local member for Millner, what became very apparent to me was the importance of seniors throughout the community because, in self-interest, I engaged with the seniors - people who have contributed throughout their whole life to the Territory and, in fact, Australia, who have …
Ms Carney: ‘… self-interest, I engaged with the seniors’. You might regret that one. I think we will make a note of that.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BONSON: … raised children, had a working career, etcetera, and they are quite intelligent people. They research the schemes right across the board, and they understand that the scheme that the Northern Territory government provides is quite generous, and it is a two-way street. We respect the fact that we need to support our seniors; the seniors respect the fact that we support them. The pensioner concession scheme covers a range of concessions beyond just travel, as we know. Other concessions include electricity, water, sewerage and garbage rates, property rates, motor vehicle registration, motor vehicle licences and spectacles.
I spoke to a seniors group in Palmerston only a few days ago and gave them an undertaking that I would consult with them; that I would engage with them. Some of the issues that I will talk about have been highlighted in this motion under the Pensioner Concession Scheme. However, to a person, we all recognise the fact that, in comparison to other states and territories, the NT government, both historically and at present, support seniors better than any other state or territory. That is not even question marked; that is not even an argument. That is just the fact.
We are seeing two things happening within the population of seniors. One is that the seniors population, as we know, is growing - and it is growing quite quickly if you have a look at the ABS figures. There are a couple of reasons it is growing. One is that people are deciding to stay here in the Territory. Why are they deciding to stay? Because they have had kids and their kids have become adults and married and had children and now their grandchildren are living in the Territory. Then you have people who are migrating to the Northern Territory to access services as seniors. They come to the Territory. They migrate from other states and territories in recognition that the Northern Territory, with its scheme, is way out in front of other states and territories. What this does is create an increase in numbers of seniors. This also increases the pressure on government to provide the same quality of services that we have provided for many years.
I argue, when I read the budgetary figures, that this government has supported the scheme better than any other government in the history of self-government. For example, in 2001, the budget was $4.2m which provided for concessions. Last financial year, the amount was $8.2m. We have almost doubled the size of the scheme. In relation to travel, in 2001, 955 trips were paid for. Last year, there were 1733 trips paid for. It is a significant burden of cost, but we are still meeting that cost. This is, in large part, due to the fact that the government extended the scheme to allow family and friends to travel. Under the CLP, only the actual member of the scheme was entitled to travel. In 2005, the Labor government expanded the scheme so that members could fly their family and friends up to the Territory. As we know, this was applauded by the seniors’ community because, as outlined by the member for Braitling, one of the key issues is that as people get older they do not wish to travel for a variety of reasons. They were able to save their entitlement and bring family members from across Australia, no matter where they were, to visit them. Senior Territorians have said that this is a fantastic initiative.
At this time, the government did not consider very closely the option of expanding the scheme to allow for intra-Territory travel. I will briefly outline some of the considerations that need to be taken into account. First, the fundamental purpose of this scheme is to encourage retired Territorians to stay here. Often, once people have retired, the lure of the family down south, particularly newly-arrived grandkids, proves too much and people relocate. The provision of interstate travel subsidies is to encourage retired Territorians to stay in the Territory. If we were to open it up to intra-Territory travel there would be a number of different issues arising and one of them is logistics - the sheer logistics of keeping track of what is happening, because then we would open it up to a wider group who, historically, were not picked up in this scheme. That would mean an extra cost to all of us, the NT government and the taxpayers, for a scheme that is by far the most generous in Australia.
As with all government funding schemes, it is very important that the proper acquittal processes are followed. This is easy with air travel, where the government books the flight on behalf of the person, there is no need for the government to provide cash up-front, and no need for the member of the scheme to provide any receipts. It is not easy with motor vehicle travel, where the government would need to provide cash up-front and then require the applicant to provide petrol receipts after the trip. Processes would need to be put in place in situations where receipts were not provided.
As I mentioned earlier, the government’s decision to expand the scheme to allow family and friends to use the scheme has increased the number of flights. Under the scheme, a member is eligible for themselves or family and friends to take a return trip to an interstate capital once every four years. Most members of the scheme fully utilise the entitlements. In other words, most members, once every four years, travel interstate, or have family and friends travel from interstate to visit them. Expanding the scheme to include intra-Territory travel would not necessarily expand the scheme for these people, as they would have already fully utilised their entitlement.
It is notable that the motion from the member for Katherine does not make it clear whether she supports expanding the scheme so that members could take both an interstate and an intrastate trip. If she is suggesting this, then she will need to provide costings, which would be considerable, and explain where the additional money would come from. In 2005, we saw the CLP go to an election without costed election commitments, and we saw the result. Until the member for Katherine provides costings for this initiative, then they simply cannot be taken seriously.
This Labor government places great value on the contribution our seniors make to our community. This is why our Pensioner Concession Scheme is fully funded and the most generous in the country.
As government, we often have to make tough decisions but we make them for all the right reasons. We have a limited budget and we have to try to make maximum benefit of that budget. The opposition can say what they want and anyone can test it, but I believe we have the best scheme in Australia by far. It is not even a rating system of who comes first, second, third or fourth. We are light years ahead of anyone else. The reason is because this government supports senior Territorians. We understand the benefit of all senior Territorians. It is my own personal belief that senior Territorians are on the pyramid of our society, and that as we work up in life and gain experience, one day we will reach the top of that pyramid; that is, having a family, raising children, having employment, and gathering the wisdom that you get from life experience.
Every senior Territorian I have spoken to about the scheme has said that they appreciate the scheme, they enjoy the access to it, it is a persuading factor in why they stay in the Territory, and it is one of the reasons why they choose not to retire down south. Many new Territorians have travelled to the Territory to take advantage of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot support the member for Katherine’s motion. We believe that this scheme is a fantastic scheme. We will work to improve it. In my role as Minister for Senior Territorians, I will consult with as many senior Territorians as I can. We should be working together on these issues, and I will be working with the opposition when I can.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an interesting matter, and we now have the opportunity to respond to what government thinks about it. Government has shown us what they think about it by contributing just one speaker. It makes a mockery of General Business Day when government does not actively engage in important matters such as this. When the spokesman from the Labor Party …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition is asserting that government does not engage in General Business Day, that we do not take the issues raised by the opposition and Independents seriously. I can assure this House that each and every one of the propositions that are put before this House on General Business Day is considered very seriously by government. There is discussion within government, within our Caucus, on each and every issue.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Johnston.
Mr MILLS: No, I could have picked that too. That is not a point of order. It is just an opinion and an assertion. It undermines and shows a misunderstanding of what the parliament is about. It seems the Caucus has a pre-eminence over the function of the people’s parliament. We do not have debate in here; you have debate with your superior numbers in another room somewhere and we just get a sanitised and manipulated version ...
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! If the Leader of the Opposition is going to talk about the processes of a political party here he should at least get it right and not mislead this parliament with his failure to understand how the Australian Labor Party works as a political party. It is no different to how the CLP works inasmuch as the party discusses its position and it comes to the parliament for debate. I would prefer it if he would stop misleading this parliament.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! If the member wishes to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of misleading the parliament, as I rightly know, there is a process to do it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, could you please withdraw the word ‘misleading’?
Mr MILLS: Or bring a motion.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw the word ‘misleading’ but he has it wrong. I understood that there is a standing order about not misleading the parliament.
Mr MILLS: Bring a motion then.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Brennan. Leader of the Opposition, continue.
Mr MILLS: The way in which issues have been debated in the people’s parliament has shown, in my view, a lack of respect for the notion of democracy and how we negotiate issues here on the floor of the Chamber.
That being said, what we have had is an outline of the historical genesis of this particular scheme. It must have been difficult but there is no avoiding it: the scheme came into existence before the Australian Labor Party held government in this Chamber. I acknowledge that. I am pleased it has been acknowledged. I also acknowledge that it has been added to in that time, which is reasonable, and it is good that it has been expanded because it is a good scheme. We identified that the purpose of the scheme was to retain seniors in the Northern Territory. That was the reason behind the initial offer to seniors. It appears to be working as we can see from the figures - $4.2m was spent in one point in time, obviously, when the CLP was in power. Now that the Labor Party is in the number is double that which shows that they are jolly good fellows. It also shows that the program is working, that there are more seniors here and that it has been widened and, more importantly, that more seniors are staying here.
There was a sinister threat running through the member’s comments. Many times he referred to it as the ‘only scheme’ in Australia. That set me thinking. He said there is no other scheme like it in the country. He then went on to say that in his curious term of ‘self-interest’ in engaging seniors that they recognised, as he recognised, that it is a generous scheme. ‘We support you’, he tells the seniors, and they know that they are supported. Implied in that is this message that they should be jolly well grateful for what we give them because it is the only scheme in the country, and the large amounts of money that are attributed to this. Then he goes back to the initial leg of that argument that …
Mr BONSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would like the Opposition Leader to put into context what I said. I said that the scheme provided by the NT government is the only scheme in Australia ...
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, there is no point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BONSON: … that provides interstate travel. I did not say that it is the only scheme in Australia, which is repeated five times – the first time, I thought it was a mistake.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, there is no point of order. However, if you wish, you may approach me about making a personal explanation. Leader of the Opposition, please continue.
Mr Mills: I am quite sure, and I think that anyone in the Chamber is quite sure, that there is nothing wrong with this. I am not having a go at you on this point. You described it a number of times, and quite rightly so, as the only scheme of its kind in the country …
Mr Bonson: Interstate travel, yes. Well, say that. Put it on the record, Terry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Cease interjecting, minister. You have the call, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Mills: There is no misunderstanding, just calm down on that. This is the sinister threat: you have stated it clearly that it is the only scheme of its kind in the country, therefore, no other scheme operates in the country of this nature ...
Mr Bonson: Interstate travel. You can say it, Terry.
Mr Mills: That is not the point.
Mr Bonson: You are a joke, a dead set joke.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: If it is the only scheme of its kind, related to travel, member for Millner. It is the only scheme related to travel in the country and no other jurisdiction has it, and that the seniors recognise it as a generous scheme, and ‘We have told them that we support them’, and then they say: ‘Yes, thank you, you support us, that is jolly good, and thank you very much government’. It is implied in there as a threat, as we know the attitude of this government: that if no other jurisdiction has it in place, they would very likely fall into line with southern jurisdictions and scrap it because it does not exist anywhere else. So they better be jolly well grateful because it does not exist anywhere else. That sounds a little like a threat to me.
The purpose of the policy has clearly demonstrated that it is achieving its objectives. The arguments are sensible in showing some respect for seniors. It is not a colossal impost; it is just a sensible modification of an existing program, which is a good and innovative program. I do not think the arguments, which are just explanations of the existing scheme and how and why it operates, have taken on board the proposition that it would not be so difficult to do so, making the grand challenge - easy to assert from the point of view of government – of: ‘Look, we would like to think about it if you get your own Treasury briefings and provide us with the details and then we might consider it’, as if this is just a debating point.
It is the principle of the matter as to whether you would make that modification in the interest of achieving the objective, which is being achieved, but it could be further strengthened if we just made this modification. I believe the arguments are quite sensible. I urge members to relax about it and to at least leave the door open. Perhaps this is not the Chamber of debate that I thought it would be. It is political posturing. You never know what might pop out in the lead-up to an election, depending on what the polling has told them. It is a sensible proposition, but we have not had a sensible debate on it. I urge members, nonetheless, and live in hope that they might support the motion.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I support this motion which all of us, as local members, have had cause to consider over the years. How many times have we had constituents ask us to help in relation to this scheme? The argument is a logical one.
What the minister came up with: ‘Well, it is the only one, so count your lucky stars’, is a ridiculous argument. It is not a competition. This is a government that says, when it suits them, that they are here for Territorians; they are going to deliver for Territorians. You are not delivering for the senior Territorians, for which the member for Millner is minister, by simply saying: ‘We are not going to change it, end of story’.
More significantly, however - and I will order a rush – my note of what the minister said is as follows:
- … in self-interest, I engaged with the seniors ...
The Minister for Senior Territorians has told this parliament that:
- …in self-interest, I engaged with the seniors ...
Let us have a look at the definition of ‘self-interest’ from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. I quote as follows:
- One’s personal profit, benefit or advantage …
- … regard to or pursuit of one’s own advantage or welfare …
Mr Mills: Come on! Who can talk about twisting words?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business, there is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, you have the floor.
Ms CARNEY: Let us go just a little further. The definition of ‘self-interested’ is:
- … actuated solely by regard for one’s personal advantage or welfare …
Now …
Mr Bonson: What is this, a feather duster?
Ms CARNEY: I would not be interjecting if I were you, member for Millner; you get yourself in trouble.
We knew this would happen, Madam Speaker. The new Chief Minister, who came to his role via what was widely regarded to be dishonourable and dubious means - but he came to it nevertheless - said in his media release dated 30 November in relation to the new minister: ‘I know he will do a good job’. The new Chief Minister, after finally getting the crown he craved for so long, decided that the members for Sanderson and Millner would become ministers. He was urged not to do it, and if ever there was, and there is …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! What is the relevance?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I would like you to come to the point fairly soon and get back to the motion.
Ms CARNEY: The point, Madam Speaker, is that this motion is all about Territory seniors. The motion is clearly all about advancing the interests of Territory seniors. The motion is not about advancing the interests of the Minister for Senior Territorians ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62. The member for Araluen is impugning directly or by innuendo to another member unbecoming conduct or motives. I took it to mean, when the member for Millner used the words ‘self-interest’, he was talking about his own edification, about finding out what his constituency really thinks ...
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker!
Dr BURNS: The member for Araluen is now impugning certain motives to him which are offensive. I do not think she should continue with it.
Mr Wood: That was being tried on me yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen?
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, what the member for Johnston thinks the minister meant is, with the greatest of respect, neither here nor there. The Minister for Senior Territorians said: ‘… in self-interest I engaged with the seniors’. I say that subject to checking the rush, but I did make a note of it. With respect, the member for Johnston does not have a point of order. I would like to finish this very important point I am making in relation to a motion about senior Territorians and the comments of the minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I will indulge you for a short period of time, but I ask you to get to the point, and be relevant, very quickly.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, and I am towards the end in any event.
Given that members opposite said in relation to General Business Day - and I think it was the member for Brennan - that members of the government do seriously assess what is on the Notice Paper on a General Business Day - this motion being just one of them, I now call on the new Chief Minister to get the Minister for Senior Territorians to publicly apologise to senior Territorians for his remarks. I urge the Chief Minister that, in the event that the Minister for Senior Territorians fails to do so, he be otherwise reprimanded. Senior Territorians have every right to be offended - especially during a debate about advancing their interests - to be revolted and offended by their very own minister saying, in essence: ‘I am not …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: … worried about your interests, I will pursue my own’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, please pause.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Araluen is putting her interpretation on words that the minister said. The member for Johnston has already pointed out that government certainly finds her words offensive and in breach of Standing Order 61. I have already called a point of relevance. We are happy to hear a debate around provisions of services to seniors, but this is ridiculous.
Madam SPEAKER: In relation to the Minister for Senior Territorians, I advised him that if he wished to he could approach me to make a personal explanation.
Member for Araluen, I advised you that you would need to come to the point very quickly because it is fairly irrelevant.
Ms CARNEY: I have finished, Madam Speaker.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, goodness gracious me, who would have ever dreamed that something so simple as making it good for senior Territorians who live in the Territory with their families from one end of the Territory to the other could have caused such a ruckus? Seniors will be appalled, absolutely appalled. As a matter of fact, I am in a bit of state of shock as to what has happened.
How difficult was it for the minister to get up and say what a great idea it is to make this the best travel scheme in Australia? I do not give a rip what other states have. I really do not care. I just care about what happens to seniors in the Territory. Minister, it is a good scheme. If you had listened to what I had said, I said it is the best. It is the best and the seniors absolutely love it. When it was recently upgraded to include carers in the last session of parliament, that made it absolutely superb. That is why the figures that the minister put forward today show such a significant increase. It is great. It is well received by seniors in the Territory.
He brought figures forward to say the cost factor would come into it, and I needed to go to Treasury and talk to them about the costings for this. There are very few seniors that this would relate to. I am talking about seniors who live within the Territory, with their families and friends within the Territory, who would gain from accessing this concession that I have put forward today.
The minister also brought up that I needed to tell him whether they wanted to travel interstate, or whether they wanted to just travel intrastate. Could I please make that clear - how would I know? Let us go and ask them. The choice is theirs. It would not make much difference whether they are going to travel interstate or intrastate. It would not make much difference at all. You still have to put the concession in place. It was a bit of a one-sided argument.
He was implying that there is a large number of Territorians, and I argue that there is not. What it does do is disadvantage the Territorians who have chosen to live here and who have all their family here. They are disadvantaged. When I retire one of these centuries, and I have my mother living in South Australia and I decide to visit her, I have an advantage. However, someone who lives here and has their mother or a sick relative or sick mother or father in Alice Springs, cannot get to see them and receive that same entitlement. It is a minor change that would make this scheme absolutely fantastic for those seniors who live in the Territory.
The member for Millner, who is also the new Minister for Senior Territorians, said that seniors are coming to the Territory because of the schemes that we have. Minister, you have not been the Minister for Senior Territorians for very long and I do not know that the previous Minister for Senior Territorians would have had many people rock up on her door to say: ‘I have come to the Territory solely because of the pensioner concession schemes that you have here’. That is a little fanciful. It is not that fantastic that people are moving here purely because of that, Minister for Senior Territorians. They are coming here because they have family here, or because they lived here many years ago and they want to come back, or because they like the climate. They are not coming here because they love the pensioner concession scheme, even though it is a very good one. There was no argument from me or the CLP that it is not a good scheme. It is.
I thank the member for Braitling for her support for this motion. The member for Braitling, as other members from Central Australia, has obviously had people put their case of unfairness about this scheme for senior Territorians. I thank her for her support. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support. I know that other members of the CLP definitely support senior Territorians and the content, purpose and intent of this motion. I thank the member for Araluen for responding to, I consider, the unfair comments made by the member for Millner, the Minister for Senior Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I am extremely disappointed at the lack of interest shown in this motion except for the argy-bargy going on across the floor. It has taken away from the serious intent that I had to make this travel concession scheme the best for all senior Territorians, not just those who have family living interstate.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Patient Assistance Travel Scheme
in Central Australia
Patient Assistance Travel Scheme
in Central Australia
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That this Assembly call upon the Northern Territory government to review its refusal to allow patients in Central Australia to access PATS for the purpose of travelling interstate when afflicted with a disease that may be treated by oncology services based in Darwin, and to increase and expand the rates to allow for a spouse or a family member to accompany patients.
I talk about the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme and cancer sufferers and their families in Central Australia particularly. After much discussion with organisations such as Bosom Buddies, the Leukaemia Foundation, as well as cancer sufferers and their families, there is an overwhelming consensus that whilst PATS is appreciated and has certainly served the Northern Territory well over many years, there is plenty of room for improvement; namely, allowing those diagnosed with cancer to continue to use Adelaide hospital as a preferred option for treatment despite the completion of the Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin - at this stage earmarked for the end of 2009.
The relationship that Alice Springs and Central Australia has with Adelaide cannot be underestimated. As a consequence of that relationship and that bond between the two cities and the two regions of South Australia and Central Australia, for some cancer sufferers Adelaide provides a more familiar surrounds and, therefore, can only aid in the recovery of cancer sufferers.
While the Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin, once it is completed, must be patronised by Territorians - the Country Liberal Party certainly understands and agrees that it must be to grow Northern Territory health services - I cannot believe that the number of cancer sufferers in Central Australia using PATS and wanting to use Adelaide hospital as the treatment option is so huge that it would stymie the growth of Northern Territory health services. I would be very surprised if that number was 20, 30, or even 50. I am in the process of trying to define those numbers at the moment. I will let the minister know once I do, but it is only a very small number.
I have said before in this Assembly, that cancer is a ruthless and deadly killer of Territorians. This is not chicken pox; this is a very serious disease that affects many Territorians. Why is it that the Northern Territory government cannot show some compassion and sensitivity to those in Central Australia by offering a choice of Adelaide or Darwin for treatment? It is a great opportunity for the new Chief Minister to show some sensitivity and compassion for those cancer sufferers in Central Australia. Obviously, the geographical distances are almost identical and airfares are much the same. In fact, a quick check on the website today shows a Qantas super saver fare is $10 cheaper from Adelaide to Alice Springs than Alice Springs to Darwin. So air travel, obviously, is not an issue.
Madam Speaker, I refer to my response to the Health Minister’s statement, Building Better Hospitals, in the October sittings. I quote:
- I am concerned that the minister has not dealt with important issues in Alice Springs. There are easily as many Territorians in Alice Springs who have family in Adelaide as there are people who come from Darwin. Indeed, whether it is other factors but there are aspects of Alice Springs life that are more aligned with Adelaide than Darwin …
The statement went on. While Centralians are, obviously, very proud Territorians, and proud to be part of the mighty Northern Territory, the Centre and the Top End are two very different parts of the Northern Territory, and to lump them into one basket, I believe, is a mistake. It is insensitive to the unique needs of both communities and cultures.
The minister is also Minister for Alcohol Policy and he has said over the last few days of sittings that you cannot implement a one-size-fits-all approach to particular issues. This is a chance to apply that theory to the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme.
Minister, in this motion I propose that the Northern Territory government continue to allow those handful of patients - as I said I do not have the numbers with me, but I would be very surprised if it were any more than 50 in Central Australia who have been diagnosed with cancer and need oncology services - to be allowed to continue to use Adelaide hospital if they so choose. I firmly believe that the number of patients wanting to opt for Adelaide hospital is so few that they are not enough to impede the growth of the Northern Territory health services.
I know that is a major and genuine concern for the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory Health department. I do not think it is enough to significantly dent the health budget. If it costs an extra $1000 to $3000, then that is not a lot of money when we are talking about the care of Territorians.
I argue that patients in Central Australia wanting to opt for treatment in Adelaide would be at such a level that it would be inconsequential to the growth of the Northern Territory health sector, although it would be of the utmost benefit to the palliative care of cancer sufferers and their recovery, and to the families of those suffering from cancer. If there is one thing that can make that transition from life to death that little easier to deal with and to accept for families, it is knowing that you are there with your loved ones right up to the very end. One could only imagine what it would be like and the benefit and comfort it would give to the patient when you approach that time.
Such support is not exclusive to those with terminal cancer. It also applies and is required for cancer sufferers overall and their families. An example of that - and this is an example that I have had in Central Australia, through one of my constituents – is if one parent is in hospital undergoing treatment for cancer, the other parent is left at home to care for children, go to work, and maintain the house. The emotional burden this brings would be greatly eased knowing that your spouse has had a choice of hospital in Adelaide or Darwin and, hence, is surrounded by other family and friends, and in a familiar environment of their choice.
There is a very good case to include the hospital choice anywhere in Australia, in fact, to substantiate the argument. However, this motion has come about as a result of the overwhelming desire for cancer sufferers to have the option of Adelaide as well as Darwin. I believe that if Royal Brisbane, Royal Perth or any other major hospital with oncology services were an option it would also have a minuscule impact on the growth of Northern Territory health services and the Northern Territory health budget - purely because of the limited numbers of cancer sufferers in Central Australia wanting to use that option. The Northern Territory government should be considering anything that eases the suffering and aids in the recovery of cancer sufferers.
As I said, this motion has come about as a result of the overwhelming desire by cancer sufferers to have Adelaide as an option. It is not hard to understand why when you consider the bond between the two cities as I highlighted before.
Also in this motion, I moved that the minister increase the rate of PATS, which is, I think, around the $33 per day mark. While I appreciate it is an assistance and it has served the Territory well, and I also believe that it is a little more than other jurisdictions are offering – and that is clearly appreciated - $33 has been the rate for a very long time. It does not go very far these days. I feel that the rate should be increased. I also know that the scheme allows for a spouse or family member to be with the patient, at a clinician’s discretion, particularly for terminally-ill patients. I feel that decisions should not be exclusive to the clinician; it should also be with the patient as well as the doctor. If a patient is desperate for their husband, or their wife, or their next-of-kin to be with them, they should be allowed to have that choice, and make that choice themselves if it will aid in their recovery. They are the best ones to say whether it will aid in their emotional recovery. However, the choice is blocked if the doctor does not think it is necessary. I also believe that the rate should be expanded to the spouse and that family member.
It is the responsibility of governments to look after their own; to look after Territorians and help them when they need it most, not to alienate them for the sake of empire building. The emotional side of care for cancer sufferers in Central Australia seems to have been overlooked by this government as a result of not allowing the Adelaide hospital to continue to be an option for those requiring radiation oncology services once the oncology unit in Darwin is operational. At this stage, that will be by the end of 2009. I have a petition running in my office at the moment. It is getting quite a few signatures and I hope to table that in parliament in April.
Madam Speaker, I move, on the grounds that I have just highlighted, that the minister review the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme in the areas of the rate of assistance, expanding that assistance to a spouse and family member and allowing cancer sufferers in Central Australia to continue to use Adelaide hospital despite the completion of a Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I support this motion. There are many reasons, but so many of them, for my part, cannot be put. However, as a member from Central Australia, this is an important motion, and it is put to government on two levels. One is that the amount of PATS that is paid is not adequate - pretty much everyone knows that - and it needs to be adjusted upwards. Second, there needs to be a choice for those in Central Australia; so many of whom would feel adrift and alone if they were forced to come to Darwin. Some might not, but they need to have that fundamental choice. We should all be about choice in this parliament. Is this an issue of conscience? Maybe, maybe not. Surely, the government will allow the people of Central Australia some choice in this issue?
I remember, either on Radio National several weeks ago, or possibly AM, the PATS issue had been discussed. It got a national airing through some forum, and the minister may have heard it as well. I cannot remember who it was, but it was someone, from memory, who was regarded as an expert when it came to the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme and so on. From memory - and I do not have it in front of me so I stand to be corrected - I am pretty sure that that person said words to the effect of the amount paid for patient assistance travel generally throughout the country was just not enough and that governments of any political colour should do something about it.
Finally, I note that members of government have, in the last week or so, started to get a mantra together, usually associated with pre-election. One is referring to the opposition as a policy-free zone. I strongly reject that, and members on the other side who have listened in this Chamber over the last two-and-a-half years will know that a number of policies have been put forward. Those policies do not need to be wrapped up in glossies. We all know that parties package policies closer to elections although, of course, parties and oppositions tend to do it well before elections as well. We have done both, and the General Business Days are an opportunity for the opposition to put forward what will be alternative policies.
Today, we have had the member for Katherine talk about the pensioner travel scheme, a good policy in and of itself, to improve it. That was rejected by government, but supported by the opposition. Today, we have a motion to improve the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme. Frankly, I will be genuinely amazed if government opposes this, as I fear they will, because I am hard pressed to see on what logical basis it can be opposed. In the event that government opposes it, the opposition will stand by its commitment to this area. Of course, during this General Business Day, there have been other initiatives put forward by the opposition to the government which have been rejected. I use that as an example of completely refuting any suggestion that the opposition does not have policies. We do and you know it.
In any event, I look forward, minister, to hearing what you have to say. I urge you to support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support this motion. This motion raises some interesting issues. About 85% to 90% of the funding for the Northern Territory comes from the Commonwealth. If we were to look at Australia without all those funny little lines that go across maps, we are all Australian, and our hospital services are, basically, funded by the Commonwealth. Even though we might say that these are our hospitals, we are Territorians, in fact, if you look directly at what is actually happening, our hospitals are funded by the Commonwealth. I suppose most hospitals in Australia are funded by the Commonwealth through the GST.
We all should be able to access those hospitals. I understand that there will be other complications. I presume that there is some waiting when it comes to funding in relation to the isolation of the area, and where people come from, and there would be other complications like that which I am not necessarily on top of. I am saying that because we have a case where we are saying Alice Springs people would like to go to Adelaide, and one can understand that. It can also apply the other way around, to people living in the Kimberleys, in Kununurra, Wyndham, or Halls Creek. When we were arguing about the benefits of having an oncology unit in the Northern Territory, they would be able to access our oncology unit in Darwin because it would be much closer than taking a trip to Perth. So I see a counter-argument.
If the government says it is not a good idea for Alice Springs people to have a choice to go to Alice Springs, how do we apply that thinking to people in Kununurra? If we had a regular flight, as we used to have many years ago, through Mt Isa, we might have Mt Isa people coming here. To throw another little spanner in the works, I suppose, is that we are also looking at our Asian neighbours using the facility here. So it is not just the case that this is for the Territory only. We are looking at feeding off a global or regional area for the use of this particular oncology unit.
Between states and territories there has to be, you would hope, a fair bit of flexibility. I do not know what the scheme is in Western Australia, but I hope that the Western Australian government would not say to people in Kununurra, or on one of the cattle stations that borders on the Northern Territory, that they cannot get any support from the Western Australian government because they must go to Perth for treatment. I hope that when we are dealing with these issues we are dealing with common sense. The government should be flexible in relation to this.
This is not quite to the point of what is happening today, but I was talking to a lady from a cattle station who wants to send her children to an interstate boarding school. Basically, she cannot get assistance for that because she was told she has to send her children to a boarding school in the Territory. She lives a long way from anywhere. In fact, it is quicker for her to send her children to Brisbane than it is to send them to the nearest school in the Northern Territory. So, whilst we might make rules which appear on the surface to be about protecting our Territory people, the reality is that that is not the way this whole world works.
We live in Australia. Boundaries are purely artificial. The geography of where we live should be the basis on which we make these decisions. Kununurra is a one-hour flight from Darwin. It is a four-hour flight to Perth. It is in Western Australia. So do we apply the logic that it is in Western Australia, it is a state? That is it? We do not give any concessions to anyone in Kununurra who comes to Darwin for treatment?
We have to have a flexible system that allows for people in Central Australia to be able to go to Adelaide if they wish. People in Kununurra can do the same. If they wish to go to Perth they can, and if they think it would be much better to come to Darwin, they can. That is where we need to take this particular motion: that we have a system which is flexible enough to allow for those kinds of situations.
In relation to the section of the motion which reads: ‘to increase and expand the rates to allow for a spouse or family member to accompany patients’, I mentioned this in the adjournment debate recently. I have been approached by the mother of a 27-year-old daughter. Unfortunately, she has cervical cancer. She has a child who is five months old. The reality is that she has to go to Adelaide at the present time. The reality is also she needs her husband. They are a young family and she does not know anyone in Adelaide but she needs support. He has to give up his job. He is fortunate enough that someone said ‘We will keep you a job’, but he is obviously not getting income. So, you have to find an airfare for the mother, which can be reimbursed. I will stand corrected, minister, if I am wrong, but this is the story I was given: he also would have to pay his own airfare down and then apply to get reimbursed and there is not always a guarantee that that is going to happen very easily. They also told me that they only get $10 a day for accommodation. Again, I will stand corrected, but that was the figure that was given to me. If I am wrong, please tell me, minister.
They have to take all these things into consideration: the stress of the sickness; having to find money because, sometimes, even though you are going to get reimbursed some people have a lot of trouble getting $1000 that they need for an airfare; and to find accommodation and to pay for that accommodation. If the subsidy is small, accommodation is going to eat away at one’s savings quite substantially if you have to stay there for a long time. My understanding is that although patients may only be there for a short time, sometimes the cost of coming home again is a problem as well. So they either stay there with no friends, paying for accommodation, or they come back paying airfares and then go back again when they need to. It is something that needs much more consideration. There is the stress of all this as well - which we forget. We are talking about an economic problem at the moment. There is also the stress related with trying to find the money, with no job, and the actual sickness which adds another layer to the complexity of the problem. If the government can ease some of this pain by making it easier for people financially that would be a great thing.
I do not know how many people this applies to. A particular lady came to me recently and I have said I would raise it in parliament. I am interested to know whether there are many cases and if this causing the Territory a big financial loss, or is it basically, overall each year, a relatively small cost? The government might say: ‘We have 1000 people who need to do this, this year. Our budget is only so big and we cannot afford it’. However, if we look from a statistical point of view how many of this particular case - like the one I am talking about - actually come up each year? Is it really a big cost to the Northern Territory government? I sometimes look at what we spend money on and think maybe we should think about our priorities. Maybe we spend money on public works that, perhaps, could wait a little longer, and some of that money could go into helping these particular people.
These are Territorians who need help. In this case, I see that as the role of the government. I hope that even the little I and other members have said today can get the government to seriously look at modifying the existing PATS system so it can be improved and relieve some of the financial and psychological burden that many people have.
Minister, I realise that, in many cases, the government does not support motions that the opposition and Independents put forward. I do not disagree with you if the government will look at it seriously. It is simply asking you to review – that is not a bad word to use. They are not asking him to do it with a guarantee that something will happen but, at least review it. There is good reason to increase and expand the rates. Perhaps you could advise when those rates were last increased. Are we due for some change in those rates simply because time has moved on and costs have gone up?
Madam Speaker, I support the motion from the member for Greatorex.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I did not realise that the government had decided to refuse PATS for patients from Central Australia wanting to go to Adelaide rather than Darwin. I say that because the previous Minister for Health, Dr Toyne, had a lot of conversations and correspondence with Bosom Buddies, and it was my understanding that he said fairly clearly that when the oncology unit is built in Darwin they will still have the option of going south. Perhaps the member for Stuart might be able to nod his head if he remembers that conversation. It was my understanding that that was going to stand. Perhaps the government has decided to change that policy. I know Bosom Buddies pushed and lobbied the minister very hard on this as patients in Alice Springs had established a relationship with the accommodation people in Adelaide and understood the support services available to them there, and there is not the same level of support and accommodation in Darwin. The minister at the time said he would let them have the option. I need to ask you, minister, whether along the way that decision was reversed or changed for some reason?
We have also had problems of people who live on pastoral properties who need to come into Alice Springs for mammograms, and whether they should be entitled to PATS or some sort of assistance with travel. It is quite expensive driving or flying in from pastoral properties into a centre to have a mammogram. We lobbied very hard and it was my understanding that those people living on pastoral properties could access PATS for travel into Alice Springs. Perhaps you could confirm with me whether that still stands.
You have heard all the arguments, and it is really important that we give some sort of comfort to people who, when they or a family member are ill, do not need the added financial stress. That is what is occurring in many cases. It is hard enough to cope with the problem of having an illness, no matter what it is, without worrying about whether you can afford to get there for treatment. We have heard stories about accommodation being most unsuitable and, if you move out of the accommodation that is provided, you then have to pay a fairly large amount extra for that accommodation. Minister, if you could just clarify that for me because I am concerned.
Madam Speaker, I certainly support the motion from the member from Greatorex.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, this is a very important issue and I thank the member for Greatorex for raising it. Before I very explicitly lay out the government’s position on this issue, I will say that, yes, I do recognise that a very special relationship exists between Alice Springs and Adelaide and the reasons underlying that. I also recognise the importance of family support and of having family support during times when people are receiving treatment for cancer. The member for Greatorex also asked about the numbers of patients in Central Australia who require this sort of treatment and I will come to that.
The member for Nelson raised some very good issues in relation to what is called cross-border costs and arrangements between states and territories and the treatment of patients. Obviously, we have a cross-border relationship with Adelaide. I also emphasise that it is just not the cost of the person’s travel to that hospital or the PATS. The Northern Territory actually pays for that person’s treatment in that hospital. Looking at the costs of the PATS itself does not really give an indication of the total costs that are involved.
The member for Braitling has questioned the government’s position and brought up what Peter Toyne might have said in relation to this. I will clarify the government’s position in relation to that.
The government will be opposing this motion. I will lay out very clearly for members - as I was requested to do by the member for Araluen - why government is opposing it:
- (a) it would compromise the viability and sustainability of the Radiation Oncology Unit - and I will give a bit more detail to that;
(b) it is actually in conflict with our responsibilities under the existing Australian Health Care Agreement where the Territory is responsible for providing public hospital services to its citizens and, if not available in the Territory, to provide avenues to access services interstate.
(c) it would actually result in Territory taxpayers paying twice for a radiation service: once to provide the high-quality service established in Darwin and, second, to cover the costs of patients who would access the same service interstate through cross-border charges.
- (d) it does not recognise that a spouse or family member is already supported under the current PATS guidelines at the same rates at patients, where deemed appropriate by the medical practitioner to accompany the patient during the period of transport and/or accommodation and during treatment.
There is already provision for people to accompany family members, but it is subject to being deemed appropriate by the medical practitioners.
- (e) the rates of financial assistance provided through PATS are comparable with other schemes across Australia.
That is not to say, as members opposite said, that costs move and reviews are in order. I will cover that issue. I recognise that it is a financial impost on people. What I am saying here is that government is continually reviewing the PAT scheme and the concerns that members have raised here are concerns that have been put directly to me by members of the community.
First, I will talk about PATS and the Radiation Oncology Unit. The Territory provides patient assistance travel, or PATS, in a similar manner and level of support as exists across Australia. The Territory government offers one of the highest accommodation rebates of all states and territories, $33 per night. In the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia, it is $35; it is $30 in New South Wales and Victoria. In addition, we offer support to patients who choose to stay with family or friends when travelling away from home for health care where many other jurisdictions offer no support under the same circumstances. The scheme also provides assistance for a family member or carer to escort the patient, as I have said, in a situation where it has been assessed by the medical practitioner to be warranted.
This government is working hard with the Australian government towards the establishment of a Radiation Oncology Unit for all Territorians. I will come a bit later on in my response to the actual figures that are involved here, as the member for Greatorex asked. In short, Central Australian patients comprise 25% of the patient numbers, and will continue to do so. This is a very significant proportion of the numbers of patients. So, the government’s position is: to take the numbers away in Central Australia would really put at risk the viability of the Radiation Oncology Unit which is for all Territorians. We are committed to doing the hard work to ensure that it is a safe, sustainable and high-quality service.
As a responsible government, we have listened to the expert advice on how to establish a unit, with the expert report by Professors Barton and Frommer. The report documented the medical demand for a Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin. It also highlighted a significant risk associated with operating such a facility such as access to specialist staff; under-utilisation of expensive equipment if some patients are referred elsewhere, leading to an unsustainable higher unit cost for service delivery; and providing adequate support services.
We have addressed those risks in our proposal with the Australian government. First, the service in Darwin will be high quality and safe, run by an already established experienced, high-quality unit, providing the NT with access to highly experienced staff and back-up. Second, to ensure the unit is financially viable and sustainable, the business case is being built on figures for the incidence of cancer and the entire NT population accessing the unit. Third, the Northern Territory government has committed to an additional $1m per year to allied health and community nursing support services, plus we are developing high-quality patient accommodation options equivalent to medical accommodation facilities interstate. Fourth, once the oncology unit is operational, transitional arrangements will be in place to ensure the minimum disruption to patients. Anyone who has commenced treatment interstate will be able to continue and finish their treatment interstate and receive PATS.
There are also some cancers that require highly specialised treatment which will not be available in the Darwin unit. The Northern Territory will continue to support those patients to receive that specialist treatment interstate, which is likely to be in Adelaide.
I am not sure what undertakings Peter Toyne may or may not have given, or what statements he made. He may have possibly been referring to this. To clarify the matter, in parliament last year in Alice Springs, I laid on the public record very straight and unequivocally that, with the establishment of a Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin, patients from Alice Springs would be expected to travel to Darwin and would receive support to travel to Darwin. I am sure I made that statement during the Alice Springs’ sittings last year; it may have been another sittings. I have a very strong recollection, member for Braitling, in response to a question, that I laid that very squarely on the record then.
I understand Central Australians’ concern, as I said. I understand their relationship with Adelaide and their desire to go to Adelaide. These things are also governed by the Australian Health Care Agreement. If we are offering services in the Northern Territory, Territorians are expected to access those services, whether they are in Darwin, or in Alice Springs. What happens if someone in Darwin says: ‘I do not really want to have the treatment in Darwin. My family is in Brisbane and I want to go to Brisbane’? You just cannot have that for any medical service. Let us leave radiation oncology to one side. I know it is a specific case where people need a lot of support. However, there are rules and agreements governing the Australian Health Care Agreement, and this is a Radiation Oncology Unit for all Territorians.
I want to outline our commitment to patient travel. The Patient Assistance Travel Scheme operates to enable access to local medical services. That is for intra-Territory people who live outside the limit, which currently might be 200 km. Where these services are not available in the Territory, assistance is provided to access services interstate when referred by a hospital medical officer or specialist. PATS is designed to provide assistance to patients as a contribution towards travel and accommodation costs for people in the Northern Territory requiring planned specialist health care. The scheme is not a fully-funded travel service and cannot cover all costs.
The Northern Territory currently provides $10.8m for the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme with approximately 16 000 Territorians accessing the scheme annually. In cases where a patient is seeking a referral to a particular doctor or hospital this is considered beyond the scope of the scheme and the patient will need to progress this as a private patient if they are able.
An escort is a person who is regarded by the requesting practitioner and/or treating specialist as being appropriate and responsible for the patient’s needs during the period of transport and/or accommodation and during treatment. The escort must be able to facilitate and participate directly in the patient’s care. If an escort is deemed appropriate, the cost will be met as per the PATS guidelines to the same level as the patient. In 2006-07, there were 5100 escorts provided with financial assistance to accompany and support their spouse or family member undergoing medical care.
On 20 September 2007, the Senate report, Highway to Health: Better Access for Rural, Regional and Remote Patients, indicated that the accommodation and travel assistance provided by the Northern Territory PATS is comparable with other jurisdictions.
As I have said previously, the rate of accommodation assistance provided to patients and escorts is $33 including GST per night for commercial accommodation. This is the rate charged for accommodation by such excellent facilities as Cancer Council of South Australia’s Greenhill and Flinders Lodges, and by Aboriginal Hostels.
If people are privately insured they can elect, as I said before, to be treated in the hospital of their choice, or by the doctor of their choice. In those cases, travel to access these services will be at their own cost when the Territory has the capacity to provide their treatment locally. I emphasise, however, and this is what I was alluding to before; that the Territory government is continually assessing the scheme and is committed to improving the support provided to Territorians through the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme.
Turning directly to the questions asked by the member for Greatorex in relation to population and number of patients in Central Australia, the Barton-Frommer Report 2004, using 2001 population and health data, reported that there were 448 new cases identified with cancer per year, and 347 of those will require radiotherapy; and 25% of this patient group are identified from Central Australia.
One of the most important elements here, member for Greatorex, is that the Radiation Oncology Unit, particularly the very expensive linear accelerators, require approximately 400 patients per year. As you can see, the viability of this Radiation Oncology Unit is heavily dependent on patients coming from Central Australia. A very good point was raised by the member for Nelson regarding patients from the Kimberly in Western Australia being able to come here and how that can occur if we are saying people cannot go to Adelaide. That will be through an arrangement with the Western Australian government in relation to cross-border charges. In other words, a similar arrangement to what we have with South Australia now. That is how that will occur. Numbers from the Kimberly, and possibly from the Asian region, will bolster the numbers and, we believe, make this service viable. I have placed on the record just what the figures are.
Once the Radiation Oncology Unit is built in Darwin the service will then be available in the Territory and patients who require treatment will be referred to Darwin - this is through the public system, of course. The viability of this service is dependent on the projected patient activity levels for the Northern Territory. Patients who do have it can use private health insurance, as I have said. Under public health service arrangements only access to services is the commitment under Medicare, not the choice of location or doctors. What that is saying is that the Radiation Oncology Unit will be basing its activities on the medical benefits scheme which has these parameters about choice of location and doctor.
Mention has been made of support groups such as the Bosom Buddies, and I have made contact with them. I have assured them the service in Darwin will be high quality and safe, and will take into account the needs of Central Australian cancer patients in setting up the unit. Last October, I undertook a visit to Adelaide with representatives from the Cancer Council NT and Bosom Buddies to look at the cancer support services that Territorians currently access such as accommodation, information, counselling, and transport through the Cancer Council SA, Leukaemia Foundation, Ronald McDonald House, and Aboriginal Hostels. These advocates provided useful insights into the services and we were impressed by the variety of services available and how they address the needs of different patients and families.
I give an undertaking, as I have previously in this Assembly, that I will work to ensure that our new facilities in Darwin, that is the support and accommodation facilities, will match or exceed the level of support currently provided to Territorians interstate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in summary, I understand the position of Central Australians, but I believe I have outlined very clearly in my response why the government is unable to support this motion. I have also outlined and foreshadowed that government is continually reviewing the PATS program. We have heard what members are saying, we have heard what the public is saying, and we want the best PATS program to support Territorians.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to this very important issue. I thank the minister for taking some time to highlight the reasons why, or rather why not, he will not support this motion. We hear that this is a ‘can do’ government and they find a way to solve problems for all Territorians. Perhaps, instead of highlighting the reasons why we cannot achieve this, it would be nice on behalf of those people suffering from cancer in Central Australia to find a way that we can achieve this.
The minister talked about numbers such as 25%. I did say in my remarks that I understand, after having a briefing with the department, that we do not want to stymie the growth of NT Health. Of course, the Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin must be patronised by Northern Territorians. The minister said a large chunk of that is dependent on those patients in Central Australia. He mentioned the figure of 25% of 300. I argue though, that once the unit in Darwin is open, those wanting to use the facility in Adelaide would decrease to a significant amount, to a point where it would not stymie the growth and operation of radiation oncology services in Darwin.
The CLP is committed to reviewing PATS. I had a rather robust briefing with the department a couple of weeks ago on this particular issue. I know that there is room to move, minister. I know that there is political room to move; that this is a policy decision by the Australian Labor Party of the Northern Territory. I know that there is room for you to move, and that you can, if you desire, find a way forward and through this and make this happen for those in Central Australia.
While I appreciate what you have said - and I believe everyone on this side of the House understands that the Radiation Oncology Unit in Darwin must be patronised - I do not see that the numbers in Central Australia are of great significance, despite the 25% figure and the figures that you threw up; or that, once the unit in Darwin is open, those wanting to use the service in Adelaide would stymie the growth of NT Health.
Minister, you say you understand the relationship between those in Central Australia and Adelaide. However, I respectfully say it does sound a bit academic. If you did understand and you were committed to showing some sensitivity and compassion to Territorians and those in Central Australia, we can find a way forward to allow those cancer sufferers to use the option of Adelaide hospital. I did mention that they could use any hospital. However, this motion has come about exclusively because of the overwhelming response I have had in Alice Springs and the broader Central Australian region for use of Adelaide.
I thank all members, particularly the members for Araluen and Braitling for their contribution. I am not sure if we have an answer whether the former Minister for Health, Peter Toyne, said that he would stay committed to that. It is a shame, because I know that many people will be devastated to hear that. I have 200 or 300 signatures already on a petition in my office, which I hope to table in parliament in April. I know those people will be absolutely devastated to hear that the government will not budge.
We all appreciate the academics that we have heard, and we understand that it is academic. I know that there is room to move. This is political and it is policy so those people will be devastated. However, the CLP is committed to reviewing PATS and showing sensitivity and compassion to those in Central Australia, and we will continue to do that.
This particular NT government should be considering anything - anything at all - that eases the suffering and aids in the recovery of those cancer sufferers throughout Northern Territory and in Central Australia. As I said, this is a ruthless killer of Territorians. If there is one thing that can aid in the recovery of these people, and relieve those who are terminally ill, it is knowing that you are with family and friends. I appreciate the minister’s comments. The CLP will continue to fight for Central Australians when it comes to this issue. We are committed to reviewing PATS.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. I know the government will reject this motion, but I now move the motion.
Motion negatived.
Mrs Miller: Oh, that is right, there was only one voice.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion was reported on the voices.
Mr Conlan: There was only one on the other side.
Members interjecting.
Ms Carney: Terrific, the motion passed, well done.
A member: It was not passed.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We did not satisfactorily resolve the earlier motion. We did hear that this side had more voices than the other.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, it was called on the voices. It was up to you to call a division at the time.
Mr Conlan: Two voices on that side, six on this side, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Did you want to call for a division? It was called on the voices and it was a no.
BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION AMENDMENT (KADEN) BILL
(Serial 105)
(Serial 105)
Continued from 10 October 2007.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for introducing this bill into the House. It is a response to the difficult and painful experience of early pregnancy loss, what many people call miscarriage. It is something that touches many families. I am sure that there are many people in this House, and many people listening to this broadcast, who have been touched by the sadness. My own family is no exception. When I was about 12, my mother communicated her sadness and loss when she told me that a few years before I was born she had miscarried a boy. She called him Anthony. She never forgot and neither have I.
To Fiona Peters and her husband, Craig Redriff, and her two young children, all of us recognise what a tough time you have gone through with your loss of Kaden. I also recognise the member for Blain has made a genuine, compassionate effort to assist the family through this period and has sought, through this bill, to make this easier for them.
It is with regret that I inform the House that the government will not be supporting the bill. The former Attorney-General, Syd Stirling, and I met with Fiona Peters and Craig Redriff last year and personally outlined why government is unable to support this bill. Whilst we are very sympathic to their cause, we also have the difficult duty as legislators to ensure the laws we pass are workable and consistent. We also need to recognise that changing laws is not necessarily the most effective way to support people through difficult situations. However, as ministers, we also recognise the need to change policies within our departments to ensure that painful situations such as early pregnancy loss are dealt with sensitively, and families receive the necessary support and information to guide them through a very difficult period.
Before turning to the legislative aspects of the proposed bill, I will outline the changes that have been implemented since Fiona and Craig were aggrieved at the circumstances surrounding the loss of Kaden.
First, the investigation through Royal Darwin Hospital. Following a thorough investigation into Fiona and Craig’s complaint, a report by the Royal Darwin Hospital’s Board identified a number of issues, namely: the clinical weighing procedure was not performed in this case; inadequate counselling support provided in the emergency department; lack of guidance about the appropriate way to deal with Kaden’s remains when they went home; and hospital staff did not have policies or procedures to guide them in such instances.
There was also a departmental review of policy. In addition to the investigation by the hospital board, the Department of Health and Community Services has conducted a review at the hospital regarding the procedures concerning early pregnancy loss. It was apparent that a new policy to guide staff caring for families in this situation was required. A new policy entitled The Early Pregnancy Loss (Spontaneous Miscarriage) Policy, has been developed in collaboration with Ms Peters and is being implemented to address the pain and loss of early pregnancy loss such as that experienced by the family. Apart from input from Ms Peters and Mr Redriff, extensive consultation in the form of the policy also occurred with interstate hospitals, clinical staff and support agencies such as Cradle NT and SIDs and Kids NT.
I believe it is a comprehensive and caring policy which ensures: appropriate care of mother and management of the remains from stillbirth or miscarriage; parents are provided with information to support them to make informed choices regarding the care of foetal remains; parents and families are referred to the appropriate counselling; and referral options are made available. I table a copy of this policy for the information of members.
Despite the identification of a number of issues of the investigation that followed the family’s loss, we must also acknowledge that staff in every emergency department have an extremely difficult job. I am sure they will also welcome the identification of issues through this process and the development of this policy with its clear guidelines and procedures.
I now turn to the content of the bill. The bill aims to amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act so as to allow for the registration of the birth and death of a stillborn before 20 weeks, or with a body weight of less than 400 g. The bill seeks to amend the definition of a stillborn child as provided for in section 4 of the act to include a child or foetus that exhibits no sign of respiration or heartbeat, or other sign of life after birth, irrespective of gestation period or body mass. It is important to point out that no Australian jurisdiction allows registration of a stillborn using this criteria. No Australian jurisdiction allows for registration of a stillborn child below 20 weeks or 400 g body mass. Only Western Australia and Queensland allow a death certificate to be issued following a stillbirth, and even then only when the stillborn child is 20 weeks or above, or has a 400 g body mass. I am advised that 20 weeks or 400 g body mass is used as a threshold because these are nationally accepted clinical criteria linked to the medical evidence of the viability of the foetus to survive.
Turning back to the bill, a new part 8A and section 48A proposes to allow for the registration of the birth and death of a stillborn child before 20 weeks or under 400 g upon application by a parent of the child to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. The application must be made within 60 days of the stillbirth and be accompanied by a doctor’s certificate in a form approved by the Registrar, certifying the cause of the foetal death.
In my view and my opinion, I do not believe it is appropriate for an Attorney-General to make the judgments set out in the bill for the registration of birth and death of a stillborn child. This is particularly the case because there are no clear criteria set out in this bill to assist in that decision-making role. I have also been informed that there are no other Australian jurisdictions that require the relevant minister to take on any role of this sort.
This particular legislation - by changing the births, deaths and marriages scheme as this one does – could, potentially, have unintended but widespread negative consequences for the Territory. The clearest and most immediate effect of such a change in the boundaries of births and deaths classification would put the Territory at odds with the nationally agreed births and deaths registration system. Uniform registration processes mean that the figures for births, deaths and stillbirths are able to be fed into a national picture by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The criteria used to register births and deaths are also used nationally to form part of the definition of stillbirth established for statistical purposes by the National Perinatal Statistics Unit of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and contained in the National Health Data Dictionary.
These statistics are important because they reflect the standards of obstetric and paediatric care as well as the effectiveness of public and primary health care. They are important indicators that allow health authorities to target policy development and implement effective health services. Changes to the definition of stillbirth at the Territory level would compromise the Territory’s ability to be included in the national reporting of perinatal deaths and would impact on the comparability of perinatal statistics between jurisdictions. Such a change will, potentially, give the perception of an inflated perinatal death rate in the Territory which would, in turn, call into question the quality of our antenatal and delivery care based on a change of numbers rather than changes in the level of care and health status.
Ultimately, if the way in which the statistics are gathered in the Territory differs from that in other jurisdictions we run the risk of being excluded from such figures on a national basis. If the changes proposed in this bill were accepted, in order for NT statistics to remain comparable with other jurisdictions it would probably be necessary to separate the data to establish almost a dual system for recording births and deaths, thus exacerbating the very sensitive issue that this bill purports to solve.
In other words, the instances that are proposed in this bill would be included in figures within the Territory but be excluded in the collection of Commonwealth data. The practical usefulness of the statistics in the Territory will also be questionable if these changes are accepted as we will be unable to accurately plan for the prioritisation and funding of various programs or ensure their effectiveness.
I and the government understands - leaving this bill to one side - that families do need to receive recognition and closure for their loss. When families have felt this loss I do not think they are interested in statistics per se; they are interested in their loss and they are interested in receiving recognition for their loss. That is part of the reason why the member for Blain has moved this particular bill.
The Department of Justice Births, Deaths and Marriages Unit has developed and implemented a Commemorative Certificate which is now available at no cost from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to any parents who find themselves in the situation similar to Ms Peters and Mr Redriff, acknowledging their loss. Parents may complete an application form and supply a letter from a medical practitioner confirming the delivery. Births, Deaths and Marriages consulted with Cradle NT, a number of health professionals, the Department of Health and Community Services, and Ms Peters in the development of the Commemorative Certificate. I am informed that the family have now obtained a Commemorative Certificate.
In conclusion, it is with sadness, as I said before, that the government is unable to support these amendments. We believe that the proposed amendments are problematic because they lack proper definition and are contrary to accepted clinical criteria. Furthermore, the government believes that it is inappropriate for an Attorney-General to, ultimately, be making determinations in such matters.
I thank Ms Peters and her family for her commitment to this issue and for the role that she has played in bringing the issue to the attention of the Assembly and the public of the Northern Territory generally. Furthermore, your efforts have resulted in the development of what we believe is a sensible, compassionate policy to support families during the difficult period following early pregnancy loss.
This policy will be implemented in all Territory hospitals. Through its introduction and the introduction of Commemoration Certificates, I believe you will achieve much of your goal of increasing the recognition and suffering of families in your situation. You have done a great service to those who find themselves similarly faced with sad circumstances through early pregnancy loss in the future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also recognise Fiona and Craig in the gallery today. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his second reading, it is undoubtedly a difficult matter. I suppose that, to some extent, is an understatement.
This is a difficult issue for all of us. It touches at the very heart of some of the debates we have had in this parliament. I quote from the Leader of the Opposition’s second reading speech:
- What I am proposing is an amendment to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill 2007. I called it the Amendment Bill 2007 or the Kaden Bill. I deliberately put the name Kaden in there so that a lost life is given reference and recognition, because the memory does not pass away …
That is an issue that I have spoken about here before. When you talk about when life starts and finishes, obviously, people have different points of view. From my perspective, life starts at conception. That is my belief and, from my point of view, that should be recognised. If someone has a miscarriage, you might say that is a medical term for a life passing away. There needs to be some way to recognise that.
I am fairly sure my mother had six miscarriages and, possibly, that is why she had to have a hysterectomy towards the end of her childbearing days. Of course, my mother would not tell us that; it was something we found out as we got older. She kept that to herself, and the sorrow that came from those miscarriages she will keep until the day she dies. As a male, that is hard for me to understand, except what is passed on to me from women who have gone through that.
The essential point the Leader of the Opposition has made is that a life has finished, and it has caused pain, especially for the parents. He simply wanted to achieve, I believe, a number of goals. One is recognition of that life; that there is some way that we, as a society, officially recognise a life that has passed away. Another was to say that we had failed, perhaps, in the way we looked after Fiona and Craig when they were in our hospital. The Leader of the Opposition has put an enormous effort into trying to turn things around to help his constituents - and not just because they are constituents. The Leader of the Opposition wants to help them because they are fellow human beings. It is always easy to say we just help people because they are voters. I know the Leader of the Opposition would not have done it for any ulterior purpose.
I also thank the Minister for Health for his comments. I have just received a copy of the policy that he has passed across. It is difficult for me to say who is right and who is wrong in relation to whether this policy, and what the minister said, would satisfy both Fiona and Craig and the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot make any comment on whether what you have handed me is a better concept than that put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
I am no medical expert, and I do not stand here with any pretence to say I am. I note that in section 48A the heading is ‘Registration of birth and death of still-born child’. Section 48A(1) reads:
- If a child is still-born, the Minister may, on application by a parent of the child …
It is not saying you will have to do this. It is saying that according to the circumstances a parent - a mother, a father - may be able to apply. It is not something that will have to happen; it is something that gives choice. It is important to remember that is there. We are not telling people that they have to do this. It is something that each person would have to make a decision about.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support what the Leader of the Opposition has done. He has raised an important issue. If you went further than Fiona and Craig’s sadness and grief and what they have been through, it has bigger implications on the way we look at what life is. To some extent, what the Leader of the Opposition has done by bringing forward what you might say in theory is a technical thing, this legislation, also gives us a chance to reflect from our own points of view exactly what human life is all about. As I said before, many of you may disagree with me, but I believe human life is the most precious gift we have. We should live it to the full. Little Kaden lived life to the full and we should remember that.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the government for what I take to be a reference to deliberate and careful consideration of this matter and your response. I will talk more about that in a moment. Member for Nelson, thank you for the understanding way in which you have approached it. I acknowledge Craig and Fiona. They carry with them, in a physical form, the memory of a life that was lived very briefly.
I understand and appreciate the sensitivity with which government has approached this, and acknowledge the changes that have occurred as a result of the lobbying and activity which was very well done by Fiona and Craig. They are to be admired. They have made a very genuine effort to meet members of the Assembly to explain what they have gone through, what it means, and not just to them. I was surprised to hear the member for Nelson’s personal insights into this, as all of us would have been. It is an issue that lies beneath the surface. It is not until we look at it or talk about it that it comes to the fore. We can either put a lid back on it, trust that it will go away and try to walk away from it, or be honest and recognise that it will not. It sits there beneath the surface. Every family has had to deal with this grief in one form or another. It comes to the point of legislative mechanisms to achieve an objective. The objective is a profound one; that being the notion of choice that the mother has in that, in her view, she has given birth and she simply seeks to have that birth recognised - that it was a life, it was born and then it died - and that is with a birth certificate and a death certificate. That is the position of the mother. If you think about it and walk through it sensitively, that is an understandable position.
I am not a master legislator, and I gave reference to that in previous discussions on this matter. If there are technical problems in the construct of the Kaden bill as presented here to achieve that objective, then I foreshadowed and invited the government to find a solution to problems, rather than identify the technical difficulties and the consequences of the way it was constructed.
I am pleased to say, though - and I will say this to Craig and Fiona too, and all the others in our community who, as a result of the great efforts of Craig and Fiona, have felt that there is some dialogue and conversation about an important and difficult matter - that I will take on board what the government has said in response to this, and will continue to work to find ways of meeting that objective.
There must be other ways. I take hope, not because we can say no other jurisdiction has this so, therefore, we cannot. I do not accept that as a proposition. I see this in other jurisdictions in other places like the United States. In 2001, this issue was brought to the fore and there was lobbying of legislators in Arizona. There was a legislative solution to that problem which satisfied this issue. Since then, that has moved into other states of the United States.
It is a simple proposition: foundational, choice, choosing to have a birth and a death certificate for the child who was born prematurely stillborn. Now, in this realm, it is almost offensive to consider that we externally apply an arbitrary line. At some stage, it would have to be applied. I widen it and, after discussion perhaps there is another way of approaching this: second and third trimester. Ultimately, we value choice. In another debate of a similar nature, choice holds the day: the choice to remove a child by changing the definition of it. Others see that it is still a living person. I do not want to go into that but choice holds the argument on that proposition. But over this side, the choice is not protected.
So, if the mechanism that has been placed before this Chamber is inadequate, that will not be the end of the matter. I would like to continue this. I feel that it is necessary to continue with it and to find other ways of working through this. I know that Fiona and Craig would likely be weary and, perhaps at this point, discouraged. However, many others stand behind them around the country. You would be surprised how many people are calling for some kind of leadership to break through this. In the Northern Territory, Fiona and Craig have given birth to something; that being significant and very important changes to policy. If it had not been for the stubborn attention to the requirement to fix a problem as they saw it, it is unlikely there would be the change and the minister would not have been able to table that changed policy as a result of the concerted and passionate activity of Craig and Fiona.
If we had more of that in our community, we would see a change in our community: people who see a problem and tackle it and move forward. That is why I am inspired to continue. There must be other ways of approaching this. I do not believe it is impossible to find a construct whereby, on the basis of choice, the birth and the death can be formally recognised.
Another advance that has arisen as a result of the activities and the lobbying of Craig and Fiona is the issuing of the Commemorative Certificate. I believe members would know that that does not go to the heart of the issue; it is acknowledged and thanks for going to that stage. However, we are talking about something a little deeper than this. It strikes right to the core when you recognise that this Commemorative Certificate technically and legally does not subscribe any recognition that there was a life, that on the family tree, legally and technically, Kaden does not exist. That is a decision that has been made and they have to live with it. As far as Fiona and Craig are concerned, as far as I am concerned, Kaden was born and Kaden died. May he rest in peace.
This will continue. We have made some significant progress from the day Fiona and Craig walked into my office and that will continue. I may instead ask if the Attorney-General would be willing to meet privately on this so we could look at it in other ways. Perhaps he could explain to me in more detail, with additional briefings of a more complex nature, the legal obstacles he referred to such as inter-jurisdictional problems and so on, so that I can get a better grasp of it, so that I can continue in formulating a solution to a real conundrum. I believe problems have solutions, so we will continue. Kaden, rest in peace.
Motion negatived.
ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 76)
(Serial 76)
Continued from 10 October 2007.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, this legislation and the proposed amendments to the Electoral Act would seek to include expenditure incurred with the authority of the candidate’s party for a particular election as opposed to the current Electoral Act which requires political parties to make declarations on an annual basis. The member for Braitling, in her introduction of these amendments, has made a case that the Independents, as a result of them being independent when they put their declarations through, is very clear in which seat that expenditure occurred.
The threshold issue for the government is that, since we came into office in 2001, we have sought to have a nexus between the disclosure provisions in our legislation and the disclosure provisions required by the Commonwealth parliament. We did undertake extensive reform to the Electoral Act in the Northern Territory when we came to government in 2001 and that was a public process. There was much consultation in regards to that. The main feature of the reforms we took through in 2001 was to have the Electoral Commission as a stand-alone agency of government and not part of the Chief Minister’s office. We also took a policy position that in and around the disclosure provisions, our legislation should have a nexus with the Commonwealth parliament.
The previous federal government amended the financial disclosure provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act some six or eight months prior to the last election. At the moment we are out of kilter with the current Commonwealth legislation. Amendments that the Howard government made to the financial disclosure provisions include: the abolition of returns by publishers and broadcasters; extensions of the definition of associated entity to include members of a registered political party, or those acting on behalf of such persons, and persons who have voting rights in a registered political party; the introduction of annual returns for third parties; and an increase to the standard reporting disclosure threshold from $1500 to above $10 000 indexed annually and rounded for both candidates and registered political parties.
Post the 2005 general election in the Northern Territory, the Electoral Commission made a report to this House and recommended a number of changes to the Electoral Act. We still have that report and those recommendations under review. I am also advised and aware that the incoming new federal government has flagged an intention to make further amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act around disclosure provisions.
The government is not going to support this bill because, from a policy perspective, the policy of the government is to maintain a nexus between the Northern Territory disclosure provisions and those that apply through the Commonwealth parliament. We understand that the incoming government is going to make changes to those provisions. We will wait and see what those changes are that will be made by the Commonwealth government. Then, we will reconsider our position regarding further amendments that may be required to our act around financial disclosure, as well as considering recommendations made by our own Electoral Commission’s report to the 2005 election.
I understand where the member for Braitling is trying to get to with this. However, as I said, for ease of reporting we have decided, from a policy level, to have a nexus with the Commonwealth Electoral Act. There are going to be further reforms in that area. We will wait to see those reforms before we consider our own legislation. The government, unfortunately for the member for Braitling, will not be supporting this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, we are all equal but some of us are more equal than others. That is what this is really about. I thank the member for Braitling for raising this important democracy issue; that is, the side of democracy which this government always talks about - the openness and transparency of this government. Here is an opportunity for this government to do exactly that. The minister has just said that the reason we are doing this is because there is a nexus with the Commonwealth, there are also going to be some changes to the federal Electoral Act, and we will wait till that happens ...
Mrs Braham: They cannot think for themselves.
Mr WOOD: Let us come to that.
I believe the nexus is more with the Labor Party in the Commonwealth government. The nexus is that it is much better for the parties not to disclose where their money is coming from in the same way as Independents do. To say that it is easier to do it, more or less says: ‘Too bad, Independents’.
We have to do it. Surely, when an election is called, the whole idea behind an election is to elect a member of parliament who represents an electorate. I represent an electorate; members on the other side represent electorates. I, as a member of that electorate, simply because I do not belong to a party, am discriminated against in the manner in which I must do my returns. Surely people expect the individual person in their electorate to do exactly what I have to do; that is, allow those people in the electorate to see exactly where their donations came from. Surely that is open and transparent government.
What this really is - I doubt very much if the CLP would support this particular bill – we would see …
Mr Kiely: What about the Nationals?
Mr WOOD: I do not know. Are there any here, member for Sanderson?
Mr Kiely: One standing, I believe.
Mr WOOD: Oh. Yes, thank you, member for Sanderson. You can live in fairyland. All you are doing is throwing up a smokescreen to show that this is about parties. This is about parties protecting their own. They are quite happy to talk about openness and transparency but, when it comes to the crunch, party loyalty goes above everything else ...
Mr Conlan: Come on, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Yes, it does, I am sorry, member for Greatorex. I have known this. I have been around a little while in politics and I can tell you the CLP certainly binds together when it needs to under the banner of its party. What happens is the so-called great ideals we have about democracy and open and transparent government all die when it comes to which comes first. The party comes first; democracy always comes second.
Here is a classic example. When we ask that people in the electorate are treated the same - that is, they have the ability to see what their member of parliament has received in election donations - it is only the Independents who can tell that to their members, but not the parties. What kind of democracy is that?
The minister spoke about the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, and how wonderful it was of this government to now make it an independent authority. That is a very good move, but it is no good making it an independent authority and then ignoring its findings. It is no good saying: ‘We are still looking at them’. Well, this would not take long. You do not have to put into being everything the Northern Territory Electoral Commission has put forward at the one time. You could do it piece by piece.
Here is a classic statement by the Northern Territory Electoral Commissioner in relation to what we are now debating:
- Under the current financial disclosure provisions, a candidate endorsed by a party may file a nil return …
Well, that is certainly going to look good when someone in the electorate picks up their local member’s return and it says nil, and they say: ‘Gee, you have done well. You have not had to get any donations’. Then it says:
- … and rely on their party’s annual return to disclose expenditure made on his/her behalf. This arrangement means the amount of detail and timeliness of disclosure will vary between candidates because party returns are done annually and the figures are not categorised in the same way on the forms lodged. The system provides practical convenience but is not equitable for all candidates.
What comes first in the minds of the government? Practical convenience. Do they support open and transparent government? Do they support equality for all candidates in this House? No, they support practical convenience. Why? Because that benefits their party and that is what this is about. It is about supporting the party.
Unfortunately, I know we are not going to get anywhere. However, if people knew what this bill was about, if this was publicised a bit more, if I went out into an electorate and asked if each member, regardless of whether they belong to a party, have to declare where their donations came from, the same as Independents, I bet they would say: ‘Of course’. However, because this is one of these hairy fairy grey bits of legislation that is not the sort of thing you talk about at the local pub on a Thursday night, nobody cares.
The reality is that it is important legislation the member for Braitling is trying to put through. It is important, as I said before, because it gets to the basis of democracy, the democracy that you keep talking about in your party platforms: openness and transparency. This amendment supports your party policy platform - open and transparent government. I will be able to tell people that the member for Braitling put forward an amendment, which is supported by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, which was defeated by the parties because they do not want their individual people to disclose exactly what donations they received. So they will see, as they probably would have seen in the last election, that my dear mother, she has been mentioned before here, gave me $1000. Everyone knows that, but if someone else’s mother gave them $1000, would they know? It disappears into this great party annual return. From my point of view, it is a bit rough that I have to tell everyone if my brothers or sisters or aunts or uncles gave me a bit of money to help me out, whilst others in parties do not have to do that. That is inequality. That is what the member for Braitling is putting forward today to change.
I am surprised that the reasons the Chief Minister has given are so weak. The member for Braitling interrupted me a minute ago. She said: ‘Of course, they could do this themselves. They do not have to wait for the new federal Electoral Act that is coming down at some future date’. We all keep saying how wonderful it is to be Territorians, how different we are. We can stand on our own feet. We do not need those people in Canberra telling us what to do. Oh sorry, it says here we are going to have to wait until those Canberra people tell us what to do before we do what we are going to do. Well, talk about holding hands with Canberra. That is what it looks like here. We could change this ourselves. We do not need Canberra to tell us the Electoral Act is going to be changed. We do not even know what is going to be in that new Electoral Act. It might not change the section of the act at all, so then we would be still back to square one.
This sounds like container deposit legislation: ‘No, we cannot do it ourselves. We have to wait for the national government to do it and then we will all agree with it’. This is not as complicated as container deposit legislation. This is pretty simple. Pass this legislation and, believe it or not, all the politicians in the Northern Territory would all be on an equal footing. Perhaps that is not what suits the parties and perhaps that is what this is all about.
Sadly, I will be able to tell my constituents and others that there is one rule for the Independents, that is openness and transparency, and there is another rule for parties - it is not that.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Why am I not surprised, Madam Speaker, that no one else is speaking? You cannot even see the opposition. I do not know where they have vanished to. It is interesting, isn’t it? Then again, parties tend to be parties no matter what side of the House.
This government promised they would establish an independent Electoral Commission, and they kept their word. It was an election promise. We thought: ‘Great!’ As soon as the independent Electoral Commission puts out its report with recommendations – which, might I add, came out after I had introduced my first bill - they said: ‘No, we are going to wait for Canberra to tell us what to do’. This has been a bit of a song today. The minister for the Environment also said that he was going to wait to see what the federal government does, and we had the Chief Minister saying: ‘We are going to wait and see what the federal government does’. What is this? Is this a new ‘forget statehood, we are just going to wait for the federal government to tell us what rules we should have’?
I thought we were Territorians. I thought that is what you were voted in for: to represent Territorians, not to represent the federal government. The government is saying that more and more. More and more, they are relying on the federal government to say what their policies should be. Perhaps it is all to do with how much money you are getting. I am not sure.
This bill is a simple, democratic, open bill: all candidates in all elections should be treated the same. It should be fair. I looked at the Greatorex by-election return for candidates: Jane Clark, Greens, nil return; Matt Conlon, CLP, nil return; Jo Nixon, ALP, nil return; Paul Herrick – as an Independent what he spent is all detailed. How unfair is that? Why shouldn’t all candidates disclose what they spend on broadcasting, publishing, productions, mailing, and so on? Wouldn’t it give the people some idea of how much money is going into these elections, how much parties are spending to get their numbers up?
There just seems to me to be a contradiction that this government will not support this bill but, as I said, I am not surprised. I am certainly not surprised that the opposition have disappeared so quickly when it comes to this.
In the former Chief Minister’s speech about the new electoral bill, she said:
- An adequately resourced Electoral Commission, operating independently of government, is an essential component of our democratic rights. Prior to the last election, in recognition of these principles, I promised Territorians that a Labor government would establish an independent Electoral Commission.
She said it is ‘an essential component of our democratic rights’. Well, what has happened to those democratic rights today? They have gone out the window - which is a real indictment upon this government. They cannot see that something as simple as this says to the people in the electorate that, yes, we have an open and transparent government; yes, we are willing to treat all candidates, whether they are party or non-party, the same; yes, we shall tell you the information that we expect them to tell you. No, we are not doing that. It is the party that decides. Today, we see a case of not just the party deciding but the federal government deciding as well.
Madam Speaker, there is no point in my going on. We get the message fairly clearly. General Business Day is interesting, isn’t it? You put up good ideas and think we are going to get government to do this and, then, the government says: ‘No, we will do it our way’. The message we will be sending very clearly to the electorate - and I assure you we will be telling them - is that this government and the opposition will not support financial disclosure of all candidates the same as Independents have to. We are going to tell them that so they may even think there is a certain concealment of what is being spent on elections. When you get that sort of financial disclosure not being open and transparent, you wonder why it is being hidden. You question what it is all about.
I am disappointed but, let me assure government and opposition members that we will be getting that message out to people in the Northern Territory. This government is not honest, open and transparent as they claim. They are waiting for the federal government again to tell them what to do. Why Territorians elected them I am not quite sure. Maybe Territorians thought that they would be making decisions for them, not relying upon another government to do so.
Motion negatived.
Residential Parks Bill
(Serial 77)
(Serial 77)
Continued from 10 October 2007.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I have previously said and reiterate tonight, that I believe General Business Day fulfils an extremely important function within parliament: it enables opposition and the Independents to put forward legislation on issues they consider important. The government takes every proposal they put forward very seriously. General Business Day also challenges opposition and Independent members to appreciate that the successful development of policy and legislation requires more than good intent. It involves analysis of existing laws, assessment of consequences and potential risks, and consultation with experts and, most importantly, the community.
The intent of the member for Nelson in introducing his Residential Parks Bill is to fill a gap in the rights of long-term residents of caravan parks. I state up-front that the government commends the member for Nelson’s stated aim. Both long-term residents and owners of caravan parks deserve a greater level of legal stability and clarity regarding their respective rights and obligations.
This legislative gap has existed since the repeal of the Caravan Parks Act, an act which commenced in 1975 and was repealed by legislation enacted in the dying days of the previous CLP government. The act provided limited protection for caravan park residents. For example, the person operating a caravan park or camping area was obliged to maintain the land in a clean and hygienic condition, free of fire, health and safety hazards, and free of excessive vegetation. The Tenancy Act enacted in 1979 also provided some regulation for owners or operators of caravan parks and residents, such as the determination of fair rents by the commissioner, length of notice periods on termination of a lease on prescribed and unspecified grounds, and warrants of ejectment in certain circumstances. The residential component of the Tenancy Act was superseded by the Residential Tenancies Act in 2000, but the latter act expressly excluded from its operation persons living in caravans or mobile homes located in caravan parks.
In the Territory, we have a higher than average proportion of people who have long-term residences in caravan parks. We all know caravan occupations can last a long time, sometimes because of the lower cost factors and sometimes because people travel here in their caravan and like the place so much they never want to leave. In either situation, residents should possess some standard rights of residency.
The member for Nelson’s bill, however, does not satisfactorily resolve this issue, either in its content or the way the member consulted with industry and other interested parties during its development. The government will, therefore, not be supporting the bill for the following reasons.
The bill contains both internal discrepancies and inconsistencies with provisions in similar legislation. For example, there are significant differences in the required notice periods on termination of periodic and fixed-term tenancies by landlord and tenant between this bill and the Residential Tenancies Act. The member’s second reading speech does not allude to this discrepancy, let alone make any compelling policy argument for the difference. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, if a landlord or tenant wishes to terminate a fixed-term tenancy, they must give the other party 14 days notice. Under this bill, however, the parties are required to give the other 28 days notice - a doubling of the time for that of an apartment or house.
In the case of periodic tenancies, the situation is compounded by internal inconsistencies within the bill. If the landlord wishes to terminate a periodic tenancy, he or she is required to give the tenant 42 days notice under the Residential Tenancies Act. A landlord wishing to terminate a periodic agreement under the bill we have before us tonight must give 60 days if the agreement is a tenancy agreement, or 90 days if the agreement is a site agreement.
Similar inconsistencies exist when a tenant wishes to terminate a tenancy. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, the tenant is required to give 14 days notice while, under the bill, a tenant under a tenancy agreement must give 21 days notice, and a tenant under a site agreement must give 28 days notice. These inconsistencies are quite onerous to understand and comply with, and seem, on the surface, completely unnecessary. Tenancy notice periods should be consistent unless there are good policy reasons for them not to be.
The bill also anticipates the operational use of the Commissioner of Tenancies being given the additional title of the Residential Parks Commissioner and his staff. Given that the commissioner and the Department of Justice were not consulted during the development of the bill, the additional costs and workload associated with the implementing of the proposed legislation such as more inquiries, hearings, compliance and enforcement, has not been assessed.
Of much greater concern is the sporadic and haphazard consultation the member for Nelson apparently conducted with affected parties, with the result that the caravan park owners across the Territory have strongly condemned the bill and warn that it could actually lead to long-term residents being forced out of caravan parks; that is, this legislation carries the very substantial risk of producing an outcome which is the exact opposite to its stated intent.
To the issue of consultation first. The member for Nelson has had a fair bit to say about what constitutes a proper consultation process over the past few months. On 17 October 2007, in the Parliamentary Record, he described a good reform process as one that ‘brought the community along with it’. He also exhorted government to ‘call some public meetings; allow people to have their say; allow people to put up ideas’; and, later, ‘take in a lot of what people are saying’. On 10 October 2007, in the Parliamentary Record, the member said: ‘From the beginning to the end we have had little or no community consultation …’. He went on to demand: ‘… real community consultation not gammon consultation’. He was discussing the important issue of local government reform which has been going on over a period of some 14 to 15 months, to which the government has responded to concerns of residents in relation to the Top End Shire.
We are dealing with very serious issues here as well. We are dealing with people’s homes and livelihoods, and it is something we need to get right. We need to get the correct balance between the rights and responsibilities of tenants, and the rights and responsibilities of caravan park operators. Notwithstanding the deep concerns of the owners and operators of caravan parks, the member for Nelson appears tonight to be pressing on regardless. Let us examine the process of consultation undertaken for this legislation by the member for Nelson.
My understanding from the member’s second reading speech and the letter he posted to caravan park owners on 20 December 2007 is that consultation on the bill consisted of an initial survey form dropped in to some caravan parks earlier in 2007. I am advised that it was probably during April 2007. I am further advised that, during this initial consultation, little detail of the legislation we have before us today was given to people, particularly caravan park owners and operators. In addition, I have been informed that the member promised some operators that he would send a draft version of this legislation prior to introduction in October of last year.
So, let us go through the picture: he had some consultation; he can confirm this or whatever. Earlier in 2007, probably April, he went around, he dropped off forms, presumably he had conservations with people, and then, as part of that initial consultation, he promised he would be giving the operators a draft version of the legislation prior to introduction, which was in October.
I have a few questions for the member for Nelson. Could the member for Nelson provide the Assembly the details that were given to people as part of his initial consultation process? Can the member for Nelson also advise if he undertook to send a draft version of the legislation to operators prior to the introduction in October 2007? If so, did the member send a draft to the operators and, if not, why not? There are some pretty clear-cut questions there, member for Nelson. Could the member for Nelson also advise exactly how many responses he received to his initial survey in early 2007, particularly from caravan park owners? Are the returns from the survey reflected in the bill before the Assembly? This last point is particularly important because of what the member for Nelson claimed in his second reading speech in October 2007. I quote:
- … the results overwhelmingly from residents and owner/managers supported legislative backing.
What is certain is that there was a mail-out of the bill in December last year, not prior to introduction in October - notably well after it had been introduced in parliament in October. In the letter that he wrote - and I have a copy here; I will table this - this is the bill that he tabled on 20 December. He requested comments or amendments before the bill was debated and this was well after it was introduced in October.
I have other questions, member for Nelson. Are you bringing forward any amendments today to reflect the overwhelmingly negative response of the industry that you received once you sent them out the draft bill? Are you proposing any amendments today to reflect those negative responses? You certainly have not discussed any amendments with government. We extend to you the courtesy always, when we have amendments, of offering you a briefing and discussing them with you prior to us introducing amendments.
I ask this because I believe all members have received a fair bit of correspondence from caravan park owners on this issue, of which I am sure the member for Nelson would be aware. I have one letter here, amongst others, addressed to the member. While many operators recognise the need for some legal clarity and reform, they were unanimously and adamantly opposed to the bill before the House to the extent that they were concerned it would force them not to offer long-term tenancies. I have a letter from the NT Caravan Park Association, which clearly sets that out. They had a meeting in Alice Springs on 24 January with the Alice Springs members of the NT Caravan Park Association. The letter says:
- The park operators all came to the conclusion that if this legislation in its present form comes into effect then the park operators will feel that it will be in their best interests not to have any permanent tenants at all.
My office contacted owners of major caravan parks across the Territory, mainly those that have a significant component of tenants commonly known as permanent residents. In an afternoon, someone from my office rang 12 operators in the Top End, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs - pretty easy, just out of the telephone book. Ten of these operators were very concerned and opposed the member for Nelson’s bill. The other two were not contactable. One of those is already on the public record - this is the President of the NT Caravan Park Association - vehemently opposing the member’s bill. Here is the article from the Sunday Territorian, 13 January 2008; this is Viv Lavender:
- … Northern Territory Caravan Park Association president, Viv Lavender, said the proposed bill would work against those it was seeking to protect.
‘If the legislation comes in, parks will not offer long-term residencies’.
She then detailed a whole range of things and called some of the rules ‘silly’. So here is criticism: 11 out of the 12 people who were contacted. I am not sure the member for Nelson actually contacted the peak organisation but he will be able to tell us about that. He certainly wrote a letter to the Editor in response to Ms Lavender’s comments and tried to put her down. Basically, there are many questions about this, member for Nelson.
Here are some further views of the operators. I have already quoted from the letter from Paul and Lynette Coffey of Alice Springs Heritage Caravan and Tourist Park. They said:
- We attended the meeting in Alice Springs on 24 January along with members of the NT Caravan Park Association. All members were totally against the proposed legislation. The legislation opens up loopholes for undesirables to ruin the place. It would destroy our business that we have so painstakingly built up.
She went on to say that if this legislation goes ahead they will no longer have permanent residents. As the article in the Sunday Territorian made clear, if this was to happen, and I quote:
- Hundreds of park residents across the Territory could be left homeless …’.
I have a letter from Brendan Heenan who is representing the NT Caravan Park Association. I have already quoted that the park operators all came to the conclusion that if this legislation in its present form comes into effect then the park operators will feel it will be in their best interest not to have any permanent residents at all.
Probably the most interesting comes from Mr Rod Cramer of Temple Bar Caravan Park. I quote:
- I went to a lot of trouble chasing you to get a copy of your questionnaire, and then spent more time than I had spare filling it out from a considered viewpoint of over 19 years in the industry. And yet I cannot find any of my comments and concerns reflected in the draft legislation …
He went on to say:
- We did not get a look at the draft legislation as you promised, before it got to parliament …
As pointed out previously, this viewpoint was reflected when my office recently conducted discussions with a wide cross-section of industry to gain support for reform in this area. All operators contacted were very strongly opposed to the bill in its present form.
This inadequate, questionable consultation process does not reflect well on the member for Nelson, particularly given his criticism of others in regard to community consultations. Here is a proposed change in legislation that is relatively well defined which, apart from residents, affects a fairly small group of caravan park owners and operators. What we have in front of us is a bill that is unworkable and incredibly divisive. The member for Nelson has some explaining to do. I have already asked a whole series of questions of the member for Nelson. I might repeat them all. I seem to have a fair bit of time there.
I was reminded of Molire’s wise saying which, as parliamentarians, I think we should all consider, and I quote:
- One should examine oneself for a very long time before thinking of condemning others.
That is very wise and, as parliamentarians, we should remember Molire’s wise words. Or, as Montaigne once said:
- Saying is one thing, doing another. We must consider the sermon and the preacher distinctly and apart.
I will say that again because it is a very wise saying that all of us as parliamentarians should heed. He said:
Saying is one thing, doing another. We must consider the sermon and the preacher distinctly and apart.
As a government, we have a responsibility to introduce legislation that is workable. One way to ensure this is through consultation with affected parties in the wider community. Sure, it can be a difficult process and we have found that out through the local government reforms. I am not saying we are perfect. Sometimes, government must act urgently, and lengthy consultation is not possible, but that is something for which government also accepts ultimate responsibility. We take political responsibility for what we do in that regard. However, with bills such as this, when people’s homes and livelihoods are at stake, we need to get it right. This bill, as it stands, is not right.
As I said previously, General Business Day also compels opposition and Independent members to appreciate that the successful development of policy and legislation requires more than good intent. It involves analysis of existing laws, assessment of consequences, and potential risk and consultations with experts and communities.
The former Attorney-General, Dr Peter Toyne, gave an undertaking to develop policy in this area and to introduce reform at some point in the future. I can assure the Assembly that this is progressing. Government will keep working to standardise and clarify the rights and obligations of residents and operators, and ensure we have widespread acceptance for these reforms when we do.
In essence, the bill as it has been put forward is flawed, but even more flawed is the consultation process. I am particularly interested to hear from the member for Nelson. The quote from Rod Cramer is quite straightforward. He is not the only one who has said that operators were promised by the member for Nelson that he would send them a draft of the legislation prior to its introduction. That does not seem to have occurred. I am asking the member for Nelson to clarify this issue in relation to the consultation.
Madam Speaker, government does give the undertaking that we recognise the intent of this bill, which is good. People living in caravan parks do need protection in their tenancy, but I believe that there is a better bill that can do it - and through consultation. Everyone might not get everything they want but I believe we can get a more balanced approach to this whole issue.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I put on the record that Independents do not always agree on everything. That is why we are Independents ...
Mr Stirling: Bailing out of this one, Loraine. Jumping off the ship.
Mrs BRAHAM: Why not? That is what it is all about.
Members interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: The intent of the bill – hey, come on, we are not a party. We do not do what you lot do.
Mr Stirling: No, no, but I see strong unity between the Independents.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nhulunbuy!
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, we normally are but I am allowed to have my opinion and the member for Nelson is allowed to have his.
I agree with the intent of the bill. As the minister said, people living in caravan parks should have protection. What the government needs to remember is that caravan parks offer accommodation to people who cannot afford the higher rents, or to those who cannot find accommodation elsewhere. It also offers accommodation to people who particularly like that lifestyle. There are many permanent residents in caravan parks throughout the Territory and they, as you say, minister, need protection the same way as anyone renting a unit or a house.
The member for Nhulunbuy might remember this: in 1990 the Tenancy Act 1979 was reviewed resulting in the current Residential Tenancies Act enacted in 2000. During discussions for the new act, it was anticipated that caravan park residents would be included but this never eventuated. In fact, we do not have legislation protecting caravan park owners and residents. All states except Tasmania and the Northern Territory have legislation doing just that but we do not. Perhaps we have to wait again for the Commonwealth to tell us what to do? Who knows, that has been the theme song today.
I have received as many letters as you have from people who are concerned about it.
The member for Nelson is always sincere in what he does and his intent. You do not always have to agree with him, I know that, and many of you do too. However, he has worked hard on this bill, regardless of whether the minister thinks there has been enough consultation. He will tell you about the survey and the responses. I do not have it with me as it was such a huge document.
As you said, minister, he also received a letter in 2006 from the then minister for Justice confirming that no current Territory laws applied in renting caravans in a park and, consequently, there was no protection for residents in matters of fee increases or mandatory tenancy agreements. The then minister stated that the matter was currently being examined and it may result in law reform at some future stage. That was 2006; it is now 2008. There has been no public announcement about this review until you stood in parliament today and said that.
There does need to be legal protection for owners and residents of caravan parks. I can understand why this particular bill has caused concern. I give the member for Nelson credit for raising it. If it does nothing else, it might get government members off their butts to do something about it and introduce legislation of their own.
Madam Speaker, I let the member for Nelson know that I am not supporting the legislation. However, I need to make the point very clearly that, sometimes, the member for Nelson probably does not support what I put forward. It is called being Independent.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, where do I start? Perhaps with a quote since the minister decided to give me some quotes. One is: ‘“Vengeance is mine”, says the Lord’. If you were listening to the tone of this debate, you would say this had less to do with what is in my legislation and more to do with: ‘We will get you back for what you did to the minister in relation to the Local Government Act’. That is what it smelt of ...
Mr Kiely: Do not flatter yourself.
Mr WOOD: That is what it smelt of. There was all this stuff about consultation - this, this and this. Here we have serious debate about a bill, and there was a smell of vengeance right through it. Instead of getting to the core of what this legislation is about - which is to protect the battlers, the poor, those on a low income, the lonely people who live in caravan parks - you ignored them.
You are the Labor Party and you ignored the key to what I am trying to do. It is a social justice issue here, which you say you are proud of. There might be problems with what I am putting forward; there might be difficulties for owners. However, there is something more important in here; that is, there are Territorians who need some protection. They are the sort of people you should be talking about. You can kick me all you like; I do not mind. In the debate that I heard from that side, the biggest thing that disappoints me is so very little emphasis was placed on the people who need your protection. The people that I found out …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: The people I found out about …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: … the consultation that I had by going to a caravan park. That was the Sundowner. When I got a phone call from the Sundowner Caravan Park one day to say: ‘Our rent is being put up $10 for any person who has …
Mr Kiely: And you jumped on it as an election issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: … that has their own washing machine – instant’. They were told that day: ‘You will pay next week $10 extra per week if you have your own washing machine’. The reason was because the manager, not the owner, wanted to get those people to use the coin-operated washing machines in the caravan park. I thought this was unfair. I looked at the legislation. This is legislation, by the way, you people in 2006 - two years ago - said you would do something about. Well, you had not done anything about it. That is why I started to look at why there was nothing done. I thought it was time to look after the poorer people, the people we should be looking after. This really should have been your job, because you actually knew it was around and you had done nothing about it. So, I tried. I might have failed because I know that when I bring legislation here I fail. There is very little legislation that has ever gone through this parliament from this side …
Dr Burns: What about the consultation? Answer the questions.
Mr WOOD: It does not matter who I - I will answer the questions. Okay? But that is peripheral to what we are talking about, because you missed ….
Dr Burns: It is to your credibility.
Mr WOOD: You deliberately missed the reason for this legislation.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: You missed the reason this legislation should go through.
Mr Stirling: You should not be haranguing us. He is shouting.
Mrs Braham: Why did you not get up and speak then?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Mr WOOD: I learned it from the member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nhulunbuy, cease interjecting!
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think that the member for Nelson’s pitch and tone of voice is hard to cop. He does not have to harangue the House. He can explain quietly why he failed to consult on these issues without shouting at us.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I would like you to direct your comments through the Chair, please, remembering that all comments are meant to be directed through the Chair and not at individual members across the Chamber. I ask members to cease interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I will do that, Madam Speaker. I will try to tone down but, I must admit, some of my skills were learned from the member for Nhulunbuy, who can speak with a lot of passion as well.
It is a passionate thing; that is where this came from, and that is the reality of it. We had someone who needed help. All right, they were constituents of mine. I have a written speech here; I probably will not worry about it now. I will be honest with you. I did not have much to do with the people in the Sundowner Caravan Park. They are part of my electorate. You drop a bunch of newsletters off at the office and ask if they can be dropped around. I did not know the people in there until this lady, Annie, came and said: ‘Look at what they are doing’. I found, much to my amazement, that there is no legislation. The Residential Tenancies Act did not cover these people.
I started to look at what should we do. In the meantime, the Sundowner was going to be sold. People did not know. They were told that the place was going to stay open. It was only a verbal guarantee, but they were told that the place was going to stay. In fact, it was going to be closed down at Christmas 2006. I went around there with another lady, Susie. She was the one who informed me that the park was going to be closed down. I delivered some fliers to those people. I know this is probably not the sort of consultation you were talking about, minister, but this is the consultation I had.
We had a meeting and, in fact, the Chief Minister came to one of the meetings to discuss this issue. We had people, some of whom had been there 15 years, who were told ‘goodbye’. They were told to get out of their homes, with no protection at all. They had their pets; some of them paid quite large sums of money to be sub-tenants. I stand corrected if someone is reading this, but there was a person there who had paid somewhere in the order of $25 000 to buy a site and, within about two or three months of living there, they were told that the park was closing down.
I spent a considerable length of time - and I appreciate the help the Chief Minister gave us, on extending that time. There was a community there. People had lived there, not only for a long time, but had made their little spot into a home. They had a caravan, usually on blocks, they had built annexes - probably not legal – and they had pot plants, tables and chairs. They had pets - very few caravan parks in the Top End will take pets. They had a caravan park where they could have a pet, and that was unique. It was under the flight path - not everybody’s cup of tea - but that did not worry them. They had a bus stop outside and they could go to Casuarina, Darwin or Palmerston from where they lived. For many it was very convenient.
You also have to realise the sort of people who were there. It was a mixed bag of people: widows, widowers, couples, single people, married people, lonely people, black people, white people - all sorts. If you want to get a cross-section of society, you will get it at a caravan park, especially a permanent caravan park. I saw people who were being removed from a caravan park without any protection at all from the law. That is why I put forward this legislation, to see if something could happen.
It is too late for the Sundowner Caravan Park. For those who go past there, you might be surprised to see a sign up which says ‘future place for development’. Shops are going to go there, to be completed December 2007. Here we are, February 2008, and you have a paddock there full of weeds. No caravans, no one lives there any more. These people were moved out of their homes and they have had to find other places. For many of them, that was extremely difficult, but they have eventually.
That is why I did what I did. The first thing I did was to put together a caravan park survey. I can get you a better copy of this, minister, if you would like. I can get it in colour. This is the black and white version. We could do a colour version where the graphs show up better. You can go to here and assess where we got our information. This is a fairly long document. I cannot read it all out tonight. I am quite happy to give it to the government because, minister, even though you are going crook at me - no, I will give you a better version. I can table this but it is not in colour and the coloured graphs come out better, you can understand them better. I am quite happy to give the government a coloured version of that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, do you wish to table that? You need to seek leave.
Mr WOOD: If they want me to table the black and white version I can. I will just give a guarantee to the minister that I will get a better version for him. I will not table it.
Madam SPEAKER: So you are not tabling?
Mr WOOD: No, but I will ask my research officer to do that for him.
That caravan park survey took me around two or three months to deliver. I delivered to every caravan park in the Darwin area including the rural area. I went to every caravan park from here to Alice Springs. I did not go to Borroloola, Timber Creek, the Douglas Daly area, or to Uluru. I visited all the other caravan parks. I went to each park individually. I asked them if they had permanent residents at that park. If they did, I asked them if I could leave some of these surveys at that park. That was the initial consultation.
Where I could speak to owners, I did. Not all owners were in. In the case of Temple Bar, I left one or two - I have to check the records. Some surveys were left where I thought the office was because when I went out to a couple of long-term caravan parks out to the west of Alice Springs, from memory at one of them I could not find anyone to give it to so I left it there. I will answer the questions about what Rod Cramer mentioned in his letter.
I worked with the Parliamentary Counsel. We put this report together after people had returned the survey forms. In the introduction of this particular document it says survey forms were received from 19 owner/managers and 23 permanent residents. I would have liked to have visited more permanent residents but it was not as easy as you think. It was a very in-depth survey and we received results from many people. Reading from the report on the survey:
- The results found in most cases there was consistency in responses from these two types of respondents such as who would be subject to new legislation, whether Residential Parks Agreements should be mandatory, and rights and responsibilities of owners and residents. However, there were areas where they disagreed, mostly where the Commissioner of Tenancies should become involved in unresolvable disputes. Another notable area of difference was whether the legislation should allow for the formation of a residents committee to represent the rights of residents. Owners/managers tended to disagree whereas residents strongly wanted to have that right.
There was a whole range of questions in there. I am quite happy for the minister to look at it and, if he thinks it might help in some future process to bring in some legislation, I would be happy to give it to him.
I will mention a couple of things. The minister spoke about the history. I also want to just say a few things about the history of where we are today with caravan park legislation.
The Tenancy Act 1979, since repealed, possessed contradictory clauses, whereby the act covered residents in caravans but not those living in tourist caravan parks; that is in Definitions. In section 41, the definition of 'premises' included:
- (b) caravans and demountable buildings leased for residential purposes;
- (c) the land upon which a resident has built upon which a caravan or demountable building is sited ...
(g) premises used in the tourist agency.
In 1989, the then minister, Mr Hatton, announced a working group to review the Tenancy Act with the intention of bringing tenancy provisions up to date. The NT election of 1990 delayed events but the working group was reconvened in January 1991. A discussion paper was released in October 1992 with a report issued in November 1993. The final report of the review made these comments in particular reference to caravan park residents:
- If tenancy legislation is to be fair and equitable no one group should be placed in an inferior position under the law and it must aim to offer coverage to all forms of tenure.
Recommendation 2(c) said:
- The scope of the new law had to be broad enough to cover all tenants including the permanent residents of caravan parks, mobile and transportable homes.
Recommendation 2(b):
- That permanent residence means an occupation for 28 days or more, excluding holiday purposes and others by regulation.
Recommendation 3:
- Special Requirements for Certain Classes of Tenancy - law had to give adequate regard to special requirements including caravan parks.
In 1996, the draft Residential Tenancy Bill was released for public comment receiving more than 800 submissions. In early 1999, the government tabled a further draft Residential Tenancy Bill as a reworked version based upon the results of consultation. In August of that year, the final version was introduced, being passed in October and receiving assent in 2000.
In his second reading of the bill, the then Minister for Business and Industry, Mr Baldwin, explained that caravan park residents were excluded from the legislation. I am quoting from what he said:
- One exception is caravan parks which will have separate provisions developed for inclusion in a new Caravan Parks Act.
He later said:
- If we just turn to some of the changes that we’ve made on submissions, caravans and mobile homes in caravan parks have been excluded following a number of submissions. In fact, of the 60-odd submissions, I think over half were from caravan park owners. They want to be kept outside of this and certainly they would have to have some provisions in the future to look after their tenancy arrangements.
Thus, the current Residential Tenancies Act 1999 specifically excludes caravan park residents. Section 6 says under the heading ‘Agreements to which the Act does not apply’:
This Act does not apply to an agreement –
…
- (h) under which a person occupies or is intended to occupy a caravan, or a mobile home, that is in a caravan park.
Although it was superseded by an updated version in 1999, the Tenancy Act was not repealed until 2003 through a schedule in the Business Tenancies (Fair Dealings) Act 2003. No comment was made by the minister in his second reading speech so, presumably, the repeal was just a clean-up of …
Dr Burns: You still have not answered my question.
Mr Stirling: No. Cannot answer it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: … was just a clean-up of legislation. In effect, it means that since 2003 there has been no coverage for people who live in caravans …
Dr Burns: So, that is a yes?
Mr WOOD: I will get to that in my own time, thank you, minister. I am happy to answer the question. But this is not what this is about. This is about getting back at Gerry Wood. This is not about debating the importance of this legislation ...
Mr Stirling: Yes, it is.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not.
Dr Burns: It is about your credibility.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not. It is about you getting back at me. You can get back all you like but I will tell people what this is really about: all you are interested in is having a go at me. I am happy with that. Why I brought this legislation …
Dr Burns: Once again, you are misrepresenting what is happening.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Why I brought this legislation forward was to protect …
Dr Burns: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nelson is saying here that he is going to go out and misrepresent what has happened in the debate in this parliament. He is also misrepresented a lack of concern that he is asserting on my part about caravan park residents. Let me tell the member for Nelson, that I actually go down to a caravan park on my holidays three weeks every year. I know people in caravan parks. Do not start lecturing me about who lives in caravan parks.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, would you mind directing your comments through the Chair and not across the Chamber?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling: He is very hurt that you did not support him.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nhulunbuy!
Mrs Braham: What was that?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Mr Stirling: I am not allowed to speak.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: I would just like to get to some of the issues that Mr Cramer from the Temple Bar Caravan Park spoke about.
For instance, he said there was difficulty getting a copy of the questionnaire. Our answer to that was that copies were left at most caravan parks. I presume his caravan park was the one where I could not find the owner. Anyone who rang our office seeking a copy was either faxed or mailed a copy. We did our best to ensure that people received a copy of the survey.
You said that Mr Cramer’s opinion was not reflected in the bill. Our response is that a total of 160 forms were distributed, 42 were returned - not every caravan park has permanent residents, hence not all forms would have been returned. The bill reflects the majority of views in the returned forms. There were some comments that could not be included because they were inflammatory, contradictory to the spirit or aims of the bill, or would have been illegal. The bill has also been drafted with consideration to similar successful interstate legislation. Mr Cramer complained that the bill was not distributed before being presented in parliament. My response is that, after consultation through the survey and face-to-face discussions with the residents and owner/managers, the bill was introduced on 10 October 2007. It would not be scheduled for debate until four months later, during which time further consultation was undertaken and changes considered.
Madam Speaker, I believe he is right; I did not deliver the bill before the legislation was introduced to parliament. That was something that was not intentional. It was something that I simply did not get time to do. I also realise that, in the case of General Business Day, one can introduce legislation and you know that there is going to be a long period before it is introduced in parliament.
There were other issues. Mr Cramer mentioned in paragraph 4 about a vicarious liability clause that had no practical mechanism for enforcement. Clause 48 declares that it is a term of the residential park agreement that a resident is responsible for acts or omissions by persons who are on the rented property with the consent or invitation of the resident. This is a term of the agreement. This means that if the person commits an act or omission that is a breach of the agreement, the resident is liable; thus the clauses concerning procedures and action to take place where there is a breach of the agreement are enacted, for example, giving the resident notice to terminate the agreement or immediate dismissal from the caravan park.
In paragraph 5, Mr Cramer said ‘occupants have so much power under the bill’. My reply is that while residents may, with the consent of the owner, form a residents committee to which to present concerns and discussions with the owner, the manager/owner is likewise given many legal rights and powers to set standards of behaviour and conduct and deal with residents in cases where a residential park agreement is breached. This is the model successfully used by landlords and tenants in houses and units under the Residential Tenancies Act. At the moment, without any legal backing, owners have no legal recourse for dealing with breaches. The bill gives them that backing.
In paragraph 5 of Mr Cramer’s letter, he said: ‘Long-term residents keep us open through the summer’. My reply is that many caravan park owners recognise the importance of continued income from long-term residents. The bill does not threaten this arrangement; it merely recognises that those owners and residents have separate rights and responsibilities as part of a legal contract between the parties. The paying of money for a service - that is, the renting of a site or dwelling - gives certain rights to those paying the money. At the same time, they have certain responsibilities in recognition of the owner’s rights.
In paragraph 7, Mr Cramer mentioned having to go through all sorts of red tape to remove residents from your premises. My reply is that the sections regarding termination have been drafted with consideration of comments and consultation, interstate legislation, and similar provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act. In cases of serious breaches of the residential tenancy agreement, the owner may terminate an agreement immediately. In less serious circumstances, the owner or resident may apply to the commissioner for a termination of the agreement. Experience in the Residential Tenancies Commission is that a similar system for houses and units works well.
In paragraph 8, Mr Cramer mentioned having to give 60 days notice to increase service charges or rent. My reply is that clause 24 allows the agreement to stipulate when increases in rent may be made; that is, there does not have to be 60 days notice if the agreement sets out a different process for varying the rent. Clause 47 states that the residential agreement may declare that residents may pay for metered services such as water or electricity or gas, thus, if the relevant utility increases these charges, the resident will be liable to have to pay the increased amount. This survey revealed that there are very few permanent sites that do not have metered services. In fact, nearly all respondents stated there must be meters. However, the bill does cover circumstances where there may not be metered sites under clause 47(4).
I will skip a couple to save time. Madam Speaker, am I allowed an extension?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I believe so.
Mr WOOD: In paragraph 10, Mr Cramer talked about the notice of sale of park. My reply is that the period in question takes into consideration that property sales on this scale are usually known well in advance. The time period also takes into account settlement period, etcetera. At heart is the termination of a legal contract and, rightly so, there should be provisions to protect parties in the event of change.
Mr Cramer went on with quite a few other matters. I will read my overall comment:
- The relationship between a park owner and a resident should be seen as a legal contract - money is given in return for a particular good or service. As such, there needs to be legal certainties in acknowledging the rights and responsibilities of the parties to the contract, and procedures for when those rights and responsibilities have been breached by either party. This is fundamental to many similar relationships in society - such as purchasing an item at a store, buying a car, or renting a house.
I thank Mr Cramer for his letter. He was one of the few people who contacted me in relation to this bill with issues that he felt needed addressing. We have put forward comments on what he had said and there is some of what I wrote today.
In relation to consultation, I spoke with Mr Frank Morandini. We had a meeting about the bill. You have to remember that we sent the bill out to everyone we could think of who responded asking for comments. You have to remember that sometimes we got no addresses back with our survey forms, but we sent them to those places that had permanent caravan parks. I was asking for comment. I realise that, in the case of an Independent putting forward legislation, there is a lot longer period than the government normally allows; there was four months. I would have been willing to delay this legislation even longer if that was the case.
I have travelled the length and breadth of the Territory. I would have been happy to sit down with the Caravan Park Association in Alice Springs and discuss the issues with them. You have to remember that I spoke to many managers asking them what they thought about caravan park legislation. In some cases, like one park I went to, there were people managing the park because the owners were away, so I would talk to them. Of course, when the managers came back they may have had no idea what was going on because I was not speaking to them. I spoke to Brian Hill at Manbulloo Station. I had dinner with him and discussed matters with the bill. He raised a number of issues. I attempted to get back to him in relation to those issues but, unfortunately, he is on holidays.
Regarding the Caravan Park Association, well, the lady that the minister mentioned lives in my electorate; she happens to be the owner of the Howard Springs Caravan Park. I knew that there was no hope of this legislation going too far because when the survey forms were sent out, she wrote me a letter basically saying that this legislation was not welcome. That was on 6 March. So I knew that the owner of that caravan park was absolutely against any changes and, as the president of the association, she obviously would have put forward those views, which she is entitled to, to the Caravan Park Association. I would have been very happy if I had been given an invitation by any caravan park owner in relation to this bill. That is why I had discussions with Frank Morandini; that is why I had discussions with Brian Hill. If the Caravan Park Association had asked me to come to a meeting to discuss this, I would have gone straightaway; I had no hesitation.
Madam Speaker, I fully accept that this legislation is not perfect. We have spent many hours with the Parliamentary Counsel. It is not as though I drew this up by myself. We asked far more learned people to look at caravan park legislation throughout Australia. I had input into that, trying to reflect the issues that the caravan park people had told me. They told me in consultation what they thought, because they sent back their survey forms. Many times they told me to get stuffed. I knew what they were thinking. Not all of them were like that, but some were. Some, basically, told me to go take a jump in the lake. That is what it was about.
There was consultation, minister, and I have done my best to consult personally. I did not post this out to people. I drove up and down the highway into every caravan park I could find, and tried to talk with every manager. That took a fair bit of time, and that was with the Alice Springs sittings coming up as well. It was a fairly hectic time to do all that.
I received the letters you have. Regardless of whether I agree with him, only Mr Cramer had the decency to say: ‘There are sections of this act I think are wrong. What’s your answer?’ Other people gave me various holistic approaches where they said: ‘We think we will lose our identity’. That is nice but it is not telling me very much about my legislation. Unfortunately, there are some business people out there who really do not want any legislation at all ...
Mrs BRAHAM: Madam Speaker, I move the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I accept the criticism that not everything was perfect, and I did not do it as well as I should. I accept that and I will take it. Even if I had not done it perfectly, I did try to mend it by making sure people received the legislation that we have here today. I have not brought forward any amendments. Once I received letters from the business side of things I knew that my legislation was not going to get past square one. I am not going to spend my entire day in this parliament trying to introduce amendments that are going to go nowhere. You have to use a little common sense when going through these issues.
The previous Attorney-General made a promise to me in a letter saying: ‘I can confirm that the issue of caravan parks is currently being examined and may result in law reform in some future stage’. I hope that that future stage is not far off because you have not done anything. I at least had a go, and that is something. I will take the criticism. I do not mind taking the criticism from the parks, but the people who own parks also have to understand that the people who live in parks call those parks their home and have some entitlement to protection. If it can happen in other parts of Australia - after all, we are all Australians - why can it not happen to Territorian Australians? It does not; it is a glaring example.
I will read to you, minister, something that turned up on my desk from a caravan park. I will read out who it is from. If there is one thing that made me more determined that there is a need for this legislation it was this attitude. I received this not long after I sent out the legislation for comment. It is from the Oasis Tourist Park:
Mr Gerry Wood
- Have just read the legislation that’s to be tabled in parliament on 20th February re Caravan Parks. You must be joking. On the proviso that you are serious, our park will no longer be taking long-term residents and the ones we now have will be asked to leave ASAP.
As the legislation reads, we as the owners of the parks have no rights but all the worry and bills which need to be paid even when the tenants are behind in their rent and with all the excuses as to why they can’t pay this week.
So as from 9 February no long-term residents will be permitted in our park. Even if the bill is not supported, our new rules will stand.
That is the Oasis Caravan Park.
If people are going to attempt to blackmail me by telling people that if I try to put regulations on our caravan park will kick the long-term people out, I say there needs to be legislation. No one should have the right to do that to people - no one. That is what this legislation is about: it is protecting those who are the most vulnerable. There are some people who can only afford to be in caravan parks. Some people like that lifestyle. If any of you had walked around the Sundowner Caravan Park you would have seen those people. Those people need the protection of this government to ensure that attitude cannot happen.
I accept that what I have done might not have been perfect, minister. I accept your criticism. I probably could have done it better from the point of view of letting them know a little earlier. However, I do put that into context that we had nearly three or four months for people to look at my legislation. I asked for comments. I would have been willing to take pieces out if they were wrong, to amend it. I would have been willing to delay the bill. I would have been happy to do all that. I still remember the e-mails and the people who lived in caravan parks who have said to me that they wanted this legislation. They felt that, for too long, they were at the whim of an owner who could kick them off at any point in time because there is no legislation that says they cannot.
I understand that owners need protection. I have tried to put forward balanced legislation which will give owners protection. Owners have no protection, for instance, going into a caravan. If they go in, they could probably be sued. We put rules in this legislation which said that you can enter another person’s caravan for these particular reasons. What we tried to do was to protect both sides. I have no hesitation in saying that, whilst owners need protecting, they are not as vulnerable as some of the people who live in these caravan parks.
Opposition members are not speaking on this, but I hope they have received all the letters I have received. I know that some of those letters have come from people close to their hearts, politically, and there would be very little doubt in my mind that they would have supported this bill. I ask all people to consider what they would have done in my circumstances. Would they have told the people in the Sundowner Caravan Park that it is just too bad? Would they have sat there and watched people’s houses torn down when they could not find another place to stay? I do not think any other member of parliament would have done that. It just happens it was in my electorate and it has made me more conscious that there are many people out there for whom land and houses are becoming impossible. In many cases, this is the only place people can stay. I have said this before: we need more permanent caravan parks.
I will give a plug for what I think is an excellent caravan park. It is The Mill in Katherine. I went there and it is a well run, permanent caravan park - neat, tidy, the owner has set the rules, and has set up industrial sheds where people can park their caravans in both ends with toilet, shower and laundry facilities in the centre. They all have a little lawn and garden around them. It is a lifestyle that some people enjoy. If you cannot afford to rent a house or a unit, or you cannot buy a block of land, it is an alternative. It is a place where you will find a cross-section of life.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. To the member for Nhulunbuy, I have calmed down, but I was expressing passion about an issue we need to do something about. Instead of saying: ‘Yes, we are going to do something about it’, I hope that very soon, before the next election, this government brings forward its version of what should be done. I hope that it goes out to every caravan park up and down the track and consults, puts out its legislation for comment, and then takes heed of those comments and changes legislation. I hope the government does everything it told me that I should have done. I feel that most of what I have done is adequate. I hope they do the same and introduce legislation which will protect Territorians.
Motion negatived.
ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 117)
(Serial 117)
Continued from 10 October 2007.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the proposals put forward by the member for Braitling, essentially, they fall in two parts. The first part is to amend section 41(2), Determination of order of candidates names. The current act requires that the draw for positions on the ballot paper take place in public at the Electoral Commission’s office in Darwin as soon as practicable after the close of nominations and this provision applies to both general elections and by-elections. The member seeks to make an amendment and proposes that the draws for positions on the ballot paper be at a place decided by the commissioner as notified in the Gazette. It is a small change that has been proposed by the member for Braitling, and also a recommendation by the Electoral Commissioner.
We are considering the Electoral Commissioner’s report in regards to a comprehensive response. This is one of those issues under consideration. Later this year, I will be releasing a comprehensive response to the Electoral Commissioner. Therefore, we will not be supporting this part of the amendment …
Mrs Braham: You support it in principle?
Mr HENDERSON: We are having a good look at it. It is a small issue. We will not have to use this requirement for some time. There are good reasons to do it. We will give it due consideration in the comprehensive response to the Electoral Commissioner’s report.
The second issue goes to the financial threshold for mandatory reporting of gifts, donations, and anonymous gifts to candidates, which is $200. Under the act, the threshold for reporting such payments to registered political parties is $1000. The member for Braitling suggests there is an inequity there and her bill proposes the threshold for all three types of payments to candidates be similarly raised to $1000. There are some issues here. You can run the broad equity arguments but, regarding people who donate to political parties as opposed to people who donate to individual candidates, a $1000 donation to a political party just gets swallowed up in the overall amounts of money that are donated and would not have any undue influence in regards to particular candidates. The donation is to the party and the party runs the campaign.
However, you have to consider whether $1000 is significant or whether it has the capacity to influence an individual candidate in what somebody is trying to achieve by way of donation. It is not a simple equity argument - $200 versus $1000 - in the context of why people choose to support political parties or to support individual candidates. When people donate to political parties it gets gobbled up in the overall campaign funding that the party has and would have no capacity to influence individual candidates because it is part of the expenditure the party takes. However, $1000 is a lot of money to a lot of people and, in handing that money over to an individual candidate, there could be the capacity for questioning, I suppose, whether that donation has the capacity to influence.
In being transparent in regard to the capacity for donations to influence people, that is certainly something to consider. It is not a simple equity argument.
In relation to the threshold issues regarding disclosure and reporting, we are out of nexus with the Commonwealth at the moment. The Commonwealth has raised their disclosure thresholds to $10 000 and have indexed that annually and rounded up that indexation for both candidates and registered political parties. There is a view that donations of up to $10 000 should have some disclosure. Obviously, the previous government had a view the other way.
In regard to where we are going in our Electoral Act, again this issue of thresholds, donations and disclosure is not an issue. I will pick up on the fairly inane comments - with all due respect to the member for Braitling whom I have a lot of personal respect for - that we are just taking a lead from the Commonwealth and being run from Canberra and all of that nonsense that the CLP used to go on with and now the Independents are going on with. There are very good reasons to have a nexus around Australia in regard to how elections are run and the reporting requirements for candidates and political parties. It makes a lot of sense to have uniform legislation around Australia with those issues of openness and transparency. It is not a case of having your strings pulled from Canberra. It really is a policy issue. It makes sense, like in so many other areas, that we have uniform electoral laws and disclosure laws across Australia that maximise openness and transparency. To say that we are just dancing to Canberra’s tune is absolute nonsense.
We have the report from the Electoral Commissioner. There are a whole heap of recommendations in there that go to these issues as well. Government is not proposing to consider these issues in isolation of what broader reform we might seek to undertake as a result of the Electoral Commissioner’s report and recommendations. For those reasons, the government will not be supporting this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, surprise, surprise! I will not repeat too much of what we said before. It is, basically, the same argument for the first bill the member for Braitling put forward. Regardless of what the government has said about the nexus, the government should be listening to the Northern Territory Electoral Commission which it set it up.
Mr Henderson: We have not said we won’t. We said we are still considering his report.
Mr WOOD: That is right. But that could mean ‘one day it will rain’. It is one of those broad statements …
Mr Henderson: But it does not say we are ignoring it.
Mr WOOD: But it has taken a while for the government to do something. When we are putting forward the …
Mr Henderson: We have many priorities.
Mr WOOD: When we were putting forward our case today, we noted that it was in 2005 when the Electoral Commission said these things. That is three years ago. It is taking a while then, priorities excepted.
I support what the member for Braitling is doing. They are sensible changes and they bring in the concept of equality between candidates, nothing to do with parties because we are elected as individuals. You may have a party name written across the top of your posters at the election time, but your name is written on the ballot paper as Mr Smith or Mrs Smith, or whatever, and that is the way people vote for you.
That is the way donations should also be looked at - from the individual perspective not from the party’s.
I thank the member for Braitling for bringing forward these amendments. It is hard when you put forward something and you know it is going to get knocked on the head. We hope that it does …
Mrs Braham: You have experienced that often.
Mr WOOD: I have, yes. I hope it brings government’s attention to some of these bills we are bringing forward which we believe are important. I know that the government later on accepts that what we are putting forward is of benefit. We then find that it comes back in a different form with a different name on it and we are quite happy to accept that as well.
I thank our - and I say that as an Independent - research officer for all the work she has done. General Business Day is a pretty heavy day for all of us. She has done a marvellous job in putting all this information together for us. From a personal point of view, the amount of work she put into the caravan park survey and legislation has been fantastic. I appreciate the work she has done, and I put that on record.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I take it that there is no one else to speak for the bill, even if they might agree with it in principle. Perhaps the member for Nhulunbuy might have a few words to say as he would …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRAHAM: Madam Speaker, there has been no surprise. I appreciate the sensible way in which the Chief Minister has presented his argument on why he is not supporting it. He has not been emotive and bagging the Independents, as we heard a little around the place today. He has done it in a very precise way. I appreciate that he has given the reasons for it. Yes, we are looking forward to the time when he does bring in the legislation which covers most of the matters we have raised.
It is not a big thing to have the draw done in the most appropriate place. I imagine this will come back. The by-elections were classic. When the draw was being held for the position on the paper, it was held in Darwin rather than in the Centre where the members for Stuart and Greatorex were. It also helps the Electoral Commission officers concerned. They would prefer to have them regionalised rather than in one central place. It is a sensible amendment.
I am not quite sure what you have to do to get an amendment through this place ...
Mrs Miller: You have to be Labor.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes. It may come back in a different form. It is also disappointing that the number of contributors to this debate on General Business Day has been so small. What the member for Nelson says is true; we put in a lot of work. We do expect a lot from our poor research officer. She is sometimes torn because she knows that he and I have different opinions, needs and wants. I also put on the record my appreciation for Caroline and for what she has done.
It is a question of equity whether the parties think it or not: the question of whether you are a party or a non-party person, you should declare donations. Size should not matter. It should be the same level for everyone. To suggest that $1000 to a party will not influence them but $1000 to a non-party person might influence is nave. More people may donate to Independents if they knew it was going to be anonymous. We found this very much in the by-elections; that people felt that the major parties would almost penalise them if they felt they were giving to an Independent. That is why it should be the same threshold for everyone. Independents use a lot of their own money – it is as simple as that. If we raised the threshold for donations perhaps it might enable them to collect more.
I understand parties have huge banks; they borrow a lot. It is always interesting to see the financial disclosure of parties. We have just seen the huge donations to the federal government by unions and others to mount their campaigns. That is part of the game. An Independent would never reach that level of donations. At least give them a fair go. That is all we are asking for: let us give them a fair go.
What would this Assembly be like? It would be dull if you did not have the member for Nelson. Let us face it, he brings colour. Independents contribute to the whole party. There were a couple of debates today where members were sitting there and wanted to say, ‘Yes, we agree with that’ but, because they are a member of the party, they said nothing. That is the sad part. Regardless of whether the member for Nhulunbuy thinks that Independents should agree on everything I bet he does not agree with everything that goes on in this House. Come on, it is about time you stood up and had a say and really said what you felt about certain matters rather than just bag people.
It has been an interesting day. It is not quite over but we did not think we would get our bills up. We just felt that in a democratic society we are entitled to have our say, and put things forward that we felt were sensible. I look forward to the government putting forward these amendments in their own way in the very near future. Whether it will be before the next election will depend on the Chief Minister’s decision of when he wants to go. So, if it does not come within the next six months or so, I guess we can read something into it.
Madam Speaker, I thank the people who contributed to the debate for today. I am disappointed that there have been so few people contributing to the debate. It has been a very interesting day. We have had many good debates on different matters and they have flowed very quickly. I urge people to get up and have a go. Do not just sit there and pretend that you are not involved. There are some people in this House today who have not said a word. That is a shame. They are in here to debate topics.
Motion negatived.
TABLED PAPER
Auditor-General’s February 2008 Report
to the Legislative Assembly
Auditor-General’s February 2008 Report
to the Legislative Assembly
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s February 2008 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Print Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2008 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Print Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2008 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; report printed.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2008 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s February 2008 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Report to Legislative Assembly Pursuant to Paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of Administrative Arrangements Entitlements for Members
Report to Legislative Assembly Pursuant to Paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of Administrative Arrangements Entitlements for Members
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a report to the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of the Administrative Arrangements for the provision of travel, motor vehicle, communications, postage and childcare entitlements for members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory - annual schedule containing government payments for each member for travel at government expense, and for satellite and mobile phones for 2007. I also table a letter dated 20 February 2008 from the Chief Minister containing a schedule of ministerial phone expenses for 2007.
MOTION
Print Paper - Report to Legislative Assembly Pursuant to Paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of Administrative Arrangements Entitlements
for Members
Print Paper - Report to Legislative Assembly Pursuant to Paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of Administrative Arrangements Entitlements
for Members
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; report printed.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr KIELY (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
It is Wednesday of the second week of sittings. Tomorrow is our last day and we go back to our electorates all the more wiser for what we have been deliberating over these last two weeks. It is very easy to forget that just a week or so ago we had the opening of parliament. What a grand day that was. The days just slip by. We let them go into our memory and not really mark the spot.
I was pleased that day to see three schools from my area in the public gallery. I am heavily involved with Wulagi Primary School, Anula Primary School and Marrara Christian School. It was great to see students from these schools in the gallery at the opening of parliament. I was even more chuffed when I looked through the newsletters from those schools and saw the comments from the students who attended. I would just like to put on the record their thoughts of the opening day of parliament for 2008.
Ms Tania Kolomitsev was accompanied by four students from Wulagi Primary School. This is Cindy Mu’s recollection of the day:
- Today was an auspicious day, this morning Isobel, Isaac, Javadd and I, along with Mrs Kay went to the opening of parliament for 2008. We headed off at 8.30am in Mrs Kay’s car, which of course she was driving. Isobel sat in the front, while Isaac, Javadd and I were seated in the back. While we drove there, we had lots of conversations, it was great. We arrived at 9am, found a car park and walked to parliament house. We saw other students from different schools. We headed into chambers and waited 30 minutes before the speaker Jane Aagaard who is an MLA called the Chief Minister to welcome the lion dancers. It was great to see. Then it was the ceremony of the Larrakia smoking. The ministers’ read their reports and it was quite appealing. I did not understand all the words the politicians were speaking, but the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson was the loudest and clearest. We then had morning tea, with yummy scones, quiche and orange juice. I met some friends from other schools, too. Then we headed back to school. I think that this is a fantastic day to remember.
This is from Isaac Cammarano:
- Today me, Cindy, Javadd and Isobel went to parliament house, the opening of parliament. We went in and sat down. First there were some Chinese lions. Soon after that Larrakia smoking ceremony. Then there was a lot of talking. About three quarters of the way through, we went for morning tea.
From Javadd Anderson:
- When I went to the opening parliament for 2008 I reckon the blessing of the Chamber by the Chinese lions was the best part. I liked how the lion’s eyes had lasers and they blinked and the way they stood up on each other’s shoulders. But I did not like it when the ministers were talking because I could not even hear them.
From Isobel Cammarano:
- This morning I went to Parliament House with Cindy, Isaac and Javadd. We got to sit in the open gallery and we had to be silent. Before they started a bell rang and that means that all politicians had to be in the chamber within three minutes. When the speaker walked in everyone had to stand. They started with the Chinese lions, all the politicians gave them a red packet. Then the Larrakia people did the traditional smoking ceremony to scare the bad spirits away. We listened to some ministerial reports and came back to school.
This was the contribution from Anula Primary School, written by Harry Littman and Tate Robins. The students were accompanied by Mrs Judy Evans, their teachers were Petra Kostkova, Phoebe Botica, Harry Littman and Grace Capitaine. Harry and Tate wrote:
- On Tuesday 4, students from Anula Primary School went to Parliament House for the opening of the 2008 parliament sittings. We saw the smoking ceremony which was performed by members of the Larrakia people. Then we saw Chinese people do the Chinese lion dance - they were fed money and then they ate the lettuce that was hanging from the doorway. The Chief Minister, Mr Paul Henderson, and some other ministers presented reports to parliament. We were very quiet and respectful and after we were invited to have morning tea in the great hall. Mr Len Kiely came over to welcome us.
This is from Marrara Christian School:
- Our College Captains, David Mangohig and Lauren Few, along with Matthew Hepworth (Year 11) and Mikaela Campbell (Year 10) represented Marrara at the 2008 Opening of Parliament on Tuesday. Accompanied by Mr Taylor, they watched the Chinese Lion dance to celebrate the Chinese New Year, and a smoking ceremony by Larrakia Nation to welcome the Parliament into the new year of sittings.
Parliament opened in prayer, as well as official speeches from the Chief Minister and the Opposition Leader. We were also able to enjoy a morning tea on the lawns as we chatted with the Honourable Len Kiely MLA, Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, and Minister for Parks and Wildlife. Len is a parent at our College.
The trip home provided opportunity to reflect upon the Chinese lions, smoking ceremony and prayer: Are we just hedging our bets with ‘the gods’? What would an Opening of Parliament look like in heaven? Will there be government in heaven?
They are three pretty big questions asked by the Marrara students. They are three questions I do not think I will attempt to hazard an answer at this time of the sittings cycle. I thank the teachers who accompanied the students: Mrs Kolomitsev from Wulagi; Mrs Evans from Anula; and Mr Taylor from Marrara Christian College.
When the opening of parliament was announced and we were advised that we could invite guests if we let Madam Speaker know - and it was open to the public, as well - I thought what a great opportunity. I was wondering how I could get my schools involved without it being an imposition upon them. It came to me that four is a good number - four students and one teacher - because they could all fit in one car. The school could choose the captains or other students they thought warranted this special trip. It was good to see that the schools picked up on the idea and that they put stories into their newsletters.
I recommend and put forward the idea to Madam Speaker that next year and the following years, for our openings, we send invitations for four children and one teacher from all our schools in the Darwin, Palmerston or greater Darwin area to attend. It is a good number; it can be organised relatively easy. However, it does rely on the goodwill of the teachers, of which teachers seem to have an abundant supply these days.
I thank those schools for attending. I was pleased to see them here. I am glad the students enjoyed the quiche, orange juice and scones. I hope to see representatives of the schools next year when we have the lion dance, the smoking ceremony and the prayers.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, returning to life as a local member has been a rich and rewarding experience over the past few months. It has taken me back to where I started and reminded me of that most basic truism of political life: politics is about people and representing your electorate. I am refreshed by it and I look forward to continuing in that role for the remainder of this term.
These past few months have also given me an opportunity to reflect on my time as a minister, and I want to place on the record thanks and appreciation to the many departmental and ministerial staff I worked with and who were so important to me over a period of six years - not all of whom I was able to thank when I stood down.
Serving the people of the Territory as a minister has been a tremendous and unique privilege and I thank the people of the Nhulunbuy electorate for their loyalty in returning me over the 11 years in opposition before making it to government.
Those early months in government were frantic, chaotic and fabulous. In the first four months, I held down Deputy Chief Minister; Minister for Employment, Education and Training; Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Tourism; Parks and Wildlife; and Aboriginal Affairs.
In those early days, we were well served by a range of senior officials from other parts of Australia, all keen to get the first ever Labor government in the Territory off to the best possible start. We were also extremely well-served from the very outset by the head of the Department of the Chief Minister and Cabinet Secretary, Paul Tyrrell. I attended Paul’s farewell recently, and testament to his ability and reputation was the number of people who attended that farewell including many people from interstate. As a new government, we relied heavily on Paul Tyrrell to teach us the basic functions and mechanics of even how Cabinet worked. We owe Paul Tyrrell a huge debt of thanks.
I want to particularly mention former Tasmanian Premier, Michael Field, who played an important role in his own right in our winning government, and his wife, Jan, for their enormous support in getting my ministerial office up and running. We had barely been sworn in when we were confronted with the 11 September attacks in the US and, three days later, the total collapse of Ansett leaving people and freight stranded all over the Territory. They were testing times for a new government but they did prepare us well for the time ahead in the sense that things really could not get much tougher.
I mention Gerard Butler, whom Michael Field recruited to my office as Chief of Staff, and Tony Mayell, then head of the Tourist Commission, and Rod Nelson from Transport and Works Aviation for their tremendous commitment and support during those trying times. By the year’s end, we had Virgin locked in assisting to fill the aviation hole left by Ansett.
We gradually pulled a strong team together in the minister’s office. I mention Mary Fall, who had come to us from Queensland, who became an outstanding ministerial advisor in addition to her media role. She remains one of the most loyal, strong, hardworking and committed staff I have ever had the privilege to work with.
In Education and Training, Rob Picton, Elizabeth Desailly and Peter O’Hagan combined to form a strong and informed advisory team. I always appreciated their input on specific matters: Elizabeth, on higher education and vocational training; Rob, for his long experience as a teacher in remote indigenous schools, and his enlightened approach to education and schooling; and Peter for his input across employment and training in general. The strength and support from these three, plus Chief of Staff, Alf Leonardi, allowed us to pull together middle schools, tackle illiteracy in indigenous schools, implement proper secondary education into remote indigenous schools, and commence the process towards the remote area learning partnership, an initiative that commenced with Rob Picton, and one of the most empowering initiatives, I believe, I undertook as a minister.
On the department side, I appreciate the efforts of Ken Simpson, Ken Davies, Sue Murphy, John Hassad in Employment and Training, and Margaret Banks who, as Chief Executive, strongly embraced all of our reform processes. She pushed as hard as us, alongside the minister’s office, to implement them.
In relation to implementing secondary education in remote Indigenous communities, I pay tribute to the singular efforts of George and Robyn Hewitson at Kalkarindji, who refused to be deterred in their efforts to produce the first Year 12 graduates in a remote indigenous community. Their persistence opened the door to opportunity for their three graduates but, more importantly, by showing us all what was possible. Their diligence and hard work has led to substantial and sustained growth in Year 12 graduate numbers on the back of their pioneering efforts coming from schools right across the Territory.
In October 2002, I became Treasurer. The Chief Minister discussed this early in the year. Whilst I readily agreed, it was with some trepidation and reluctance, because I had, for all my working life to that point, been able to avoid responsibility for any monetary, financial or budgeting business, which I had always found a daunting prospect. I was understandably nervous about my ability to get on top of Treasury as a minister. It was a process that did, indeed, take time. From day one, however, I was wonderfully supported by the Under Treasurer, Jennifer Prince, and Treasury staff.
Jennifer was a tolerant, patient and understanding teacher, and instilled the same qualities in each of her staff. Jodie Kirkman always knew where the money was and, most importantly, where it had gone. John Montague was astute custodian of Territory Investments, and I enjoyed his company on investment trips to Singapore and interstate. Craig Vukman and Ivan Basei in Revenue battled bravely prior to the budget each year to try to get me to understand the detail and mechanics of obscure revenue raising measures. Most times, due credit to them, I did finally get to understand most of it. I also appreciated the efforts of Linda McKenzie and Peter Caldwell, a long-serving senior Treasury official whom I will always hold in the highest regard.
Of all the jobs I did as a minister, Treasury was the best because it inevitably placed you in the middle of everything government was doing. Although relatively small in terms of staff numbers, Treasury, by the nature of its work, the high levels of skills and experience, the depth of intellectual clout within it, sits alongside the Department of Chief Minister as the engine room of government. When you stand around with a group of Treasury officials, you are surrounded by more degrees than a thermometer. That is the depth of talent they have there.
I was also fortunate to see the Treasurer’s job from all sides: from a struggling economy in 2001, 2002, and 2003 to a robust and growing economy over the past five years. I remain more proud of my efforts in Treasury than of any of my other achievements because of the challenge, the learning and personal development required to get on top of the job. Treasury staff are a special breed. They work hard, particularly in the run-up to the budget. They play hard when they get the opportunity. It was a special privilege to work with them.
With the retirement of Peter Toyne I became Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, a role I had played as shadow minister for five years in the lead-up to the 2001 election. As with Treasury, I learned much about the law, its enforcement, court processes, and the delicacy of that relationship between the executive and the judiciary. My thanks to Chief Executive, Greg Shanahan, a home town boy made good; and Terry Dreier, the Justice numbers man who knew where the money was and did not like parting with it. I particularly enjoyed the inevitable mental sparring matches with Terry’s very dry and combative sense of humour whenever we got around the conference table. Terry will retire soon and I wish him and his partner all the best for the future.
I was pleased when John Daulby came into Justice to head up Community Corrections following a distinguished career in our police force. John is a terrific fit to strengthen and grow our community corrections efforts. I am convinced he will make a big and positive difference.
Kevin Raby came to us from South Australia. He has provided strong leadership to our prison officers as Superintendent of Darwin prison. I trust he, too, will have a long and successful career with Justice.
Elizabeth Morris was a great support. I always appreciated her input across Racing, Gaming and Licensing, as well as her knowledge of law and legal process in general.
Within the minister’s office, I was fortunate to inherit young Michael Cook and Marita from Peter Toyne’s office, and Lisa Coffey from the department came as a legal adviser. I thank each of them for their support and advice. It was a very busy time but we managed to have some fun along the way.
Up until this time there has been one strong constant in the office, Alf Leonardi, whom I have known since prior to my election in October 1990. Alf was a terrific manager. He chose staff with great care. He looked out for their development needs and he built a close knit, hard-working and tremendously supportive team. I thank Alf for all the hours he put in, his people skills, his perception, and for leaving his NT News on my desk each morning. I never felt less than 100% supported by all of the staff and I thank Alf for that. Michael became Chief of Staff when Alf went across to the Chief Minister and he, Marita and Lisa remain with the current Attorney-General.
Andrew Blakey with his network of business contacts across the NT, Shelly Priore, Tiani, Carly, Kristen, Carol, and Tracey were others who gave unselfishly in the best interests of the office and, with the exception of Kristen and Tiani, each are still with the government all these years later. I thank them, I wish them well, and I still miss Tracey’s cups of tea.
To be effective as the minister requires not only a great commitment in terms of personal hard work but close team work in the minister’s office and a close and collaborative relationship with the minister’s office, the chief executive and senior management of the agency. For much of my time as the minister, Alf Leonardi was the key coordinator of our activities at any one time and the key to those relationships being effective across the different agencies that we worked with. I learned so much from Alf in our time together. I will always value his loyalty and friendship.
There is one other person to thank for my ministerial career and that is former Chief Minister, Clare Martin. In February 1999, I was surprised but absolutely delighted when Clare invited me to be her deputy when it was clear that she had support for the leadership following Maggie Hickey’s resignation. It was the beginning of a trusting partnership that was to last almost nine years - not bad in political life these days - and a leadership team that took us through the 2001 and 2005 elections. I thank you, Clare, for the trust you placed in me and for the tremendously high quality of the working relationship we were able to share.
One other key to a minister’s effectiveness is the drivers downstairs, Gary, Thor, Yani, George and, more recently, Ben, and the others, for years they have been delivering ministers safely to and from their destinations. You simply could not do the job without them. I thank them for their efforts. It is a tremendous relief to know you are going to get there and get back safely and not have to worry about where the place is. They do it all for you.
One of the most difficult parts of stepping down from the ministry is the immediate loss of those intensely supportive relationships with staff. It is immediately offset by the opportunity to resume a more normal and balanced lifestyle with your partner.
Politician’s partners do it tough. They sacrifice time with their partners in the interests of the job. They are rarely thanked and acknowledged and it would not be possible to effectively carry out the job without the full support of your partner.
Jennifer has for years put up with my constant absences from home during my time as a minister. I cannot say she never complained. She did - and loudly - each Sunday night when we drove to the airport for me to come back to Darwin. However, she supported me 150% in the job. I will be forever thankful for that and for her love and loyalty. We are now enjoying much more time in our home in the electorate. I say to Jennifer, hang in there. I am determined to make up in the future for those prolonged absences from home over the past six and a bit years.
In case this speech is misconstrued in any way as a farewell speech, I say it is. It is a farewell speech but not from this parliament. It is a farewell speech to my former life as a minister and signals a return to my former, former life as the local member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to talk about a number of issues very important to my electorate of Millner. We have had some significant monsoonal rain through this week. We know how wet it was yesterday. It was a good, old fashioned Wet Season downpour. We have all seen the pictures of flooding in various parts of Darwin. Flood waters affected both Ludmilla and Millner Primary Schools in my electorate.
Acting Principal of Ludmilla, Tony Clegg, reports that flooding in his school was restricted to the car park. I hope to visit that site tomorrow to inspect it for myself. I was fortunate enough to get time this morning to visit Millner Primary School which was not so lucky to make a firsthand assessment of the situation. I spent some time with the Principal, Terry Quong, and Bronwyn and Pam, teachers from Transition.
Terry Quong and his staff at Millner Primary School are doing a fantastic job. We are very lucky to have such a dedicated team teaching the children of Millner. Terry showed me the aftermath of yesterday’s flooding of the three classes. These three classrooms are all occupied by the Early Childhood group; some 54 youngsters are affected by the flooding. Those students have been temporarily relocated to the studio. Terry Quong estimates it will take about two weeks to get things back in order. I am committed to doing whatever I can to help the school work through this setback.
I congratulate Terry Quong and the staff of Millner Primary School for the professional way they have handled this challenge. The Education minister has given an undertaking that we will do whatever it takes to fix the problems affecting Millner School and Ludmilla School in terms of future flooding. I say to the residents of Millner and the teachers, the parents, the children who have been affected by these two incidents that we are on the job and we will attempt to fix the problem as soon as possible.
Millner Primary School is a fantastic primary school. This year, the school has a vision: Building Respect and Achieving Together. They will be working towards this vision in 2008. Some of the innovations for 2008 include the National Accelerated Literacy program; Millner Studio for Dance and Music including a new Year 4 Music Learning program; and a Family Group program.
Some of the ongoing exciting and highly successful initiatives from 2007 are the Healthy Eating program; Small Steps program; School Chaplaincy program; Gateways to Literacy program; Peer Tutoring Reading program; Minmarama Play Learn program; Indonesian Language program; arts program; singing and instrumental; dance program including The Beat and completion of the $1m hall refurbishment which is an election promise. I look forward to being there once this is completed. I know the working group from the Millner School Council has come up with the designs in conjunction with Terry Quong and his staff, and are doing a fantastic job of ensuring that that $1m is spent on an environmentally friendly design for the benefit of Millner Primary School.
I attended a magnificent function called the Ludmilla Neighbourhood Connections which I was heavily involved with and am a member. More than 200 adults and children came to the Ludmilla neighbourhood Christmas party held at Ludmilla Primary School. This highly successful event was the result of a group of long-term residents approaching me with an idea of creating a more connected and friendly neighbourhood.
I acknowledge the Ludmilla residents who helped plan the event, gave their support or helped on day: Gretchen Ennis, Rod Balaam, Debbie Hudson, Robyn Hopkins, Anne Lardi, Mary McAlpine, James Gaykamangu, Peggy and Valda Gaykamangu, Mary Searle, Mike Purcell, Danielle Taylor, Gonnie Keogh, Kris Keogh, Bill Searle, and all the others too many to mention.
I was pleased to make a donation for the event. A big thank you to the Jape Homemaker Village, the Jape family, and Darwin International Airport for their donations which ensured there was plenty of food and drinks, lots of craft activity, presents for the kids, and a jumping castle. Isobel and David Gawler worked to have the Bagot Victory Church Choir perform. Leah Flanagan and her band entertained, as well as the Gaykamangu family dancers. The NT Music School provided the sound. Staff from Anglicare manned the barbecue and kept the food coming –a great effort. Thanks to Stefanie Bradley, Gavin Coehn, Trish Ross, Tina Kelly, Ruth Amerasekera, and Russell Wilson from Chris Natt’s office who provided the barbecue. Thank you, Chris and Russell. Thanks also to Ludmilla Primary School Principal, Helen Southam, Marnie Richards and Noel Johnson.
I performed the happy job of being Santa with my Santa’s helper, Mike Purcell. We gave out many goodies to excited children, including gifts from the Fred Hollows Foundation, which did a fantastic job providing presents for a wonderful event. Saskia Strange from Kidsafe helped with craft activities, and Peter Kearns of SIDS and Kids chipped in to help. It was a pleasure to work with the residents group and see some real community spirit in action. More community-based activities are planned in the future. Ludmilla Neighbourhood Connections is about bringing strong communities together. I look forward to being a part of that.
Finally, I would like to talk about a great Territorian and local legend in Rugby League. This person I will pay tribute to was a public servant who recently retired after serving for 27 years in the Northern Territory. It is very important that the House recognises public servants who have made a significant contribution. It is with pleasure that I acknowledge 27 years of meritorious service to the Territory by Arthur Leslie Boland. I am sure all parliamentarians will join me in acknowledging Arthur’s contribution and achievements.
Arthur’s NT Public Service career commenced in 1980 when he arrived in Darwin from Victoria to work in the Public Service Commissioner’s Office as an Industrial Advocate. He is still remembered by many in IR industry circles for his memorable line during negotiations with unions: ‘What more do you want; you get paid every fortnight, don’t you?’. I am sure many union officials would remember this as well. Arthur is well-known throughout the public service for his industrial relations skills, and was instrumental in some earlier reforms led by the then Public Service Commissioner, David Hawkes, in the 1980s.
Arthur joined the newly-established Department of Correctional Services in 1984 and then the original Department of Health and Community Services in 1986, with the amalgamation of a number of agencies including Corrections.
There is at least one determination that I know of that Arthur signed in 1985 as a delegate of the Public Service Commissioner which is still in use today. That determination relates to on-call arrangements for specialist IT technicians. It also happens to be in my portfolio as Minister for Corporate and Information Services.
Arthur might best be remembered for in recent times, in which he was a crucial player, and which also relates to my current portfolio, is the eventual formation of the DCIS, the Department of Corporate and Information Services. Through his forceful reputation as an industrial guru, in 1998 Arthur was picked to be a key advisor to the subcommittee of the deputy secretaries who were charged with establishing a model for a central corporate support unit. This then evolved into the DCIS as we know it today. This group also included Sarah Butterworth, who went on to be the DCIS CEO for five years; Ken Simpson, now the Public Service Commissioner; and Graham Symons, the current CEO of DCIS.
When the formation of DCIS was announced on 14 October 1998, the department really consisted of just three people: Arthur Boland, Sarah Butterworth and Ken Simpson, who was the DCIS General Manager and oversaw IT outsourcing. I am told that this gang of three would meet each day at 5 pm in the conference room of what was then the Department of Transport and Works office in the Carlton building, still known as the Beaufort to long-term Territorians. There they would plan the next steps in the formation of a new department. The challenge this group faced was not insignificant.
They were tasked with building a new department to service all NT government agencies’ corporate service requirements and have it functioning by the first week of December, essentially, build a new department in six weeks – no mean feat by any measure. This target was achieved and Arthur’s energy and determination were major contributing factors. In those early days, Arthur had the unenviable task of reconciling the list of people from agencies who were coming or not coming to the new agency of DCIS. He was known as the ‘keeper of the list’ by both Ken and Sarah. Even to this day, when they meet socially, they greet each other with, ‘Don’t mention the list’!
The shared services model for delivery of corporate services in the Northern Territory has often been described as the envy of other jurisdictions. Much of the success DCIS enjoys today is a tribute to the foundations laid by Arthur and his senior colleagues in those early years. True to his commitment to see a project through, Arthur stayed on in DCIS to see all that effort achieve a modicum of success. Arthur has been a key contributor to the DCIS management board in the 9 years he has worked with them. During this time, he racked up an impressive list of achievements, too many to mention individually, and was respected by his colleagues and staff. Arthur has always been available to provide advice and assistance to not only his staff, but also to the broader public sector. His vast knowledge and years of experience in the Public Service Commissioner’s Office ensured his skills did not lie idle in one agency.
Whilst I am talking about Arthur as an important employee in the Northern Territory government, I must also refer to Arthur’s life outside work, in particular his involvement with Rugby League as a referee. This is where I first came to know of Arthur Boland. Arthur has been an avid sportsman all his life. I am told that he often stated that sport is really a microcosm of life; I agree with him. He often used sporting analogies in his working life, and took an active interest in developing the talent of young employees placed under his stewardship. He deplored the term ‘mentoring’ and preferred to be seen in the role of coach where, with both stick and carrot, he brought out the very best in the people who worked with him. I believe the term ‘captain/coach’ would be more appropriate as he was not shy to remind those who had the most stripes. Despite this, he engendered a fierce sense of loyalty in those who worked with him.
For those who knew Arthur well, I am told he always believed that you should enjoy what you do and have fun at work. Perhaps what he will best be remembered for is his keen wit, his frank and fearless advice, his larrikin sense of humour and the friendships he takes with him.
It is also well known that Arthur was not one for self-aggrandisement. Arthur’s last day with the public service was 24 January 2008, and I believe that he bowed out exactly as he intended, with a quiet drink and repartee with a few friends. So, Arthur, 27 years of public service to the people of the Northern Territory is a huge testament. Congratulations and all the members of this House join with me and the government in thanking you for your service.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, today is General Business Day for parliament. It gives the opportunity for the opposition and Independents to put forward motions and to propose legislation. As usual, we do not anticipate any of our proposals will be accepted because that is just the nature of what happens in this place. However, it is very rewarding when you receive communication from a member of the public quickly after you have finished talking about something you have delivered with passion and believe strongly in. It is very rewarding to hear from the public that they were listening and want to put their comments forward.
I have received an e-mail this evening, as did the Chief Minister, from Sandra Wanka. I have rung Sandra to ask if she minds if I read this into the Parliamentary Record. She is very happy for me to do this. I will read what Sandra has written to me this afternoon:
- Dear Fay,
Today I was very encouraged to hear your speech in the House on the subject of intrastate travel. I have long been an advocate for this to occur. As it stands at the moment, it is severely disadvantaging old Territory families. Both sides of government have been unwilling in the past to discuss this dividing piece of legislation.
When I first became aware of this legislation many years ago, I spoke to the Labor member for Millner, Terry Smith, on this issue. I also spoke with a number of CLP politicians over the years on the impact and the disadvantage this discriminatory law was having on the very people that built the Territory into the strong and capable region it is today. The CLP were the party that drafted the legislation and Labor perpetuated it and was unwilling to change it.
I was very encouraged to hear it being debated and considered. I applaud you for bringing it to the attention of the House. I think that perhaps politicians from both sides have this idea that all Territorians come from somewhere else and, therefore, it was a good idea to give our aged the opportunity to visit friends and relatives using the interstate travel scheme. I understand it can also be used for overseas travel. How very wrong they are.
I will tell you how this legislation has disadvantaged my family on a number of occasions. My mother, Hazel Sander, was born and bred in Darwin as were her four sisters – Thora Wills, Eileen McQuinn, Kaye Cervasco, Pat Strecker. They were the daughters of May and Robert Anthony, pioneers of the Territory having come here in 1904 and 1912.
My grandmother is buried in Gardens Cemetery with her father, Joseph Ramiez, and other members of her family. My grandfather drove the train between Larrimah and Darwin throughout the war years, while my grandmother set up a caf in Pine Creek to be near him during that time. My grandfather was on the first Darwin City Council and was in the first Buffaloes Football team, which was originally called Vesty’s. He was a strong union man and was an organiser travelling along the Stuart Highway giving information and advice to Territory workers.
You will or should recognise the name of Ramiez as Rene and Mick were residents in Katherine and lost one of their sons at the low level. Mick was a railway man and Rene ran the caf. So, you can see by this very short description of my family history that we are true Territory people, with my granddaughter being a sixth generation and still the majority of us residing in the Territory. Only two aunties remain alive today, Eileen aged 82 - she is one of the oldest residents in Stuart Park, and Pat Strecker, aged 67, residing in Palmerston.
My mother, Hazel Sander, and her sisters lived in Darwin or Alice Springs. They had no relatives interstate other than Kay. When my mother, who resided in Alice Springs in the Old Timers home, wanted to see her sisters before she died in March 1995, her request for intrastate travel was denied. The answer came back this was only for people who had relatives outside the Territory. How mean and unthoughtful this decision was. I then drove my two elderly aunts to see their sister before she died.
I can hear you say: ‘Well, there was always the option to pay for their own travel.’ Unfortunately, these women did not have the means for this and there were no cheap fares then.
Well, that is all history. But I hope, by writing this letter, it will contribute in a small way to have this piece of legislation changed then it has been a very worthwhile 30 minutes.
Please, Fay, push this change as all Territorians do not have relatives down south and it divides families at their most vulnerable times. As you will know, I am a Labor person through and through but this is a great opportunity to recognise the contribution to those old, often silent and forgotten Territorians whose families stay in the Territory making it the great place it is.
Cheers
Sandra Wanka
I hope the government realises how discriminatory this legislation is; how it requires little to change it and how simple those changes would be. I would like to put that on the Parliamentary Record. I am very glad to have done that for Sandra.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight, I would like to recognise a number of people in my electorate who received Australia Day awards, particularly the Student Citizens Awards. At the Douglas Daly School, young Ben Hart received an award. Ben was nominated and received the Student Citizen Award for showing excellent leadership qualities and for being a strong and positive role model in the school. Last year, Ben was the most senior student in Year 4 and his mateship towards other students was to be commended. Congratulations to you, Ben.
At the Katherine School of the Air, Amy Harding was given the award this year. The middle school teachers, the ESL Coordinator and the Librarian put forward Amy Harding as the Middle School Australian Citizen of the Year. Amy is an active member of the student representative council and has taken on the role of the chairperson for the past few years. Amy participates in all aspects of the school and shows outstanding leadership as well as respecting her peers. Amy is an exemplary student working consistently beyond her year level.
Amy received high distinctions in the New South Wales Maths and Science Competition held in 2007. She is also a successful and active member of her local community working with the primary school at Mataranka to complete a leadership project as part of her personal learning. She negotiated to organise, choreograph and prepare a group of students from Mataranka to attend the National 2007 Eisteddfod in Darwin. She is committed to sporting groups, such as the Mataranka Magics, the junior secondary netball team. She actively participates in local camp drafts and the polocrosse team. She also volunteers her time to take younger children trail horse riding on the weekends. She raises funds in her local community for associations such as the Canteen Cancer Foundation, Make a Wish Foundation and the Canberra excursion that they went on. She has sound communication and leadership skills. Congratulations, Amy, for all your work and dedication.
At the Nganmarriyanga School, Renee Modikin received the Australia Day Award this year. Renee excels in maths, she finishes work quickly, and stays on task. She is quick to help clean up the classroom, is well-mannered and an excellent role model to her peers. Congratulations, Renee.
The Pine Creek School Achiever Award was won by Jasmyn Isaac. This was for her citizenship and positive attitude to all areas of school work. Pine Creek is a great community and it is good to see Jasmyn doing so well.
Martina Balmana was given the award for being an excellent role model to all other students in her attitude to school work and her positive behaviour. Congratulations, Martina.
Other students from my electorate receiving recognition for their conscientious attitude to school work and their positive contribution to their school, teachers and fellow students were: at the Berry Springs Primary School, Lilly Thompson and Nina Ruzsicska; at the Mataranka Primary School, Darcie Boon; at the Middle Point School, Nelissa Downs; and at Woolianna Primary School, Donna Foster. Congratulations to all those students. They have obviously done a lot of work this year and it is great to see that they are receiving recognition for that.
Regarding the Local Government Awards, this year at Mataranka, the Citizen of the Year was won by Clair O’Brien. In the brief four years since Clair made her home in Mataranka community, she had been an active and useful member of its society at social, business, environmental, and governance level. She has made considerable, noteworthy contributions and given outstanding service to Mataranka and the surrounding communities during this time.
To summarise her service:
she has been the Chair of the Roper River Landcare Group, a position she has held since 2004. Under her leadership, the Roper River Landcare Group was successful in winning the 2007 NT Landcare Community of the Year Award. Congratulations on receiving that award;
Congratulations to Clair. She has a great bed and breakfast establishment. I encourage anyone who is down that way to make use of the great little spot she has.
At Mataranka, the Youth Citizen of the Year was won by Jessica Sullivan. Jessica has received the Northern Territory Administrator’s Medal for her efforts for the 2007 year in the Rivers Region clusters of schools. These awards recognise students who make a significant contribution to the school and the broader community through outstanding citizenship, whilst also achieving academic excellence. During 2007, Jessica made a large contribution in organising the end-of-school concert, prize giving and barbecue. In confirmation of her eligibility for being awarded the Administrator’s Medal, Jessica had a leadership role at the school and was identified as being influential in calming situations that had the potential to become tense. Jessica’s willingness to be involved in activities like Anzac Day, the NT Eisteddfod, and the Mataranka Magic netball team also contributed to her selection in the 2008 Mataranka Youth Citizen of the Year.
The Community Event of the Year at Mataranka was won by the Mataranka Toad Population Limiters. Since the Toad Population Limiters started in September 2006, Bradley Lewis, Thynne MacFarlane and around 10 others have sought to minimise the impact of toads on the environment around Mataranka. Between October and December 2007, 704 toads had been removed from the Mataranka township. In 2007, 4420 toads were collected compared to 3724 collected in 2006. Over a three-month period, 547 were collected from one private residence and, during one hour of one night in January 2008, they collected 174 toads from the Northern Cement lime plant. Their efforts have been recognised by the Kimberley ToadBusters and FrogWatch NT and have been displayed on those organisations’ websites.
To continue on with the Australia Day Awards, I attended the ceremonies at Nauiyu community at Daly River. The Citizen of the Year was won by Mark Casey who is with the NT Police there and does a fabulous job. He lives on the community and is available for assistance day or night to help keep the community safe and secure. This can be a thankless job when dealing with family and people well known to you. Mark is very good at talking to people, providing local knowledge and assistance to diffuse any situation that arises. He assists the police force by conducting cross-cultural training to new police recruits visiting the community. Mark has contributed to the community as council president for the past few years. He has continued to assist the community and be a friendly presence around the town. Congratulations to you, Mark, well deserved.
The Young Citizen of the Year was won by Joel Mullins. He is a local boy who grew up in Nauiyu. He has shown initiative to do his training as an Essential Services Officer for the community. This involves a 24 hour emergency service, in addition to the day-to-day management of the powerhouse and related activities. It is encouraging to see a young Aboriginal male taking up this position, and managed with minimal mentoring. Joel was available straight after Cyclone Helen to begin the cleanup of the community and assist in restoring the water supply. So, congratulations to you, Joel. You are certainly a role model for other young men at the community, and continue the work.
The Community Event of the Year was won by Strong Spirit, Strong Body. This targeted the children from St Francis Xavier School and was aimed at education about drug and alcohol abuse. Assistance was received from the Drugs and Alcohol Unit in Darwin, and the Red Dust Program who made a CD around the theme. As a form of evaluation, the children did a fence painting exercise. Bags were printed by local artists. Girls Business and Boys Business sections were held with the older children at the Nauiyu Health Clinic. Congratulations to all who participated in that. Thanks to St Francis Xavier School for their leadership in that area.
At Timber Creek, the Citizen of the Year Award was won by Chantal Fischer. Chantal supports every cause, function and event in Timber Creek. She went out of her way to assist individuals and community groups where possible. No job is too daunting for Chantal, no event is too much of an imposition to her personal life. Chantal contributed to the social wellbeing of residents through openness and her approachability and to the physical wellbeing of the town through her support and encouragement of community activities. She added to the camaraderie of the community by contributing to and being available for every sausage sizzle, flea market, cricket match and town picnic. Congratulations to you, Chantal.
The Junior Citizen of the Year was won by Mikey Smiler. He was given this award because he worked hard to ensure his education at school, as well as support his classmates and younger students to improve their education outcomes. Mikey supports the youth of Timber Creek as both a role model for individual achievement and as a leader by spending a lot of his time with his fellow students. So congratulations, Mikey, keep up the good work.
The Community Event of the Year was awarded to an organisation as a participatory group rather than an actual event. It was won by the Timber Creek Fire and Emergency Response Group. It is led by the indomitable Unit Captain, Steve Hennessy. The FERG Unit provides a high level of community service as well as support for community events. This team of volunteers carries out search and rescue services across the northern VRD and cannot be praised highly enough for their tireless and often thankless contribution to the safety and wellbeing of the Timber Creek residents and visitors. I was there for the handover of their new fire truck. They were given a lot of support from the local community, so thanks to them. They need to be recognised for their fundraising sausage sizzle and their social and sporting events. So, congratulations to all members of the Timber Creek FERG group. It is an organisation which we should all try to support throughout our communities.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to talk about two matters related to Corrections here in the Territory. One relates specifically to the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. I will start with that. I should preface my remarks by saying that I raise these matters in parliament tonight because I have been asked to do so and the reasons, I believe, will become apparent.
Following from a police investigation into an Ombudsman complaint about the Alice Springs Correctional Centre well over a year ago, I ask the minister: why has the community support program continued to practice, I am advised inappropriately, with work programs that do not support or promote the community, or to put it another way, do not do or have not done, at least on one occasion, what they are intended to do?
I am advised that, as recently as late last year, prisoners working in the community support program were taken to the Alice Springs Prison Officers Social Club to clean it up. That club is not a part of government. As I understand it, the club is independently and separately run by prison officers. It has been put to me, and in the absence of any material to the contrary I agree, that cleaning up the social club by prisoners is improper and something that does not meet the objectives of the community support program about which members have talked in this parliament before.
In Alice Springs, the community support program sees prisoners doing a range of activities for the community: cleaning up the river, helping senior Territorians with their maintenance of their homes, and so on. It was never intended to support private organisations and, in particular, the prison officers social club. I seek leave to table an e-mail dated 21 December 2007 which I am advised was addressed to everyone at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre from the president of the social club thanking the community support program staff and the work parties for attending the social club to cleanup the rubbish and the area after a function was held for off duty prison staff and invited guests.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: This does raise, in a fundamental way, the question of whether it is appropriate. Does the minister know about it? What action has he taken, if he does know? What assurances can he give the people of the Northern Territory that the prisoners of the Territory are not being used in ways that are, I believe, on any analysis, improper. I stress that this is based on information that has been provided to me.
I further understand that senior management have been given guidelines as to what the community support program is intended to do. I ask whether the minister is familiar with those guidelines and whether, in his view, the work I have described being undertaken by Territory prisoners in Alice Springs is appropriate. If it is not appropriate in his view, I ask what on earth he proposes to do about it, and whether there has been any investigation into it. If there has not been, I and others would urge him to undertake one, or to ensure one is undertaken.
These are matters of concern. I am advised that the Department of Correctional Services does have the guidelines, and we ask the obvious question: why haven’t any of the recommendations from the guidelines been implemented? That is the first issue in relation to the Alice Springs Correctional Centre.
The second issue relates to the Integrated Offender Management System, referred to as IOMS. This goes back some time. One of the former Attorneys-General, Peter Toyne, referred to IOMS on a number of occasions, both in the Chamber and in Estimates. I will read extracts from what Dr Toyne said in parliament on 24 August 2006. He said:
The Department of Justice is currently undertaking the second stage of the implementation plan and is working with various sectors of Corrections to identify the necessary work, policy and electronic system changes required for the implementation of IOMS. Following this stage and a testing process, it is expected that IOMS will be operational within NT Correctional Services by mid next year.
I say again, Dr Toyne made these remarks on 24 August 2006.
Dr Toyne went on:
- IOMS will deliver a single system across community corrections, our prisons and juvenile detention centres to manage offender records and thereby ensure consistent work practices, sharing of information and efficiencies. The system has been designed to focus on reducing re-offending through better case management processes. The system will enable better management of offender rehabilitation through improved electronic record tracking, monitoring and assessment tools, including the ability to waitlist offenders on programs.
In response, on 24 August 2006, I said:
- … I thank the Attorney-General for once again talking about IOMS. I think you started to talk about it from about 2002. I remember getting a briefing ….
I also said that he would forgive me if I remained a little sceptical because I had heard him talk in parliament before about how and when IOMS would be implemented. That is the background. It is the case that Dr Toyne and the government started to talk about IOMS from about 2002.
I am advised that the Department of Justice was allocated around $18m in 2004 to implement, over a four year period, recommendations from the review of the Northern Territory Correctional Services Adult Custodial Operations Report, a report which we discussed in this parliament. It was a little controversial with the Prison Officers Association which had some less than flattering comments to make about it.
Recommendation 62 of that report was to purchase an electronic integrated offender management data system. I understand that Correctional Services purchased an Integrated Offender Management System - that is IOMS - from Queensland Corrections for approximately $1.3m over 18 months ago and has spent further funding on its introduction. I also understand that a lead manager in control of the project has recently resigned. I am led to believe that, due to conflict with executive management within the agency, he leaves the supporting team in a state of disarray.
The questions, as a result of recent information that has been provided to me and tracking the history of IOMS, are as follows: why has the project been stalled, and why has it not been rolled out to staff running the centres? Is the budget for the system overspent by $0.5m and, if so, why is the system not in use and why not, after spending so much money to date? And further, why has the government spent a large amount of money which is clearly not helping staff at the centres that would enable them to support and provide a clear sentence plan for inmates? I ask those questions in parliament tonight because they are important questions, and I have been asked to do so.
In respect of IOMS, clearly I will be following this matter up at Estimates. However, I now formally ask the minister for Justice to answer the questions I have put in respect of IOMS. I suspect he will not. Government has form when it comes to not answering questions. Whether they are asked by opposition in this Chamber during Question Time or, indeed, invariably, in my case at least, not responding to correspondence.
I can only hope that by raising this matter in parliament and that by circulating the Hansard of the matters I have raised tonight to prison officers around the Territory, that that might lead to some pressure or at least a level of embarrassment on the minister’s part that might prompt him to address these issues, that is, IOMS and, what appears on the information with which I have been provided to be a level of impropriety with the community support program.
I will leave it at that. We will live in hope that the minister will respond in due course. He can rest assured that I will be distributing this information to people with a very clear interest in it.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016