2006-08-23
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 20 petitioners praying that the decision to hand over the 11 Central Australian National Parks be rescinded. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirement of standing orders.
This petition is in similar terms to Petition No 18 presented during the May sittings. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 353 petitioners praying that the decision to hand over the 48 Territory-owned parks be rescinded. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. That makes a total of 5137 petitioners since it started. The petition is in similar terms to Petition No 29 presented during the June sittings. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 11 petitioners praying that the Salaries Section of the Department of Corporate and Information Services in Alice Springs be retained. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
I do not propose that the petition be read as it is in similar terms to Petition No 19 presented during the May sittings.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 569 petitioners praying that the subdivision process be modernised. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to, petition read:
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 10 more petitioners praying that the Northern Territory Place Names Committee retain the name of the Golf Course Estate for the suburb adjacent to the surrounding Alice Springs Golf Course. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
I do not propose that the petition be read as it is in similar terms to Petition No 31 presented during the June sittings.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the impressive progress being made on our exciting Darwin City Waterfront project. I can report that work is proceeding smoothly and on schedule, with completion of the convention centre anticipated by early 2008.
Last Friday, we saw a significant milestone in the construction phase with the first concrete pour at the ground floor level of the convention centre. With the foundation in place, the building will now move upwards and become very evident as it emerges on the skyline. Once complete, the ground floor will cover 8960 m2 and will require nine separate concrete pours over the next two months. More than 22 000 concrete blocks have already been laid, and around 1000 tonnes of structural steel is waiting in the wings.
As you would expect with such a massive exercise, a skilled and dedicated workforce will be required during construction. Around 1000 jobs are expected to be created, and some 300 workers have already been inducted to work on the site. Members will be very pleased to know that 96% of all staff across all trades involved in the Darwin convention centre are locals, although we know that it only takes five minutes to be a local.
Local companies involved in the construction of the convention centre include: Wagner; Nilsen Electrical; Project Plumbing; A. E. Smith Mechanical; Gosaero Formwork; Independent Fire Sprinklers; M and J Welding; Tropi Cast; Ground Force Excavations; Earl James and Associates; Connell Wagner; Hassell Architects; Smorgon Steel; True Blue Hire; Richards Crane Hire; QS Services; Fleetwood Portables Hire; Grant O’Callaghan; Quick-Fix Steel Fixing; J A Concreting Pty Ltd; Dick’s Pumping Service; Humes; and Vern Cridland.
All up, more than $40m in contracts has already been awarded to local companies to date by the joint venture partners. A memorandum of understanding between the joint venturers, the Northern Land Council, Territory Construction Association, and the Larrakia Development Corporation to deliver training and employment opportunities to Aboriginal people was signed this month. This is expected to deliver up to 25 immediate jobs for Aboriginal participants, with further opportunities as construction progresses.
The construction of the sea wall is progressing well with earthworks extending to approximately 600 m. With the wall about 80% complete, the construction emphasis has turned to the installation of water, sewer, power and communication services. Work on the much awaited wave lagoon is imminent, with Macmahon NT to start excavation works in the near future.
All stormwater drains located on the escarpment side of Kitchener Drive have now been constructed, and dedicated pedestrian walkways, which provide safe access through the site, have been installed as part of the site traffic management plan. The lagoon flushing system pipes, which will supply water to maintain water quality, were installed earlier this month.
I can also report that an application has been lodged with the Development Consent Authority to enable construction to start on the cruise ship terminal. The development of the project is proceeding within strict environmental guidelines. For example, when hydrocarbon affected soils are encountered as part of the services installation works, they are treated at the dedicated soil remediation site, and experience to date shows that affected soil is suitable for reuse within about 12 weeks.
The Community Infrastructure Project Delivery Deed between the Territory government and the developer requires government to provide infrastructure headworks to support the waterfront development. The contract for the $1.9m McMinn Street Headworks Stage 1 has been awarded to Wolpers Grahl. The scope of that work includes a roundabout at McMinn Street/Frances Bay Drive intersection; a four-lane carriageway through the McMinn Street cutting, extending 75 m up McMinn Street; stormwater pipelines; water main augmentation; sewer mains; ducting for power and communications cables; fuel line relocation and decommissioning of existing pipelines; street lighting; and landscaping. The provision of vehicle access to the Stella Maris site has been incorporated into this contract.
The promotion of the Darwin convention centre is ramping up with the operators, Ogden IFC, launching their new look branding and undertaking a sales road show in conjunction with the NT Convention Bureau to Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT and Western Australia. I am pleased to advise the House that Ogden has received an overwhelming response to this sales mission, with a strong number of leads generated for conventions from 2008, when the centre opens, to 2011.
Clearly, the Darwin City Waterfront is already providing jobs and opportunities for Territorians, including more than $40m in contracts to local companies. As far as construction goes, we are right on track. I look forward to updating the House on how things are progressing in the near future.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement from the Chief Minister. There are a number of issues associated with this development which, in case members forget, the CLP supports, and why wouldn’t we, as it was initially proposed by the Country Liberal Party when in government.
It is interesting to see a slight change of terminology by the Chief Minister. What was a wave pool has now become a wave lagoon. I would be grateful if, in her reply, she would tell us what the difference is and advise why she has now changed her terminology. Do Territorians need to be worried about this? It is interesting that there is a change. There is a view by some that the wave pool was such a difficult exercise, albeit the government was so desperate to pitch it to Darwinians, that, in fact, it may not come off. So I ask the Chief Minister to explain the difference between a wave pool and a wave lagoon.
Members will recall that the opposition wrote to the Auditor-General in February, I believe it was, asking the Auditor-General to look at Public Private Partnership arrangements. He said during estimates that he would do so. We look forward to his report in that regard.
I understand, Chief Minister, that there have been some environmental issues; some pipes have been damaged during the excavation process. Can you advise whether that is having an impact on increasing costs to contractors? Also, what is your current estimation of the costs? Our figures, all in, suggest that it is something in the region of $550m. You keep using the phrase ‘in today’s terms’. Finally, can you confirm that when negotiating this project you, or perhaps your CEO, ensured that contractors working on the project would all be able to avail themselves of AWAs?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask the Chief Minister about the wave pool. The government had a display at the Royal Darwin Show which I had a look at, and one thing I noticed straight away was that the wave pool was not where it was originally planned to be. It is running in a completely different direction. The government should give an explanation as to why there have been these changes. I support a wave pool, but it would be nice for the public to know why there have been these changes – the matter of cost, design, did it not work in its previous design? It would be good to hear from the Chief Minister as to why there have been those changes.
Without pre-empting debate on the waterfront legislation that is coming through, I wonder whether we get things a little complicated when it comes to the whole waterfront project. I know the government has set up a public/private partnership, and it has reams of legal documents and people working on all of these things to show us how it is all going to work. Yet, when I asked why the government did not just take out the private land it wished to sell for residential development and take that money it would have received from that residential development to use to build the convention centre and the wave pool, for some reason that was too simple.
We are now creating a corporation which will come out of the Darwin municipality. Could you not have thought of something simpler by saying: ‘This area is private. Everything that is in there is private land. The land still comes under the Darwin City Council, but we will regard it as one private block and will operate and do our work within that’? Are we going to come back with another complicated corporation with all these issues about who pays rates for what and who will be in charge of this, and when will it go to the council? I believe we made this whole project extremely complicated and difficult for people like me to understand. I just do not know why we have gone down the path of what I feel is a complicated way of doing something, when it could have been done much simpler.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): We will discuss more about the Waterfront Corporation tomorrow, member for Nelson. We did offer municipal coverage of the project to the Darwin City Council and they rejected it. We had to put in a proper alternative, and that was simply it. We hope, over time, once the residential stage is developing, that Darwin City Council will talk to us about providing those municipal services.
Madam Speaker, regarding the wave lagoon or wave pool, although there is difference in the name, a lagoon is probably more reflective of the width of this. If you look at designs of wave pools from around the world, particularly in the United States, some of them are very narrow, and some have a much more lagoon look. Probably lagoon is more in keeping with the wave pool we now have. Much work has been done. There have been changes because of aesthetics, outlooks, and of positioning better, and the wave pool will be a great addition to the waterfront site. So, onwards and upwards, and taking more rides on that wave pool I would say.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I report on my participation with the recent Northern Territory delegation to Brunei and Sabah. In Brunei, with the Chief Minister, I attended an informal meeting with the Australian High Commissioner to Brunei, Ms Ruth Adler. The briefing provided us with useful local information in preparation for our meetings the following day.
I met with the Minister of Industry and Primary Resources, the Hon Pehin Dato Dr Awang Haji Ahmad bin Haji Juma Jang Mulia, and the Deputy Minister of Industry and Primary Resources, Dato Paduka Haji Hamdillah Bin Haji Abd Wahab
Amongst the issues we discussed was the possibility of the Northern Territory providing technical services in cattle management against the background of increasing cattle export from the NT to Brunei. I invited both the minister and the deputy minister to visit Darwin in the near future to advance this issue.
In Sabah, I was briefed by staff from my department prior to attending the official launch ceremony for the Sabah International Expo 2006. The launch was well attended by members of the Territory business delegation. It was interesting to note that specific reference was made to the NT buffalo industry during the speech by the Expo’s chairman, Mr Andrew Lo.
The following morning, the Chief Minister and I attended a breakfast meeting with the Chief Minister of Sabah, the Right Hon Datuk Musa Haji Aman, and the Minister of Industrial Development, the Hon Datuk Dr Ewon Ebin. This provided an opportunity to discuss a range of issues prior to the official ribbon cutting opening ceremony for the Expo.
Following the official opening, along with the Chief Minister of Sabah and our Chief Minister, I inspected most of the display sites at the Expo, and I am pleased to report that the combined Northern Territory government/private sector display was of high quality in a prime location, and received compliments from many people - all in all, a job well done. I must say that the freshly cooked tender buff was a real hit with many Expo visitors, including the Chief Minister of Sabah, Dr Musa.
That afternoon, I met with senior officials from the Sabah agricultural agency and visited a small research scale feed mill, as well as a newly constructed cattle holding facility. Of the two facilities, it is the new holding yards that are of significant strategic interest to the Territory’s cattle industry. The facility is first class, relatively close to a newly-constructed abattoir, and bodes well for the temporary housing of Northern Territory cattle prior to either transporting to the abattoir or nearby farm for holding and fattening prior to processing.
The following day was a real highlight of the brief trip, with the Minister for Agriculture and Food Industry, the Hon Datuk Abdul Rahim Ismail, I toured the newly-constructed Sabah Meat Training Centre. The centre incorporates a retail outlet, a training facility, and abattoir. Officers from my department have been assisting in the provision of training services, specifically in the area of food hygiene and meat processing, and officials from Sabah are clearly appreciative of this assistance. I have no doubt that the continued strengthening of our relationship with Sabah will have spin-offs for our livestock industry.
I also received a briefing on horticultural industry developments in Sabah, and discussed with minister Rahim potential areas of collaboration. However, at this time, with constrained resources on both sides, the focus will remain on livestock issues with an active watching brief being maintained on other areas.
My final duty in Sabah was to represent the Chief Minister at the official Expo State dinner. It is worth noting that the Northern Territory was the only sub-national government accorded official status at that dinner. I know that the Sabah government appreciates the level of engagement between our governments and our private sectors. I believe there will be further opportunities to strengthen and build upon the relationship which will include an expansion of trade. While we should not discount the importance of existing markets in the region, it is important for us to identify and nurture emerging opportunities. Sabah, and to a slightly lesser extent Brunei, falls in this category. To that end I will continue to use the memorandum of understanding we have on primary industries matters to foster further linkages between our economies.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition welcomes the report. More than ever it is important to recognise the need for strategic engagement with the region, and such visits are essential and must be followed up. However, what is of increasing concern is the need for a clear strategy and the vision whereby that vision can be actually realised. I would like the minister to describe where he sees our relationship with the region in five, 10 or 15 years time. What has actually occurred in this engagement is in fact the proactivity of the cattle and buffalo industry. It is the private interests that have forged their way into the region, and it is, in this case, government that has come in behind and doing what is fairly normal activities, that is, providing some kind of brokerage and engagement.
We need to be proactive. There are others in our country and in the wider region who see the great potential and have formulated clear strategies, and are employing them with significant resources. We need to lift our game in the region. I welcome the report. I need to know, as all Territorians need to know, where we are going to be in five years’ time. Let us hear the strategic plan. Let us hear the vision. Let us see if we can broaden our markets and really make some runs in our region, otherwise others will steal our place.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support. I assure him that this is exactly what we are currently doing: we are looking to broaden our markets. I am worried that we have a single market for the cattle industry - that is Indonesia. If something goes wrong in Indonesia our market will be totally destroyed. Sabah, for us, is different. It is a good indication of what our government is prepared to do to support our industry. The training centre and meat abattoir in Sabah is used as an example, both in Brunei and Sarawak. We have the great example of the previous meat abattoir that was developed in Sabah but with our resources and expertise that abattoir is now exporting a significant number of animals every year to peninsular Malaysia.
We have strong links with Sabah. We are developing strong links with Brunei, and, not only in my professional time but also in my personal time, I try to find links in different countries. During my recent holidays in Sarawak I met with the Deputy Prime Minister of Sarawak discussing cattle issues. I am pleased to say that Sarawak is coming back to buy cattle from the Northern Territory. I agree with you. We have to forge strong relationships with our neighbouring countries and this is exactly what we are doing now.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I report on the recent celebrations held at Kalkarindji to mark the 40th anniversary of the Wave Hill walk-off. I was given ministerial responsibility to coordinate the government effort for the celebrations. I met with the organising committee both here in Darwin and at Kalkarindji during the preparations. Also in attendance over the two days were the Chief Minister, the Attorney-General who is the local member, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, as well as the members for Arnhem, Macdonnell and Millner.
His Honour the Administrator not only attended but performed a fantastic rendition of his famous Gurindji Blues. The celebrations were also attended by a range of Aboriginal organisations including the Northern and Central Land Councils, community groups including officials from various unions such as the AMWU, CFMEU, CPSU, ETU, LHMU and MUA. Local union involvement in the walk-off was recalled by Brian Manning, a former official of the Waterside Workers Federation which is now the MUA, who was of tremendous support to the Gurindji people at the time.
As members would be aware, in 1966 Vincent Lingiari led pastoral workers at the Wave Hill station on a strike campaign. As put so eloquently by the Administrator, the pastoral workers received ‘little bit flour, sugar and tea’. In simple terms, the Gurindji wanted to be paid for their labour. What followed the walk-off led to the modern land rights movement. In 1975, the Gurindji people were promised their land, and that event is famously captured by the photograph of the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, pouring red dirt into the hand of Vincent Lingiari.
Mr Les Johnson, who was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at the time of the handover, also attended accompanied by his wife, Marion. He spoke most eloquently about the events and particularly the attitudes of the political opponents at that time to the struggle of the Gurindji people, but he noted that Coalition members including former minister Billy Wentworth, and former Attorney-General Mr Bob Ellicott QC, and others attended the original ceremony. The first parliamentary leader of the CLP, Dr Goff Letts, and CLP Speaker, Mr Les MacFarlane, also attended, and I think Sam Calder was also in attendance. I saw a picture of him also, Madam Speaker.
The absence of the CLP and Coalition representation at the 40th anniversary was noted and regrettable. At the time it was argued that the Gurindji people should be required to purchase their land like anyone else. Of course, this begs the rhetorical question as to how people who are not being paid for their labour are expected to earn enough money to purchase their land. Put simply, the Gurindji wanted to be paid for their labour.
As minister for planning and infrastructure, I was pleased to support the whole event, and in particular a contribution of $150 000 for the relocation of the truck stop to enable the camping grounds to be set up.
Some of the events that we were able to enjoy were the re-enactment walk, a concert at the Kalkaringi CEC which included artists such as Kev Carmody, Mary G, and NokTuRNL; a barbecue at Wattie Creek, which was the site of the camp; a range of speeches, dances and singing from local communities; and art exhibitions and displays. One particular performance that rates special mention was the Kalkarindji students singing From Little Things Big Things Grow.
The event was considered an outstanding success by all who attended. The list of people involved in the organisation of the event is too long to mention them all, but it would be remiss of me not to mention Maurie Ryan who did a fantastic job over the two days, and hats off to Maurie, he did a great job; Michael Freeman from the Daguragu Community Government Council; Julie Cathcart; Trevor Van Weeran; Charlie Ward; and the festival organisers.
It would also be remiss of me not to mention the fantastic job done by Norforce in taking care of the logistics of moving and accommodating a number of guests, including myself. Thank you, Norforce.
In conclusion, it is important for us to reflect on events that have occurred in the lifetime of most members in this place. The Gurindji people did not go on strike over some minor dispute. The Gurindji were sick and tired of being treated as slaves. One comment was made by a Gurindji elder who went through the strike: ‘We were treated worse than dogs’. What followed brought about small steps towards reconciliation, which, it must be said, has not been advanced by the federal government.
It is quite true, Madam Speaker, that out of little things big things do grow. I have a list of the attendees of that function some 40 years ago, which I table for the information members.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am interested by the minister’s half swipe. Had I been able to be there, minister, I would have been. No doubt, it would have been a very moving occasion. I do not know about you, but I have Paul Kelly’s song loaded into my iPod and every time I hear it, and I am sure members would agree, it is a bit of a goose bump moment. Had I been able to be there, I would have been.
It was a very significant, almost iconic, moment in this country’s history. The courage and determination of everyone involved to effect a solution is well documented. I am very sorry, minister, that I could not have been there. Had circumstances been different at the last election, I would have been there because I am very conscious of the place this holds in our nation’s history.
Having said that, minister, and given that you referred to land rights, I wonder whether in your reply you would be good enough to give us your views about the most recent amendments to the federal land rights act. Is it your view that changes affecting the land councils are bad? Is it your view that land councils have demonstrated themselves to be somewhat aggressive gatekeepers over the years? Is it your view that land rights, all these years on, has not, in fact, created what people wanted all those years ago, that is, economic development and prosperity? Is it your view that the federal Labor President, Warren Snowdon, and your Chief Minister are at odds? Is it your view, that you, as a Minister of the Crown and a member of Cabinet, should tell the people of the Northern Territory about your views …
Mr Henderson: Tell us about your view about the permit system. What? Scrap that?
Ms CARNEY: You can be quiet, sport! … about the changes to the land rights act.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I accept the Opposition Leader’s apology for not attending the event. However, as Les Johnson said so eloquently in his speech - the land rights movement actually grew not only out of what Gough Whitlam and the Labor Party did, but also Malcolm Fraser. He did point to Mr Ellicott and also Billy Wentworth and others as being supporters, along with the Labor Party, in a bipartisan approach to get justice for Aboriginal people in terms of land rights.
He did say it was regrettable that there were no coalition figures there: Mal Brough was not there; certainly Senator Scullion was not there. I accept your apology, Leader of the Opposition, but it was glaringly obvious that there were no coalition figures there and it was regrettable. I hope the coalition heeds Les Johnson’s call that there needs to be a bipartisan approach to this.
You asked me questions about land rights. It is a very long and complex issue. If you ask me whether land rights has delivered …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister.
Dr BURNS: … economic and social benefits to …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Reports noted.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move –
That:
(a) the government accepts that hundreds of Territorians have been discriminated against by recent amendments to the Planning Act which allowed regulations to ban third party appeals by residents living in RL zones in Litchfield Shire area;
Madam Speaker, this debate should not take that long. All I am asking of the minister is to change a regulation, and that regulation, under the Planning Act Regulations, relates to Part 4, Section 14. Part 4 deals with appeals and it says:
Schedule 2 is basically a list of town plans from Alice Springs through to Tennant Creek in one column, and in the other column, it lists what somebody - I do not know who that somebody would be - has classified zones within those town plans as being residential zones.
The problem is that there are people who live in these residential zones in Alice Springs, Batchelor, Borroloola, Darwin, Katherine, Namarada, Palmerston, Tennant Creek, and Jabiru who, because they live in zones that someone in the department has classed as residential zones, are allowed to appeal. If you go further into the regulations under Part 4, section 15(3), there is a statement which says:
Then you go to subsection (c) which says:
What that means in plain English is that, if you do not live in what the government refers to as a residential zone, then you have no right of third party appeal. I know the minister said, when the government promised that it would introduce third party appeals, they would be limited. The government is entitled to say that, but what is not clear and what has not been explained to the people, is that it is one thing to limit it on what you can appeal against, but it is another thing to appeal against a group of people simply because they live in a certain zone.
A classic example is the case of the dog kennels in Howard Springs - and that has possibly brought this on. Here we have a case of land that is zoned RL1, and this particular case has its certain quirks. There was an application for some kennels on a block of land which is about 1.3 ha. It is actually a little smaller than the normal lot size that you expect on RL1. RL1 stands for Rural Living 1, minimum lot size 2 ha. To the north of this block, there is an historical area which is unique in the Litchfield Shire made up of about 25 blocks which would average about 0.2 ha, and they are classed as Rural Living 1 even though they are well below the minimum lot size. In fact, some of the blocks of land in earlier parts of Palmerston would be equivalent to some of the blocks in this area. They, obviously, would not be as small as some of the blocks you see in Palmerston now which, unfortunately, require people to wear velcro pyjamas so they can sleep vertically there is so little room in them. However, they are small blocks in relation to the rural area. The blocks to the south and south-west of this application for kennels are 2 ha blocks and are regarded as the standard RL1 zone.
The application for the kennels was passed by the Development Consent Authority after quite a number of objections from local residents. The local residents then asked if they could appeal, and they found out they could not appeal. The reason they could not appeal is because the land is zoned Rural Living and is not classed under Schedule 2 as Residential even though, on one side, the blocks are so small they would be equivalent to those in Palmerston. Some people say those people had an opportunity for their land to be rezoned to RR (Rural Residential). The fact is that, I am told that only one person got a letter with that intent from the government. Also, those lot sizes are even smaller than the minimum lot size for that particular RR zone. The government would have had a problem trying to rezone it for that.
Regardless of the complaint of those people who live on the small blocks, there are people living on 2 ha blocks right next door to these kennels who would be subjected to the same amount of noise and disruption to their lifestyle but, under this planning regulation, they are not even allowed to appeal. If anyone has lived in the rural area, especially on 2 ha blocks, you will know that noise travels much further than in urban areas because there is less build-up. Noise travels further when there are no walls or a large number of trees to block that noise. In many cases in the rural area, having a kennel on a block next to you on 2 ha can be far worse than having it in an urban area.
The problem is that, regardless of the issue of whether, in this particular case, there were small blocks of land next to the kennels, the government has discriminated against people’s right to third party appeal based on your zone. That is what I am getting at in this case. If your zone is not classified by the department as residential, you have no right of appeal. The minister said that we would only allow limited third party appeals and forgets that he already has that in the regulations. He says, for instance, you have no right of appeal relating to any of the following. I refer to 15(3)(a) and (3)(b):
Minister, that is where you have limited the number of appeals; you said it would be limited. What you have done is you have limited where you can appeal. You have limited the type of development that a person can appeal against and the government has every right to do that. What you have also done is that you have discriminated against people because of their zone. I do not believe that was the intention of limiting the rights of third party appeal.
All this would need is a small change to Schedule 2, column 2 under the Litchfield Area Plan 2004 next to the column adding ‘RL1, RL2’ to RR. This might apply to say the rural areas of Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. They may be in the same position. I do not believe this would cause a major increase in the number of third party appeals that the government would have to hear. I do not believe you would get very many third party appeals. It is there for people to use if they wish. I do not think this would put undue pressure on the government by having hundreds of third party appeals. What it would do is allow people in the rural area to have the same rights as people in urban areas.
We have 14 000 to 17 000 people living in the rural area. Most of those people cannot appeal against a planning decision simply because someone made up a column which for some reason did not regard RL1 and RL2 as being residential. While RL1 and RL2 are defined as rural living 1 and rural living 2, people reside on those blocks; it is not as though they are non-residential blocks. I believe they should be entitled to that right of appeal.
I am also very interested to hear what the members for Goyder and Daly have to say on this issue. I am sure rural residents would be very pleased to know their opinion. I know the minister will give his opinion and I am not sure what that is at the moment. I hope that he will consider that my motion is not telling him to do it today but is asking him to consider changing those regulations. People in the rural area, as has been found out in the particular case of the kennels, expect that right to appeal.
I am interested to hear whether the members for Goyder and Daly support the right of those people in the rural area. They also have a fair part of the electorates covering Litchfield Shire. I am interested to hear whether they would support these minor amendments that really would do very little to the workload that the government has but take away what I call a discriminatory clause which I do not think serves any purpose at all but would at least allow people the same rights as other people in the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Mr Deputy Speaker, the government does not support this motion. An election commitment when first coming to office was that Labor would introduce limited rights of appeal for what are termed third parties to appeal against a decision of the Consent Authority under the Planning Act. As part of the review of the Planning Act, which culminated in the Planning Amendment Act last year, government delivered on its commitment.
Prior to these amendments the only person having a right of appeal to appeal a decision of the Consent Authority was the applicant. In extending the appeal rights to third parties, government is conscious that it does not create an environment to the detriment of people engaging in development or commerce that they have a reasonable expectation of being able to do according to the planning regulations of the day.
Government chose to constrain the right of appeal to zones where the principal use is residential. In those areas, the size of blocks is such that there is minimal setback between the dwellings and therefore greater potential detriment to neighbours from development or non-residential uses.
Under the Litchfield Area Plan, the only prescribed residential zone is the RR or Rural Residential zone. Owners of these properties do have a right of appeal when neighbours are proposing a development or non-residential use. Lots within the RR zone have a minimum area of 1 ha. This reduces the setback between dwellings and could cause potential detriment to neighbours from non-residential uses.
By contrast, the minimum lot sizes of the rural living zones in the Litchfield Shire are much larger, being either 2 ha in the RL1 or 8 ha in RL2. While some people have clearly purchased lots in these areas as a lifestyle choice, others have purchased principally for other uses, whether or not they also live on the lot. It is worth noting that the Zone Purpose Statements of the Litchfield Area Plan, which the member for Nelson will recall was implemented after much discussion and consultation, are as follows:
For the RL1 zone, the purpose is:
For the RL2 zone, the purpose is:
So, in framing the regulations, government took the view that the generally larger lot sizes of the rural living zone coupled with the planning regulations of the Litchfield Area Plan minimises the potential for uses and development to cause circumstances where a right of appeal to a third party is justified.
As the member for Nelson indicated, his motion, at least in part, is motivated by the recent controversy over the proposal to develop a lot in the RL1 zone for dog kennels. In that case, the land is within an area subdivided before the introduction of planning regulations in the shire and the lots are below the minimum size now prescribed. No doubt the member would contend that this exacerbates the potential detriment and that local residents should therefore have been afforded the right of appeal.
It is my advice, member for Nelson, that the potential or capacity for people to develop those blocks into the intensive animal husbandry use has existed for some time and, clearly, the proponents of the kennel bought that land with that in mind.
I am also advised that residents in that area were advised when the Litchfield plan was rolling forward that they could indeed apply for rezoning to an RR zone. I have spoken directly with these residents; they did come and see me a number of times at the Rapid Creek Markets, and I put that to them. Some said that they had never been contacted in that way, but I was advised that people were written to about that issue. I am advised that subsequently now they have applied for an RR zoning over that area. I will consider that as part of the process through the Development Consent Authority. So those people have asked for a rezoning to RR and I will consider it. I will take the advice of the Development Consent Authority in that instance.
The member for Nelson appears to have extended that line of thinking that I mentioned before about potential detriment and exacerbation of potential detriment to cover the majority of the shire. The government is not of that view. The expectation of the zones, particularly of the RL2 zone, is that there will be non-residential activity. I have confidence that the existing processes for the consideration of those activities through the Development Consent Authority will provide sensible outcomes that balance competing interests.
I will lay it on the record again, member for Nelson. We have had conversations on this matter. I have indicated to you – and I might even be on the public record in terms of this - that once the implementation of the planning scheme that is currently out for consultation is implemented, government, in time, will consider amending the Planning Act. I am more than happy to consider, at that time, extending rights of appeal. However, as I have indicated in my speech, it has to be balanced with people’s reasonable expectations who have bought some of those properties that they can develop them in certain ways.
I think it was Tim Baldwin who told me when I first became Planning minister that it is a hard job, it is hard to please everybody, and whichever decision you make will not satisfy one party or the other. It is a bit of a portfolio like that, but in my endeavours through my portfolio of Lands and Planning, I have always tried to be consistent, fair and flexible, and I have asked the Development Consent Authority to do likewise.
With those assurances to you, member for Nelson, unfortunately I will not be supporting it today. When we come to the point of looking at further amendments to the Planning Act, as I foreshadowed when those amendments went through – I believe it was in February 2005 - government will be more than willing to consider other amendments and further amendments to the Planning Act.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we move on, member for Braitling, I wish to advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of the public tour program visitors. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion. I have listened carefully to what the minister has said. The member for Nelson has explained in great detail the changes that he is espousing and why he thinks it should happen. However, I guess I am talking about a principle that we need to talk about. That is about the people’s right of appeal, people’s right to have a say in decisions that have been made by a tribunal that perhaps are not always reflective of that particular area.
I would like the minister to clarify exactly why he will not change it. What is there, in fact, that causes him to be hesitant about that? To say we may change it a long time down the track is not good enough. Basically, it is not giving us anything; it is a ‘perhaps I will, and perhaps I will not’. We are asking you why we have these third party planning appeals applicable in other parts of the Territory, or in different parts of the Territory. You talk about consistency, and you have said that you like your consistency, and fair and flexible, but it seems to me that this is an inflexible approach, an approach that really is not fair across the Territory, because you are giving some people the right of appeal, and some people not.
For instance, if the Alice Springs residents in the rural area had not had the right of appeal, they would have found that some suburban-type subdivisions would have gone ahead in the rural area. But, as you have said, people buy blocks in the rural area mainly because of lifestyle, and they buy them with the expectation that that lifestyle will be able to be maintained. There were many appeals over time in the rural subdivision of Alice Springs against proposals that wanted to make blocks a lot smaller than they already are. Constant appeals by these residents, in fact, have prevented blocks getting too small. Residents would prefer to keep their larger blocks because they know they will have their lifestyle protected.
Minister, I really believe this is an issue about people’s rights to appeal. We talk about democracy within our society and yet we have this big brother approach that says: ‘Yes, you can appeal on this hand, but you cannot appeal on that hand’. I believe that that is something that this particular government should really think carefully about. I would have thought they would have been the type of government that was on people’s side from a social agenda.
The minister seems to have an assumption that all circumstances are covered by his appeal process at the moment. Obviously, the example of the dog kennel shows that there are flaws in the planning process. I support the member for Nelson’s approach and say to the minister: think about people’s rights, the right of appeal, and getting something across the Territory that is common and the same for everyone so that all Territorians are dealt with in the same way.
We should not have some Territorians denied their right, whereas others in other parts of the Territory have that right. There is a complication there that the minister has not really resolved and that I particularly ask him to think about. Is that not what we are all about: giving people the right of appeal, particularly when it affects their lifestyle? That would occur to anyone, whether they live in a rural or residential area; they would believe that they should have a say.
Madam Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion and am disappointed the minister will not. I believe he should take on board some of the comments that have been made in this debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am disappointed I did not hear from some of our local members in relation to this. It shows you belong to a party and you are just one opinion.
Dr Burns: Other members have had input into my reply, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I am sure the public would like to know what that input is. That is why this is a House of debate. I am very interested …
Ms Lawrie: Play the issue, not the person.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Karama, and may you live forever in your suburb.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Thank you, thank you. Madam Speaker, this is a …
Mr Warren: We are a team; we work together.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Member for Goyder, if you would like to address the parliament today and put your opinion in Hansard for the people of the Litchfield Shire to hear, whether it supports my motion or not, I am sure the people in the Litchfield Shire would be pleased, as you are their representative. I would have liked to hear the member for Daly do the same.
Mr Warren: I support what the minister has said. I go on record saying that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder!
Mr WOOD: It is a pity the member for Goyder, Madam Speaker, did not get up when he had a chance …
Dr Burns: Stop playing politics!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: It is amazing, Madam Speaker. We are talking about a very minor change. The minister is talking about fixing up the entire Northern Territory Planning Scheme and then reviewing the whole of the Northern Territory Planning Act for two minor changes to a schedule to put RL1 and RL2 on a schedule - which you can do without a blink of the eyelid, which would make no difference. I was nearly going to say ‘bugger all’, but you would not allow that, would you, Madam Speaker? It would make little difference …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson! Withdraw, please.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I withdraw that Madam Speaker. It is a colloquialism sometimes used in the rural area, but I do withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson.
Ms Carney: Just in the rural area?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: And other places too.
Madam Speaker, it would make little change. It would not upset the whole bureaucracy of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. It is a minor change that says something very important; that people in the rural area will not be discriminated against. Minister, you have said a couple of things …
Mr Warren: We do not discriminate against rural people.
Mr WOOD: Member for Goyder, you had your chance. Why did not you say it before I got up here now?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, the minister has said a couple of things …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, can you please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr WOOD: I am. I have been facing in your direction, Madam Speaker. .
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, the member for Arafura is not in her right chair.
Mrs Braham: Is not in her right chair?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please continue.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, the minister has made a number of contentions about land in the rural area. He has stated that we are allowing RR because it is smaller. An RR block is 1 ha. Its dimensions are on average 100 m by 100 m. An RL2 block is 2 ha; its dimensions are 100 m x 200 m. You can still get the same problem on a 1 ha block as you can on a 2 ha block. You can have a set of kennels in an RR zone that can cause just as many problems in a RL1 zone because the width is more or less the same.
The issue is not about the Donington Road kennels. That is just to highlight one of the problems we have. I have raised this issue before. The RL1 zone in the Litchfield Area Plan, minister, has a column and that column allows you to do certain things. It allows you not to do certain things but allows other things to be done with consent. In any other part of the Northern Territory, if you did not agree with the Development Consent Authority, which was hearing a consent application, you could appeal. For some reason the Litchfield Shire, when you get a consent application on RL1, the minister is saying that is okay, consent is okay, you do not have a right to appeal just because you are RL1. I believe that is discriminatory against people in the rural area. If that is all the minister is basing it on, and he is basing it on just that it happens to be a slightly smaller block, that is purely arbitrary. I believe the answer the minister has given is lacking in logic, trying to argue the case that therefore we should not have the right to appeal.
_______________________
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, do you mind if we pause to recognise some people in the Speaker’s Gallery?
Honourable members, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the Honourable Alex Somylay, House of Representatives member for Fairfax, and Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, together with other members of the committee. The committee is visiting Darwin as part of its inquiry into health funding, conducting public hearings in the Litchfield Room today.
Mr Somylay was Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government from 9 October 1997 to 21 October 1998. On behalf of all honourable members I send to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I was looking up the key land use objectives for Litchfield Shire and one of them is about culture and lifestyle. One of the policies is to maintain and enhance the high level of amenity for residents of the shire and visitors. Residents! People live in the rural area. Because they do not get classed by some silly schedule that says you are residential and you are not, it does not mean that people do not live on those blocks of land. They do live on those blocks of land. That is why we have columns in our Litchfield Area Plan which states that some activities are consent. You are right, minister. Agriculture and horticulture can happen in RL1 but your government changed it from being permitted to consent. It did that because, as you would know, there were many problems with horticulture from spraying and people complained all the time. They had no right of appeal. The government did change it and now it is consent. You cannot have horticulture unless it is consent.
Once you make it consent, surely you give the right for people to appeal. They cannot appeal against something that is permitted and they cannot appeal against something that is prohibited. The kennels require consent and surely people have the right to appeal against the kennels if they think the amount of noise coming from that is going to disturb them at night, or the traffic is going to be day and night with people dropping of dogs. Kennels are the classic example: kennels have caused heaps of problems in the rural area. There was a classic case on Daniel Circuit; they were prohibited. Why? This was some years ago, an application went for kennels on Daniels Circuit up in Herbert. It was knocked back. There was a case in my area on a 1 ha block where it was knocked back. Kennels are always controversial.
I know the Development Consent Authority has to make a decision. I must admit it is probably time the government looked at the whole issue of kennels and said whether they should be in the rural area at all, or whether they should be on industrial land. They always cause problems. They are a necessity but they do cause many problems with neighbours. Yet we are not allowed to have them. I do not know what happens in Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs when you have kennels but I gather that they would require consent. I understand that if they are near a residential place they would now have the right of appeal.
The government is saying is that people in the rural area do not have that same right, even though it can make just as much noise and be just as much of a nuisance. Yet the minister’s reply is basically: ‘Thank you. We have said when we were going to be elected that we would like limited third party appeal.’ What it did not tell people is what that limitation was going to be until they put it in the Planning Act. They did not say that they were going to discriminate against rural people. It just said that it would be limited.
You have to have some limitations on third party appeal, and, as I said before, the government has put some limitations on it: detached dwellings not exceeding two storeys, attached dwelling not exceeding two storeys. There are some limitations and they might make good sense; that might be an appropriate limitation on third party appeals. But to put limitations just because someone lives in the rural area on a lot size that might be slightly bigger than Palmerston or Alice Springs or Darwin is a poor decision by the government.
I will tell those people that we have tried to change it, that we have tried to give people those rights. As I said before, it will not make a big deal for the government; it will give people those rights. Those people with the kennels are not going to win. It has been passed. They cannot appeal. That will not change anything, but surely we have learnt by that case that people should have that right to appeal. We are not giving any comfort to anyone except when the Northern Territory Planning Scheme is completed, which could still take heaven knows how long - it has only taken seven years so far - and then when we review the Planning Act, and we know what reviewing the Planning Act is like - I remember in Mr Hatton’s time as Planning minister, it took three years to review the Planning Act.
If I have to stand here and debate this in about five years’ time, if I am still here, could we please change two things on Column 2, RL1 and RL2, two minor things in a regulation that I have to wait five years to get amended, we are not doing our job. Here is a simple case of you impacting people’s rights. The government always espouses people’s rights. This is a Labor government. It stands up for the workers.
Mr Bonson: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: I wonder if you will say ‘Hear, hear!’ when I ask for a vote on whether you can put two zones in Schedule 2 which would support the average resident of the rural area. There is no big deal about this. It is not going to bring the government down. There is not going to be some great political scandal.
Dr Burns: What about people with existing rights?
Mr WOOD: No, no. It is a sensible alteration to the regulations. I am sometimes astounded. I know it comes from an Independent on the wrong side, I suppose, from your point of view, of parliament, but so what? Parliament is here hopefully to work for the people and if it means that you are not bringing it forward and I am bringing it forward, so what? Perhaps I could get a guarantee from the minister publicly that he will look at this before the next sittings and bring it forward as a motion, or let me know that he is going to change the regulations. It does not need to come here for that.
I will ask the minister to look at it and say: ‘Would this change benefit people?’ There is a good test of what we are doing. Would it benefit the average person? Would it restrict development? No more than any other third party appeal you have in the rest of the Territory. I agree that development should occur. I believe you need to find a balance between development and people’s rights to appeal. So if you put it through that test, minister, and you came back and said: ‘We have changed it’, I would say: ‘Congratulations’, because that is all I am asking: give people a fair go, give business a fair go, but do not have regulations that are discriminatory.
Thank you for your response. I believe it is the same response I have had a number of times because I have debated this before. I ask you to reconsider it and perhaps come back at the next sittings. It would be a great pleasure for me to announce to the rural people that the minister has at least thought about the proposition, discussed it with his colleagues, the members for Goyder and Daly; that would be very good. He could even talk to me. It would be a great to announce to people that they do have a right to appeal. I do not think it is a big deal. It is important. Many people talk about human rights, this is one of them: that people will have a right like everyone else in the Territory has but, for some unknown bureaucratic reason, we are not allowed to enjoy.
Mrs Braham: Simple.
Mr WOOD: Simple. You can do it, minister. I will wait until the next sittings to see what happens.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 2 Noes 21
Mrs Braham Ms Anderson
Mr Wood Mr Bonson
Mr Burke
Dr Burns
Ms Carney
Mr Henderson
Mr Kiely
Mr Knight
Ms Lawrie
Dr Lim
Ms Martin
Ms McAdam
Mrs Miller
Mr Mills
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion negatived.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move –
(a) that the time allocated to such portfolios as Chief Minister, Treasurer, Health, and Education, Employment and Training, is insufficient, and
(b) the inability to question the senior public servants directly inhibits the transparency and accountability of the government through the estimates process.
Madam Speaker, this motion comes as no surprise; in fact, I gave notice of it after the conclusion of the estimates process in June. Every year, I get to my feet and government members get to theirs and, although I have no intention of doing so today, I traditionally cite the wonderful words of the now Deputy Chief Minister about the estimates process and how it was to be open, accountable and transparent, and how he aspired back then to those very lofty and worthy notions.
What we have seen is what Labor promised has not been delivered. Certainly, we have seen that in a number of other areas, but the estimates process needs to be improved. Indeed, in the Deputy Chief Minister’s speech in about 2002, he said that if improvements need to be made, they can be. This motion provides for the Assembly to authorise, instruct, request – whatever - the Public Accounts Committee to review the estimates hearing. Every year, both sides of the House say the system is not perfect, and it is fair to say that we at least have that concession from the government. It is timely to review it, and we ask that the government do so.
This motion would be difficult for the government to oppose as it is very reasonable by its nature. We recognise there is no process requiring scrutiny of the budget that is ideal; however, I come back to the point that it should be reviewed. As I have said in the parliament before, the mechanism used by previous administrations had its positive points as well as its negative ones, as does the current process. We are, as parliamentarians, compelled to ask: does it need to be reviewed; if so, then how do we do it?
The situation that we have at the moment is that there is a political barrier between the question and the answer. It is appropriate to have the minister available to step in where questioning becomes beyond the scope of what is reasonable to be asked; we have no difficulty with that. However, to have the minister as the filter through which all things must go consumes valuable time and fails to allow for legitimate in-depth scrutiny of the operations of the departments. The questioning of this government’s policies is something that the opposition does, both in and outside the House. However, it is fundamental to scrutiny of any government’s budget that those asking the questions, particularly opposition members, are compelled to ask on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory how effective the government has been at resourcing the agencies which implement the government policies. Therefore, policy and money are clearly integrally linked, and it is appropriate that we quiz government as to the effectiveness. Government would expect no less and, certainly, Territorians expect and deserve no less from us.
All too often, when the questions were asked we were shut out of the process of extended questioning of an agency or departmental representatives because the minister would seek to bat away particular questions with political rather than significant or substantive responses. Anyone who saw the estimates process will know that that occurred.
When questions were able to be put directly to public servants - and there was no consistency whatsoever on that, we had to go through the somewhat ridiculous process of saying: ‘Through you Mr Chair’, or ‘Through you, minister, asking public servant X’ a question. Often, it might have been a quick follow-up requiring a yes or no answer, but we would still have to go through the laboriously ridiculous process of saying ‘Through you, Mr Chair’ and ‘Through you, minister’. If ever there was a case to illustrate a wasting of time that surely is one. I am not sure whether the Assembly staff are even capable of recording how long it took us just to get a question through, but if they did I am sure we would all be quite amazed by the length of time it took.
In any case, the government pitches its estimates committee process on the basis that we, the opposition, are able to question public servants. We are not able to directly question public servants. In the federal parliament they are able to directly question public servants. I know we had some visitors in the gallery before, Madam Speaker, who were from the Commonwealth parliament. They no doubt would be very surprised that we need to go through the Chair and/or through the minister to ask a public servant, and then we cannot even have direct dialogue, although all of us on occasion did, and you had a sense that maybe the public servant was wondering whether they would be spoken to sternly afterwards. It is not even in accordance with the way human beings talk to each other, to go through this rather bizarre process.
That must be looked at. It is clear it has to be looked at. I am interested to hear what the government has to say. Unfortunately, their arguments with these things tend to be somewhat predictable, but we are putting this motion up in good faith.
It was not the CLP which promised the estimates process. Labor promised it, and used very colourful language before it did so, and indeed afterwards. They sold it to Territorians on the basis that it was going to open the books of government. That was what the Deputy Chief Minister said. Open the books of government, and it would be accountable. It has only opened the door a fraction. If Labor is serious, they would seriously look at this motion.
The Ombudsman gave a refreshingly frank and honest appraisal of her office. The Chief Minister struggled through that output group with gritted teeth, but to the Ombudsman’s credit she gave a refreshingly frank account. It was not an opportunity for the Ombudsman to embarrass government, or to score cheap points. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the Northern Territory Ombudsman saying that her office needs more money. If that is not open, honest and transparent, I do not know what is. The Ombudsman stood out because, as I said, she was refreshingly frank.
If the government was serious about having scrutiny of their resourcing of agencies, and initially I thought they were although it is hard to know where they are now, then direct questioning would be available for all agencies because we could ask questions generally much more directly of both the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman. However, through the current arrangements and unless the government is prepared to allow for such direct questioning then we can only include that Labor’s definition of scrutiny is nothing but a political definition designed to be sold and sold well at the polling booth.
It is a deficient process. It is not a bad process. It just has its problems. Again, I say that we ask government to seriously consider …
Mr Stirling: It is not a bad process. That is not bad.
Ms CARNEY: The Deputy Chief Minister is mumbling. I do not know what he is saying, Madam Speaker …
Mr Stirling: It is not a bad process, I said. It is not a bad process.
Ms CARNEY: … but already he has indicated: ‘Sit down, Carney, because I am not going to have a bar of it’. Are you indicating, Deputy Chief Minister, that there are no faults with the estimates process? If that is what you are saying, you should have the courage to stand up, put your little mouth very close to the microphone and say it. If you say that, every person in the Northern Territory will take you for the very strange individual that you are.
Mr Stirling: Sorry for agreeing with you!
Ms CARNEY: Deputy Chief Minister, if you have something to say, say it loud, say it bold.
Mr Henderson: He just has.
Ms CARNEY: You might have been able to hear it, member for Wanguri, but I did not.
Of course, the Deputy Chief Minister is never backward in coming forward. He gets up and his face goes red and his little veins start to pop. It is always wonderful to see but he is getting tired. Obviously, he will be retiring at the next election. He is getting tired because we are not seeing the popping veins. It is always very enjoyable. I remember in my first term I saw it when the Deputy Chief Minister kept thinking for the first year that he was still in opposition - and, by God, he was there a for a long time - because he used to feign outrage and indignation. I remember one particular time he sat down and you could see it in his face: ‘Oh, we are in government. I do not have to be really angry anymore’. From time to time, we see him digging deep and giving us a bit of a display. So, Deputy Chief Minister, if you have something to say, please say it in your usual way or, at the very least, so I can hear it.
Back to the point, Madam Speaker: there were obviously time constraints forcing an entire output group - this year it was Sport and Recreation - to escape any form of scrutiny. Sport and Recreation and the budget for Sport and Recreation was not scrutinised because we ran out of time. Is that scrutiny? I do not think so. Does that make for good government? I do not think so. Of course, many of us actually receive questions from members of the public. They e-mail us: ‘You have estimates coming up. Ask this question’. It is not just the opposition trying to find things, although that is our job. Often, we ask questions on behalf of members of the public. I know I do in my shadow portfolio of Justice. Many people in the legal profession provide me with questions and invariably I just cannot get to them.
The Attorney-General’s record for responding to a letter stands at nine months. That was very disappointing and it backfired on him because the particular letter I wrote was on behalf of some members of the legal profession who, in private practice, of course, would lose their business if it took them that long to respond to a letter.
In any case, there were other time delays and issues as to time. After an opening statement by the minister, the chairman informed all and sundry that he needed time to chew his food and he called a halt to the proceedings. Millions of Territorians’ money went unchecked and the chairman wanted to chew his food. The chairman, of course, in my view cannot walk and chew gum, but he wanted to delay the proceedings so he could chew his food. Is that good scrutiny? I do not think so.
I quote from the Estimates Committee hearing another example:
How utterly extraordinary, Madam Speaker. Who would have thought that we would have a situation where a minister was seriously asking for another question and it was cut short because the chairman was chewing his food? It must have been embarrassing for everyone there, particularly the public servants. No doubt it was somewhat embarrassing for the minister as well.
Most importantly, it is Territorians’ money and in the limited time we have, it is important for all this parliament, that we devote every single ounce of the time we have to scrutiny. Our view is that the government should allocate more time because we consistently run out of time.
In that regard, the number of times that opposition members used the term, ‘Due to time constraints, I will not ask another question’, was, on my count, 21, and the number of output groups that a question was not asked for was 37. So, you have a budget or a department with various output groups in the budget books, and the theory is that the government is to be questioned on every output group, in other words, every area of departmental spending. Across the range, there were 37 areas or sub-agencies where no questions were asked. Is that good scrutiny? I do not think so. They are pretty shocking numbers, minister.
The purpose of the Estimates Committee is to provide a forum and process whereby government decisions can be examined in an open, orderly and informed way. It is always very interesting to see members of the public come in. Often the room is filled with politicians, staffers, departmental officers and media, but every estimates, we have members of the public come in. They must be appalled. We have ministers batting away, we have a chairman saying, ‘no more questions’, despite being asked by a minister to have a question, because he wants to chew his food. We have the absurd process where we have to go through one or two filters in order to talk to a public servant, and then we have the minister pretty much standing in the way all the way through deciding on what they, that is the minister as well as the public servant, should answer and, of course, so often we ask questions, like Question Time, where we simply do not get the answer. I ask again, is that scrutiny? I do not think so.
It is the case that estimates has improved over the years. We have all become better at it. I remember the first estimates was extremely difficult on all of us, and after that there was a change. The one I remember was the written questions; I am not sure that was such a good idea in hindsight, given the numbers in opposition, but we were able to improve the system after the first run. I say again, though, it is still not perfect. When we say it is not perfect, we do not mean give us more time just so we can ask some questions for the sake of it. The opposition, though small in number, takes its responsibility very seriously and it is an extremely arrogant government, indeed, where it berates – well, there is the word again. The Deputy Chief Minister is having a bit of a chuckle.
This government is a very arrogant government. Its arrogance is spilling out all over the place. It is good to see that the Deputy Chief Minister has gone for a bit of a walk, because he knows it is true. For seemingly thousands of years, he has sat, probably in this seat on this side of the Chamber, and said: ‘Talk of the arrogance of the CLP’. This mob on the other side, as I said yesterday during another debate, has become everything they said they despised of the Country Liberal Party, and sitting in this Chamber, it has been incredible to watch. The arrogance is pretty much pumping out of all of you and it is demonstrated in almost every way. One recent example is the way in which the Chief Minister refused to put any pressure whatsoever on the member for Sanderson who should not hold his seat in this parliament.
In any case, the fact is that we take our obligation very seriously. No government escapes, or should be allowed to escape, scrutiny. I know you people on the other side think you are all pretty good, but even in your most private thoughts, you would concede that you should, quite properly, be held to account. You say you concede it every four years at election time, but surely you concede that you should be held to account between elections. That is our job, and we will continue to do it on behalf of the people whom we serve. If we all get this process right, it is good for all of us. It is not just, oh well, the opposition might issue an extra one or two media releases. It actually restores the confidence in this parliament by the people of the Northern Territory.
There is a proposal, and I ask the government to consider this, it will require allocating an additional amount of time and, in the unlikely event that it does, instruct the Public Accounts Committee to consider allocating 6.5 hours for the Department of the Chief Minister, the department of Treasury, the department of Health, and the department of Education. They are the significant portfolio areas in the Northern Territory.
In my case, the Minister for Central Australia has three very important portfolios - Central Australia, Health and Justice. I shadow him in the area of Justice. Justice has an enormous budget, as does Health. To have a bit over two hours each - even if you put the Central Australian portfolio to one side - on Health and Justice is just bizarre, when you factor in dorothy dixers from government, opening statements, opening statements for output groups, and the filtering process that goes on. I ask again: is that scrutiny? It is not.
We are suggesting 6.5 hours for the key portfolios. We think this is a reasonably constructive way of pushing us all along a bit in terms of the hours. In other words, it will make it longer because of the hourly allocation; however, the fact is that none of us can do justice to those weighty portfolios - Chief Minister, Treasury, Health and Education - unless there is an allocation of 6.5 hours.
Each of the remaining departments would have up to four hours. I do not think four hours is enough, but we are trying to be considerate and thoughtful in this proposal in the motion we provide to the parliament today.
Madam Speaker, we do not want to overburden this government, but something does have to change. We ask that they give the proposals a go. I suspect they will not. I suspect in reply we will be walked down memory lane - the old story about how the Deputy Chief Minister parked his bags over at the old Darwin Hotel and kept talking until 7 am and then went over and picked up his bags and flew home. We will probably get that one. We will probably get: ‘You have had your 42 or 45 hours’. They say that every year. We will also probably get: ‘If you asked better questions none of this would be happening’. I expect that. They are the main ones the government has used, member for Blain, to resist any movement for change. I am sure there are others. They will pull out the old, useful ones from their tool box.
Having said that, maybe I am being unnecessarily pessimistic. On occasion I have cause to be when I see this government in action, in particular the Leader of Government Business who will, no doubt, rise to speak about this. It will simply add to the growing impression that this government is a profoundly arrogant government if the Leader of Government Business and his colleagues stand up and actually have the gall to say the estimates process is working really well.
In parts, it works, but all of us can improve. It is certainly incumbent upon the government to undertake such improvements, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Any further speakers?
Mr Henderson: I want to hear what you both have to say.
Dr Lim: Your turn. Go on, get up.
Mr Henderson: I just want to be convinced by your argument, that is all. I am happy to go.
Ms Carney: Do not tell us you have an open mind, Hendo!
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it is just the Leader of the Opposition did not quite get me there, so I wanted to hear what other members had to say before putting the government’s position.
This is General Business Day and, I suppose, there are some issues where we are going to pick up the motion or the legislation from the opposition and Independents and say point blank: ‘No, we are not going to have a bar of that’, but there are other things that we might be thinking that it would be good to hear the full debate on before we formally respond. If you do not want to do it that way, I will give you my response as per the motion and after listening to the Leader of the Opposition on yet another debate about the operation of the Estimates Committee.
I did say to the Leader of the Opposition in conclusion to debate on the report of the Estimates Committee after the budget this year, that the Standing Orders Committee would again look for submissions on ongoing refinement of the Estimates Committee process. I have already given that commitment, as we did a couple of years ago when we invited submissions from all agencies. It is important to understand at an agency level how they deal with the process, and whether agencies believe that there could be further refinements. It is a public process and it is open to the media. I suppose the media issues would go more towards the configuration of the room and the access they have in order to do their work. Public submissions would obviously include the opportunity for members of the House to make submissions to the Standing Orders Committee, and then the Standing Orders Committee would consider those submissions and report to the parliament.
As Leader of Government Business and Chair of the Standing Orders Committee, that is the process that I have said we will adopt in a continual look at how we refine the operation of the estimates committee.
We have made changes. I believe each year we have made changes. The Opposition Leader named a few. The first run at it we required written questions. We ditched that after the first estimates committee process, and have just gone to questions from the committee direct to the minister. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we are all getting better at it, and in preparation for estimates, ministers and departmental staff - I can say it is like swatting for exams – take the process seriously. I know there is a lot of work going in from the opposition and the Independent side regarding what questions to ask. I did a couple of years in opposition, and worked pretty hard in my shadow portfolio areas through the previous Committee of the Whole process on what questions I was going to ask. I do appreciate the opposition and the Independents put a lot of effort into it, and so they should.
Similarly, ministers and departmental staff put a lot of effort into preparations for estimates. We are all getting better at it. We can all anticipate the standard questions that go to consultancies and advertising and what have you, and we have all that material there. Portfolio by portfolio, there are the obvious questions and issues that come up every year that we also prepare for.
In preparation there is a lot of work that goes on and, in continuing to refine that, government is very open and will consider the submissions that we get. However, we have this debate seemingly ongoing. I suppose the fundamentals are whether we are going to change the total allotted time portfolio by portfolio. We will wait to see what submissions come in. But I flag here and now that I am not inclined to do so. We had a decision to make this year because we had an extra minister this year. We could have taken the decision that – I forget what the numbers were - but say there were 40 hours allocated to the whole process, we would just wrap the extra minister in and take 20 minutes off everybody else, and reduce the total amount of time each minister asked to keep within the 40 hour time limit. We did not do that. We allocated an extra 4 hours for the additional minister. We allocated extra time to the estimates committee process this year to accommodate the additional minister.
I still believe that the Treasurer and Employment, Education and Training minister gets seven hours. He gets a fair work out. But 4 hours per minister is a significant amount of time. We made a decision this year regarding the operation of the committee. I have not read through the Hansard of the committee deliberations, but we would not be asking many dorothy dixers. I do not think that that happened this time through the estimates committee process. I stand to be corrected because I have not read the Hansard, but I do not think that it will show dorothy dixers bowled up from government members on the committee this time.
The comment about opening statements is something that I will have a look at. Again, it is always difficult, but off the top of my head, I think confining opening comments to about five minutes would be okay. I cannot see why ministers would need to talk for more than five minutes in their opening statements to the committee. Maybe we can put a time limit around that so time is not taken up with ministerial statements. In the broad, I think 4 hours is a significant amount of time. I do not think other committees around Australia would have more time per minister in bigger jurisdictions with bigger budgets, although the issues tend to be the same.
Let us have a look at it and if the submissions to the committee convince the Standing Orders Committee that we will amend the time frames, we will bring that back to parliament for debate.
In relation to the point about inability to question senior public servants, I would have to say that, at the end of the day, this parliament is all about the government of the day with the mandate implementing its election commitments and the policy decisions that it makes and allocates budgets to agencies, but the Westminster system is all about ministerial accountability. The Standing Orders Committee will look at this if that is a formal submission from the opposition to the Standing Orders Committee. I am not convinced that the capacity for the committee to directly grill public servants and potentially grill public servants with political and hostile questioning is something that we should tolerate.
I have the highest regard for our public servants. They do faithfully implement the government policy of the day. Certainly, CEOs are answerable to the minister. I do not think it is appropriate to expose CEOs to direct questioning from committee members that can be political and hostile.
We have had this debate before, and the opposition will not agree with me, but there have been comments made in this parliament and statements made against public servants who do not have a right of reply that have been offensive. Certainly, target the ministers by all means. We are ultimately accountable in the Westminster system, but do not make allegations and politically attributed comments to public servants. They do not deserve it and they should not have to put up with it. I do not agree with the claim that inability to question senior public servants directly inhibits the transparency and accountability of government. That is just not the case because accountability for government rests with the minister. That is the way the Westminster system operates.
The Leader of the Opposition did state, and I made some notes, that it is not a bad process. There are deficiencies and, I agree, not every process is perfect. She mentioned that it had improved over the years, and I agree with her. She also said that it was not perfect. I would agree. Nothing is perfect in this world as much as we would like it to be.
What I am prepared to state here again today is that the Standing Orders Committee will have another look at the operations of the Estimates Committee. We will once again be asking for CEOs to make comments in regard to any refinements that they believe to be warranted, and also the media. If members of the public want to make submissions in regard to the operation of the committee, they can do so. The Standing Orders Committee will consider that and we will report to parliament with any proposed amendments that the Standing Orders Committee agrees to.
The government is not prepared to accept and support this motion as it stands for the reasons I have just articulated.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of members of the public who are here as part of our public tour program, and students from Amanbidji School, accompanied by Mr Reg Robinson. I have been told that this school is 72 km south of Victoria Highway and 170 km west of Timber Creek and 455 km west of Katherine. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, this motion relates to the call for a review of the conduct of the estimates hearing and associated allocated hearing time frames for ministerial portfolios. The assertion of the opposition is that the time allocated to such portfolios as Chief Minister, Treasurer, Health, and Employment, Education and Training is insufficient; and that the inability to question senior public servants directly inhibits the transparency and accountability of government through the estimates process.
The contribution of the Leader of Government Business in its tone was welcomed; the content superficially seemed to be supportive of the position put by the opposition. However, I was surprised, and should not have been, to find that even though the words gave the appearance of support, I could not find the strength of character to support the motion, if I heard correctly. I cannot understand why not. The purpose of the estimates process is to ensure that government is accountable. That being the objective, the purpose of this motion is to allow for a comprehensive review. In his contribution, the member opposite said that such a review is under way and that adjustments have been made. Therefore, I cannot really understand why this motion would be resisted by government.
The intent of it is to ensure that that central objective is strengthened. You have not had comments from members of the opposition and Independent members that completely can the whole process. We have provided support; we recognise that there is some merit in the new format and we welcome those different aspects that have been brought in under this new government - now in their second term. There is room for active and open debate to find a method that is suitable to the entire parliament - not skewed in favour of government.
We have opportunities during Question Time to ask questions of ministers. It is an immensely clumsy and inefficient means to find the answer to issues of concern. To be honest - and we all know this - it is rather embarrassing at times to be a part of that process because it descends more into game playing than a genuine means to find out something. It has been described as theatre for the ugly. It can be dissatisfying for anyone who wants to really find out what is going on and to hold government accountable. Ministers stand and deliver. They seem to have no constraints on the amount of time they are able to take to spin the particular line, whereas opposition has a limited time frame to pitch a single question. As we know, in that context the minister is able to wander widely and, generally, as far as they possibly can from the answer that has been required in the opposition’s question. That aside, we have that mechanism through Question Time.
Estimates is a completely different process. In the contribution by the Leader of Government Business, the tempered language that was used created the impression that everything was hunky-dory and we are all going to get along well together: ‘Leave it up to us and we will sort this out. We will have a look at the submissions that may come in’. In the midst of that, there was this sense of: ‘All right, you have access to senior public servants but let us be reasonable about this, sometimes the questions you ask are a bit delicate, and so there needs to be a mechanism for a minister to come in if the matter becomes excessively political’. The politics generally happens here. There is generally some politics between the shadow spokesman and the minister concerned at estimates.
However, when you want further detail and a greater and deeper understanding of strategies of government, you need full and unhindered access to the senior public servant. If we raise this idea of ‘We have to protect them because the nasty opposition may embarrass the senior public servants. We will only let them go a little way before we pounce in and start to put up a smokescreen to prevent deeper scrutiny’, then we are not dealing with the central objective which is to ensure that government is truly accountable.
Accountable - you need not be afraid of that. It is a difficult thing for any person in any sphere of life to be accountable. The responsibility we have in this parliament is to be accountable, particularly a minister - accountable during Question Time in a very inefficient and unsatisfactory manner, just by the nature of the way we conduct our business. Estimates is a different matter.
I welcome the tone that came through in the Leader of Government Business’s comments. In fact, he said little. He said that this motion would be rejected, which compromises the central objective to ensure that there is true accountability. I cannot help but feel, as anyone who watches this process, that it is more about public relations than it is about accountability and fact: ‘Let us just see how far we can go to create the impression that government is accountable without fully allowing accountability to be affected’. That seems to be the objective. How far can we go to create the impression?
For a government that is fixated with public relations as its priority strategy, you have achieved that objective. You have created an impression that there is a whole new creature out there called the estimates process. There never was such a thing. Have we heard that mantra pumped out there time and time again? Yes, there was such a thing. It has changed slightly, the badging has changed. Pepsi and Coke, both colas, put them in unmarked glasses and you would hardly tell the difference. What we have is a different process by virtue of its name. Yes, the system that was in place before was not called an estimates process, but it was a similar process, different name.
There was another difference which is welcomed by the opposition and a position which was taken up by government whilst they were in opposition and that is to have a system whereby the opposition member or the Independent member could ask questions of the senior public servant. That is now available and that is welcomed. In any comment that has ever been made on this process there has been no comprehensive criticism of that. It is just the level of access and the tendency of ministers to want to control that access. It is not too difficult to read what is going on there. Sometimes there is a well qualified, very committed, senior public servant who would really like to be involved in a process where we could talk openly and honestly about the issues that are of real concern, without treading across the political line and incurring the displeasure of the minister. It is palpable at times to sense that awkwardness, that desire to talk openly and let us conduct our business in an open way so that we can make the Territory a better place, and the reticence and the fear of stepping over that invisible line and to protect the minister.
That whole culture could be improved if we are genuine about our objective to ensure that government is accountable. The Leader of Government Business made reference in his contribution of the time he spent in opposition. I similarly spent time as a backbencher in government. I remember quite clearly the position taken by the then opposition with regard to how they would conduct their business once they had the opportunity to do so. That to me is the saddest thing that I can reflect on in my time in parliament. The rhetoric from here to there has not translated in fact. In essence, not at all. What we have had is a focus on creating an impression, and a focus on public relations in making sure that people have a sense, but an uncomfortable sense, that it is perhaps not all as it seems. It seems to be a government that has tended to be more focused on itself, and how it looks, than what it does.
There are the differences. There is a name difference. I accept that. There is a welcome addition of the direct or indirect access to senior public servants, which is welcomed but could be improved, as I have already referred to.
The issue of ongoing concern - if you were genuine in making some changes to allow that central objective to be achieved, that is, accountability – is the time allocation. There is a central difference in the system that was in place before this Labor government came to office, and that was that the minister had to stand and deliver. They had to stand in that position until all questions had been asked to the satisfaction of the one asking the questions, which meant that the minister had to know a fair bit. They had to really be across their brief, and they were right in the firing line. They could seek advice, but they were the ones fully accountable, fully responsible.
I put it to you that the ministers, perhaps in their first term, would have been completely at sea in that scenario because it takes some time, as I can only imagine - not ever having been a minister in government - how much time it takes to get completely across your brief. We have a compromise situation where the minister does all the political stuff, the skating around, and allows the senior public servant to say a bit as long as he does not step over the line and embarrass the minister. We end up in some twilight zone where we are not really able to get through to the heart of the matter.
The time allocation is the concern. This goes back to what looks like something that seems to be pretty good, when in fact you cannot actually deal effectively with weighty matters because the clock is ticking. Easy for government to come back and say: ‘You need to manage your time better’. Come on, give us a break. There are some matters that require a very deliberate and careful line of questioning to try to unravel what it is that is actually going on so that we can make sure government is accountable. That is the objective, is it not? So, that makes it very difficult.
If we have equal weighting of every minister, it makes it impossible to unravel some of the complexities of government’s actions; impossible to do so when you have the Department of the Chief Minister, the department of Treasury, the Department of Health, the department of Education having exactly the same time allocation as, dare I say it, a junior minister. It creates, once again, the impression that you have something, but in effect it is deficient because you run out of time. ‘You should manage your time better’. As I said before, give us a break.
There are some very complex matters that need to be unravelled: education, for example. There are so many threads, lines and issues that need to be explored, weighed and measured very carefully, and that cannot be done sufficiently. The same with Health. With time allocation, we then move, for example with the Chief Minister, I think in the last two or maybe three years, when it gets down to Tourism, which in itself needs time, we have been unable to do it. It is not just a matter of the opposition or the Independent members not managing their time. It is in this area that there is a very reasoned and well justified call for an adjustment to the time allocations. The senior portfolios should have more time.
It would be excessive to even commence this sort of discussion by saying: ‘Let us go back until we are finished asking the questions’, because I am sure that government would be very afraid of that. Let us go to at least an adjustment whereby senior portfolios receive an increased allocation - for example, 6.5 half hours for Chief Minister, Treasurer, Health, Education in themselves so that you have the time to unravel, to decode, and to balance one answer with another.
The estimates process is beneficial for the opposition and Independent members. It is gruelling, though. We come out of it having learnt a lot more about the mysteries of government when you get that tangle about good public policy and politics all mixed up in one with politics seen to be playing the top card all the time. It is the one time when we have a chance to have a little look behind the game and see what is really going on so that we can do our job as well.
That is one recommendation, that there be an adjustment to the allocations. There is something else, too …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, do you mind if I just interrupt you to recognise these people in these people in the gallery?
Mr MILLS: Please do, it is a great time to interrupt.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Casuarina Senior College Year 11 and 12 students, accompanied by teachers. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: Thank you. I have now remembered what I have to say. The issue related to time allocations is also reflecting the central objective - accountability. Has government been held accountable? ‘Oh, yes, we have kicked it off, we have an estimates process, we have been held accountable, people asked us questions, hard ones too, and so we have been held accountable’. No, come on. Put that aside. Have you been held accountable in area X, Y and Z?
If you are fair dinkum, you would do an audit, as has been referred to by the member for Nelson, and I totally agree with him. There are areas that, year after year, receive no attention because of the restricted time allocation. You are unable to deal with certain areas where government should be held accountable. You do not need to be afraid, government. You need to be more afraid, I would suspect, of never being able to be asked the question. You might get away with it time and time again, and manage the public relations well enough to get re-elected, but, at the end of the day, it is actually about people out there. It is not about you and your political fortunes. It is about doing your job properly. That is what this is about.
Another proposal, echoing I am sure what the member for Nelson will say if he is contributing, and what the member for Nelson has already said on the public record, is that we need to check what has not been covered so that we can ensure proper coverage of all aspects related to government, so that we can be certain the job has been done well, we have acquitted our responsibilities, and government also has been held accountable, so that honesty, openness and transparency can actually mean that.
I noted the Leader of Government Business’s words, so did the Leader of the Opposition, that you were calling and inviting the opposition to ‘make a submission and we will look at it’. I have been around long enough to know what that means. Nonetheless, I will take you at your word. We will make a submission and put it to you so you can have a look at it. The words that have been spoken in this debate, I trust, would also be weighed up in that contribution. In fact, the words being spoken now, and the Leader of the Opposition’s words that are on the public record, would be counted, I trust, as contributions. Do we have to write a letter so that you can have a look at it and write back? Do it through the proper process? This is parliament, these are contributions, and contributions have been made before. I trust that those contributions are weighed and measured properly to ensure that objective is properly prosecuted, that government is held accountable, and opposition and Independent members can be satisfied they have done their job.
In the event, after due consideration of all the contributions that have been made by opposition and Independent members, not just in this debate but in previous debates, if there is any further information that the Leader of Government Business seeks, the door is open. We are more than happy to make further contributions to assist the Leader of Government Business in advancing this issue. Taking him at his word, he said that he would take these words, these contributions, and duly consider them. If further information is required, I am happy to provide it. I have the assurance also from the Leader of the Opposition there would be no problem with that whatsoever, as we are all interested in doing our job properly and we will make our contribution.
All that said, I will finish with what I sadly reflected on at the beginning: I thought the Leader of Government Business’ words indicated support of this motion. All of his words gave the impression that he supported the motion. In fact, look at those words. If you get Hansard and read those words, you will see …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Mr MILLS: Oh, you are kidding! I should have been looking.
Mr WOOD: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Blain to complete his remarks in accordance with Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: I only have a few minutes left.
Mr Wood: Even though you did not support me last time.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No quarrelling, ladies and gentlemen!
Mr MILLS: You talked about forgiveness yesterday.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ten minutes, member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: That is fine. The essence of the words that were spoken by the Leader of Government Business, notwithstanding the rider that came along with it which contradicted the substance of the words, was supportive of this motion. This is what galls me; that you can have platitudes and nice talk which indicates an understanding, support and a dealing with the central objective of accountability, etcetera. Once all that is packaged up into a nice little bundle, presented before the parliament, even with the sincere - or apparently sincere - gesture of saying: ‘I would like to give both of you a shot so that you could probably persuade me’, I have been here long enough to know that that is bull.
At the end of the day, all those words were uttered; he gave a nice impression - just as the estimates process gives a nice impression - but they will reject it nonetheless. Why? Because it comes from the opposition. Why? Because the central objective of allowing government to be accountable is not really their core business - public relations is. They would just like to keep it just the way it is: create an impression. ‘Please do not ask the hard questions; do not allow opposition or Independent members to unravel the mysteries of government because we would like to stay in government. We would like to keep as many people as possible in the dark so that we can play our little game and ensure that our central objective is served’ That is getting re-elected.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support what the member for Blain has just said. I might do it in a more prcised form, however I do go along with the sentiment which he has enunciated. The motion is just asking the government - not telling the government to do anything. The motion is that the Assembly review the conduct of the estimates hearings and associated allocated hearing time frames for ministerial portfolios. That does not set the government up so that it has to do what the review says; it is just simply asking that the government review the way we run the Estimates Committee.
I have spoken on this a number of times. There are a couple of options when it comes to allowing some of the portfolios to eventually get an airing at the Estimates Committee. If the government is not too keen on increasing the number of hours that we sit, one way is to do an audit, as the member for Blain mentioned, and look at those portfolios that have not been questioned over the last few years, and change the order in which those portfolios are put forward. Some of those areas - for instance, the port - go to the top of the ladder at the next Estimates Committee, not put at the back of the pile. I do not think we have ever had a question on the port yet. We spend an awful lot of money down there, and it would be nice to know how much it costs every time it falls down - when the steel pylons crack or the crane is not put in the right place because the light poles are too high. It would be good to question the government on those sorts of things. Why do we have three gates to the port and why is the new one actually too high to reach the trucks that go past, etcetera.
It is our job to ask the government those sort of mundane questions. However, we have not reached that stage, unfortunately. It would be good if we looked at turning the portfolio numbers around according to those ones which have not been questioned. That might achieve, at least once every two years, a chance to get some of those areas covered that we do not cover at the moment.
The other way around is, as the Opposition Leader has put in her motion that we weight different departments according to how many portfolios they have. I know that she has Chief Minister, Health, and Employment, Education and Training. I would probably without much doubt throw in Planning and Lands or Planning, Lands and Infrastructure or whatever that huge department is, because it is probably the one department that spends a huge amount of money. It covers nearly the entire Territory, affects all of us and we really need to fully question the minister on the workings of that department. That will be hard, I suppose, because someone is going to have to make up their mind as to which departments should get a higher rating and which should not. We have that other option …
Mr Stirling: I will give up some Treasury time.
Mr WOOD: Oh well, Treasury, you know, we can …
Mr Stirling: I will give up some of my seven hours.
Mr WOOD: As I said, we can look at it the other way including some of the individual portfolios that have not been questioned over the last few years and put them at the top of the table.
The second part of the motion was about the inability to question the senior public servants directly and this inhibits the transparency and accountability of government through the estimates process. I know they are only little things, but much of the time you are questioning a public servant and all the time there is a requirement to go through the Chair or through the minister, and it goes back to the public servant. Just for the sake of efficiency, if you are rolling along on a series of questions to the public servant there should be a blanket approval that you can keep questioning the public servant. Perhaps if you change the topic you were discussing with the minister, then it goes back through the Chair, through the minister, and so on. Every time you ask the public servant a question, it is not very good time efficiency if you have to keep going through the minister.
I believe there is some merit in that. It would only require a bit of commonsense from the Chair or if we are not likely to get that, then perhaps we need to put it in the guidelines for the Chair so that it is something that does not require debate, but is taken as part of the standing orders for the Estimates Committee.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe it is a good motion. It does not require the government to stick its neck out. It is just asking for a review, a public review, and we can all put our two bobs worth in. In the meantime, the government can do some numbers, see how long we spent on various departments, see which departments have not been looked at, come back to this little review with those figures, so that we can have an educated debate on the process. You may come up with a better solution. I welcome the opposition’s motion and think it should be supported.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, although my colleague, the member for Blain, indicated that I may not be summing up, I thought I would if only to restate just a couple of matters and also to avoid the potential accusation that we were not interested enough in this which is why we did not sum up. I can assure you, and other members, that we are very interested in this motion, which is why we brought it to the Assembly.
I thank both the Leader of Government Business and the member for Nelson for their contributions. I thought this debate was conducted in a pretty good spirit and was pleased, frankly, that the Leader of Government Business agreed with me when I said we are all getting better at this estimates process and indeed that is the case.
The challenge for us all is to get even better at it so that scrutiny exists properly in the Northern Territory of the government’s budget. We all know the shortcomings and it is fair to say based on this debate at how it can be improved. I hope, as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, the Leader of Government Business will take an estimates review back to that committee. I know he has indicated that he will not agree to the motion, and although I disagree, I certainly understand his position on that. What we in the opposition will do is forward a copy of my contribution today as well as that of the member for Blain. I also invite the member for Nelson to do so. We will get the Hansard and, as a courtesy, bundle it up, and send it to the Leader of Government Business, addressed to him as Chair of the Standing Orders Committee. At the same time, I will say to him in that letter that if he requires any other information by way of a submission or what have you, then I would be very happy to assist the Standing Orders Committee undertake its functions, as I am sure all members would.
I take it, Mr Deputy Speaker, from what the Leader of Government Business said, that there will be some sort of review. I notice that he said that the government would review various things in terms of checking - and I do not know the process - with CEOs, I think he mentioned other senior public servants, involving the media, because government always goes through a process, apparently, after every Estimates Committee of hearing from those people as to whether there are any issues arising from Estimates Committee.
I ask whether the minister would be prepared to table in the Assembly those comments from either the public servants and/or media. If he is not willing to table them here, would he be prepared to provide the bulk – no doubt it can be in summarised form if there are any confidentiality issues there - of the comments from those whom government is consulting to the Standing Orders Committee because all committees need all of the information. I would hate to think that the government would be saying on the one hand: ‘Oh, yes, we reviewed the process’, and yet on the other hand not being willing to share with this parliament or the Standing Orders Committee the effect of its review because that is keeping one side in the dark. For an issue as important as this, I do not think it would be the right thing to do. We are happy to assist. We will bundle the Hansard from today and send it to the minister. In the letter I will ask if the minister is prepared to share any of the information from his own review, and ask what time frame the committee might have in terms of coming up with some changes.
I am not so nave to believe that the government will adopt all that we have suggested. That is politics. I am, surprisingly perhaps, a little hopeful that we will not go to next year’s estimates process with exactly the same formula as we did this year. I remain reasonably hopeful as to that. There are some changes. We accept that we will not probably get all of them, although we would encourage government to listen to us in that regard, but even some changes, minister, would be appreciated.
With those comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you and we will not be taking the matter to a vote.
Motion negatived.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move – That this Assembly -
This is an important debate and an opportunity taken by the opposition to effectively put some questions to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training so that we can hear, on behalf of those who are concerned within our community, both here in the Top End and in our remote locations, exactly what government has planned on their behalf.
My contribution will not be long, but it will contain some questions which I hope provides a prompt to the minister to provide a justification for the implementation of the plan to significantly alter NTOEC.
This is done with a disturbing background in mind. It was before the last election. The Gregor Ramsey review into secondary education had been conducted. Interviews were held across the Territory. The whole review process was kicked off with great fanfare, and then it seemed to go quiet, though those of us who were watching knew that this review was in process. Government seems to be very excited when a review is conducted because it buys them time. They know that their chickens are going to come home to roost because this review will arrive, and then they are in the uncomfortable position of having to make some decisions.
In that whole process, the review then was presented to government and they sat on it for some time. It was not until some heat in the community that ultimately it was released, unlike a number of other reviews that have disappeared into the black hole of government. This one did come out after some time - a very important and a very public review.
In that review was the clear message by those conducting the review that NTOEC should change substantially, so much so it was assumed to be no longer identified or recognised as NTOEC. The government was mute in regards to that recommendation. However, notwithstanding what the minister may say here, and has said before, there was enough information flying around the networks to indicate that a clear indication in the mind of government – or certainly the department, I hope that is the mind of government – that plans were well afoot to implement the recommendations of the Gregor Ramsey report.
I give great credit to all of those who are supporters of NTOEC. They recognise the work that has been done from the Open Education Centre. They made their protest loud and clear. They conducted their business professionally, and they made sure that all aspects of that issue were properly brought to the fore so that there could be a proper debate. Once the heat increased on that issue, and the opposition called upon the government to make it intentions clear that it would not close NTOEC down, the CLP’s position was it should be shown due respect and further strengthened.
The government, ultimately with its eye on the polls, with its eye on an election date, recognised it would be strategically valuable to reassure all of those who were concerned by the ambiguous comments of government, that NTOEC is just fine: ‘We will not close you down’, gave them a bit of space. The NTOEC breathed easy. Support warmed for government; at least it was not against or hostile to government. They managed that political issue. People took the sincere words of government as sincere words, and off we moved to the polls.
After the polls were conducted and government was reinstated with an increased majority, another review was conducted. The review was Building Better Schools, developing a new, leading edge distance education model for the Northern Territory. I have had an opportunity to read most of this report, and surprise, surprise, it seems to echo the same recommendations, or similar recommendations of the initial review.
It is quite clear that government now, with their election in the rear vision mirror, and with plenty of mileage on the open road before it – 19 members in the Chamber - can now proceed with its original plans of significantly altering NTOEC. The language in all of this will be very interesting to listen to. I fear that NTOEC will no longer exist as we know it. Government, of course, will not say that plainly. They will say: ‘No, we are going to enhance it, strengthen it, alter it - we are going to do this, that and the other’. There may be justification for some of those aspects but, nonetheless, we need to be front and centre about the breach of trust. You cannot say one thing one day and wait to suit yourself for your own political objectives, and then change your message in quite a sophisticated way - not so sophisticated now the electorate can tell what is going on, particularly those who are affected.
My comments are going to be particularly focused not on the prerogative of government to make changes, to take risks and do things, but the breach of trust - saying one thing at one time and something else later when it suits your political objectives. It is the people who have been affected by this. I have been surprised – moved, in fact - by the strength of conviction of the people who work in distance education. Over my time in education, I have had the opportunity to know some of those good folk who work in NTOEC. They are truly dedicated teachers and, in many respects, are not fully understood. Anyone who is familiar with the teaching profession knows it is an immensely taxing job, coupled with this driving sense of duty and obligation to provide a most important service: education.
There are those who understand a word that is not often used these days - vocation. It is a vocation. There is a deeper satisfaction that comes from teaching and serving in that way than a lot of other occupations that are not easily transferable or understood by those who have not served to meet the needs of those in this context, that is, education.
Those who endeavour to support educational aspirations of people in remote areas have worked hard and well over an extended period of time. They are to be complimented and supported. That is what grieves me more than anything: I can hear the pain from those who feel betrayed and offended by this whole exercise - betrayed because of the assurance and platitudes that were given before an election which have ever so subtly changed after the election. That is what concerns me more than anything. There will be a number of good people who will feel that all of their investment over an extended period of time has counted for little. I hope in the minister’s comments there will be due reference to that aspect. That is the one that concerns me more than anything.
When I learnt of the timetable that has been provided to those at NTOEC - and there has been a nice little flyer going around telling them what to do - they seem to have been given this process. This is the question at the top of the mind of anyone working in NTOEC: what is the process for the annual teacher transfer round? Make your applications for a transfer. ‘Can I still apply?’ is a question. ‘Yes, DEET will work closely with you, with temporary contract employees, and we will clarify individual status by the end of term three 2006’. This is the process, you will get a memo - they would have received their memo on 24 July - and a month later is the closing date for your application for a transfer. Get your transfer in. Why? ‘We are making some big changes around here’. About three or four days later, information will start to flow.
There has been enough information revealed to those who work in NTOEC to indicate that nothing will be the same again. First, the respect, appreciation and valuing the contribution that has been made. Will the new system the government is wheeling in, that we do not know enough about, improve? There are many who are, quite understandably, very sceptical as to whether this change proposed by government will improve outcomes to those who most need it. Is it the best system? Is it, in fact, not about education but about greater economic efficiencies and greater concerns about the cost of delivering? It is an argument you can run in a narrow frame and satisfy objectives today, bottom line.
With education you must take a strategic approach. I do note, before I leave myself exposed, there are many important aspects that were covered in this review, the Developing the New Leading Edge Distance Educational Model for Northern Territory. I am waiting to hear how the minister is going to implement these recommendations. I need to see, as shadow spokesman for Education, how it all stiches together. I need to be convinced on behalf of those who are concerned not just about their previous contribution, about their current contributions as educators, but more importantly whether the proposed changes once implemented by government will actually make a noticeable difference to those remote students who have aspirations. Will it improve outcomes?
I ask if the minister is considering putting on his old record, that being the one about the new guys, the CLP. Do not worry about that too much if you do not mind because we are oriented towards what lies ahead and you are making decisions, and you are implementing recommendations. I would really like to hear for my own satisfaction, and on behalf of those who will be delivering education, the educators and support staff, and for the remote students and the aspiring families, whether this will actually be delivered, and whether the core objective is to improve outcomes. Please convince me on behalf of all those I have mentioned. I need to be convinced.
I will hear it but I want to be strengthened in my belief that it will, and that it is not about reducing the cost to government, that it is not driven by economic rationalism. That it is not a callous implementation of a policy to serve an economic objective. That it is not, in fact, in a couple of easy moves, to close the show down completely and pass it over to South Australia. I would like to know, too, in the minister’s reply, exactly how many positions will be shed because there have been representations made to the staff there of varying numbers of how this will impact.
How many will be lost from the current operation, removed from it? Will the staffing ratio be a change from 42 to 1 as it currently exists to what I have heard - and I cannot come to grips with - of 68 to 80 to 1? Help me to understand how the new structure is actually going to provide a strengthened delivery. Not just the words; I want to really be convinced. I know that there will be indirect and direct delivery, but will this work?
If it is based on the core principle that it is to improve education, then that argument should run all the way through in a convincing way. But if the hidden agenda is to reduce the cost to government, to the Education department, and hand it over to South Australia that will run counter to the core objective. You can judge it. If you listen carefully you will know whether this is a sincere motivation or an insincere motivation; an educational value-adding or bottom line cash issue.
Tell me more about the contract positions. What is in the mind of the minister with regards to contract positions? What are you doing to add greater security to those who are on contracts, particularly in times like this? What will the ratios be? I understand that many of the staff - I am not sure how many; you could inform me, I hope, minister - have been instructed to seek transfer. Please tell the story after that. What is in the mind of the minister with regard to what that means? Does that mean that you seek a transfer and, as I read it, it appears that we will send you anywhere we choose?
Tell me more about how it will be delivered remotely. Convince me and those concerned that this will strengthen the service delivery end because, as the minister has said, and I agree with these words, nothing happens in education until it happens to a child, to a student. Will this strengthen delivery? I will listen carefully to see whether I am convinced. I do have an open mind. I want to see improvements and if this review is being implemented, be honest: one, you had the intention of restructuring, you called it off prior to the election, brought it back on, put that aside. That is just the ugly business of politics which grieves many in the community, particularly those who are directly affected by these decisions. That aside, will there be improvements? Convince me.
Do you really want teachers to serve remote areas? Of course, the answer will be yes. From time to time, I hear stories that astound me. I cannot believe that the good folk who choose to serve remotely are experiencing such difficult situations. I do not have to hand the name of this community, but I heard during the show circuit of a teacher who had just taken delivery of a bed and up until that point, did not have a bed to sleep in. We were talking about the end of the first semester. I know what it is like in education; your focus is trying to deliver. I know that there would be obvious interest in that. I will investigate that further and pass it on to the minister. If that be the case, I do not know what to think.
Those who do work remotely need a proper connection, but, as I alluded to before, if you are in the vocation of teaching the last thing often is your own concerns. It is the concerns first and foremost of those you are endeavouring to affect positively. From time to time, I hear of these stories and it troubles me. I know that at times there is that issue where a teacher may not openly complain about their lot.
The questions, I presume, have been taken by the minister. There are these and many other questions that I would like clarified. More importantly, as I will restate in closing, the proposition that this will improve education remotely needs to be put convincingly so that I, for one, can be satisfied that the government’s intentions are genuine. I look forward to the contribution of the member for Greatorex who previously held the shadow responsibility for education, particularly at the time when the Ramsey review made the recommendation to government, which government did make moves on to then restructure NTOEC. The member for Greatorex will make an additional contribution with regard to NTOEC.
I look forward to the minister’s contribution so that we can be assured that the objectives will be achieved. I also restate that I need to hear from the minister, on behalf of those who have been affected by this decision-making process, which has been interfered with by the political objectives, which has offended and confounded many teachers who have been affected by this minister’s decisions, and to the way that these decisions have been made. With these words, I look forward to the minister’s contribution.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are there any more speakers? Minister for Employment, Education and Training.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): It would appear not, Mr Deputy Speaker, in which case, I have great delight in responding to the member for Blain.
Probably one of the greatest points of difference between 27 years of Country Liberal Party government in the Northern Territory and five years of this Martin Labor government is the quality of education and the quality of those services delivered throughout the Northern Territory.
When we came to power five years ago, we identified the improvement of education right up there as an immediate and top priority for this government. We promised all Territorians a quality education no matter who they were or where they lived. In five short years, the transformation has been remarkable.
Today, we have an education …
Dr Lim: Yes. From zero to Year 12 in five short years. Zero to 12 in five short years. How remarkable. They are brighter than the minister himself.
Mr STIRLING: … system leading the nation in its clarity of purpose and delivery effort, most especially evident in our service delivery to remote communities – and the member for Greatorex is giving me a pain in the head, because he was part of the government that refused to deliver secondary education to remote indigenous students because they were a racist government who did not …
Dr Lim: We will talk about your lying shortly.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr STIRLING: … believe that black kids could be educated!
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! He should withdraw that because he is calling the CLP government racist. He should withdraw that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, please cease. What is your point of order, member for Greatorex?
Dr LIM: My point of order is that this minister got up and labelled the Country Liberal Party racist. That is out of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw that statement.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. … a member of the government who refused to provide secondary education to remote indigenous students. You can put any colour on that you like, but you refused point blank to spend as much as one cent on secondary education to remote indigenous students. Why? Because they were remote, or because they were indigenous? Let the people decide that. People suffered, and people were denied their rightful access to education services under the CLP government.
Unlike the previous administration, we believe in delivering education services to the bush, and furthermore, we are absolutely determined to bring those outcomes of indigenous kids living in bush and remote communities up to national benchmark levels. That is our pledge. This is our aim. That is our commitment. Unlike our predecessors who would not even deliver – would not provide secondary education to these kids.
After 27 years in power, the CLP never delivered proper secondary education to the bush, never graduated so much as one indigenous Territorian with the NTCE in their own community. Only in the late 1990s, offered minimal vocational education training outside of Year 11 and 12 to students in Darwin, Palmerston and the townships. Initiated, but never implemented, never looked at, the Learning Lessons report. They stripped the regions absolutely bare of any autonomy, any delegation, any regional decision-making power. That was just a snapshot of the many failures of the CLP in regional remote education.
In the last five years, we have had to work doubly hard to overcome that generation’s neglect: preschool programs for the first time are being delivered to small remote communities through the mobile preschools program; the program of employing 100 additional teachers in the system above and beyond the formula; primary school students and teachers now receive support services at unprecedented levels in areas such as special needs, ESL, PE, sport and student wellbeing.
As the member for Nhulunbuy before we came to government in 2001, I argued for 11 years straight - 11 years straight - that at Galiwinku, Shepherdson College, Elcho Island ought to have a special needs teacher. Guess when they got the first one? After this government was elected. It was after this government was elected before a special needs teacher was sent to a remote indigenous community that just happened to be my electorate. Of course, many of our remote schools now have those special needs teachers. School counsellors are available for the first time ever in remote and regional areas. The implementation of middle years will see remote schools extend their service delivery to Year 9. The new staffing formula, when in place, will see remote schools staffed in exactly the same way as urban schools.
I do not shy away from the fact that we have an enormous amount of work still to go to extend equal education opportunity to regional and remote students. But, my God, we have made a bit of a start on it in five years, compared to our predecessors after 27 years.
The unimaginable is now a reality, and nothing serves as a better example than the 25 young indigenous students who graduated through NTCE last year in their own communities. It was 2003 before we ever saw one, 25 last year, and on track to better that this year.
In 2002, the Chief Minister announced commissioning of the most significant review of secondary education since self-government because the Territory’s Year 12 results were lagging five percentage points behind South Australia and more compared to the rest of Australia. Primary schools and special education provision were regarded highly, but confidence in secondary education was lacking, and there is no hiding from that. It was cited as a reason why Defence personnel were reluctant to transfer to the Territory, and by executives of major companies who were asked by the Chief Minister why they would not put an office in the Northern Territory. They said their executives will not come; they do not trust your education system.
The review undertaken by a team led by Dr Gregor Ramsey reported - perhaps a little unexpectedly - on widespread stakeholder dissatisfaction with the services provided by the Northern Territory Open Education Centre. Such was the level of dissatisfaction, the review went as far as recommending closure of the NTOEC by the end of 2005. It is now August 2006; the NTOEC remains open. The motion put before the House by the member for Blain stands wrong and deserves to be corrected on that point alone. The motion says:
We never did any such thing. In August 2006, it is still open. We chose not to adopt the Ramsey recommendation because distance learning happens to be an absolute key part of delivery of education in the Northern Territory, and a service which we believe required us to strengthen and overhaul and modernise rather than close it.
Improvements were needed in the areas of technology, sourcing materials, and service delivery. Contrary to the notion of closure of NTOEC, the government decided to use that recommendation in the Ramsey report as an opportunity for renewal. It presented an opportunity to create a leading edge, distance education service; one that could hold its head high nationally and internationally as well as deliver a quality product for students and teachers in our remote areas.
We are the second most remote jurisdiction in the world after Canada; it is a jurisdiction with some of the most isolated students in the world. We do need to be leading the way in distance education. To this end, we sought the best distance education expertise in the country, engaging Mr Gary Barnes and Mr Phil Buchanan to work collaboratively with stakeholders to develop a leading edge distance education service. Gary had just undertaken a similar exercise in Queensland, and was nationally recognised for his work.
Their report addressed both systemic and operational issues by bringing together NT Open Education Centre, Katherine School of the Air and Alice Springs School of the Air in a cooperative working relationship; implementing leading edge initiatives relating to virtual schooling; development of collaborative partnerships with other jurisdictions; improving the development of quality materials including the use of innovative information technology approaches to teaching and learning; better addressing the needs of indigenous students in remote schools; redistributing and relocating current NTOEC teaching positions to support indigenous students in remote schools; and improving consistency of delivery by ensuring all distance learning home based students have access to interactive distance learning or IDL.
The end product is a leading edge, world-class distance eduction system warmly welcomed by the Isolated Childrens Parents Association, warmly welcomed by bush schools, warmly welcomed by educators in remote communities, welcomed almost by everyone except the CLP.
In focusing on what is a sloppy and ill conceived motion, it is impossible, absolutely impossible, to condemn the Northern Territory government for reversing its pre-election position to retain the NT Open Education Centre because we have not reversed our pre-election position. Take a drive out to Chrisp Street, Rapid Creek, member for Blain, member for Greatorex, you will see the college still there, you will see the doors open, you will see the teachers walking in and the college working as it will be in 2007 and into the future.
Dr Lim: Half of them missing.
Mr STIRLING: If the member for Greatorex had any sense, he would keep his mouth shut because if there is one area he or his previous government has no expertise and no credibility on which to speak, it is indigenous education. Every time he tries to open his mouth he just works me up that little more to remind him of the absolute neglect, criminal neglect, of him and his colleagues in all of the years that they were in government.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, the bloke who never made a mistake in his life, the bloke who never made a mistake in his life. Just did not do anything.
The second part refers to cost cutting and it is quite simply wrong. The creation of a new leading edge distance eduction centre is about providing a quality eduction service to remote Territorians not about cost cutting. Not one dollar will be cut from the current operational budget of NTOEC. In fact, the overall cost of delivery has increased, but will be paid for in part by redirecting resources from within the education system. It is not cheaper, it is more expensive, but it will be infinitely better.
The motion suggests that staff levels will be reduced by half. That is wrong. More staff are being placed out bush. More positions are being created to provide materials and information technology support. A formula change has been proposed which will make sense. Combined with these new positions the result is a nett loss of 12 positions out of an organisation of over 80. The loss of these positions are not in themselves cost cutting because the freed-up resources will fund that placement of teachers in remote locations as well as the materials development unit and the ICT and innovation unit.
The member for Blain’s suggestion that the NT model as it stood was successful is a further indication of just how out of touch he is with the community on this issue. Widespread stakeholder dissatisfaction as reported to Professor Gregor Ramsey all those years ago does not equate to a successful model. When it comes to education, this government is modern, it is progressive, it is innovative. We will continue with reforms to make our education system the envy of Australia. We will continue with our quest to provide a quality education to all Territorians no matter where they live.
I want to pick up this issue of the bed. The show circuit was quite some time ago, back in July. If the member for Blain was approached about a teacher who could not get a bed, or the government would not provide them a bed, I would have thought it was incumbent on him as the shadow minister for Education to maybe ring the office, e-mail the office, speak to someone, or pass it through, or even write to me. The fact is, I do not believe there is a teacher out there in the system who does not have a bed. It certainly never came to our attention. No attempt was made, to my knowledge, through either the department or to our office, to bring this to our attention.
It is the sort of issue we do get when we go to places like Groote Eylandt or anywhere else in the Territory where someone is not happy with their furniture. This government has placed $500 000 a year for remote and small schools to purchase and continually improve the furnishings in remote teacher housing. So, if the member for Blain actually did hear this story as opposed to making it up in here today, he had a responsibility to bring that to my attention, or explain why he did not.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! By way of explanation, the report I gave was that I heard that a bed had been supplied.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?
Mr MILLS: I did not make that up. I would never make that up. I am also saying that I only heard that it had been supplied. So why go and tell him so that …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr MILLS: The point is I have been misrepresented. I did not make that up.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, in the first place, the member for Blain says that there is a teacher that cannot get a bed, and now he is telling us that a bed was supplied, or he heard that a bed was supplied. So if he is not making it up …
Mr Mills: Yes, after the end of the first semester.
Mr STIRLING: … he has a pretty great good story to tell. It is a pretty perky story.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Blain, you will resume your seat. There is no point of order. Minister, continue.
Mr Mills: I am offended by that.
Mr STIRLING: I am bemused. Mr Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion moved by my colleague, the member for Blain, and perhaps ask the minister to think about how he dares claim success in a vacuum. Every generation, whether it be people or governments, builds on the scaffold of the previous generation.
Mr Stirling: You have no credibility.
Mrs Miller: Go and have a pill.
Dr LIM: This minister …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment. Member for Katherine, I ask you to withdraw that statement.
Mrs MILLER: I withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: The minister thinks that he was able to produce Year 12 students out of thin air, that in the five years he has been in government, he has been able to get students doing Year 12. I say to him: walk cautiously, talk cautiously. Every success his government has, including the railway and the Darwin port, whatever it maybe, scaffolds on the success of previous governments. It is no different with education. It scaffolds on the success of previous governments. Otherwise those children would not be there to go to secondary school and to achieve Year 12.
The opposition moved this motion because since the election of 2005 there appears to be a dismantling of the Northern Territory Open Education Centre. It appears that this government is hell-bent on removing the NTOEC overtly or by stealth. I recall that when the Ramsey Report came out in 2003 or 2004 this government sat on it for nine months or even longer - I cannot remember the time line exactly. People were concerned that this government kept sitting on this report. No one was able to get any information out of it. Eventually, through a lot of pressure from the AEU, me, and many others, the report dribbled out and eventually we received the whole report.
Contained within the report was the recommendation to close the Northern Territory Open Education Centre. Not only was he going to close it, but then outsource distance education to South Australia, which hardly had a very successful record on distance education. In fact, the Open Education Centre of the Northern Territory had a much better record of success with their students.
In 2003, they had nearly 1000 students, nearly 40% of whom were indigenous students doing quite well. In fact, the NTOEC produced several top NTCE students out of the top 20 from each year of our Year 12 graduates. Indigenous and non-indigenous students were, on average, high achievers when compared across the Northern Territory. Indigenous students at the NTOEC had gone from low rates of about 16% success in 2000 to some 70% success in 2003. Finally, some 80% of indigenous students studying Stage 2 courses were achieving satisfactory results. You have to admit that NTOEC was achieving its targets well beyond what this government ever gave it credit for. When the Ramsey report came out, you had to question how they got the data, and what data they ignored. What I have just read out obviously indicated that the NTOEC was performing a lot better.
Through my representation of the NTOEC, meeting the staff, inspecting the premises and being shown around, what they do, including their distance education modules through interactive communication with the students, they were able to achieve what South Australia could not. After a lot of clamouring, and representation, and the government read that it was going to lose the support of the teachers at the NTOEC, and the families and students of the NTOEC community, it politically made the choice to not touch the NTOEC. It did not give any guarantees that it would enhance it, but it did say, yes, we are going to keep the NTOEC going.
In the last 12 months, yes, it is going. You can say a person is walking with two good legs, or, if you cut off one leg you can walk with a leg and a pair of crutches. Well, the NTOEC would like to be able to run, and it needs two good legs to run. To tell the staff that they best get themselves transferred out of the NTOEC or they might miss out causes a lot of concern. The staff, for their own financial security, are going to chose that option: transfer out in case this government closes NTOEC and they find themselves high and dry without a job and with no teaching post to go to. Of course, they will get transferred out.
As late as June of this year, the minister, and several other ministers of this government received letters and e-mails from staff at NTOEC expressing their concerns, telling them that almost half of the teachers would be cut back, yet they still have to handle some 3000 subject enrolments. So, there is a significant drive by this government to slowly push for fewer numbers of teachers within the NTOEC. It is not by attrition really, it is by subtle coercion. When the government talks about, ‘We have to have more teachers out in the bush to teach’, funny that, when you think indigenous students would have to have a lot of English as a second language teaching, yet the number of ESL teachers has also been significantly reduced. So what is this government trying to achieve?
Then, when you see that the Katherine School of the Air and the Alice Springs School of the Air have continued to receive good support from this government, nothing has been touched. In fact, they have been enhanced significantly, and good on them, they should be. The NTOEC, on the other hand, is slowly being emasculated. If that is not a signal from this government that the NTOEC is facing certain demise, I do not know what the signals mean. In his response, the minister has not been able to explain why there has been such a huge reduction in staffing levels. Why a model that has been working so well, as demonstrated by the statistics that the college has produced each year in their annual report, why such a good model is going to be substituted for something that is untested? The minister, in the early days of this debate three or four years ago, misquoted information. He quoted that the school had, at that stage, some 70% indigenous students. I do not believe that he has ever resiled from that publicly. He has said it in this Chamber - I have heard him admit to his error - but he has never withdrawn that statement publicly. Maybe he needs to do that also.
The school community in Central Australia and stations around the Territory have written in saying: ‘We do need the NTOEC; it is doing a great job with our children’. Even learned bodies such as the Darwin area school educational leaders and ANTSEL, the Association of Northern Territory School Educational Leaders, have been supporting the functions of the NTOEC, saying that it is definitely required. They have criticised the minister for misrepresenting the statistics and have tried very hard to correct that in a public way. The minister would do well to correct his erroneous representation of NTOEC in a public fashion, to at least show some goodwill towards the college. If it is true that he is not going to close the NTOEC, then he needs to say it in a way that is believable, because his very actions belie the words he says, that he wants to keep the NTOEC going.
The only way that NTOEC can perform well is to ensure its staffing levels remain at a level that makes it not only just functioning, but to continue to improve and provide subject development which it is very good at. There is no point my reading out lots of letters of support from parents and the centre’s community. The minister would have received all those letters himself, if not, at least through his priority education group.
Definitely, when you cut out some 29 out of 50 teaching positions, it will jeopardise education of indigenous children, without a doubt. The loss of 29 positions is now confirmed with the department and, so, it is a reality, is it not minister? It is a reality. Nearly 1000 students with nearly 3000 subject enrolments will now have to be managed by less than half the teaching staff that they had. You say: ‘We will send the teachers out bush’. I understand only two teachers have taken up that offer. Where are you going to find the rest?
The numbers of indigenous students have slowly increased each year as the NTOEC continues to make great successes and positive inroads into indigenous education. I commend them for their action. Whenever the minister gets up, he slams the Country Liberal Party for neglecting indigenous education. Far be it from the truth that education has been provided to indigenous students in the best way that could possibly be provided in the years past. Through that, it has provided this minister with a body of students that he can continue to educate and get into secondary and, hopefully in years to come, tertiary education. This is what I would like to see: indigenous students achieving tertiary education as lawyers, doctors, professional people who could serve the Territory.
A recent e-mail was received from concerned people about the shrinking of the numbers of teachers. Each time they write to us, the numbers decrease. Minister, I am saying to you that until and unless you are able to halt the attrition that you have caused at the NTOEC, no one will believe that you are not out to dispose of the NTOEC in time to come. Yes, it is still operational, yes it is, but half the rate that it was doing just over 12 months ago.
Mr Stirling: Not true and you know it.
Dr LIM: I pick up the interjection from the minister that it is not true. I also warn the minister that his interjections …
Mr Stirling: If that is your maths I would be frightened to be in your room, 12 out of 80 makes up …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, minister!
Dr LIM: I also warn the minister that his interjections are being heard by staff at the NTOEC. They will decide for themselves whether the minister is telling them what is believable or whether they will choose to believe what they see around them at NTOEC: colleagues have left, their rooms are now vacant because there are no staff in there, where activities that used to be run industriously at NTOEC are now not being done.
The minister was talking about remote area teachers. Since you only have one or two teachers offering to go, what is going to happen to the rest? Where are they going to recruit them from? I repeat lastly that because the Schools of the Air at Katherine and Alice Springs have not been touched, you have to ask so why it is happening to the NTOEC? If the minister does not do it, I suppose he has three years to try to patch up the trauma that he has caused for the teachers. Hopefully, from this minister’s perspective, they will not hold a grudge against him in three years time and vote him back in again. I would be very fearful of that. I do not think the people will ever forget this.
This is something that this government has promised. They will promise whatever they have to promise to ensure that they regain government. They did that and now once it is over, as the member for Blain said, it is behind them now, they can do whatever they like and NTOEC will be closed and there will be a loss to the Northern Territory. You have done so well in the past. Why on earth would you want to get rid of something that has done so much good for the Territory to replace it with something that nobody knows will work? That is the problem: you do not know whether it will work. Minister, I am sure you will continue on your path relentlessly and not caring about what happens to the teachers at the NTOEC. That will be a tragedy.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I only hope the minister did not hear what I had to say in my statement because I asked some very direct questions, not as a means to personally criticise the minister, but as a means of assuring that the decisions that this minister has made will, in fact, work. I can only assume that he did not take the time or have the respect to listen to my contribution, which I gave on behalf of Territorians. The reply contained no reference to any of the issues that were raised.
The one that was referred to was a passing reference I made to information that I had received during the show circuit that a bed had finally arrived at a remote location, and I was accused of lying. That was the core response to the debate that had been presented to the government in good faith, the core response.
Mr Stirling: Dealing with your lies? You did not even know what your story was.
Dr Lim: Can the minister withdraw that because …
Mr Stirling: You did not even know what your story was. One minute they did not have a bed, the next thing they did have a bed.
Dr Lim: Get the minister to withdraw that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, minister.
Mr Stirling: You changed your story.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw the accusation of lies.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw the reference to lies. It was misinformation and mischievous, I think.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue, shadow minister.
Mr Stirling: Get all indignant. Come in here with your nonsense, making it up on the spot.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The minister needs to desist. You have told him to withdraw; he has withdrawn. He continues to interject with nonsensical comments and calling my colleague misleading and mischievous, the whole works.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Greatorex. There has been a level of interjection on both sides. I ask the shadow minister to continue.
Mr MILLS: Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an issue I will now pursue and, for the purposes of demonstrating that I am actually concerned, the issue focuses the attention of the minister, which reveals the shallowness of the minister’s actual concern about matters that affect people.
The broader comments that I made were in relation to the public policy to which he refers, which has received no defence or no articulation in this opportunity provided in this parliament, none at all. It was a shallow and personal defence of some problem that the minister obviously has with something that has happened in the past. I made reference in my comments, as my colleague did, that the issue here is one that is a decision of government and it is a responsibility of government, perhaps through arrogance they are not particularly concerned about addressing, and that is: please convince. Please strengthen our belief that these decisions will improve outcomes. We heard nothing of that, nothing at all.
The government is more interested in its own agenda, which is to preserve, control and to deal with some problem that the minister carries from the past. If that is the way this minister would like to live his life and conduct his business, so be it, but there are other issues that really do need to be considered in this debate. They have not been given the respect or the attention of the minister who once, in opposition, would have been deeply aggrieved. I am sure he would have had his veins fair popping had he received the same sort of treatment I have just received from the minister. Now he is sitting in government behaving in precisely the way that so deeply offended him when he was in opposition. That is what offends me more than anything. Shame on you, minister.
Mr Stirling: If someone told me they did not have a bed, I would have told the minister, I tell you.
Mr MILLS: Excuse me! Just so that it is clear: if you want to read the Hansard, minister, and get this clear, I will not abide an accusation of lying. The report was during the show circuit someone came to me and told me that they had finally, after a whole semester, had a bed supplied. That is the issue.
Mr Stirling: That is not what you said the first time.
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Check the Hansard.
Mr Stirling: I will have a look at the Hansard.
Mr MILLS: You shallow grub.
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: You shallow grub.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am deeply offended and seek a withdrawal.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take the point of order. Shadow minister, you must withdraw that. I ask you to withdraw that statement.
Mr MILLS: Oh!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shadow minister, if you feel you have been misrepresented, you can seek to make a personal explanation.
Mr MILLS: Oh look, I am not going to. I appreciate the offer, but it sits on his conscience.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that -
The Darwin ‘poo shooter’ is causing major problems in Darwin Harbour. It has taken this government five years of doing nothing to allow this situation to continue. As was said earlier by my colleague, the member for Katherine, this is a core function of government: providing adequate power, water and sewage services for all Territorians. However, the ‘poo shooter’, which discharges more than 3 mega litres of sewage into the Darwin Harbour every day, is a major problem that this government must address.
I understand as of today, as of this instant, 1.2 billion litres of sewage has already gone into the harbour since this government was re-elected in June of last year. Every minute, as we talk, it continues to discharge into the harbour. It was a core function, but what has it done about it? Nothing very much, as far as I understand.
Let us go through a little practical demonstration. Anyone in this Chamber goes to the toilet - having flushed it, it takes some several hours - at the longest, 24 hours - for the flush to go through to the harbour. It first of all goes to the pumping station where the macerator churns and breaks up the solids creating a fine particulate suspension. That is untreated and it just goes straight through to the harbour. No antiviral, no antiseptic, no chemicals of any kind are added to the discharge. It is no wonder that people are concerned about what could possibly happen if one comes in contact with that discharge in the harbour. Indeed, somebody who was diving in that area came in contact with the sewage outfall and became sick. When you were asked if you tested the water to find out whether that was the cause of his illness, apparently no samples were taken immediately after that incident. I do not believe that sampling is done on a regular basis. There is no expectation by Power and Water, nor the government, for regular sampling of the discharge. If it is done, Power and Water and the government looks forward to receiving the information, but there is no prerequisite.
Strangely, though, since the events when the scuba diver became ill after exposure to the outfall, there has now been an exclusion zone placed around the outfall. Why would you put a 1 km exclusion zone around the outfall if there was no concern? Obviously, there is a concern, even though the outfall is below the low water mark, therefore, you expect that most of the outfall would be drawn out into the ocean rather than stay within the harbour. Nobody knows for sure.
The government continues to ask people not to swim or recreate around that area but, if you do fish in the harbour, not knowing whether the fish has been past or through or foraged at the point of the outfall, it is okay to eat the fish because it is going to be all right. Nobody has done any testing on the fish, as far as I know. If they have, I have not seen any results of that either.
What is interesting, though, is that on a radio program recently, a couple of fishing enthusiasts were interviewed by Julia Christensen about the possibility of contamination of the fish caught in that area. There were expressions of concern that maybe the fish may not be as healthy or as clean as it could be. Recently, I understand that an Australian Navy diver went into the area to do some investigation, and what happened was …
Mr Wood: He will never swim again.
Dr LIM: Thank you, member for Nelson, he will swim again. Apparently, they found what was thought to be an unexploded mine was a buoy that had sunk and had come to rest against the ‘poo shooter’ in the harbour.
I will read a quote from this transcript of the ABC News with Michael Coggan on 17 July 2006:
Remember that Lieutenant Shane Day was dressed in a full diving suit so that he could not come into contact with the water. Getting back to the ABC News:
The reporter went on to say:
Matt Coffey, an environmentalist, had a voiceover on the same program:
The reporter went on to say:
It is not the damage that is causing the contamination. It is the outfall; it is the stuff that is coming out of the pipe that is causing the contamination.
The reporter also went on to say that the Navy diver will continue to receive treatment in Sydney. I understand that he was going to get some hepatitis A, or B perhaps, injections as well as tetanus shots when he returned to his base - wherever he came from. Obviously, there are issues there. Even the Navy divers in their fully sealed diving suits were concerned about their health and decided they must do something about that.
We know that the sewage will continue to flow there every day. We asked the minister some time ago - in fact, in 2005 - what was happening, and he said: ‘Everything is done and we are ready to go’. However, when he was pushed for more answers, said: ‘Oh, hang on a minute, we still need something like $40m to $50m to do some more work digging under the Darwin city’. Nobody has been able to come up with exactly what needs to be done. As the minister said in 2005 in response to my question, all sewage upgrades from Dinah Beach to allow closure of the Larrakeyah outflow have been completed. A new rising main from the Frances Bay Pump Station was completed in 2003. Yet nothing has progressed since then and that is what is concerning many people. There seems to be no motivation to continue the development of processes to ensure that the outfall eventually closes.
In 1998, we had a report from the Power and Water Authority through Transport and Works, as it was then, on the Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant and Associated Facilities, Assessment Report No 26, published December 1998. PAWA had indicated that a new sewage pumping station associated with a rising main between Ludmilla and the Larrakeyah outflow would be built at the wastewater treatment plant. The effluent pipe and the clean water pipeline route along Gilruth Avenue to Conacher Street is mostly on land within the Botanic Gardens and further pipeline will be built on land controlled by the Darwin city. That was in 1998.
In 1999, in an environment report by Power and Water, it says that major elements of the Darwin sewage strategy were going to spend about $25m. It was under the former minister, Daryl Manzie, who was the minister who provided the funding to get this under way. It was to stop the discharge of disinfected macerated sewage to Darwin Harbour at the Larrakeyah outfall, upgrade the Ludmilla Treatment Plant in two stages, upgrade the East Point outfall, and provide up to 12 mega litres of treated effluent per day for reuse.
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: The minister is not in her seat and she should be out of the Chamber altogether. If she cannot stand to listen to me that is fine. She can get out or put her earplugs in.
Ms Scrymgour: Oh, stop bleating. Get on with it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr LIM: Obviously the minister has some issues with this because it is her …
Ms Scrymgour: Get your attention back …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister!
Dr LIM: … environment portfolio that also has to be responsible for the water quality and outfall that flows into Darwin Harbour. The fact that it was her department which issued the licence is also very pertinent. I wonder whether another licence has already been issued as the one I have in my hand here expired …
Ms Scrymgour: How many years were they in power?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: The minister is particularly sensitive. Me thinks she protests too much. She rattles on, obviously pretty touchy and sensitive about the whole thing. This licence expired on 31 July 2006. Strangely, reading through this closely, it allows Power and Water to discharge into Darwin Harbour. It does not require regular reports by Power and Water as to the quality of the water surrounding the outfall, although it says that the Larrakeyah macerator must be within certain parameters which are detailed. However, I have never seen a report from the Environment minister as to whether her department has monitored the water, or demanded of Power and Water the quality of the water around that area.
I also note from this licence that while the government has legislation about litter, this licence says nothing about litter that is discharged into the Darwin Harbour by the ‘poo shooter’. Who is responsible for the litter? There is legislation which says we must not litter. We have a government agency that gives another government agency a licence to discharge sewage - not litter, just sewage.
Do you want to silence those people out there?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Could the members for Millner and Brennan please lower your voices? Thank you.
Dr LIM: We have a government agency that provides a licence to another agency to discharge sewage into the harbour. Nowhere in this licence do I see that the department for the Environment allows Power and Water to discharge litter into the harbour, yet we know that litter is discharged daily into the harbour and no one takes any responsibility for it.
The minister for the Environment does not particularly care that plastic bags are floating around causing damage to the fauna of the harbour, and Power and Water says: ‘We do what we can, but we cannot put a sock around it to sieve off the plastic bags because it will stop everything else’. Interestingly, a sock has recently been installed at the mouth of the ‘poo shooter’, and how they decided to avoid blocking off the ‘poo shooter’ is something that only time will tell.
It is important for the government to get off its backside and get something done with this ‘poo shooter’. A five-year plan to get the sewage diverted is taking too long. In 1999, the Country Liberal Party government committed significant funds to the project and it has stalled because this government has done very little since. That is definitely not good enough.
I gave you the time sequence of 1998, 1999 and then, for some reason, the whole thing just went into abeyance. Obviously, when there was a change of government, there was some loss of impetus about this project. In 2003, there was another report from Power and Water which dealt with Stage 2 of the plant upgrade that is required and then - I cannot read this because of the fax - one of the conditions of the licence requires Power and Water to enhance a hydro-dynamic model of Darwin Harbour. This will enable the movement and fate of discharges in the Darwin Harbour to be predicted in a wide range of conditions. A model was then supposed to be provided by, I suppose, the university, but that has since been delayed as well for a further three years. So, in 2003, things were supposed to have happened. They have not happened and now it has been deferred to 2006. So before the end of the year, I trust this model will be available.
For the next two years, nothing was mentioned about the sewage outfall. Again, you ask the question: what has happened? Why has there been a lapse of this project? Just before the next election – lo and behold! - we get another report from Power and Water reviving the issue of sewage services.
Darwin continues to grow. It is now 100 000 people. The government is building the waterfront premises. The development is going to have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people living there …
Mr Henderson: Hundreds and hundreds of thousands? I don’t think so.
Dr LIM: No, hundreds or thousands of people living at the Darwin waterfront precinct, which means this government is developing infrastructure that is going to produce more sewage for Darwin Harbour.
Mr Henderson: No, it is not.
Dr LIM: I pick up on the minister’s interjection: ‘it is not’. People are not going to use their toilets ....
Mr Henderson: It is not going through the Larrakeyah outfall. You did not listen to me.
Dr LIM: People are not going to use their toilets living at the waterfront …
Mr Henderson: Didn’t you listen to my supplementary answer after Question Time?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: So they are not going to flush their toilets to the waterfront. They are going to get in their car, drive to parts elsewhere in Darwin where they can go to the toilet. What a load of hogwash, well, more than hogwash. Anyway, there they are, developing a dormitory complex at the waterfront and therefore producing more discharge into the harbour.
I will not take up much time, but there is a real problem. This government has allowed the whole matter of the sewage outfall in Darwin Harbour to continue. It is a broken promise, without a doubt. Until this government refocuses, comes back to its core duties, which is to provide essential services to Territorians, it will just not be able to progress any further.
Finally, if you talk to people who have continued to monitor the fate of Darwin Harbour, they can tell you that there are problems there. When Defence and Health people are concerned about it, even talk about the member for Nelson, who is very caring about it, then I believe this government has to do something soon.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support the motion that the Assembly call on the government to immediately take steps to shut down the Larrakeyah Sewage Outfall, more commonly known as the ‘poo shooter’, which is pumping over a billion litres, and fast rising, of untreated sewage into the Darwin Harbour each year. I am also calling on them to redirect the sewage from the Darwin CBD to the Ludmilla Sewage Treatment Plant in accordance with the plans already described in several Power and Water reports. As I am talking to you, Madam Speaker, I have the Darwin ‘poo shooter’ on the web, just rolling over with that number increasing considerably every second …
Mr Henderson: I am glad you are enjoying it. I am glad you are enjoying it.
Mrs MILLER: No, I am not exactly enjoying it at all actually. The visual impact would not be good.
The government is responsible for the provision of essential services, and one of those important services is sewage. Talking about sewage is not very sexy, but it is a very fundamental service that has to be looked at closely by government, so to speak, and a service, if it is not provided to the highest standard, can cause serious health problems for the community.
The Larrakeyah facility has been in operation for many years, and at the time it was built, the population was considerably less than it is now. The density in the Darwin area has escalated considerably and, of course, that proves to be of a major impact to that Larrakeyah facility.
The Country Liberal Party recognised the need to prepare for the future needs of Darwin, and had budgeted in 1999 for plans to redirect the Larrakeyah outlet to Ludmilla. As we are all well aware, Labor was successful at the 2001 election and, in their wisdom, chose not to go ahead with the redirection. As I said earlier, this important essential service that is not visible to the voters was pushed to one side and government chose to spend money in areas that were much more visibly attractive to the voters in Darwin. However, you can choose to ignore sewage for only so long, and that time is well and truly here.
It is fortunate that the concerns about the Larrakeyah outlet were brought to the attention of government and to the public by a diver who happened to be filming around that area a couple of months ago. He must have got a huge surprise and been very alarmed when he first sighted the outlet and the volume of un-macerated effluent pouring into the Darwin Harbour at that time, and rightly so. It is most unfortunate that that diver became ill after this particular dive.
Since that time, there has been a lot of media about the Larrakeyah outlet, affectionately called - and I will probably continue to call it the ‘poo shooter’, because it is much less of a mouthful. Everyone can relate to that name and, of course, it has more impact on the community than calling it an outlet.
The media has helped to keep the issue of this very important essential service alive in the public’s mind and to ensure that they are aware of the importance of redirecting this waste. The public is now aware that there are 1000 Olympic size swimming pools of untreated waste dumped into Darwin Harbour every day - a huge volume by anybody’s standards. They are also aware that, at times, the macerator becomes jammed or clogged by foreign objects and then the effluent is pumped in its raw state into the harbour until the macerator is maintained and re-established. Not a good sight and, certainly, not a situation that is acceptable.
In June, I visited the area of the Larrakeyah ‘poo shooter’ and talked to a resident who has lived in that street for many years. He told me that the odour from the outlet has become increasingly worse over the years, to the point that one resident living in the street now does not have her windows open when the wind is blowing off the ocean, and her health has been affected by the odour. This street is in a prime location and the residents who live there have made significant investment in their properties. The odour from the outlet detracts from these properties, not to mention that the outpour from the outlet is directed into the harbour in front of these properties.
It is also not a good image for tourists and visitors to the fish feeding at Doctors Gully. That facility has been a very popular attraction in Darwin for many years, and for visitors to realise that the sewage outlet for Darwin is just out from where they are standing, knee deep in water feeding fish that have highly likely swum through that outlet area, is not a good image for Darwin. This very popular tourist area needs to be protected.
The Harbour Master has implemented a 0.5 km exclusion zone around the outlet at Larrakeyah as a precaution. That is a wise decision, but his very action of doing this highlights that there are some serious issues with the outlet. The ban that is enforced under this inclusion includes fishing, swimming and scuba diving. In other words, the ban will also prevent any person from taking any samples from that area of water or sand. Therefore, it will be up to government to do the testing of that area and we will just have to trust that that testing is done.
When the Minister for Essential Services or the minister for the Environment will possibly be responding to this motion today, I ask them to include in their response just what monitoring of the Larrakeyah outlet has been, and is, taking place. I have had various reports, but would like it to be clear to everyone and to provide assurance to the Darwin community on what testing is taking place and how regularly that is done.
When the media first raised the problems of the Larrakeyah outlet, government defended their position of not going ahead with the original plan to transfer from Larrakeyah to Ludmilla saying that the cost of redirecting the outlet was some $40m and was too expensive. Government is the biggest business in the Northern Territory, and good business always has forward planning in its business plan. That is the only way business remains viable by careful planning. Therefore, I ask government to tell Territorians just what its plans are for the Larrakeyah sewage outfall, and to provide a time frame for its redirection to Ludmilla.
Mr HENDERSON (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, government will not be supporting the motion that the members for Katherine and Greatorex have before us now. It is interesting, in responding to statements by both members this afternoon as there is an old saying about never let the facts spoil a good story. I know the opposition is enjoying this and thinking this is a great little story, and they have coined the cute little phrase about a ‘poo shooter’ and have certainly captured the public’s imagination. They are enjoying and relishing every minute of this debate.
We also have a responsibility as parliamentarians, particularly in the areas of public health and the environment, but more importantly in terms of public health, to tell the truth and not to exaggerate the risks. Public health is something that we should not be using as a political football.
As Minister for Essential Services, I have had on the record that it is not acceptable in 2006 to be discharging untreated sewage into our harbour. We do have a strategy. The allegation is that somehow since we came to government in 2001 we have abandoned the strategy and thrown all of the money into the waterfront project. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since we came to government in 2001, I am advised that we have spent $7m progressing the Darwin Sewage Strategy of which the closure of the Larrakeyah Outfall is but a part. Out of the $14m that has been committed to date, we have an estimated cost of about $40m to go. The allegation that we have not spent any money and we have abandoned it and taken our eye of the ball, nothing can be further from the truth.
What I find quite remarkable about both contributions this afternoon is that there was no mention of the report from the department of Environment on the quality of the water in the harbour in the region close to the outfall which was released just earlier this month. This was a publicly released document. I assume it is on the Internet. There was media done at the time. I have a copy of the minister’s media release here. It states: ‘Darwin Harbour fish and crabs given the all clear’. With all of the glee surrounding this debate from the members of the opposition, no mention at all …
Mr Wood: Excuse me, Madam Speaker. Minister, when you are finished with that would you be able to table it? I have not seen a copy of it.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely, I will table it. It is a public document. I will be quoting from it.
No mention at all of the testing and the sampling that has been done under very strict Australian Standards for water quality. The member for Greatorex is always in here deliberately misleading any number of positions saying the fish have not been tested. Well, the fish and crabs have been tested. I will go to the results of that testing. AFANT has been briefed. AFANT was very happy with the briefing, so I do not know what sort of networks the CLP have left these days to inform them about community groups and broader groups about the issues of the day and whether they are happy. Obviously, they have not been speaking to AFANT in the lead-up to this debate here this afternoon.
We all have a responsibility in the area of public health to ensure the highest standards are met at all times, and also to not unnecessarily and irresponsibly put concerns in the minds of the public. We all have a responsibility to do that. I suppose the best thing I can say about this is that to not mention this report is very mischievous and downright disingenuous at the worst.
I will go to the executive summary because the summary states that this report has been compiled in response to public concern about the discharge of macerated sewage from the Larrakeyah outfall into Darwin Harbour, and the potential impacts of the discharge on recreational values and the health of harbour users. The report makes an assessment of the health risks potentially posed by the Larrakeyah sewage outfall and is a snapshot based on water quality testing on wild catch fish and crab sampling undertaken in June and July this year. I will go to the results of that in a moment.
The report has a series of charts which show where the outfall is; and where the testing of it was done in 17 different sample areas from the immediate vicinity around the harbour. For those boffins amongst us, there is a table here of all of the samples, the amount of E.coli and other matter in the water. I am not a scientist, but for the boffins amongst us who want to go through all of that to check that the department has not gilded the lily, all of that is there. There is also a series of graphs in this report which show under National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines where there are microbes in the water, or faecal coliforms where the water needs to be treated at various points, and minuscule amounts were detected in the water. All of the scientific data is there, as well as the report on that data.
There was not one mention of that in the gleeful dissertations provided by the members for Greatorex and Katherine in their discussion here today.
I will go to the report and quote from sections of it:
So the government has taken this issue very seriously, particularly the public health aspects of it and, very quickly, my colleague the minister for the Environment commissioned a report.
If we go to the testing benchmarks that were applied for recreational water quality:
It gives some details of the documentation. We then go to Methodology and Results. I will not read the whole document but what the document does say is that:
…
If we go to the wild fish and crab testing, the member for Greatorex made an assertion that fish have not been tested. Twenty seven fish and crabs representing 11 species in total were caught by Fisheries officers from several locations near the sewage outfall. Cooked and uncooked samples were tested for E.coli using a NATA accredited interstate laboratory. The results were:
That is the assessment and we still have the member for Greatorex in here, very irresponsibly, raising concerns about whether the fish in our harbour and in the area around the outfall are safe to eat. He should have known that this report has been presented and made public. There has certainly been media discussion and comment around it.
The other part of the report goes to Sanitary Inspection - Larrakeyah Sewage Outfall and Recreational Waters, and the results are:
The overall sanitary inspection risk assessment finding is ‘low risk’.
In terms of the public health issues, which are the core of the concerns that the minister for the Environment and I had when this issue was raised, government very quickly commissioned a report to assess the public health risk. That report has come out and said that there is a very low risk, and that the fish and crabs taken from the harbour are safe to eat.
I find it extraordinary, in this motion this evening, that neither of the members opposite chose to mention that that report had been completed and those were the results of the report. They just want to continue to have their fun with this particular issue and continue to raise concern in the public mind.
In regard to the outfall itself and the status of the Darwin Sewage Strategy, as I have said, since we have come to government we have spent $7m progressing that particular strategy. Since the strategy commenced, approximately $14m has been expended. As I have advised this parliament, and as the Power and Water Corporation made a statement in the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee on 23 June, that is in estimates, we have just had a debate about estimates, the corporation’s chairman confirmed that work was continuing and it is estimated that, on the current program and the work that needs to be done, the final closure of the outfall will occur in around five years time at a cost of some $40m to complete that particular part of the program.
The majority of the work completed to date involves sewer reticulation upgrades in the CBD, Frances Bay and Parap areas to cater for increased developments and the diversion of the Larrakeyah outfall, plus progressive modernisation of the existing Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant. I can advise members that there will be further money expended this year in upgrading Ludmilla to take the 10% of the total outfall into our harbour from Larrakeyah to Ludmilla.
The major works remaining to close down the Larrakeyah outfall encompass expansion of the Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant and a tunnel to divert sewage from the outfall. There are planning issues and engineering issues that need to take place to route the tunnel.
So, for the opposition to come in here and say we have abandoned the strategy - we have not done anything, all the money has been piled into the waterfront, and that is why essential infrastructure is not being upgraded - is nothing but arrant nonsense. To use public health concerns as a lever for running that political argument is pretty dangerous and very irresponsible of the members of the opposition.
The member for Greatorex said that there were still ongoing concerns about health risks. The only ongoing concerns about health risks will be if the opposition continues to run the line that there are concerns about health risks, in spite of the report handed down that says there are very low public health risks, and that is why we have marked the site of the outfall and placed an exclusion zone around it. That is a responsible thing to do, I have to say, and it should have been done a fair while ago. However, it is all about risk minimisation and saying to people, ‘you should not go diving in this area’. Certainly, if I knew there was a sewage outfall in that area, I would not go diving there either, and I would like the authorities to let me know that that is the site of the outfall.
It is all about risk management and minimising risk, rather than saying that it is dangerous and there is a significant risk to public health in that area. Of course, the closer you get to the actual discharge point the least the dilution rates are and the more risk there is. However, in the general use of the harbour, it is totally irresponsible for the opposition to run that particular line. The member for Greatorex says there are health risks; he is wrong. I have to say I am astounded. I encourage the opposition to continue to run the line that we are running infrastructure down to pay for the waterfront and the waterfront is a bad thing. There has been consistent opposition to the waterfront from the day the government announced that we were going ahead with this program. There has been consistent undermining at every single step of the way. Now the waterfront is being blamed for sucking up government money, while my colleague, the minister for Infrastructure, every time in Question Time explains that we are going into deficit budgeting to fund the public components of the waterfront whilst the capital works program, the infrastructure spend of government, continues to increase. However, as I said, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
We do not support this motion by the opposition here today. I condemn the opposition for their ongoing campaign to scare the public in regard to the recreational use of Darwin Harbour and the quality of the fish and crabs caught in Darwin Harbour. That is a very irresponsible tack to take. I would like whoever is going to respond, in summing up this motion tonight, to apologise to members of this Assembly, for running the line they have in spite of the scientific evidence that has been collected, analysed and published that states that there is a very low risk to public health in swimming and recreation facilities in the vicinity of this outfall. I challenge whoever is speaking here in response tonight to acknowledge that the fish and crabs that are caught in Darwin Harbour are safe to eat.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): You have me, minister, but I am not speaking in response, I am speaking in general about the whole motion.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion. The reason I support it is for the very same reason you started off your speech, minister; that you believe in this day and age it is a disgrace that we put raw sewage into our harbour.
We need to go back a little in time to see why this issue was first raised. It was raised because there were people diving near a sewage outlet …
Ms Lawrie: No, it was raised in 1971.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: It was.
Mr WOOD: I have not got more than three words out! The reason this was raised was because divers did not know where the sewage outlet was. One of their complaints was that this was not marked, and …
Mr Henderson: It is now.
Mr WOOD: I am very happy for that. That is part of the reason it was raised.
Mr Henderson: And it should have been done a while ago, I said that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: This will be very hard to get through being so disjointed. I will not know where I am.
Madam SPEAKER: Please continue, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I will go back to where I started. The reason this debate was first brought forward was simply because of complaints from a diving company that there was a sewage outfall where raw sewage was being put into the harbour and there was no way that anyone would know where that was because it was not marked. The other reason was that on inspection of that site large amounts of plastic and other materials were also being put into the harbour. This motion is effectively saying that we need to do something about that, that is, putting raw sewage into the harbour.
I understand that it has been put into the harbour for many more years than this government has been in existence, but time has moved on and we need to change that. This government needs to do something more urgently about it, not wait another five years.
It surprises me that when you look at regulations for shipping under the Australian Maritime Safety Authority that there is a total ban on plastics being dumped from a ship or a boat; no plastics can be thrown into the sea. No garbage is to be discharged within 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. When it comes to sewage, under an international convention that Australia signed, with ships over 400 tonnes for instance, sewage discharges will be restricted as follows: untreated sewage may only be discharged at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land; comminuted and disinfected sewage may only be discharged at a distance of more than three nautical miles from the nearest land. Sewage is defined as drainage and other waste from any form of toilets and urinals; drainage from medical premises; drainage from spaces containing live animals; or other waste waters when mixed with the drainage defined above.
It seems strange to me that in Australia we still have one rule for ships which would obviously dump a limited amount of sewage from a ship, but we seem to have another rule for what we do from the land where we pump billions of litres of sewage. Whilst that might be an historical fact, this motion is trying to say: ‘Let’s not wait the five years, let’s look at changing it’. I know at the time when this was raised, the federal Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Greg Hunt, made the statement that there is $1.6bn of funding under the National Water Commission for water infrastructure upgrades across the country. He said he will support Power and Water or the Territory government in any application to the government’s water fund.
Mr Henderson: It does not fit the criteria. We have tried that.
Mr WOOD: I would be going back to him and saying: ‘You said it; put your money where your mouth is’.
Mr Henderson: We have done that. I will talk to you about that later.
Mr WOOD: All right. Whatever we might think about the history of this sewage outfall, it would be good if the government could try to expedite the changes in it.
The other issue with the whole matter of sewage into Darwin Harbour is that even though the plans are to take it to Ludmilla, all we are doing at Ludmilla is killing off the E.coli but we are still shoving a huge amount of nutrients into the harbour. You could say that the harbour is big enough to take that, however, in this day and age when we are talking about water recycling and better water usage, should we not be looking at something a little more lateral? We use it at the Marrara Golf Course and at the Marrara sporting stadiums. Should we really be starting to think a little more in line with the thinking today that we have to reuse our natural resource water much better than we do at the present time. In Darwin we are basically pouring millions of millions of gallons into the sea.
We are talking about putting an extra one metre on Darwin River Dam to increase the capacity of that dam. We are talking about, in 10 to 15 years or so, building a new dam at Adelaide River. Regardless of how much water we think we have at the moment should we be thinking of recycling that water? I know people would have heard the discussions about Toowoomba and a referendum was held there. I honestly feel politics got mixed up in that and, unfortunately, when politics gets mixed up in scientific debate, things go out the door. All I am saying to the government is whilst the strategy for some years has been to take this sewage to Ludmilla perhaps it is an opportune time to ask if this is the long-term solution we need to be looking at? It may not be. Has the time come when we really should not be putting sewage in to the harbour?
I might be wrong here, I will be corrected if need be, but I think Larrakia people were looking at putting a prawn farm just up from the mouth of the Ludmilla sewage plant. I do not know; has someone looked at that? This same issue came up with the large prawn farm on the Blackmore River that is now being built. If you look on plans for the Weddell area, there is a sewage outfall just upstream or downstream from where that prawn farm pumps its water. And, as you know, we have large tidal movements. What is the future there? Some of these issues need to be looked at in the longer term.
Even though there have been people making various statements about the sewage outfall at Larrakeyah, it is a good opportunity for the government to ask: ‘What is our policy in regard to future use of sewage water?’ It would be good to hear what that is. It would be an opportune time, minister, to come to this parliament with a statement about the future plans for sewage in the Darwin region, not forgetting Palmerston is growing and you are going to build a new city of Weddell. Maybe we can change that name, by the way, to something a little more catchy, but there will be 65 000 people.
A member: What’s wrong with Weddell?
Mr WOOD: Did you say ‘Warren’?
Mr Henderson: What about ‘Ah Kit’?
A member: Woody!
Mr WOOD: I am not dead yet. You are going to build a city of about 65 000 people. What are you going to do with the sewage? It is an opportune time as part of this debate to start looking at a policy for reuse of water. They are the issues that come from the discussions to date.
Minister, I have not seen that report. In fact, I was trying to get a copy when you announced it was there. I have not seen the report at all.
Mr Henderson: I will have one distributed.
Mr WOOD: I was given some notes that there were some fairly high bacterial counts in the Coonawarra Naval Base area and as far around as the port. I am interested in reading that report to see if that is correct. It would be of some concern if we are going to put the old wave pool around there and we are pumping out of the harbour and there are bacterial counts.
Mr Henderson: There are no …
Mr WOOD: I was given that information, and without any information to the contrary, they are the questions I was going to ask today.
The other issue besides sewage is litter. The member for Greatorex mentioned that there was a sock put on the sewerage pipe. It is not a pipe where the sewage just comes out the end. The actual pipe was blocked. It has a series of about 10 large holes on the side of the pipe, and my understanding is there is only one sock down there, so I am not sure how much material in the form of litter is being caught and whether it is only there to catch a bit of the material to get a sample, or is there some sort of litter trap over every hole in the pipe? If you look at the video, you would see that it is not just a single outlet.
My contribution is basically saying: ‘Minister, it is good that there is a buoy there now. It is good that there is an area which is marked “not suitable for diving”.’ I do not think the statement of full-body immersion applies actually in that area.
Mr Henderson: No, that is why it has been marked off.
Mr WOOD: No, I would challenge someone - that is right, but I am not sure it says that in the article in the NT News. I appreciate that the government, through Power and Water, has done something about that. The litter side of it has to be investigated more. As the member for Greatorex said we do have a Litter Act and in theory, if you know you are pumping plastics, syringes, condoms and whatever into the harbour via a sewage outfall, then there has to be some investigation as to how that material is getting in there. If you cannot do much about stopping it getting in there, then there must be some way of trying to filter it out of the system before it gets into the harbour. That is a fair request in this day and age and there surely must be some ways, either using centrifugal filters or just simply physical filters of different kinds of mesh, to make sure that that sort of material is not getting into the harbour.
Minister, I ask, in your summing up, that whilst I appreciate that one is not going to change this overnight, it would be good if a definitive plan was put to parliament. That is: ‘This is what we are going to do this year, next year, etcetera’ so people know what is going on and they can feel confident there is going to be a definite change. It would be an opportune time to also review the future of sewage water for the greater Darwin region, considering we are going to have another city come online in maybe 10 to 15 years. What are we going to do with that kind of water? Should we pump it into the harbour, and can we use that water better, understanding that it is a resource that we just should not throw away?
Madam Speaker, I support the motion before us. I hope the government will come back to this House with a statement on it.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the contributors to the debate. I thank the members on this side of the House who have supported the motion. I am disappointed that the minister for the Environment did not contribute to the debate at all. I would have thought that this is crucial to good management of the environment of the Darwin Harbour, if not of the Top End in general. I was disappointed with the Minister for Essential Services’ response that it is steady as she goes, he is not going to do very much about it and just gradually plug on over the next five years.
In five years, there will be a total of over 5.4 billion litres of sewage pumped into the Darwin Harbour. That is a heck of a lot of the proverbial in the harbour. When this issue arose several months ago, it caused such national angst that the federal government was embarrassed by the Northern Territory. In fact, the federal Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment offered funding to assist the Northern Territory to get things going. The federal Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment mentioned, and I quote him from the ABC on 30 June of this year:
He was prepared to match dollar for dollar with the Northern Territory to provide funding to get this outfall fixed up. He went on to say:
I am sure the minister will have read Darwin Research Centre’s article written by Peter Murphy …
Mr Henderson: That is impartial, Peter Murphy, huh?
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: … when he said …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
A member: You are kidding.
Mr Henderson: You are a joke.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: … when he said:
… but the answers do not gel.
That is the problem: the government’s response and Power and Water’s response do not seem to match up at all. When Power and Water said: ‘Yes, we have slowed down on the project. Yes, we are embarrassed about it’, this government gets upset: ‘No, everything is on track; we are doing it all right. Everything is going fine’. Nobody believes this government, unfortunately. The environmentalists, the people who are in conservation are saying: ‘We are going to pump another 5.5 billion litres of sewage into the harbour’. That is the problem.
I have not even talked about what is happening in Alice Springs; it is outside the motion. I will not address that. The reality is that this government has taken their eye off the ball. The federal government is prepared to help ...
Ms Lawrie: Oh, really?
Dr LIM: It has been very generous - prepared to help. The minister for Karama is saying …
Ms Lawrie: Minister for Karama!
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Dr LIM: The minister for Karama - that is about all she is - interjects.
The federal government is prepared to help. It is about time that this government got off its collective rear and did something about the Larrakeyah outfall. Darwin expects it; Darwin wants it. The Minister for Essential Services should get on with the job.
As for the environment - I am very pleased to see that the minister is here to listen to what I have to say about the environment - she has to take more responsibility for the Darwin Harbour environment. She has to take more responsibility for the quality of water around there, and ensure that her licence takes into consideration the litter that is being pumped into Darwin Harbour.
On the one hand, we advertise that we have to look after our sea creatures; we must not let them get trapped in fishing nets or allow sea creatures to swallow plastic bags. This government, through its licensing regime for Power and Water, allows litter to be pumped into the harbour, and it is not acceptable. Anybody with any love for Darwin Harbour would tell this government that. I am very disappointed that the government will not support this motion because it is very worthy. Had they done so, they would have won themselves a lot of brownie points from Darwin.
Motion negatived.
MOTION -
Establishment of Independent
Environmental Protection Authority
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I move –
That –
1. The Assembly condemn the Australian Labor Party and the Territory Labor government for –
(a) deceiving Territorians prior to the last election by asserting that they would establish an independent EPA;
(b) leaked documents from NRETA that recommend a ‘preferred model’;
that it is part of NRETA;
the minister will run its paperwork and administration; and
that NT government will fund its functions; and
2. The Assembly instruct the government to remove the word ‘independent’ from all future references to the EPA if this preferred model is adopted.
Madam Speaker, there is not an argument coming from the CLP that there is no need for an EPA because there is, nor that the EPA should be abolished; it should be encouraged and developed. Rather, it is an argument that the current model proposed by the Labor government is flawed, restrictive and, above all, is not independent of government as claimed - rather like the current Clayton’s code of conduct.
If this government was serious about meeting its promises to Territorians, it would establish an EPA that was truly independent, and take the unbiased advice of the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts and develop a model of the EPA that is professionally preferred and not just politically preferred.
There is a real opportunity here for the government to create an EPA that serves the Territory and its natural environment. Once again, here is a big policy position of the Labor government that fails to serve the people of the Northern Territory and instead serves the government. This is a wasted opportunity. This government does not have the courage of its convictions. The talk is all romantic about the democratic and transparent process but the reality is all spin and little substance. This government needs to come good on the promises it made to the people of the Territory. Or are you all just becoming too arrogant?
An independent EPA should be a credible source of information and advice to industry, government and the community. This will assist industry performance and promote informed debate and public participation. What is credible about an organisation that is so influenced by government that it will cause inadequate participation by all other necessary elements? This will ultimately lead to poor decisions and outcomes and creates the potential to lead to real long-term costs for the Territory and for its future generations. There could be members of the public confused and forgiven for thinking that an EPA already existed. It does not. The Labor government may have a proposed model for an EPA waiting for assent. However, in the meantime, why wait? It has already established a proxy EPA. The government has merely renamed the Office of Environment and Heritage the EPA.
If this government were fair dinkum about the process of constructing an independent EPA it would not have undertaken this confusing and completely unnecessary step. Any semblance of independence that this agency had hoped to garner once established is now well and truly sunk thanks to the misleading tactics of this government, and the hopes for its future relationships with industry and the public will be forever strained.
So far, the newly branded EPA has tried to scuttle the McArthur River mine and told us that the Darwin Harbour is free of harmful toxins despite the now infamous ‘poo shooter’ pumping out tens of thousands of litres of human excrement and litter daily. Navy clearance divers needed to be decontaminated after operating near the outflow.
Members of the public who are consuming these reports are under the false impression that the independent EPA, the formalised agency that the government promised to establish, was making these decisions. They would, through no fault of their own, be wrong. This is a prime example of how this government relies on smoke and mirrors, spin and grin to deceive the public. They are deceiving them now and will be deceiving them in the future with the claim of an independent Environmental Protection Agency. To quote a truly independent source, the Independent member for Nelson, whose passion for the environment is well known and documented, described the EPA as: ‘nothing more than a government department hiding behind a dodgy letterhead’.
This government has mastered the art of deception. Unfortunately for them, they cannot harp back to the CLP and look for scapegoats, as is their usual fallback position. This is a decision that will haunt this government long after it has gone. Let us just hope that this deception will not haunt the future generations of Territorians that it claims to represent.
A leaked memo of the government’s preferred model for the EPA’s structure and institutions describes an EPA as ‘a discrete unit within the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts’ where NRETA will provide support and manage the financial transactions of the EPA. A discrete unit is something that is perceived to not be connected to its greater entity but in fact is. Just like the independent EPA’s relationship with NRETA. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, generally it is, and in this case the proposed independent EPA is clearly part of NRETA. Its paperwork, administration, HR management, financial support, and levels of staff are all managed by NRETA.
The debate from those on the opposite side of this House will come down to semantics. What really is meant by ‘independent’? What really is meant by ‘discrete’? What it really means is that you have not delivered on your promise. The project is either too big for you, or you just cannot ease it off the power.
What is on the shopping list of all the ingredients that goes into this government’s recipe for an independent agency pie. Number one: the minister appoints the board. Number two: the minister deals with any industrial relations matters. Number three: the minister gets a daily briefing of just what the independent EPA is up to and, for any major findings, decides if they will be publicly released. Number four: that it is a unit of NRETA, and number five: as such, NRETA runs its finances and its administration, and finally: the government funds its departmental functions.
Here is one I prepared earlier. It is called a government department. This government wonders why the public is sceptical of its intentions and does not want a piece of its independent EPA pie because, just like the government, the proposed independent EPA pie that they are industriously baking looks golden brown on the outside, but inside, it has no filling and is full of hot air.
The nature of the EPA’s reporting arrangements are critical to its independence, yet the measures being proposed by this government heavily impinge on its ability to approach environmental assessment and protection with any real independence. The day-to-day operations of the EPA will be reported directly to the minister and, in the case of major environmental impact assessments, the EPA’s findings will be recommended to the minister for approval or disapproval, yet these findings are not automatically made public.
Transparency and accountability are two of the most important characteristics of democracy and governance. To use the term ‘independent’ for an agency that is transparently anything but, just as a means to give the agency credibility, shows that this government is just keen to tick another box on its election promises, with no thought to the process and the end result.
The whole rationale of creating an agency such as the EPA is to act in the public interest, not political interest. The limitations that the Labor government has placed on this agency are barriers to its ability to perform the duties that the government promised would be the components of its service delivery - mainly its independence. It is easy to be independent when you are not reliant on others for your sustenance, but to remain independent when you are reliant on others, that is a true test, and one that I am afraid this proposed model will fail.
The dictionary definition of ‘independent’ is:
Following this definition of independent, it is not a long bow to draw to see that the government’s preferred model of an EPA does not fit neatly into the term ‘independent’. Perhaps the title ‘influenced’ or ‘restricted’ would suit the model proposed by government better.
An EPA that is not seen as independent by the public, as is the one proposed by this government, will constantly need to overcome fear of retribution in the community if people speak out about issues. This is just another problem caused by the mislabelling of ‘independent’ on the EPA. The EPA needs to take an holistic view in its work, and seek to transcend the political cycle. Under the current model, the EPA is another fixture of the government, and the word ‘independent’ is just fixed to its title to allay the fears of an ever cynical public.
The proposed independent EPA put forward by the Labor government after much hyped community consultation and deliberation is independent in name only. The community groups and individuals who attended these sessions must now wonder why they bothered. Once again, as the Independent member for Nelson said: ‘Nothing more than a government department hiding behind a dodgy letterhead’. Well, I can conclude for the member for Nelson that the letterhead was already printed long before the process began, and despite the misgivings of her own department and the suspicions of the public, this minister, and along with her, this government, will press ahead to adopt an independent EPA that, in reality, is merely a government-dependent agency.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend and support this motion. The motion itself, and obviously I will speak to it, is worth going through. However, this Assembly condemned the Australian Labor Party and the Territory government for deceiving Territorians prior to the last election by asserting that they would establish an independent EPA. How can anyone argue with that? They did deceive Territorians, and they did promise that they would establish an independent EPA. That the government be condemned for the leaked documents from NRETA that recommended a preferred model – well, we all know about those documents. Ascribing a model that describes an EPA that is a discrete unit of NRETA, and that NRETA will provide administrative HR and financial support to the EPA – worthy of condemnation.
The government should be condemned for restricting the preferred model of the EPA with the following limitations, namely, that the minister will do the hiring and firing; the government will pay the wages; the minister will deal with any industrial matters that flow from the EPA; that it becomes part of NRETA, that is, part of a government department; that the minister will run its paperwork and administration; and that the NT government will fund its functions.
The second part of the motion is that the Assembly instruct the government to remove the word ‘independent’ from all future references to the EPA if this preferred model is adopted. Good manners in the first instance, and good governance in the second, demands that the word ‘independent’ be removed from the EPA. This government takes the view that Territorians are stupid. That is not a view I share. Territorians know and are learning about this government’s tricks, and it is certainly not the case, by any measure, that the EPA can be described as independent.
What we have, despite the promises made before the last election, is a Clayton’s model. This is about the third reference I have made to a Clayton’s model in the last couple of days. Clayton represents a lot under this government because they have Mickey Mouse organisations that they have spun to Territorians as representing a particular thing, and yet the reality is quite different. So we have a Clayton’s EPA that does not meet, cannot meet, with the information we know, the promise of the Labor government, namely, to set up an independent EPA.
The minister is on the record. One example, and it is just one that I have in front of me, is from a Stateline interview on 25 February 2005. The minister says: ‘It will be independent and we do not want it to be overly bureaucratic’. Well, the model that the government seems to prefer does not meet those two points that the minister spoke about. So it is a Clayton’s one. We say that if the government was serious about meeting its promises to Territorians, it would establish a truly independent EPA that would take the unbiased advice from the minister and the department, and develop a model that is professionally preferred and not just politically preferred.
We are worried for a number of reasons. In the documents that were leaked, there is clearly no budgetary allocation for the title - and this is one of the documents. The title of the initiative says: ‘A preferred model for an Environmental Protection Agency’. In every column - in 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08, even 2008-09: nil, nil, nil, nil.
Putting to one side that the government is not meeting its promise to Territorians, it is giving us our friend Clayton and, at the same time, actually not committing any money to it. It is quite an extraordinary proposition for a government to assert that, yes, it is independent; yes, it will be funded; and, yes, everyone will be happy. Clearly, that is not the case, and we see it pretty much across the board.
I know we will be talking later about a code of conduct. We remember that the government, prior to 2001, promised a code of conduct and promised that it would have legislative strength. Now, it is the opposition, five years on, which is seeking to implement Labor’s promise. The world is strange at times; this is one of those times. Five years ago, the government, prior to becoming a government, promised Territorians whistleblowers legislation. Five years on - nothing. Again, somewhat strangely, it is the opposition - and we will be talking about this later tonight as well - introducing whistleblowers legislation. And here, again, we have the EPA.
The government has form when it comes to telling Territorians one thing and doing another. If ever there was a document that was a damning indictment of the minister’s and her colleagues’ inability to sell this idea, then this document is it, because there is clearly no intention to make any financial allocation to the EPA. Why is that? Because it is not an independent EPA; it is going to fall under the umbrella of a government department.
The member for Katherine read out definitions of the word ‘independent’. I say again, on any measure what the minister is proposing, or has proposed, cannot be described as independent. Without this level of independence, it will, ultimately, lead to poor decisions and outcomes, and creates the potential to lead to long-term costs for the Territory and for future generations, because we all know the importance of an EPA. An EPA should be independent in operation; it should have a structure that reflects the Territory’s jurisdictional size. It should be given powers to observe, comment and audit environmental protection regulations and regulators in the Territory. It should be given powers to set best practice standards and guidelines.
A memo of the government’s preferred model for the EPA structure and institutions describes an EPA as, and I quote: ‘a discrete unit within the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts’. NRETA will provide support and manage the financial transactions of the EPA. On the one hand, government promised an independent EPA and, on the other, we now know that it will be a discrete unit within government, not unlike the Office of Crime Prevention. The government members have tidied themselves up a bit in the last couple of years but, some time ago not long after setting up the Office of Crime Prevention, the word ‘independent’ was bandied about a bit. The Office of Crime Prevention is not independent; it is a part of the Department of Justice. If the Attorney-General wants to play with a straight bat on that one, why does his ministerial colleague not want to play with a straight bat when it comes to an EPA? Maybe it is illustrative of the conflicts within government ranks at the moment. However, I will not get into that. I digress.
In any case, what a shocking list of all the ingredients that goes into this government’s recipe for an independent agency pie. The minister appoints the board; the minister deals with industrial relations matters; the minister gets a daily briefing on just what the independent EPA agency is up to; and, for any major findings, decides what will be publicly released. If that does not make Labor members feel uncomfortable, I am not sure what will. Labor members come into this Chamber and wax lyrical about the great filters in society and how everything should be open, honest and accountable. They used to include themselves in that and yet they are standing by while their minister decides what information is publicly released from the EPA. Does that not make some of you feel remotely uncomfortable? If it does not, it should.
We know that it is going to be a unit of a government department. As such, NRETA runs its finances and administration and the government funds its functions. The nature of the EPA’s reporting arrangements are critical to its independence yet the measures being proposed by the government heavily impinge on its ability to approach environmental assessment and protection with real independence. The day-to-day operations of the EPA will be reported directly to the minister and, in the case of major environmental impact assessments, the EPA’s findings will be recommended to the minister for approval or disapproval. Yet the findings are not automatically made public. There is no guarantee that the findings are going to be made public.
All the members on the other side whine about what they described as the 26 years of oppression under the CLP. They say: ‘We were never given information’. You were such victims. Well, we are not victims here. Small in number, but we will not be victims. Not like the victims that became Labor although I suppose it is understandable if you were on the losing team for 26 years. For a long time, Labor members had a go at the filtering of information, and had a bit to say about the lack of independence. From time to time one of their more nutty members suggested that there was no democracy left in the Northern Territory.
Surely there is something in members of the Australian Labor Party, albeit in the Northern Territory branch, that based on your own history would make you very concerned about the present model. Forget about the embarrassment of actually promising something before an election and not delivering it, although I assume that that would be embarrassing in and of itself, but are you not at least discomforted by the fact that despite all of your collective bleatings over the years that a minister of the Crown is going to decide what goes out to the public and what does not when it comes to environmental impact assessments and the impact that will have or may have on the citizens of the Northern Territory. I would be very discomforted by that if I were a member of the government.
Transparency and accountability are two of the most important characteristics of democracy and governance - words not often mentioned by members of the government these days. I wonder if they are, well, I assume they are still paid up members of Labor, I do not know. Something strange seems to have happened, or has happened, when they came to government. They do not use the words democracy and good governance anymore. No doubt that is a disappointment to their membership and to their friends.
However, to use the term independent for an agency that is patently not independent just does not give Territorians the assurance and the confidence they need and ought properly have in an environmental protection authority. What it does indicate is the government is willing to go through, tick boxes, and say that they have delivered on promises which they have not. Call it independent, keep flogging it because there is one line in politics that is say it, say it again, say it again. Members of government think if they keep saying it is independent, or time again say to people it is independent and may be they will believe you. Well, you might think, members of government, that Territorians are stupid. That is not a view we share.
The whole rationale of creating an agency such as the EPA is to act in the public interest not political interest. The limitations that this government has placed on the agency are barriers to its ability to perform the duties that Labor promised would be the components of its service delivery, namely its independence.
They include: that the minister will do the hiring and firing; the government will pay the wages; the minister will deal with any industrial relations matter; the minister will runs its paper work; and the NT government will fund its functions. That is not independent. An EPA that is not seen as independent by the public, as is the one proposed by the government, will constantly need to overcome fear and lack of confidence in the community. This is just another problem caused by the mislabelling of ‘independent’ on the EPA. The EPA needs to take an holistic view in its work and seek to transcend the political cycle. Under the current model, the EPA is another fixture of the government and the word ‘independent’ is just fixed to its title to allay the fears of what Labor sees as an ever-cynical public.
Territorians will know the truth. The proposed independent EPA proposed by the Labor government after much hype in the community and after some consultation is independent in name only. The community groups and individuals who attended these sessions must surely wonder why on earth they bothered.
Back to the motion: the government should be condemned for, in essence, saying one thing, doing another, being dishonest, disingenuous. Had it not been for the documents that fell off the back of a truck we probably would not have known as much as we do. It is going to be the case that, increasingly under this government, more documents will have to fall off the backs of trucks because this government does not approve of Territorians getting information from the government.
It is a sad day indeed when we have a government that in five short years has become so arrogant and so believing of its own political spin that we are in a position as an opposition where we need to call government to account to deliver its own promises. The irony and the significance, I might say, of this is certainly appreciated by members of the opposition. It has not gone unnoticed by many people in the Territory community. For obvious reasons, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I had great concerns about this EPA since day one. I support the concept of an EPA, but if it is not independent and it is not seen to be independent, it will lose credibility in the wider community.
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The minister should make her remarks from her chair. I learnt that from the Treasurer. He taught me well in these matters.
Mr Stirling: I taught you a lot, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Yes. The minister said, on 19 October in her media statement - and what I am trying to highlight here is whether the minister thinks I am barking up the wrong tree, I have just taken into account what the government has done. When I read it, I get confused as to what they actually mean. The minister said: ‘The board will oversee the development of the final model, the EPA’. We do not have an EPA, but then she says: ‘The EPA will now …’ - this is in the same media release – ‘… take on most of the functions of the former Office of Environment and Heritage’.
The first thing you would say is: ‘We do not have an EPA, so how can you go and get an EPA to take over most of the functions of the former Office of Environment and Heritage? That is where you start getting the confusion, and that is why I have always believed that this thing has started off where the government wanted to go, not necessarily where the people wanted to go.
One of the classic examples of why I think this government had already made its mind up is the McArthur River issue. We have been told that there is no EPA at the present time. After all, that is why we have an EPA board which has been dealing with a discussion paper in May 2006 titled Towards an Environmental Protection Agency. Discussion Paper, May 2006. Then we have Assessment Report No 51: McArthur River Mine Open Cut Project: Environment Assessment Report …
Ms Scrymgour: Oh!
Mr WOOD: You can always just have a pillow there, minister. … by the Environment Protection Agency. The Environment Protection Agency which does not exist. It does not exist. But it does here, because the government put its stamp on it - EPA, Northern Territory. It told a very large mining company that its mine was not to go ahead, and signed it ‘EPA’. It did not sign it NRETA, which it could have been entitled to, it signed it EPA. But, we have not done it yet because four months later, we bring out a document that says, ‘towards an environment protection agency’. I do not think you need to be Einstein to say we have already got one, because you put your stamp on it in February, and then you told everybody, well we really do not have one, and we would like to know what you think about having one. That is confusion.
I cannot see how the government can say that we are all doing this independently. From an outsider’s point of view, you have already predetermined what you want to do. Even this document, and you would have heard of the document that the member for Katherine spoke about, the so-called preferred model. Even if I had not got a document that fell off the back of a truck, I have this discussion paper, and I went to the discussion group in Darwin. In it, it says ‘proposed structure’. That does not sound like a neutral position. It has one structure; that is the proposed structure.
I was on the Sustainable Development committee. We put out four structures. I asked at that meeting, why weren’t the four structures put there? What was the point in having that committee? It came up with four structures. If someone thought of a better structure, well, obviously put another one there. The government spent thousands of dollars having a committee which came up with four structures, and what is the only one they picked? The government’s one - proposed structure. I do not believe that structure makes a lot of sense, nor is it particularly independent, but that is the only one the people have to look at. I believe that that was a real gap in the discussion about having an EPA.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many things in this motion that we discuss. I could go back over time, and I can read sections from questions in parliament where I asked the minister about this very same thing. I asked questions about the McArthur River EIS, which I stated there, and the minister inferred that I had been misleading the public: ‘despite the misinformation the member for Nelson had been peddling out there’, and she said there had been no misleading by the EPA. We do not have an EPA. Not on 28 March 2006. More confusion; 28 March 2006 is before May 2006, unless the world has gone backwards. How can you discuss an EPA that you do not have? You cannot use it in your media releases. You cannot use it in your statements. You could use, if you wanted to, even an interim EPA, but the word ‘interim’ is not being used here.
An EPA is being bandied around, and if I was a person from the public reading Hansard and I read that, I would presume we had an EPA on 28 March 2006. That is the very essence of the problem here. The government has explained itself very poorly. It is about what it is really doing. I am pretty sure I have seen recently the words ‘EPA program’. Did the government at any stage tell people what an EPA program is? As I have said before, a program is a list of what you are going to do, but the government is not using it in that form. It is using it as a thing, like a body. It is stamping some documents with ‘EPA program’. Well, what is it? I have never heard it used, unless it is an agenda for what you are going to do, it is a program for the future. For some reason, in the documents, you will hear the minister talk about an EPA program. That was a new in word that not many people had heard about and seemed to have to accept as a normal word, unless you wanted to show your ignorance. I do not think many people have understood what an EPA program ever meant.
What I am trying to highlight is that I believe there has been much confusion right from the start about what the government was, on one hand, saying it intended but, on the other hand – in its media releases and its documents – it was coming out with words that already presumed that we had it. If you look at what has been put to the public, what has been put out in the documents, it is very difficult to believe that the government has not already made up its mind.
The only hope we have is the chairman, Gordon Duff and his board saying in the discussion paper:
Input in May 2006!
Oh, hang on, we already have one in February 2006 - what happened to this one? This must have been a …
Ms Scrymgour: It is actually 19 October 2005
Mr WOOD: This one here must have been a - that is a mirage; that was just a misprint:
Shape the future? I believe it has already been shaped. It was shaped in February 2006. We already had an EPA. That is the problem.
It is good that the interim board has gone out asking for people to comment. Unfortunately, there have not been many people attending those meetings. I went to the Darwin meeting and there were probably about 20 people there and, out of those, probably five or six were government people. That is unfortunate. We should definitely be promoting and trying to get this message out about the importance of an EPA to the community.
I notice the comments from the EPA meetings. The one in Darwin wanted to make sure that the EPA was independent. One of the reasons for wanting it to be independent was to make sure that - and I quote:
If the EPA is actually the Office of Environment, and the Office of Environment is handing out licences or making environmental decisions, how can it make an independent assessment of those decisions? That is one of the important reasons the EPA has to be out there. It has to be able to judge what the government is doing just as much as it is going to have to judge private developers. The government cannot be outside the same requirements and rules that will apply to industry. That is why it is important.
In summing up, I believe we should have an independent EPA. I do not think it should be very big in the Northern Territory, because to create a large bureaucracy like the one in Western Australia would be irrelevant. I still believe it should be, basically, directly responsible to the minister only, and their decisions should be made public. The minister should have every right to override their decisions, as long as the public knows that the EPA made a decision and they also know if the minister supported, or not, that decision for whatever reason. As long as that is public, that is the process.
However, I do not believe that it should be out there being the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. I have always said that in a place as big as the Territory, it really should be taking on the big projects, not the little projects.
Minister, I will just give you one other example why confusion reigns. I went to a Development Consent Authority meeting regarding a freezer in the rural area for shark to be used as bait for crabs. That particular container had a motor on it which was causing people a lot of concern because they could not sleep at night as it would come on at night. I went to the meeting. I opened up the documents and here is a response from the EPA. This is earlier this year. We do not have an EPA but we have a letter here from the EPA. What do you think I thought? I said: ‘Hang on. The minister said we are looking at having one’, and in comes a letter from an EPA talking about noise from a container. Even if we had an EPA, do I really want an EPA to be looking at noise from a container on a small block out in the rural area? No, no, no, no. If you are going to start building a large uranium mine out in the rural area, I might expect the EPA to be popping along and looking at it. But those sorts of things, that is the Development Consent Authority with comment from NRETA. That is where that comes from. You do not need the whole EPA to discuss those issues.
The problem really was why were letters coming from the department stamped ‘EPA’ when we do not have an EPA? I do not know whether I am getting old or cynical, or been here too long. It does not make sense. That is what I am saying. I had to explain to people about an EPA. They said: ‘I thought we had one. I got a letter the other day complaining about my fridge making too much noise and it said EPA’. How do you explain this to people that we are hopefully going to get an independent EPA but there are all these letterheads going around with EPA already written on them?
I support the motion simply because I am just stressing the point that the government has done a poor job in establishing the EPA. It has been poor in its public promotion of what it is doing. It has been poor in what it has explained it is doing and there has been no logic in what it is been doing. It is not a logical approach. That is where the confusion is.
I do not think it is too late to change that, but I certainly do not want to see the EPA being the Office of the Environment because while that happens and if that is what the government wants, then I am sorry. The public is not going to wear that. They are going to see it as just a branch of the department and that will not be independent.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, the Environment and Heritage): Mr Deputy Speaker, I oppose this motion on all counts. For a start, the assertions from the members for Katherine and Nelson, and from what I have looked at, are simply wrong. I will go over this a bit slowly and I think that you should stay in here. I will try to speak as slowly as I can and as clearly as I can so that we can get rid of some of this confusion. For too long, both the members for Nelson and Katherine have been running around, they are the ones who are putting the confusion and stirring this up.
Mr Wood: We did not write the paper.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Hang on, member for Nelson. I had to sit here and listen to you go through all your gobbledygook and your queries on what should be a preferred model.
The member for Katherine talked about and described a preferred model for an EPA which she gets from a leaked document. It is quite interesting. During estimates I talked about the leaked document which found its way into the hands of the Minerals Council at that stage, and how that document from the Minerals Council got into the hands of the shadow minister, the member for Katherine, and all the conspiracy theories that prevailed from that. Well, if this is the best the opposition can do as a source of information, they need to try a bit harder.
Checking the facts would be a good start because the leaked document did not have any official status. It was an early draft which did not go to government. Government had already announced that we would establish an independent EPA. The only people who do not like that word, because when they were in government the model they took to the election was never going to be an independent EPA. So, I think both hate the word ‘independent’ EPA.
I decided that we would not take any preferred model out to public consultation. So that model was abandoned, The member for Katherine has been getting hot and bothered over a model that was no more than a draft, which had no status, and which was never endorsed by government in a document which had already been abandoned by the time it was leaked. Please get the facts right. I do not know how many times I have to repeat the process of what we are doing.
In October 2005, I appointed an Interim EPA Board. I will just go back to 19 October 2005, and I have repeated this on previous occasions when the same motion was moved on 19 October. I said, and I quote:
The member for Nelson really needs to listen to this bit, too, and maybe the member for Katherine because she looked up the definition of ‘independent’. Maybe she can find the definition of ‘reorganisation’.
I also talked about the three members who would be part of the interim board. The member for Katherine, at that time in responding to my report in parliament, said:
The member for Nelson responded:
You have form, as my colleague, the member for Johnston, always says to you, member for Nelson. You say: ‘We are confused, I am confused, I do not know what has happened’, and in my report on 19 October 2005, you supported what I was saying. You fully understood that the EPA was a reorganisation of Environment and Heritage and then selectively, you go around your electorate and through the community, when it suits you to play politics with this issue, and tell everyone that it is confusing and what government has put out is confusing.
You have been caught out one too many times with this because you have form on a number of these things when it comes to the environment.
Mr Wood: No, I have not. You have been caught out by the McArthur River Mine.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You can argue all you want, member for Nelson. You have form. You say ‘no’ to cotton and everything else, and then when it suits you, you stand up, you support it to see which way the wind blows and when it blows the other way, then you change your mind and you talk about getting confused. The only confusion that happens …
Mr Wood interjecting
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson. Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You need to start taking a good look at this and working through the facts as you have them rather than …
Mr Wood: That is your document, February 2006 …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, if you could desist.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr Wood: Tell her to speak through the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Deputy Speaker, when the interim board reports to government and when government considers its recommendation, only then will decisions be made about the form and function of the EPA. The interim board released a discussion paper in May 2006, which canvassed a range of issues with regard to the establishment of the EPA.
The interim board has now completed a round of public workshops in Darwin - and I am glad that the member for Nelson actually found the time to attend one of those meetings, that is very good - and regional centres in order to hear from Territorians their view about the form and function of an EPA. Written submissions were also requested by the board. It is indicative of the opposition’s attitude that they would like to ignore the fact, and move motions of criticism and be openly negative about what we are doing. However, not one of the members opposite bothered to attend any of the forums and none of them put in a written submission.
Many Territorians did take the time to attend the forums and 13 made the effort to write a submission. But, tellingly, not a member of the opposition did. I believe that clearly demonstrates the level of commitment to getting this right.
I repeat that no decision has been made on what the final permanent EPA will look like. No decision has been made on whether the final EPA should be brought directly to parliament or through the minister.
I pick up on some of the issues that are constantly bandied around. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Katherine constantly say: ‘Oh, a Clayton’s EPA. You know it is a big sham, it is a Clayton’s EPA’. The government’s EPA is not a sham. We have said very clearly that it will be independent in the advice that it gives. It will be established in legislation and there will be improved services. There is nothing untoward in agency’s officers being part of an EPA. Every EPA around Australia that has a board also draws on the expertise of the agency.
It is the combination of expert scientific advice from the agency and the independent perspective brought by the board that makes the EPA’s work and engenders community confidence. Member for Nelson, you suggested the board source its expertise. If he is arguing that the agency cannot be trusted, then he is arguing for a board to have its own panel of scientists and that would be duplication. That would be the very thing he has argued against, and you have argued against it. When you were a member of the committee, you were saying it would just be another layer of bureaucracy.
The opposition and the member for Nelson are obviously confused. They think that having independence means casting completely adrift from government. Established independence is less about where an agency sits in a bureaucracy and more about its functions and how it reports to government and the minister. The EPA board will report directly to me as minister. It does not report and make recommendations to the chief executive or the department. The role of the EPA and its staff will be to look at and provide expert advice. They will also administer the act. Those are experts that are in the agency or outside expertise if used.
I will repeat that we are at stage one, which I have clearly outlined. It has been bandied around at different forums that I have misled not only this parliament but the whole of the Northern Territory community, which I find quite offensive, because there has not been any misleading. That is quite a serious allegation to make against a person, that I have been deliberately misleading. I take my role quite seriously, and I have said that a number of times in this parliament.
I actually believe the prayer that we say every morning, that we should be acting and doing our jobs in the interests of all Territorians. To hear the members for Katherine and Nelson that I have misled people in the Northern Territory, I find …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! At no time have I said that the member misled the parliament - no time.
Mr Kiely: You can make a personal explanation.
Mr WOOD: I just explained it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue, minister.
Mr Wood: She misheard.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There has been time - no, if we go back in Hansard and look at when we had previous debates on the EPA during estimates and in other areas, member for Nelson, both you and the member for Katherine - the hypocrisy of members of the CLP who stand up here and hold their hands to their hearts and say: ‘Terrible, terrible, terrible government. You are doing this all wrong’. They did not do anything? They lead by example? It just smacks of hypocrisy. They say that it is the record that I have misled Territorians, and I find that totally offensive. I have not, at any time during this whole issue about EPA, misled Territorians.
The member for Nelson also said that the EPA should only deal with major projects. Why should an EPA not comment on all environmental management issues on any development applications ...
Mr Wood: Just keep it small.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, please!
Mr Wood: She asked me a question, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That is what you would want to set with that sort of agency. It is not about just the big end of town or the big projects. The EPA has functions of waste, and water pollution, and waste management; it should be involved in those areas. It is not just about McArthur River mine or those areas that they should be looking at. You have, obviously, forgotten your previous views on that. You said it should not be another layer of bureaucracy, as I said. So, we set up another EPA that looks at major projects and a department doing the same thing but for minor projects?
Mr Wood: Have you looked at my option?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You argued in the past that it should have strong links to the DCA, and now you are saying it should not be wasting its time providing environmental comments to the DCA …
Mr Wood: I did not say that.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: ... on development applications.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Why on earth would an environment protection agency not provide environmental advice?
The member for Katherine talked about MRM and the issue that happened there. She is on the record saying that the MRM decision is crook because the agency is a Clayton’s EPA. To say that it is crook because the assessment was done by the agency is absolutely insulting. I am glad that people in the agency listened to what you people said. The staff of the EPA did a totally professional job. Their job is to provide expert advice to me. They did this by calling expert scientific advice when it was required. They do a professional job, regardless of what structure they work in. They did a good job with the MRM and the first round of the assessment, and they will continue to do a good job. Due process is happening with their Public Environmental Report, so we will see.
I will finish off with reference to part (d) of the member for Katherine’s motion, condemning government for proposing an EPA where, and I quote:
Etcetera. Let me tell you, regardless of the final model adopted, it is the standard convention that there is a government portfolio responsibility for budget funding and employment. Is the member for Katherine proposing that the EPA be established as a self-funding business? That is what she appears to be suggesting. Hardly an attractive or efficient alternative to an independent EPA.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I could keep going but I believe that we have gone through it. This is not the first time that we have gone through this issue of the EPA. It might be timely that when we go to the next step, the member for Katherine, or the shadow minister, might seek a briefing and some guidance through the process so that it is much clearer and we try to ensure that there is less confusion out there. I do not support the motion.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also come into this Assembly each day and believe the words of the prayers that are said. I am very serious about the job that I have and the responsibility that I have as well. I am sure most members here feel exactly the same way. We do not say those words lightly. My commitment to ensuring that the right information comes out of this Assembly is definitely a commitment that I make to the people I represent.
I wanted to make a comment on the minister’s slap in the face that I did not attend the Katherine community discussion. It is just a little difficult, minister, when you have your neck in a brace and you are totally restricted, to be able to attend any particular function. I am very sorry I was not at the community discussion. However, I am certain there were people who represented the Katherine community who had enough to say at that function.
The minister claims that I have stated that she has misled Territorians. Well, minister, do you know something? You have misled Territorians when you used the word independent.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mrs MILLER: That word ‘independent’ has got you into strife …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, member for Katherine. There is a point of order.
Mr KIELY: The member for Katherine can only make allegations of misleading people in parliament by substantive motion. I ask that she withdraw the misleading comment.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, you have accused the minister for Natural Resources of misleading the parliament. Are you able to do that by substantive motion, or are you able to withdraw?
Mrs MILLER: Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister accused me of misleading parliament. I do not see that there is a point of order. It is on Hansard where the minister accused the member for Nelson and the member for Katherine for misleading parliament.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, I am asking you to either withdraw or make a substantive motion to the effect that the minister has misled the parliament.
Mrs MILLER: I will withdraw it and I will reword it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Rephrase, thank you.
Mrs MILLER: The minister has made claims that the member for Nelson and I have misled the Northern Territory community in relation to the comments that we have made in this Assembly and outside of this Assembly. I have not misled them because the minister has used the word ‘independent’ in everything that she has described for this EPA. The word ‘independent’ must surely have been the worst word that she could have used, because it has got her into so much strife.
If she had just stuck with the word EPA we could have had a discussion about EPA and concentrated and focused our energies on that. Where the minister has got herself into strife is to introduce the word independent. It truly is a sham when you say this Environmental Protection Authority is ‘independent’, because of the very things that we say in here: that it is a discrete unit of NRETA; and NRETA will provide administrative, HR and financial support to the EPA.
It also goes on to say the preferred model of the EPA has the following limitations: that the minister will do the hiring and firing; the government will pay the wages; the minister will deal with any industrial relations matters that flow from the EPA; that it is part of NRETA; that the minister will run its paperwork and administration; and that the Northern Territory government will fund its functions.
The word ‘independent’ is the one that keeps coming back all the time. I will explain again what ‘independent’ means. It means not governed by a foreign power; self-governing. It means free from the influence, guidance or control of another or others. It is self-reliant. It is not determined or influenced by someone or something else and it is not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity. What we have seen from what the minister has presented does not fit ‘independent’ at all, and that is the big hurdle.
I thank my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, for her comments in support of the motion, and the member for Nelson for his comments. I know the EPA and environmental issues are extremely important to him. He places a lot of emphasis on the EPA and the model that has been proposed, which, I am sure, retains the word ‘independent’ in it because at the last election and the one before, the government promised to introduce an independent EPA. That was another promise broken by the government and the words ‘open and accountable’ must keep coming back to you at all times. You had better introduce ‘independent’ to this agency because you made the promise, but in every other essence of the proposal, it is far from independent.
It is interesting that there has been no budgetary allocation for this independent EPA.
Ms Scrymgour: An extra $500 000.
Mrs MILLER: No, it would be really – well, if it is not formed yet, it is quite interesting. As the member for Nelson said, there is enough information and letterheads around with EPA on it and yet it is not even formed. It is also obvious from the member for Nelson’s contribution that the preferred independent model was chosen from other models because it is controlled by government. That only enhances and reinforces the argument that it is far from independent.
The reason that there is so much confusion in the community is because of the information that comes out to them. You think I am confused and you are blaming the member for Nelson and me for being confused, but it is the information that is provided to the community that is just as confusing. I suggest you look again at the information that is going out.
I know that it is not in government’s best interests to accept any recommendations, of course, that come from opposition. That is politics and that is the way the numbers go, there is no doubt about that. I did not anticipate that there would be any change in that today. However, I strongly encourage the minister to look at part 2 of this motion, which says that: ‘the Assembly instruct the government to remove the word “independent” from all future references to the EPA if this preferred model is adopted’.
If you remove that word ‘independent, you will remove a lot of confusion from the public. You just remove it, and there is no confusion in the public’s mind at all. And do not refer to it in future as an ‘independent’ environmental protection agency. An EPA will be fine. There is no doubt that we support an EPA. There has to be one, but you need to give it a level of independence so that you are seen to be accountable, that government is seen to be accountable. I thank members who contributed to the debate today, and I ask that the minister consider the motion that has been put to her.
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This is the third time a bill similar to this has been introduced. Eternally optimistic, it could be third time lucky. Members of the Assembly will recall, for anyone who was interested, and it was very difficult to detect the level of interest on the government’s side given that no-one except the Attorney-General spoke on it. Very disappointing, given the five indigenous members of the government, that is the five included on the now famous memo written by the member for Millner and, according to one media report, leaked by the member for Macdonnell. That was just in case I needed to refresh your memories; that was the memo in which the member for Millner expressed his frustration, dissatisfaction and so on with the Chief Minister, and also in which he referred to a level of hate in the community against the Chief Minister.
It was very interesting, on the last occasion, that none of the indigenous members of parliament spoke, and particularly disappointing that none of the women members of parliament on the Labor side spoke. Perhaps next time around, when we get to further debating this bill at the next General Business Day, we might hear from them. Although, we know how the Chief Minister likes to keep a gag on some of her members, although clearly it failed with the member for Millner.
In any case, the objections of the government have changed over the years I have been presenting this bill. The first time round, it was basically a philosophical one. It was, no, no, no you cannot do this because it is discriminatory. They referred at that time, I believe it was 2003, to the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act. I suggested at that time they change it. In 2005, the Attorney-General had different reasons for opposing the bill, and that was that the bill if enacted would offend the provisions of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act.
Accordingly, and having dealt with and spoken with the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock about this matter, I have decided to propose a slightly different bill so that, and our advice is that even if we accepted that the second bill I introduced last year did offend the provisions of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, then this new bill would not. The Attorney-General may well say that proposed new section 5(5)(b) may offend the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. In any event, if that is the case, he could always propose an amendment to this bill so that we are left with the expression in subclause (a) of: ‘a cultural practice of a community of which the offender is a member’. I wrote to the federal Attorney-General, and thank him and his office for their assistance.
It is interesting that since the last time this parliament sat, there has continued to be a very passionate, at times, national debate about violence in Aboriginal communities. We have seen the Chief Minister embark on her kneejerk response to the criticism levelled at her about her general incompetence, no doubt shared by the member for Millner and others, but as a result of those criticisms, she cobbled together an inquiry which, as members know, sat around doing nothing due to the lack of leadership demonstrated by the Chief Minister. It sat around and did nothing for the first two months.
The debate about the inquiry is for another day, but I make the point that there has been a national debate and discussion about these issues. Indeed, it has been heartening to see the issue of customary law being talked about by politicians other than me. It has been great to see the issue of customary law talked about by so many other Australians. That, I guess over time, will create pressure on this government ultimately, so that it can remove its philosophical and other objections to removing the veil of customary law for sentencing purposes.
Since this parliament was last in session, there was a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments, referred to as COAG. That was a meeting unlike the National Summit on Indigenous Affairs called by Mal Brought which was not attended by the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister was good enough to turn up to COAG. The Law Council of Australia wrote a submission to COAG which I read with interest. I was asked to write an opinion piece for The Australian newspaper, which I did on 21 July 2006. I was asked specifically to comment on the Law Council’s submission because it involved, inter alia, recommendations about customary law. I said in that article, and I quote:
I went on to say:
There has been a view held by some in the legal profession and some other commentators - and no doubt it is a view shared, sadly, by members of this government - that customary law is not used very often. That is not the case, and it is mischievous in the extreme to make that assertion. I well know who has made the assertion. Whether I agree politically or legally with some of those people is neither here nor there. The fact is, if any person walks into a court in the Northern Territory, they will see, in its very wide spectrum, customary law being used every day of the week. It is used in its many guises. I will give some examples of that shortly.
However, if I go back momentarily, members will recall that what I and, indeed, others are calling for, a national debate about violence in indigenous communities was sparked by an interview on 15 May 2006 by Dr Nanette Rogers, Crown Prosecutor in Alice Springs. She said in that interview, when talking about her research for her doctoral thesis that she was:
She went on to say that
It is important that I outline how customary law in all its guises is used frequently in the Territory courts. It is used in an attempt to reduce or excuse an offender’s criminality. Defence lawyers urge the court to take into account the fact that some violent men have been subjected to payback and they ask the court to take that into account when sentencing. Sometimes they argue that the woman victim referred to men’s business which made her attacker angry which is why he beat her. On other occasions courts hear how violent men are initiated and have ceremonial responsibilities and are asked to take these into account when sentencing. Those are mere examples of how customary law is used, and I stress in all its guises, in courts of the Northern Territory every day of the week.
When writing about a particularly violent case in Alice Springs in 2004 for The Bulletin, Paul Toohey quoted a Central Australian lawyer who said when referring to the offender: ‘Just because he lives out bush and hunts and dances, so f***ing what’.
There is nothing culturally appropriate about violence. Customary law in all its guises should be precluded from the court’s deliberations when sentencing. I have said it again and I will continue to say it: it is an unconscionable mechanism by which the criminality of an offender is reduced or excused and it should not be used to mitigate a sentence for crimes of physical or sexual violence. It is a veil behind which violent Aboriginal men hide and politicians and lawyers should not sanction its continued use.
Dr Rogers also talked about a culture of violence in some, though not all, indigenous communities. If ever anyone doubted there was a culture of violence and, somewhat miraculously, apparently some people do doubt that there is a culture of violence in some Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, they should have had the same sort of discussion I did with a police officer, some time ago, who relayed to me what a violent husband told him about the assault on his wife. He said, and I quote: ‘I thought she’d eventually wake up after I bashed her; she usually does’. My point is if such a man hunts, dances, or has ceremonial responsibilities, or lives out bush, what possible difference should it make? In other words, it is a veil behind which violent Aboriginal men are able to hide and use as an excuse to reduce their sentences. Surely that is not something that civilised human beings should continue to sanction.
Getting back to the Law Council of Australia’s submission for COAG, the submission concluded saying that removing the court’s discretion to consider customary will ‘unfairly discriminate against indigenous Australians’.
In the article I wrote for The Australian on 21 July 2006, I said:
I have argued the case for the removal of customary law in sentencing twice before. This is my third time. I have tried to address the objections raised by the Attorney-General, and only raised by the Attorney-General. Who knows? This could be another point of conflict within government. Maybe half a dozen people on the other side do have different views. Maybe this is another rift in the Cabinet. Maybe that is why no-one else stood up to talk in this important debate about violence in Aboriginal communities - not one indigenous member, not one indigenous woman member, no woman member. I do not think they ever have. I will be able to level at them claims of hypocrisy if they want to stand up outside this Chamber and talk about issues involving violence in Aboriginal communities, if they are not able to take their place in this House of Assembly and not get involved because this is where it happens.
Because of the numbers, I do not expect much to happen in relation to this legislation. However, behind closed doors, cracks are starting to show and things are leaking out, thanks to the memo and so on, but you would have thought there would at least have been some robust debate in the past. I hope and implore government members to embark on robust debate in the future so that we can get a better result.
Are there other things to do in indigenous communities? Clearly, but this is, as I have said before, something practical that we as legislators can do. We have had a national summit. COAG spent, I think, 45 seconds on it, ultimately. So we have had a national summit, we have had COAG. We now have an inquiry into sexual abuse in the community.
Politicians, governments and other experts will continue to propose various solutions. Is this not something concrete that we can do now? Is it not worth sending a symbolic gesture to the women and children who are the victims of these violent Aboriginal men who then go to our court houses and hide behind Aboriginal customary law or cultural practices, as I have called it, for the purposes of the bill? I have made plenty of comments in the past. I will not bother repeating them other than to say this bill, Attorney-General, is slightly different, having regard to a cultural practice of a community of which the offender is a member. I am saddened to say that I know what will happen with this bill, but mark my words, Attorney-General, by the time I am an older woman, this will be changed.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Territorians are aware that our police do a tough job. They work long and hard hours and they often do so in circumstances that are less than ideal. They are employed in one of the few workplaces where people are deliberately and intentionally trying to thwart their efforts to bring peace and good order to our communities. The job is a dangerous one. There are people in our community who would not think twice about hurting a police officer, man or woman. There are others in our community who, in a drunken flush, for instance, might think that having a fight with a police officer is a good idea. Police officers are all too often punched, spat upon, kicked, scratched and abused by members of the public for a variety of reasons.
Some time ago, the NT Police Association called for the introduction of minimum sentences for those who assault police officers in the course of their duties or because of their duties. The opposition agreed with their view and, indeed, I advised the Police Association at the conference when I spoke to them on Monday morning that I would be introducing this bill.
The bill that we have elected to introduce makes some simple amendments to the Criminal Code. The aim of the legislation is to provide minimum sentences that arise out of assaults against police, covered by section 189A of the Criminal Code, and the bill seeks to repeal that section and replace it with a new section.
Subsection (1) creates the offence of assaulting a police officer. Subsection (2) states that a minimum penalty must be imposed for a person who has been found guilty of assaulting a police officer. It also imposes a requirement that a person found guilty will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than six months. Subsection (3) goes on to say that a person who has been found guilty of an assault against a police officer can be sent to gaol for a maximum of two years if they are dealt with by a court of summary jurisdiction, or a maximum of five years if they are found guilty by a superior court. Subsection (4) deals with assaults that cause bodily harm, that is, when the police officer suffers a physical injury that is not permanent in nature. Subsection (5) outlines a requirement that when a person who injures an officer in such a fashion they will serve at least two years in gaol. Subsection (6) says that a court of summary jurisdiction can impose a sentence of up to three years in such an instance, or that a superior court may sentence a person convicted of causing bodily harm to a police officer to as much as seven years in prison. Subsections (7) and (8), in essence, say that, if a person injures a police officer with a permanent injury that constitutes grievous harm, then that person should go to gaol for at least five years. Subsection (9) says that a person convicted of causing grievous harm to a police officer stands to serve a maximum of 16 years in prison.
This message could not be more straightforward: if you assault a police officer and you are convicted, then you will go to gaol, and that is stop, end of message. I know that this has widespread support from both individual policemen and women, as well from the association which called on government to do this some time ago. As I said at the police conference, I invited the members there to talk with the Police minister with a view to ascertaining what the basis and level of his objections were to such a proposal. I think I saw him leaving, so I am not sure that they had that opportunity, but no doubt the association will make representations to the minister.
Madam Speaker, I note that I have 45 minutes to talk about this bill if I wish. It is very straightforward legislation. I do not believe there is anything constructively that I can add. I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General at the next General Business day.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is reasonably straightforward and, clearly, not understood by members of the government. I suppose that is not surprising. I am not sure of the level of collective intelligence on the other side. In any event, I well understand why it is that they would seek to politically spin their way out of this issue. They should, of course, be trying to spin themselves or catapult themselves as farther away from the member for Sanderson as is humanly possible. However, they have elected not to do this.
This bill is necessary for supporting legislation for a code of conduct. It is designed to support a specific code of conduct, which will be dealt with before too long. Of course, this was a promise by the Australian Labor Party; that is, Labor promised to introduce a code of conduct. They also promised to give it the legislative strength that it should have. Sadly, like many other promises - whistleblowers is a good example - Labor has not implemented that and it falls to us to do our bit. Of course, this arises from the comments of the member for Sanderson.
I am on the public record as saying that, in the past, I have not been wedded personally to a code of conduct for members of parliament simply because I did not think you needed to spell out for politicians what was required of them. However, due to the behaviour of the member for Sanderson and the inaction of the Chief Minister, it has become blindingly obvious that something needs to be done - noting that the code of conduct that the government has produced is really not enforceable. We are still waiting for the legislation that will give it the strength it requires, even though the code provided by the government is not anywhere near as comprehensive as the one I will be tabling shortly.
The bill sets out the disciplinary process for members and ministers who do not adhere to the code of conduct. It establishes a Legislative Assembly disciplinary committee as a parliamentary committee that is made up of six members of parliament. Three members would be appointed by the Chief Minister and two by the Opposition Leader, with the other one from the ranks of Independent members. If there are no Independent members as the sixth committee member, they would be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair of the committee would be appointed by the Legislative Assembly. A quorum is achieved when four members are present at the meetings of the committee.
The committee would then receive references from the Assembly in respect to identified potential breaches by members or ministers in respect of the standards set by the code of conduct. The committee would look at the issue brought before it, and could recommend penalties starting from dismissing the matter, up to a fine of up to 50% of a member’s base salary. The disciplinary committee will have the ability to call witnesses and take such evidence into consideration in its deliberations. It is then up to the Assembly to determine whether it accepts the recommendation of the committee. Any fines would have a time frame attached for payment. If a payment is not received, then the member concerned would be held in contempt of the parliament and, as such, could face further fines or up to six months imprisonment.
I will pause here because this is going to be very enjoyable. The Chief Minister - and I think the Leader of Government Business - has described this penalty provision for contempt as bizarre. There are two points to make. One apparently the Chief Minister made late today was in reference to a fine. She seemed to have difficulty with the fact that if you do not pay a fine, you might go to gaol. I invite the Chief Minister to look at various legislation passed by this very parliament. In that legislation, it will say words to the effect of: ‘If you do not pay a fine you go to gaol’. I wonder why it is that the Chief Minister is happy to preside over the passing of legislation that says if you do not pay your fine you go to gaol for other Territorians, but she has such difficulty with if you do not pay your fine you go to gaol for politicians? That is but point one.
Let us go to point two: the green book. When I became a member of parliament, and I have kept a letter I received from your predecessor, Madam Speaker, or the one before the member for Braitling, from Terry McCarthy. It was dated 27 August 2001 and he says that he was very pleased to distribute to new members this booklet and basically it is everything you need to know in order to be a politician in this Assembly.
Let me refer members to section 25 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act. I actually read this book. I quite enjoy reading legislation if members have not picked that up already. I do go through it, I have always been into statutory drafting and, quirky though it is, has always been an interest of mine. I went through this book with great enthusiasm after Terry McCarthy presented it to me in August 2001 and I remember the contents of the legislation. I am very interested to know if any other government members read it.
In relation to section 25 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act it says:
What, I wonder, would be an offence against the Assembly? I think it would be contempt. Contempt of the Assembly would be an offence against the Assembly. So, there is already the power in legislation in existence in the Northern Territory about the Legislative Assembly and its members that provides for a gaol term. So when the Chief Minister was flapping about today saying, oh it is bizarre, it is really weird, she obviously did not read the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act when she started in parliament.
Let us go to section 25(5):
Fancy that? Fancy that being in existence? Good God! So the Assembly may impose on a person a fine. Subsection (a):
and:
It goes on, etcetera.
Obviously this applies, not surprisingly, to anyone else who would commit an offence against the Legislative Assembly. Of course there was the incident last term where people committed offences against the Legislative Assembly. However, it equally applies to members of the Assembly. To argue that it does not would be a seriously challenging argument indeed. I am not sure that there is any case law on it; I have not had the opportunity to look. But if the government suggests that section 25 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act does apply to everyone in the Northern Territory except us, then I reckon I am very interested to find that case law. So the potential for going to gaol already exists in legislation. I heartily recommend for the benefit of members the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly Acts and Other Information relating to the Assembly book. It is a thoroughly good read.
So, what is the change? The change is an increase in the penalty up to 50%, although that is determined by the Assembly. In the event that someone does not pay their fine, just like other Territorians they will face the possibility of going to gaol. Nothing like consistency.
Getting back to the code of conduct as promised by the Australian Labor Party, I refer to a speech made by the member for Arafura. She said this on 20 June 2002:
She went on to say:
Which I think is an unfortunate expression:
Not an act I am familiar with. Would you like to know why that is? Let me tell you: I am not familiar with that act because it does not exist. So in 2002, Labor members said: ‘This is what we are going to do. By golly, we are going to introduce it.’ I am still looking, Madam Speaker.
What we have done is extensively researched and looked around the country. Are there additions to this code of conduct? Yes. I might get to that in the course of the motion, but we have given a code of conduct in the Northern Territory the legislative strength it requires. If I understood what someone was telling me last night, one of the objections government would have to legislation giving the code of conduct legislative strength is that you cannot legislate for people’s behaviour. We legislate for people’s behaviour pretty much every day we are here. The legislation of the Northern Territory - let us take a couple of examples: we tell, as a parliament, what side of the road people should drive on; what speeds they should drive at; where they should smoke, if they need to be a couple of yards away from a door; whatever. We legislate for people’s behaviour. That is a component of what Assemblies and houses of parliament do.
Is it not hypocritical for us as legislators to legislate for others and yet not legislate for ourselves? Parliaments do legislate for the behaviour of others and it must surely be one law or one system for all. If we legislate for other people’s behaviour, should we not legislate for our own?
It is the case that as politicians we are public figures. A higher standard of behaviour is demanded, as it should be. I am very happy to be doing what the Labor government promised to do, that is come up with a code, make it legally enforceable, and aspire to some of those comments made by the member for Arafura so optimistically on 20 June 2002. I am happy to provide members of government with the famous green book, always a good read. There is nothing new in this in terms of the contempt provisions.
I look forward to talking about the motion before too long. I wait with bated breath to hear what the government members have to say in relation to the legislation in due course which, I note, today or yesterday, the Chief Minister said: ‘It is on its way.’ It is on its way! So is Christmas, Madam Speaker, Christmas this year, next year, whatever.
After the member for Sanderson insulted so many Territorians, not one Labor politician made reference to the code of conduct. I would like to suggest why I think that is. Either they forgot they had one, and I suppose that is understandable because there is certainly no legislation backing it up, or, in the alternative, you were so utterly and indescribably embarrassed by it because it was not really a tough or comprehensive code that no-one wanted to mention it. It was only after the opposition talked about a code of conduct and, incredibly enough we raised the issue of a code of conduct only a couple of days before this incident found its way into the paper. Then, not even the Chief Minister, in those couple of days before this incident, came out and said: ‘It is on its way. It is on its way’. It is only when we came in here with the paperwork, doing the work of government, albeit the four of us, that the Chief Minister has the audacity, the gall, to say: ‘Yes, yes, yes, it is on its way.’
Madam Speaker, with those comments I will conclude. I look forward to discussing the motion.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Sandridge Band from Borroloola, and also the Tableland Drifters from Tennant Creek and the Tablelands. They are here for the Darwin Festival. The member for Barkly tells me that they are performing tomorrow night at the amphitheatre. I hope it goes very well and that some honourable members may be able to attend. On behalf of honourable members, we offer you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move –
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the Northern Territory Code of Conduct for Ministers and Members. In doing so, I advise that Section 2 has been amended to reflect the non-compliance penalties within the enforcement legislation of the Legislative Assembly Code of Conduct Bill and the revised code will be circulated to all honourable members.
Madam SPEAKER: You do not need to seek leave, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This will obviously, to some extent, repeat some of my comments in relation to the earlier bill. I say again that I was not originally wedded to a code of conduct because I did not think it was something that you needed spell out for serving politicians. However, a comprehensive code was something that was promised by the Chief Minister five years ago, and like the rest of those protections, it is something that has not seen the light of day.
In May 2004, we had what might be described as a Clayton’s code of conduct – there is our friend Clayton again – adopted by the Chamber - the code you have when you are not having a code. I say again, after the member for Sanderson embarked on his disgraceful behaviour, nothing from this building, nothing from government, about, ‘Oh well, it is in the code of conduct’. And, in fact, the Chief Minister could not even answer yesterday, when asked specifically whether the member for Sanderson’s conduct would have offended the existing code of conduct. It is a Clayton’s code in almost every respect.
The Clayton’s code did need to have supporting legislation, which was promised; I believe it was the Leader of Government Business who said, at the end of 2004, that it would be forthcoming. His Chief Minister obviously has taken that lesson from him, and that is why she said in the last couple of days, it is coming, just wait for it. So, our friend Clayton has lapsed. It lapsed and it failed to have any meaning, as is demonstrated by the fact that the member for Sanderson is still here and has not suffered any real consequences. However, those on the other side will say that the code is the one that the code is the one that is on the government website, so therefore it does exist in name only. Our friend Clayton has no muscle, no power, and does not exist in any meaningful way. We know this because, had there been a code of conduct of any substance, the member for Sanderson would not be here.
Let us take a moment to remind ourselves of his behaviour. He attended a cricket game as a government representative, in a government-sponsored corporate box, and along with the member for Brennan and a few business people, knocked back, I think the reports were over 100 Crownies, over the course of the afternoon. After a few drinks, he made lewd and sexually offensive remarks to a 61-year-old woman. If the Clayton’s code had any real power, there is no way such behaviour by a member of the Legislative Assembly could be in any way condoned by this Chamber. The fact that he does remain reflects very poorly on all of us and it highlights the deficiencies of our friend Clayton, that is, the Clayton code of conduct.
When government members say: ‘Oh, no, Opposition Leader, you have it all wrong; we already have a code of conduct’, I say; ‘Do not even bother’. Your aspiration code, if you like, lapsed when you failed to provide the necessary legislative strength that would have given it any basis, and you failed to give the people of the Territory any confidence - some more than others - in the politicians of the Northern Territory. Clayton is certainly not recognised by the Chief Minister, let alone the member for Sanderson.
I have been somewhat of a supporter, albeit quietly, of a code of conduct for ministers. Because the events unfolded in the way that they did, it is now abundantly clear - and clear to the average Territorian - that a code of conduct that means something is necessary for members and ministers.
The development of parliamentary and ministerial codes of conduct has varied in Australia. Some have been adopted as a result of inquiries, and others have been the result of public pressure due to inappropriate behaviour. In respect to the state and territory levels of government in Australia, we - with only a register of interests and, of course, our friend, Clayton - are the least accountable among our peers. Some parliaments such as New South Wales and Queensland have gone so far as to have ethics or standards mechanisms in place.
The bill I introduced earlier prescribes penalties for those who fail to comply with the code of conduct. I do look forward to hearing the arguments from those opposite who promised such a code five years ago, notwithstanding that they promised it five years ago because, in effect, they would be arguing against themselves - always an interesting proposition. If the current performance of the Chief Minister is anything to go by, she would not be in favour of a fair dinkum code of conduct because it would raise the bar too high in determining what is or what is not appropriate conduct for a parliamentarian in the Territory.
Right now, we have in front of us a comprehensive code of conduct that can be adopted by this Chamber through this motion to be the benchmark for behaviour of those who sit in this place. We will also have the necessary legislative strength that Clayton’s sadly lacks if the legislation is adopted. The code of conduct is commonsense. Its provisions include things such as if you are compromised in your decision-making by some personal interest, then you will relieve yourself of the factor that is compromising you, or remove yourself from the decision-making process. It sets out appropriate conduct for leaders in the community who sit in this place.
I am certain, had the code been in place and had the supporting legislation, importantly, been in place as promised five years ago by those opposite, then the incident with the member for Sanderson would have had far greater consequence than a rap over the knuckles. It did not, and he got nothing more than a pat on the backside and he keeps his position as a community leader. As I have said, he still has his job; he can still go to corporate functions, can still get drunk, and still be rude and offensive to women.
I am the first one to concede that some former members of the CLP could not be given a clean bill of health. However, an associated purpose of us putting forward the motion and the bill is to say that, under my watch, that will not happen. If a member of this parliament who represents the CLP was to behave in the same vile manner as the member for Sanderson, I would immediately call for them to resign their position and, if they failed to do so, unlike this Chief Minister, I would do all that I can to ensure that they would be removed from my party. Unlike the Chief Minister, I do not want seedy men in my party. It cannot and should not be tolerated. This is not just because the member of Sanderson’s behaviour was directed at a woman, or because it gives men a bad name; it is because it is behaviour unbecoming of a leader in this community. It is interesting to see, in his pathetic letter of apology to his constituents, that he said his behaviour offended ‘a member’ of the public. Wrong, wrong, wrong, member for Sanderson. Your behaviour offended every decent Territorian.
I am left wondering whether the promise to put in place a code of conduct was just glamorous words that the Chief Minister had no intention of seeing through. Perhaps in that regard, it is like the whistleblower legislation which is not too difficult to do. We have introduced whistleblower legislation and I look forward to us debating that before too long.
The bill that I introduced earlier in relation to the code of conduct is what Labor should have done five years ago - and they have nowhere to go on this. The Leader of Government Business will get up and strut his stuff but you cannot get away from the truth and you cannot hide the facts. You are on the public record, you have put it in brochures, I think, and it is pretty much everywhere. So it is very interesting to hear what you say; more interesting for some than others.
The code of conduct can be adopted. It can have legislative strength. You simply need the political leadership, determination and conviction to do it. The Labor Party talked about the culture of fear that was in the Territory under the CLP. I can say that if that culture of fear existed, and I do not know, I can tell that you that my own experience is that there is a culture of fear operating in the Northern Territory at the moment. That is no doubt why the government is so unwilling to introduce its whistleblower legislation, something it promised to introduce five years ago. So what Labor members felt strongly about five years ago, obviously they do not even care about now. If ever there was a need for whistleblowers legislation, it is now.
The code of conduct sets out, at a pretty basic level in many respects, what is and is not appropriate. It is not so proscriptive as to affect the normal day-to-day operations of ministers and members of parliament. It can be said that it is based pretty much on commonsense, and it strikes a balance between broad markers and necessary inclusions. For instance, an inclusion in the code is a prohibition on a minister having a personal relationship with a senior executive in their department. There must be a line of distinction where there is a separation of powers between the legislative arm and the implementation arm of government. If such relationships were tolerated, this line can become blurred. There are many organisations that accept this and have marked out clearly the consequences of such relationships in different levels of organisations. Why should not we in the Territory have a similar prohibition? It is just commonsense and I cannot begin to imagine why on earth those opposite would have a difficulty with that.
The ministerial and members code of conduct recognises that ministers and members of the Northern Territory parliament are in a position of trust bestowed on them by the people of the Northern Territory. It recognises that ministers, in particular, are responsible for decisions that can have a marked impact on individuals and groups in the Territory. The ethical and effective working of government in the Northern Territory depends on ministers and members having the trust and confidence of all their parliamentary colleagues both in their official dealings and in the manner in which they discharge their official responsibilities. For these reasons, it emphasises that ministers, in particular, must accept standards of conduct of the highest order.
The code aims to guarantee the integrity of the parliament and its officers. In particular, ministers will ensure that their official powers or position are not used improperly for personal advantage and that any conflict between personal interest and a public duty which may arise is resolved in favour of the public interest. Ministers will recognise that they have an obligation to their ministerial colleagues to inform the Chief Minister, or in the case of the Chief Minister, Cabinet, if the minister is subject to any inquiry, investigation or criminal or civil proceedings. Ministers and members of parliament should ensure that their personal conduct does not adversely affect their ability or the ability of other MLAs or other public officials to perform their official duties, or adversely affect public confidence and the integrity of the system of government or public service management.
The code requires ministers to disclose details of any private interest that might conflict with their duty as a minister. The code prevents ministers from acting as consultants or advisors to companies and organisations during their terms in office, except in their official capacity as a minister. The code prevents ministers from employing members of their immediate families or close business associates to positions in their own offices. The code sets out specific obligations in relation to procedures for the disclosure of conflicts of interest in respect of matters going before Cabinet and the parliament. The code outlines the standards of conduct expected of ministers and members of parliament, including respect for the law and the system of government, and the respect for individuals and relations between ministers and the public service.
On respect for the law and the system of government, the code states:
In addition, the new code defines more clearly the type of action that parliament can take against ministers or members who are in breach of the code, whether it be a reprimand requiring an apology, a monetary fine, or asking the minister or member to stand aside, or the minister or member to resign.
I suggest to government members that there is nothing in this code that is in any way inappropriate and should not be adopted. I ask those opposite if they are going to oppose this, which, no doubt, they will, to do better than just political spray. Come up with something of substance and argue seriously what is offensive in this code of conduct because it is going to backfire on you anyway because you will be the government that has not given any legislative strength to a code of conduct notwithstanding your promise. What do you have to be afraid of? That is what I would have thought most Territorians would ask.
We say to the Chief Minister that every so often, it is possible for her to do the right thing. She can show us a bit more substance and she can endorse this code of conduct. I will again quote from what the member for Arafura said on 20 June 2002. She said:
We say that the code of conduct we have produced is much more comprehensive and, of course, with the accompanying legislation, which Labor always wanted to introduce, which we have now introduced, and given that there are no new contempt provisions, there is nothing in either the motion or the bill that should cause any concern to government members. If you are going to do a political spray, it is hard for me to take it seriously because I think you are gazumped, and you have painted yourselves into a corner.
Around Australia, most jurisdictions have an array of codes of conduct. Victoria has legislation to support its code. The Victorian one - and I am giving this example because it shows the serious way in which the Victorian government takes its code of conduct - provides that infringement of the code constitutes contempt – no surprises there; well, there should not be for some – for which the member may be fined $2000 by his or her House. It goes on to say that non-payment of the fine renders the member’s seat vacant. Our code of conduct does not quite go that far, although if someone goes to gaol, it would naturally follow that their seat would become vacant.
So, if government is going to say no one else has legislation – wrong. Other jurisdictions do. There is a range of codes of conduct in this country. Where there is no legislation - if you take, for instance, New South Wales and Queensland - Queensland has a mechanism which gives a code of conduct strength. That is the Crime and Misconduct Commission. I know some people who work there and they have provided some assistance to me. The Crime and Misconduct Commission exists in Queensland and it can examine the conduct of politicians and it provides the legislative instrument by which penalties can be brought against politicians. We do not have a Crime and Misconduct Commission in the Northern Territory so why would you not legislate? It is a logical argument.
In New South Wales, there is the ICAC, the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I cannot remember the history now that I come to think about it, but it also considers the conduct of politicians. There are procedures in place that ensure that a code of conduct is not a Clayton’s code of conduct, that it becomes fair dinkum, because if someone can breach a code of conduct, then it is possible for ICAC to investigate a member of parliament’s behaviour and dealings.
We do not have an ICAC in the Northern Territory. We do not have things in the Territory like an integrity commission, for instance. Maybe we should have one. I am increasingly of the view that we should. Where Queensland and New South Wales have codes of conduct without legislative strength, there are other mechanisms to ensure the contents of the code of conduct are adhered to by members of parliament. That is a very important difference. For anyone to suggest that there is no other legislation in this country, that is wrong; there is some in Victoria, and I think the ACT, from memory, as well.
That is probably as far as I can take it. I sum up by saying this: it is certainly somewhat ironic that, as a result of the member for Sanderson’s conduct, that we, the opposition, by this motion and the previous introduction of the bill, are seeking to implement Labor Party policy. The irony is not lost on me, and I am sure it is not lost on others. However, that is life. Of course, when you see the arrogance and the intransigence of this Chief Minister and her colleagues, then I suppose it is fairly predictable that we in opposition would do what this government promised the people of the Northern Territory and, indeed, promised them sometime ago.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the government’s support of the motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it will come as no surprise to the Leader of the Opposition that we will not be supporting this motion. I say up-front to the Leader of the Opposition that, in terms of General Business Day when notices of motions are given, and when legislation is introduced for second reading, we take the business that is put before this House by the opposition and the Independents very seriously.
Mr Mills: Oh, really?
Mr HENDERSON: No, I am paying compliment, I suppose, to the way we do take this seriously. The motions and legislation go through a full Cabinet process. Ministers have to take responsibility for the bills and the motions which they have carriage of, and consider those in a professional way to see if there is merit to the legislation that is being proposed, or the motion that is coming before the parliament. Ministers report to Cabinet as to whether we should be accepting that legislation or the motion.
In regard to this code of conduct for ministers and members and the legislation that received its second reading here this evening, as Leader of Government Business, I have sought to obtain some preliminary advice as to the constitutionality and legality of what is being proposed by the opposition. When you are talking about the potential for members of this House, by dint of processes and procedures of this parliament, potentially losing their seats, then there are obviously constitutional issues that come into play. Certainly, my first reading of this code yesterday, when it was tabled in the parliament, and can I say that I have had absolutely no legal training at all, my only legal background has been what I have picked up around the Cabinet table and in my role as minister.
In reading the code regarding enforcement, failure to comply, and default, it certainly looked a bit dodgy to me regarding whether this was legal or constitutional - whether this parliament actually has the powers to do what is suggested within this particular code of conduct. I have sought preliminary legal advice on the code. Of course, we now have the legislation we will get formal advice on. The legal advice that I have says that, particularly the enforcement provisions, which is the ultimate sanctions that underpin this code - that if you transgress against the code, you are found guilty in the committee; the parliament upholds the committee report and imposes a fine; and, if you do not pay that fine within a defined period, you lose your seat - that the enforcement provisions of the proposed code would not survive legal challenge. It is just unenforceable. Essentially, if the enforcement provisions cannot be met then, obviously, the code is not worth the paper it is written on.
I will go through some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, who is a trained and qualified lawyer, regarding the interest that she personally and professionally takes as a result of her professional qualifications. She said she goes through legislation thoroughly; it is a personal interest of hers. She has a particular interest in statutory drafting. Well, good luck, I love the footy. However, the Leader of the Opposition is interested in statutory drafting and she has a very specific interest in the legislation and how it works. She talked about the introductory new members’ kit that was provided by former Speaker McCarthy and what was in that in regards to our current standing orders. Given all of that specific interest that the Leader of the Opposition has, and the politics that has been played over the last few weeks in regard to codes of conduct, I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have at least ensured that what she was proposing is (a) constitutional, and (b) legal. The advice I have is that it is not.
Specifically, I asked for advice on the validity of clause 2.2 of the proposed code which goes to default of payments of a fine. I will read from the code:
Therefore, it is inconsistent with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and it could not operate ...
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I point out that the minister is reading from a draft of the document. He should be reading what was tabled this moment. Otherwise, he is reading the wrong document into the record. I suggest that he reads the right document.
Mr HENDERSON: I have the thing that was tabled. This was tabled in parliament yesterday. This was tabled …
Members interjecting.
Mr Stirling: If you have a revised version, circulate it. Are you misleading the House?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, when introducing this, did mention it was changed. The minister is now reading from an old document that has been superseded by what has just been tabled.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, members!
Dr LIM: If I can explain again. This was tabled just a short while ago.
Mr Henderson: And this was tabled yesterday.
Dr LIM: The Leader of the Opposition drew attention that this is the current document she mentioned. The error that was contained in the previous document was tabled yesterday, and said that this is the current document. If the minister proposes to read out of this document for the record, then he should read from the correct one, not the incorrect one.
Madam SPEAKER: If you could just pause, minister. Please resume your seat. I will ask the Clerk for some advice.
There is no point of order. Having discussed it with the Clerk, the Leader of Government Business has every right to continue to discuss the motion using the tabled document as it was yesterday. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make a personal explanation at a later stage regarding the document she tabled this evening she may do so. Given that the Leader of the Government Business was working on a document which was tabled yesterday, and which he could not possibly have known there were going to be changes before he started speaking, he may continue speaking as he wishes now.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, if I may, at the outset I moved two motions. You said in respect of the second one that was the one that I did not need to seek leave for. That was the one …
Madam SPEAKER: That is because you are the Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In any event, I sought leave to table the Northern Territory code of conduct for ministers. In doing so, this is what I said, this was the document …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please …
Ms CARNEY: I advised …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition …
Ms CARNEY: … I advised that it had been amended.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, when I am speaking, I do not wish you to speak.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You will remain silent for the moment, please. The minister may continue speaking. He can speak on the document which was tabled yesterday, which is the one which government members and all other members are aware of. If you wish to, you can make a personal explanation later, after you have come to seek permission from me to do so. I do not wish to hear any more.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We take the processes of this parliament seriously and consider on merit the motions of the opposition legislation that was tabled. Notice was given and the Notice Paper states, and this is what the business of the House is now, the motion that we are currently debating is: That the Assembly rescind the optional and non-legislative code of conduct for members dated 31 May 2004, and adopt a comprehensive Northern Territory code of conduct for ministers and members in the terms circulated to members. As circulated when this motion was given notice yesterday.
This code that I have here does not say ‘draft’ anywhere on it. There is no reference to this being a draft code. It says ‘Northern Territory code of conduct for ministers and members proposed by the Country Liberal Party, August 2006’.
If the Leader of the Opposition is actually going to bring business before this House for government to consider, then she has to do it with a degree of accuracy rather than putting slapdash proposals before the House for consideration and expecting us to take it seriously when there are going to be such significant amendments on the run of which no notice was given to us whatsoever.
This goes to the diligence of the Leader of the Opposition, her capacity to do the detailed work that the electorate would expect of a potential future Chief Minister. The business that the opposition brings before this House should be accurate and it should reflect the policy position that they are bringing, and not have significant amendments thrown on the table two minutes before debate is about to ensue.
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Given that the Leader of the Opposition has stated that how thorough she is, how well prepared she is, how she works with such diligence, that this was a significant piece of work that has obviously been worked over for quite a period of time. With the media that the opposition did yesterday on this proposal, the key sanction was that if you failed to comply with the code and you did not pay the fine, you shall lose your seat. That was the public position of the opposition yesterday, just yesterday.
It was the media that they did on this issue yesterday, and it was the detail of the code that was circulated to members yesterday. We picked this up very quickly and thought: ‘This is a bit dodgy’. Even Hendo, who isn’t a lawyer - a second-rate suburban lawyer would have picked this up. Even Hendo picked it up and he is not a lawyer. I thought that this looked very dodgy and was not constitutional, and not legal, and sought advice.
I went out yesterday and said that this was dangerous. It was reckless. The Chief Minister has gone out and said the same thing. What has happened is that the Leader of the Opposition has said: ‘Crikey, I might be in a bit of trouble here. I had better get some accurate legal advice because my own understanding of the law is not that strong in this area. I had better get some legal advice’ and then she’s gone: ‘Whoops! Can’t do that. I have made a big blue here. I am not as smart as I thought I am. I am not as smart as I thought as I thought I was and I have made a big blue here. I am going to try to sneak in a change in the debate and they will not pick up on it’.
We take our role seriously in this House. All the Opposition Leader is about is political stunts, political grandstanding, too lazy to do the detailed work. When she gets caught out, she does not admit that she has been caught out. The Leader of the Opposition has been speaking to this motion, speaking to the code. If she had any ounce of integrity, any ounce of professional integrity, a single skerrick of professional integrity, she would have pointed out the change. She would have stood up and said: ‘In respect of …’
Ms Carney: As I did, as I did!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition!
Mr HENDERSON: No, you did not, Leader of the Opposition. You did not. You certainly did not. You did not stand here and say: ‘In respect to the key sanction that underpins this code that was circulated yesterday to members that you shall lose your seat if you do not pay the fine, I have taken legal advice overnight. It is unconstitutional. It could not be enacted. It would not stand legal challenge. I will change that provision’. She did not come in and say: ‘Here is the new document and here is the new code’.
She has no integrity whatsoever. No integrity, not a shadow, Madam Speaker. She is so shallow in terms of political opportunism, trying to capitalise on a mistake, and a bad mistake that was made by my colleague, the member for Sanderson, for which he has paid a high price. She has come in over the top, trying to be, in her sanctimonious way, holier-than-thou and ‘I will implement this code and ensure people stand up to it’. The key sanction that was aimed at targeting my colleague, the member for Sanderson, was that: ‘He would lose his seat if I was ever Chief Minister. I would implement this code. That man would lose his seat and this is the new standard I would bring to the parliament’.
That is what the previous month of public debate has been all about. This is what this motion was about. This is what the code was about. When we pointed out yesterday that it was dangerous and possibly could not be enforced, she has taken advice overnight and found out that her own great legal skills have been found somewhat wanting in this regard, and she cannot do what she was proposing to do.
This has all been about targeting the member for Sanderson. It has had absolutely nothing about conduct and ethics. It has been a political game. The Leader of the Opposition has been totally exposed as a person who has absolutely no integrity. She cannot stand up straight in this parliament and say: ‘I made a mistake. I have made a significant error in the code that was circulated yesterday. I bring to the attention of honourable members the error that has been made. It has been rectified, but the principles remain the same, except for the key sanction that was in that code, which was “a member shall lose his seat”.’
Mr Kiely: Let’s hear your apology.
Ms Carney: I would not say too much if I were you, sport!
Mr HENDERSON: She has been caught out and for somebody who is supposed to be a trained lawyer, well, I do not know what sort of lawyer she was.
Mr Kiely: Where is your apology?
Ms Carney: Oh, I beg your pardon, you grub.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to retract that statement. She called me a grub.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: I did, Madam Speaker, and I withdraw it.
Mr Kiely: So, where is your apology?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, cease interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, what we have here is political opportunism of the worst kind by the Leader of the Opposition, cynicism of the worst kind in attempting to portray herself and her party as holier than thou in dealing with issues and events that happened a few weeks ago. This is all being aimed at trying to say that if she was ever Chief Minister and a member behaved in such a way, she would have the power to introduce legislation for a code that would ensure a member in similar circumstances would lose their seat. She has found out overnight that this House does not have the power to effect that sanction.
I will read further from the advice that I have, that if the Leader of the Opposition had done her homework instead of relying on her own flawed legal capacity, she would have found that not only does the code as circulated yesterday contravene the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, it also goes to the powers of the Parliamentary Privileges Act of the Commonwealth in 1987. I will read from the legislation that I have.
Section 12 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act states:
The advice I have is that:
The proposed provision …
which is ‘the member shall vacate their seat’,
This is because under the Parliamentary Privileges Act, an act of the Commonwealth parliament, section 7(5) provides:
Advice: a fine of 50% of base salary far exceeds this amount and would be in conflict with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act.
The Leader of the Opposition’s act said we could fine you up to half of a member’s or a minister’s salary. Again, this parliament does not have the powers to pass such legislation or a code, because we cannot exceed the federal parliament under the Parliamentary Privileges Act, and the federal parliament can only impose a fine of $5000.
So, her code is unconstitutional in regards to a member having to vacate their seat. We cannot impose a fine exceeding $5000. When we go to further advice that I have, there is a more fundamental problem, however:
That is the definition of conduct.
So, the code is flawed because it does not have these essential elements.
I do not know what other changes the Leader of the Opposition has made in here, but this is all targeted at the member for Sanderson in regard to what occurred at the cricket. The legal advice here says that we do not have the power, as a Legislative Assembly, to enforce a code with those provisions in it.
Therefore, on three counts the Leader of the Opposition has brought a code into this parliament to be underpinned by legislation that is unconstitutional and that this House does not have the legislative capacity to enforce. For the Leader of the Opposition to try to sneak a last-minute change in, which probably only goes to one of the three areas where the code is flawed and cannot be enforced, is testament to her credibility as a potential Chief Minister such that the people of the Northern Territory could not have any confidence in her whatsoever.
The Leader of the Opposition is shallow. She is politically opportunistic. She does not do her work with any degree of diligence whatsoever. The political opportunism that she has advanced over the last few weeks in the pursuit of the member for Sanderson has ended up in the House here tonight with a code that this parliament does not have the capacity, under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, to legislate and enforce.
Extraordinarily sadly for this parliament, the Leader of the Opposition has tried this evening to mislead this parliament in consideration of a fundamental proposal that she is seeking by the due process of this parliament to implement into law here in the Northern Territory. It has been an outrageous example of contempt for this House, for the processes of this House, for the scrutiny of legislation, which were all due to one grubby political motive: to continue to chase the member for Sanderson.
Madam Speaker, I wish to formally table the legal advice that I have from the Solicitor-General. This debate has further to go as we consider this new so-called Mickey Mouse code that seeks to establish a kangaroo court here in this parliament. It has been an absolute travesty of process and a contempt for this parliament by the Leader of the Opposition. The government will not be supporting this motion and there will be more debate to come on this particular issue.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thought long and hard whether I would contribute to this debate. As people know, I did not contribute to the censure motion of the member for Sanderson yesterday. I decided that the best approach was to ring personally and tell him what I thought of him, and also inform him that if I had been the 60-odd-year-old person I probably would have snotted him there and then if he had said that to me. My way of dealing with him was to do that. This is a knee-jerk reaction by the Leader of the Opposition to this particular situation.
In saying that, I spent considerable time going through the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I feel fairly frustrated at the moment that most things I was going to say now probably do not need to be said because they have been abolished by this new paper that is on the table.
I was a member of the Standing Orders Committee which introduced this code of conduct - at the beginning of the last term. I know the members for Blain and Greatorex were on the Standing Orders Committee at the time. We spent a lot of time looking at codes of conduct from different states. We even looked at the code from New Zealand. We amended, changed, discussed, debated - it was quite a lengthy process before we finally got to a document that we all agreed with. It was with the consensus of all members of that particular Standing Orders Committee.
I was prompted when I was re-elected to also make sure we had a code of conduct. Members who were present in the parliament at that time might remember that I had been verbally abused by the member for Greatorex. If you can recall the tacky attack he made on me:
To give him his due, the Chief Minister, Denis Burke, said that he should apologise and that he thought his words were most inappropriate. Dr Lim also received a lot of criticism from people in the electorate.
Is it any wonder that I felt we needed a code of conduct? When people do things like that within this parliament, as far as I am concerned it is up to the parliament to censure that particular member. What the member for Sanderson did outside I believe it is up to the party to make sure they censure him and do what they need to do. It is a party matter now and a government matter.
Yesterday, I was concerned with the tone of this parliament. I am not trying to be self-righteous; I know at times I have been rather boisterous in this parliament. However, I thought the way the Leader of the Opposition attacked the censure motion and some of her remarks and interjections were most unparliamentary. I am not making any comment about you, Madam Speaker; please do not take this personally. I am talking about the tone and the way things have slipped in the last day or so.
I am referring to the fact that people are calling each other by their Christian name across the floor. We all know that is not on but you are all doing it. I have heard it probably six or seven times as you have too, Madam Speaker. I am referring to the fact that many of you walk out the door and you do not make obeisance to the Speaker. You just walk out and do not acknowledge that she is there. You use colloquialisms - and if I used them I would be accused of using unparliamentary language. You have heard the type of colloquialisms that have been thrown around here in asides or interjections, or even in speeches. The Leader of the Opposition has even responded to you, Madam Speaker, sitting in her chair when we all know in this parliament you stand on your feet to speak, particularly when the Speaker asks you to.
I am saying that as parliamentarians we should look at ourselves and our code of conduct and the behaviour within this House. I believe the Leader of the Opposition needs to have a good look at her behaviour and her language and the way she is behaving in the House. I do not believe she is showing you the respect she should, Madam Speaker. I do not think she is showing this Chamber the respect we should have.
I do not want to sound like a teacher or a school ma’am, and you are probably going to say I am, but let’s face it, how are we going to say to those people out there in the electorate that we are worthy to be the government of them, to make the laws for them, if we behave in this way? It is incumbent on all of us to take a big, deep breath now before this parliament degenerates into a slanging match over the next few days and make sure we become professional, make sure we become parliamentary, make sure we remember the standing orders, and we treat each other with respect.
This is not a battle ground for personal attacks. We all get hurt when we are attacked personally. This is the battle ground for political debate and that is what we should be doing.
I am saying to all of you and myself as well, because I know at times I interrupt Madam Speaker and you have called me to order on numerous occasions. I sometimes do it for fun because I sometimes get a little bored sitting here listening to the debate so I like to throw in something for a bit of humour. A bit of humour is fine. We all like to laugh but the viciousness of some of the personal attacks really worries me and that is what we should be talking about tonight. We need to gain back that respect from the voters out there in the community. If they were in here yesterday, what would they have thought about the debate that went on in this Chamber?
Madam Speaker, obviously I will not be supporting this motion. I find it incredible that a paper has been tabled and been changed overnight. I wonder whether Peter Murphy had something to do with it. I heard him on the ABC making comments on what he thought of the paper, and he was not overly impressed. Perhaps some advice was taken from an ex-CLP advisor, a man with a head on his shoulders for seeing things the right way.
We do have a code of conduct. Government can get on with the job and legislate, but we should not need it, Madam Speaker. We are all big people now. We are all intelligent people. We are all voted in to do a job. We should be doing it with dignity and in such a way that people in the community respect us and like us for it.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in almost 16 years in this Assembly I have never seen the likes of this where the opposition - ourselves included in all those years - have produced a document, given that this parliament allows plenty of time for the work of General Business Day in order to work up and prepare tabling papers and information put before the parliament, so there was plenty of time to get this right, that is the first thing. For the Leader of the Opposition, only brought to our attention by the member for Greatorex - dill that he is, he did not realise the damage he was doing by drawing the Leader of the Government Business’ attention to it - we were actually dealing with a fraudulent document.
The document that was tabled yesterday and the document that was supposed to be debated before parliament today are different. No one brought that to the attention of the House, including the Leader of the Opposition whose own motion it was. It is disgracefully unprofessional in the first instance, fraudulent at its worst, and probably misleading in the middle is the best description that should apply to that sort of behaviour.
Nonetheless, it is good. I always learn things. I have had 16 years in here and I am still learning things and still seeing different things that people can do, disgraceful as they are.
I want to refer to page 7 of 12 in this description of:
Personal intimate relationships: I imagine it would be a bit hard to be intimate without being personal as well, Madam Speaker, so I am not too sure about that. In the first case, they are prohibited and, equally, they must be declared. Here is a superb little irony:
This is extraordinary. So the minister has to go along to the Chief Minister:
Well let’s have a look at the Clerk’s Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I would maintain every minister in every government is guilty of an intimate relationship with their chief executive:
I would imagine every minister under the Crown in every government would have that type of relationship with their chief executive. They deal with highly sensitive things on a daily basis. They deal with all manner of information between them. Of course, there is an intimacy in an effective working relationship between a chief executive and the minister responsible for that department.
On the one hand it is prohibited, but it must be declared. That is an interesting one. We should put that before the criminal world: if you are going to do bad things, you have to declare it. You have to go and tell the police if you are going to break into things, if you are going to drive drunk, because that is the way it works. That is the way it works, according to the Leader of the Opposition. If you are going to do something prohibited, you have to declare it. There is the answer to all of our problems. Do away with the police force because we are going to make them all declare it! What an absolute nonsense, what an absolute nonsense.
It goes on:
I am no lawyer either, but I was a bit worried when I saw this document yesterday, and probably even more worried the more I read it, but this Leader of the Opposition claims to be a lawyer and comes in with this half-baked claptrap, and then doctors the document, puts a fraudulent document before us for debate, adopted from the document that was circulated yesterday. I want to refer to the last page, where it says:
I do not have any problem with that. However, I wonder if that was put past the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister had a little look at that, because he might have a difficulty with this. The federal Liberal Party could well have, and the Prime Minister I refer to, could well have a difficulty with a parliamentary code of conduct referring to ‘a domestic partner regardless of gender’. We all know the Prime Minister’s views on this, and I doubt that the CLP put this past their federal masters before they brought it in here. I tell you: the Prime Minister would have that little paragraph out in a twinkling.
This is an absolute nonsense. It is a fraudulent document compared to what was put in here yesterday. It shows the lazy, sloppy attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and her staff to allow her to be exposed to trying to manipulate and mislead the House in this fashion. We certainly would not be supporting such utter claptrap.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few things on the code of conduct. I announced on radio yesterday, and I think people knew, that I would oppose the first draft of the code of conduct that was put before us. I am disappointed, after spending some time on a fairly busy day with other legislation, to come across another bit of legislation that completely wiped out all the arguments I was going to put opposing the code of conduct. Perhaps someone was listening to my comments last night, I am not sure, I did not hear the radio this morning. I certainly did a broadcast last night, and the two areas I was concerned about in the first code was the right to sack someone from this parliament. I believe that is the right of the constituents.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: It is a fundamental right.
The second one is I felt the idea that one could have a review board which would be made up of the majority of the governing members of parliament - who would then pass judgment on a person, take you back to parliament for a ballot where, naturally, they would win that ballot because otherwise, in the case of the Labor Party, they would be out of the party - could easily be abused for political reasons.
I kept thinking to myself: what would happen if someone did not like me and I had not done the firebreaks in time, the dog was not registered, or I drove the trailer to the tip without the brake lights working, and they found that out. If they already felt that they wanted to have a go, they would say that was not the sort of thing a parliamentarian should be doing – not showing a good example to the community. I could possibly get fined. And if I did not pay the fine, my seat could become vacant. I just think that might be an over the top story about how it could be done. However, I have been around long enough to know there are people in politics who believe politics is the be-all and end-all, and will find any method possible to win. That clause in the original code would certainly leave it wide open for abuse.
It was on those two grounds that I felt I could not support this code of conduct.
I am not opposed to a code of conduct. I believe once you make the distinction between code of behaviour - that is personal behaviour - and code of conduct as a legal definition in the manner in which you deal with money and your position as a parliamentarian or a minister, that that certainly should be written down and people should have to conform to that code of conduct.
Codes of behaviour are difficult. I am not saying that one should not attempt to put something in, but codes of behaviour can be subjective. Some people might not get upset at all by someone’s particular mannerisms or what they say, and other people might be quite offended by it. It is a subjective thing.
In the end, people who elected me or any of you people here, will make that judgment as to whether they think what you have done has reflected poorly on this parliament, and they will not vote for you if they think you have done the wrong thing. That is a clear indication and method of making sure that members do maintain good behaviour. As well as that, we have the press, as the member for Sanderson would know; he has received a lot of publicity. People might think ‘Well, so what?’, but I imagine that is fairly embarrassing to him and to his family. He is not the only one. The press can certainly bite. The pen is mightier than sword is probably a pretty fair thing when it comes to these matters. We do have other ways in which people have checks and balances on them for stepping over the line.
I was not against the proposal coming forward as a means of asking the government to look at where its legislation is, and to hurry it along. If that is something good that has come out of today, I say that is okay. However, I find it very disappointing, having spent the time going through the original code, that there is no way I can support this one, for the simple reason that I have not given it a decent read. I would be regarded as a pretty silly member of parliament if I decided I supported something that I had not had time to read and analyse. On those grounds, I cannot support the motion.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker …
Mr Bonson: Come in, spinner!
Ms CARNEY: … what a very interesting debate it has been. The expression - and it is a great Australian expression, come in, spinner - works every time.
Yesterday, we had the Attorney-General proposing an amendment to legislation which he conceded - I think if I heard him correctly - was wrong and he needed to change it. When we come into this parliament - and the Attorney-General is a very good example - we deal with legislation. There have been numerous occasions - too many to mention - where we come into the Chamber and, if we are lucky - if I am very lucky - I might get an amendment or series of amendments under the door just before 10 am. If I am a little lucky, I will get some amendments tabled. As a parliamentarian, you look at the amendments and you take it from there.
I made reference yesterday to a hearing aid, to which the member for Goyder seemed to take great exception. I remind members that, at the outset - and I do not know whether the member for Nhulunbuy was here then …
Mr Stirling: I wish we all had hearing aids; we would turn them off.
Ms CARNEY: … ‘Nearly fraudulent’, he said, ‘Nearly fraudulent’. I do not think so. Let me remind members what I said:
Mr Stirling: Say what you like, you do not have any credibility.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: I can yell, too, sport.
In fact, there were several changes in the bill. You fools, there were several changes in the bill …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw that, please.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw ‘fools’, Madam Speaker. I will say to members opposite that it is a sign of your arrogance and it is a sign of the collective lethargy in your government, divided though you are …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: We even made it look different, and you still did not pick it up. My God, you people are paid well for your jobs and you did not even notice? Notwithstanding, then I said and I might even read it again for the benefit of members: ‘Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the Northern Territory code of conduct for ministers and members and in so doing I advise that section 2 has been amended to reflect the non-compliance penalties within the enforcement legislation. The Legislative Assembly Code of Conduct Bill and the revised code will be circulated to all honourable members’.
So there is in addition to collective lethargy and arrogance, and that is I think what has emerged through at times what has been a surprisingly vitriolic debate, particularly from the member for Nhulunbuy who I note with interest spent a lot of time on the part of the code dealing with intimate relationships with CEOs but it was particularly instructive. It shows the sensitivities of members opposite. Not only are they unable to listen, let alone read, but it shows their sensitivity. Why are they sensitive? Well, it is blindingly obvious. Let us go back to the core issue: one of their members disgraced himself. As I said in yesterday’s motion, I quoted the bit from the Northern Territory News where the NT News went around trying to hear from politicians. Usually these people like to throw themselves in the front of the media at every opportunity. No-one returned the call. Why did they not return the call? Because they were embarrassed and ashamed.
Then you heard the Chief Minister fluffing about in the way that she did …
Mr Warren interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. … fluffing about today saying the crimes are bizarre. She did not even know that it already exists. She seemed to take exception to the fact that politicians could be gaoled. She did not even know it already exists. For the Leader of Government Business to strut his stuff with his one shot in the locker, his one shot in the locker and he even got that wrong. Had it not been for the member for Greatorex who said: ‘You are looking at the wrong one’, he would have kept batting on. I was watching it in the lobby and I thought: ‘I wonder if he is joking’. I thought the Leader of Government Business was having a lend of us. But no, he was serious notwithstanding that an amended code of conduct was provided to him, that I said it was an amended code of conduct. We even made it look different so you might even notice, but no. That seemed to escape the collective attention of members opposite.
So we have had the Chief Minister fluffing about, clearly not having any idea about the legislation that exists in the Northern Territory. We have had the Leader of Government Business doing his one shot in the locker and that failed because he was not even talking about the right document.
We come in here day after day when we sit and motions are changed, bills are changed and in fact, legislation is changed. There were several changes in the bill. I think one of the names of the committee was changed as well. In any event, government did not notice those changes and I think there was a reference by someone – I cannot remember who – that this was a hastily cobbled together document. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in conjunction with Parliamentary Counsel, we have been working on this for some time. Of course, the motion although for the sake of the Notice Paper is read in isolation from the bill which I had introduced previously, the fact is the code of conduct needs legislative enforcement and it is the legislation which is the most important aspect of this.
I defy members opposite to come up with any reasons why the legislation is deficient in any way. It was very interesting and very telling that the Leader of Government Business in his 30 minute tirade and diatribe did not come up with one good reason as to why he would not follow through with a Labor Party election promise for a code of conduct with legislative strength as outlined by him in this Chamber before and indeed articulated by the member for Arafura.
Is it our problem that they read the wrong one? I do not think so. Is it our fault that the Chief Minister does not even know about various legislation and legislative provisions in the Northern Territory? I do not think so. Is it Territorians’ fault that the member for Sanderson still has his seat in parliament? I do not think so. Was it the woman’s fault at the cricket that the member for Sanderson spoke to her in the way that he did? I do not think so.
For the Chief Minister to describe the code, its contents and, more importantly, the legislation as ‘bizarre’ really does say it all in terms of this incredibly lazy, arrogant government. The practising Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri and Leader of Government Business, has not won any friends tonight because his colleagues must surely be wondering: ‘Gee, I wonder why he did not listen when the Opposition Leader got up and moved two motions.’ They did not even object, so I wonder whether his little friends - I know they are divided - are thinking: ‘Gee whiz. He might not have been right for the job but, then again, he might be a bit better than the Chief Minister because she should know all about the legislation in the Northern Territory, and she does not.’
It is too cute by half and really quite amusing to see the government flapping about as they all are, very excitable. They think: ‘Oh, yes, we have them now; we have them now.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. What speaks most tellingly of the pretty ordinary contribution by the Leader of Government Business is that at no point did he go back to the core issue, and that is: what is his objection to a code of conduct? What is his objection to it having legislative strength? Why didn’t members opposite follow through with this election promise? I suppose it is like all of the others. They think: ‘Well, we are in government now. We do not need to do it.’ That arrogance will get the better of you, government members. There is no doubt about that.
Electors are very sensible and I certainly imagine that the electors in the seat of Sanderson will be casting their votes very carefully. Word is out that people on the fifth floor are already looking around for someone to go against the member for Sanderson at his pre-selection. There is also, while I am onto it, another rumour going round, apparently well-sourced, it has come to me second or third hand, that the Leader of Government Business and the member for Karama have done a deal, and that is when they get the numbers for the Chief Minister, which could be any day now, as a matter of fact …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … not winning any friends, Madam Speaker. The deal is that the Leader of Government Business has done a deal with the member for Karama and she will be the deputy and the Leader of Government Business will be the leader.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, government members!
Ms CARNEY: What a rabble they are, Madam Speaker. They used to be people of substance. They used to be …
Mr Stirling: Extraordinarily brave or stupid; I think it is the latter.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I think I heard the word ‘stupid’. I ask that he withdraw that word.
Mr Stirling: Stupid or brave; take your pick.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, just withdraw, please.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: We should have, I say somewhat lightly, Madam Speaker, included and perhaps as a parliament, we can include a special provision for the Deputy Chief Minister. I will not go into detail too much about the outrageous conduct in the parliament. He is a man who used to feel things passionately. He was a man, I thought, who used to be of the view that a code of conduct was required for members of parliament. He used to be of view that any such code of conduct, like it exists in other jurisdictions, should have some legislative strength.
The government’s one shot in the locker has failed in an incredibly embarrassing way. It has been a pretty shocking two months for the government. We have had the member for Millner’s memo. We have had the reported leaking of it by the member for Macdonnell. We have had the member for Sanderson. We have had the Chief Minister hammered all around the country for what is her appalling performance in the portfolio of Indigenous Affairs. We have the Leader of Government Business, even though he has trouble with reading and listening, breathing down her neck, padding down a deal with the member for Karama. Why anyone would do that is beyond me, but apparently he has. Most importantly of all, the Leader of Government Business did not even have the courage to say that we should not have a code of conduct, did not even have the courage to comment on the legislation.
Madam Speaker, it has been a particularly enjoyable couple of months for the opposition. We always enjoy what we do; the last couple of months have been especially enjoyable. I look forward to us all getting together to discuss the legislative provision that would give strength to a code of conduct in three months’ time. I await with great interest as to whether the Leader of Government Business actually bothers to read it and get advice. He obviously needs advice, because he is unable to come up with things all by himself. I look forward to the debate and it will remind us all of the appalling conduct demonstrated by the member for Sanderson. I look forward to the continuing debate.
With those comments, I am not sure that I can take it any further, but I conclude by saying that it is a salutary lesson for members of the Assembly to listen when someone introduces legislation or motions. It is a salutary reminder that, when you get amendments, as you do in the Chamber, we in opposition get amendments all the time - and you know the difference between us? We read them, we have a look. We have a look, and we get the old one and the new one, and then line them up and go through line by line, often flying by the seat of our pants and we think, gee, there is a different one there, and then we act accordingly. We are not wound up by the staff on the fifth floor, who just say a couple of days ago: ‘Here are your lines, off you go’, as the Leader of Government Business did. I just had to have a chuckle and I will continue to chuckle for the rest of the week.
Madam Speaker, nothing of substance, we only see a demonstration of arrogance. We see lethargy and certainly we see, and Territorians see, divisions in the Labor ranks. Bring on the next election, Madam Speaker, and we look forward to running a candidate in Sanderson, and no doubt the people of Sanderson will remember the antics of the member for Sanderson. They will also remember the inaction of the Chief Minister. Again, I refer to the member for Millner’s memo. I think the undercurrent of that was her inaction, not to mention her incompetence. We look forward to the next election when Territorians, amongst so many other things, will be thinking: ‘Wasn’t it Labor who promised a code of conduct, wasn’t it Labor who promised to introduce one and give it the legislative strength it needs?’
Why is the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party, in government, so scared of a code of conduct? I wonder why that is? I think it has something to do with all of the members. It certainly has a lot to do with the numbers and, no doubt, it is very difficult for the Chief Minister to control so many people. It is obviously difficult to control the member for Sanderson and the member for Millner and his indigenous colleagues on his side of the House. Well, bring it on.
This motion will be remembered as the motion where government members, despite all of their resources, all of their arrogance, did not even bother to read it. The Leader of Government Business, as he usually does, has continued to portray himself as an arrogant chap who does not want anything except the job of Chief Minister. I wish him well in those endeavours. I share with him his enthusiasm in his quest for that job but, obviously, things are going pretty badly for the Chief Minister, who I note has not contributed to the debate in any way, shape or form except to say, publicly, it is all bizarre.
Madam Speaker, in relation to fines that already exist, she said it was bizarre. Apparently she said it was bizarre for people to go to gaol. It already exists. Most importantly of all, no-one, the Leader of Government Business, the pretend Chief Minister, the real Chief Minister, or the Deputy Chief Minister, not one of them has made any significant argument as to why it is that the Australian Labor Party Northern Territory Branch has reneged on its promise. We ask: what are you scared of? We think we know and that should lead us fairly neatly, Madam Speaker, into the whistleblowers legislation.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 30 March 2006.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I was listening very carefully to the member for Braitling’s contribution to the previous debate. I intend to take her advice on the tone of the next debate to the degree that I can contribute to it.
This debate regards the Whistleblowers Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition on the last General Business Day. It calls attention to the fact that the government has been working on whistleblower legislation. Indeed, it was one of the promises we made to the electorate during the 2001 election. It is legislation that we hold as a very high priority and our intended legislation has gone through quite an exhaustive process of development. We expect it will be introduced before the end of this year.
To set the context of evaluating the opposition bill, I will reiterate the process that the government legislation has gone through to date. I intend, in assessing the contents of the opposition bill, to refer to the government legislation as it stands at the moment by way of comparison. The government legislation has gone through quite a series of steps to date. The Northern Territory Law Reform Commission was commissioned to provide a report on the issues that would be embodied in whistleblowers legislation. We then released a discussion paper for public comment and, under that discussion paper process, undertook extensive consultation with stakeholders through the community. The results of that consultation were then used to prepare a comprehensive draft bill, which was released for public comment.
The government is now in the process of finalising, not so much the bill because the legislation is actually settled now, the actual administrative arrangements to place the legislation within the government. It is simply a case of where is the best home for this legislation within the statutory bodies that we have a choice between – the Information Commissioner or the Ombudsman? We want it to be at arm’s length from government. We want it to be in a place within the government structure that does not place a government agency that is potentially employing the public servants who may be the subject of a whistleblower complaint, so that there would clearly be a conflict of interest if there is not an appropriate home identified for the legislation. We will certainly keep the House informed. In fact, we probably do not need to; we will just simply introduce the legislation at the point we settle these final issues.
As the Leader of Government Business quite rightly outlined, we do take General Business Day items seriously, and there is a very formal process within government to prepare for General Business Days - and this is no exception. We go to our appropriate agencies for advice; we bring that advice forward to Cabinet. Therefore, before a minister responds to a General Business Day item - whether it be a motion or legislation - it has been seriously assessed. I can point to times in the past where we have adopted either the general theme of a General Business Day item or specific suggestions that have come from the opposition or the Independents.
We have heard comments in the past in debates where you say: ‘Oh, yes, the government is re-badging our ideas’, and so on. There is nothing wrong with that. The parliament makes legislation and all 25 of us have a role to play in that. I am trying to assure the opposition and the Independents that this is a serious process. It is one where you do have a genuine opportunity to impact on both the timing and content of law that is made in this House. Whilst the government will always stand on its right to govern, and that is a right mandated by the electorate, we will certainly want to see and assess ideas coming from all 25 members of this House. I have always respected that principle in my work in here.
I would like to now go through, as advised by my agency, the features of the opposition bill. I will say at the outset that we will proceed with our legislation in the form that has been brought together but I would just like to demonstrate that there has been a serious analysis of the bill brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
There are significant deficiencies in the opposition bill, particularly when viewed against the report of the Law Reform Commission and the outcomes of the consultation with Northern Territory stakeholders. The government bill is based on the Victorian model which was recommended by the NTLRC and endorsed by Cabinet as the preferred model. The major deficiencies in the bill before us relate to who public interest disclosures can be made about; the bodies responsible for receiving and investigating disclosures; and the investigation of public interest disclosures. They are the three main themes of the deficiencies that have been identified.
Taking the first one, who public interest disclosures can be made about, under the opposition bill most classes of conduct that may be the subject of a public interest disclosure relate to public officials or agencies - I am referring to clause 5 and clause 7. The definition of a public official under the bill covers employees of agencies and prescribed body corporates. Agency is defined by reference to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act which defines agency as ‘a unit of government administration or office or statutory corporation nominated in an Administrative Arrangement Order as an agency for the purpose of this act’. The Administrative Arrangements Order excludes Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Northern Territory Tourist Commission; and the Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport, Territory Housing; and the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority from the operation of the PSEMA. So clearly, under the definition you have adopted in the bill, there are areas of the government structure that are simply not encompassed by the provisions in the bill.
Under the government bill, all classes of conduct that may be subject of a public interest disclosure relate to public officers and public bodies. I will not worry about the clauses; you will see them when it is introduced. The definition of public officer includes members, officers and employees of public bodies; members of the Legislative Assembly; council members; and statutory office-bearers appointed by the Administrator or a minister. Excluded from the definition are judges and the Master of the Supreme Court; magistrates; the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Auditor-General; the Ombudsman; the Electoral Commissioner; officers of the Assembly; and personal staff to judges, the Master of the Supreme Court or a magistrate.
Public bodies include all agencies under the Administrative Arrangements Order; local government councils; the Police Force; incorporated and unincorporated statutory bodies established for a public purpose; Charles Darwin University; public hospitals; and Territory-funded nursing homes.
The government bill has significantly broader reach than the opposition bill as evidenced by the detail I have just covered. This approach reflects the Victorian model and was supported during the public consultation.
It is noted that in her second reading speech, the Leader of the Opposition made specific reference to the high volume of disclosures that she has personally received from police officers. The opposition bill does not extend to disclosures in relation to police officers, nor does it cover members of the Legislative Assembly; Charles Darwin University; the Tourist Commission; or local government councils. This narrower approach would defeat the overriding objective of promoting open and accountable government.
To the second main theme, the bodies responsible for receiving and investigating disclosures, under the opposition bill any disclosure regarding a public official or agency may be made to the Chief Executive Officer of the agency; the Commissioner of Public Employment; or the Ombudsman, and I am referring to clause 12. The body receiving the disclosure must generally investigate the complaint itself unless it is unable to be impartial or where there is a conflict of interest, in which case the matter must be referred to the Ombudsman or to a Chief Executive Officer. Here I refer to clauses 18 and 19. The Ombudsman must be informed of all disclosures within two weeks of receipt and may take over the investigation on his or her own initiative; here I am referring to clause 20. The circumstances in which an Ombudsman may take over the investigation are not specified.
Under the government bill, the main responsibility for receiving and investigating the disclosure lies with the Ombudsman. At first instance, disclosures may be made to the Ombudsman or a public body if the disclosure is about a public officer of that public body. The only disclosures the Ombudsman is unable to receive are those relating to members of the Legislative Assembly, which must be made to the Speaker. Where a public body makes a decision that a public interest disclosure has been made, or they are unable to make a decision, the matter must be referred to the Ombudsman for review. Where the public body makes a decision that a disclosure is not a public interest disclosure, they must inform the applicant of the right to seek a review of the decision by the Ombudsman. Where the Ombudsman decides that a public interest disclosure has been made, they must conduct an investigation. There is provision for the Ombudsman to refer the disclosure to a public body for investigation where appropriate.
The Northern Territory Law Reform Committee review supports the approach of the government bill, stating that it is noteworthy that with the later acts, the responsibility for dealing with applications falls more frequently on the Ombudsman, for example particularly Tasmania and Victoria, the observable trend being to locate the responsibility for oversighting the operation of the statutory scheme with one independent statutory entity, that entity having the corresponding jurisdiction and expertise, particularly in the investigation process and capable of developing guidelines and procedures for agencies.
To summarise, the opposition bill is considered deficient in relation to bodies responsible for receiving and investigating disclosures because primary responsibility should lie with an independent statutory body, such as the Ombudsman, which has the necessary degree of expertise to develop guidelines and investigate claims. Second, assigning both the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Public Employment a broad-ranging duty to conduct investigations in respect of other bodies would result in duplication of resources in order to establish investigation capacity leading to increased costs and, third, confusion would be likely to result over the most appropriate body to investigate a disclosure and the circumstances in which the Ombudsman may take over an investigation.
Turning to the third main theme that was identified, the investigation of public interest disclosures, there are no provisions under the opposition bill setting down how investigations should be conducted. In contrast, the government bill contains comprehensive provisions in relation to investigations by the Ombudsman, which ensure that notice of investigations are provided to affected parties; the Ombudsman must comply with the rules of natural justice; investigations must be conducted in private; persons appearing at a hearing may have legal representation if the Ombudsman approves; those affected by an adverse report may comment or make submissions prior to the release of the Ombudsman’s report; the Ombudsman may require natural persons to attend hearings where written notice has been provided; the Ombudsman has the power to obtain relevant information by providing written notice and may enter and inspect the premises occupied by a public officer or body; and the Ombudsman may request the secondment of police officers or staff of a public body to assist investigations.
Where the Ombudsman has referred the matter to a public body, the public body must comply with the procedures established by that body under clause 68. Procedures must be formulated in compliance with the act and the Ombudsman’s guidelines.
To summarise, the opposition bill is considered deficient in relation to the conduct of investigations because it fails to set down a comprehensive process for conducting investigations; provide protections for persons against whom disclosures have been made, including the requirement for natural justice which requires the person to whom the matter relates receives notice of the disclosure, and a right of legal representation, and a right to be heard prior to the release of the adverse report; and afford the necessary powers to the proper authority investigating the matter, such as the power to require persons to attend hearings, to obtain information, and to enter and inspect premises.
Analysis of the bill also identified some other less critical areas that were also seen as being deficient. The further areas of concern are as follows: it is unclear whether recommendations following an investigation by the Ombudsman must be taken into account by the relevant body as the opposition bill only establishes a requirement to have regard to reports of the Commissioner for Public Employment. That refers to clause 24.
Penalties do not reflect the seriousness of offences, for example, the penalty for reprisals under the opposition bill is a maximum of 100 penalty points, or $11 000, or 12 months imprisonment for natural persons, or 500 penalty points; $55 000 for bodies corporate. Under the government bill, the maximum penalty is 400 penalty units, or $44 000, or two years imprisonment for natural persons; or 2000 penalty units or $220 000 for bodies corporate. Contrary to the government bill, there are no offences related to providing false or misleading statements or documents intended to refute disclosures, or obstructing officials during investigations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in summary, they are the deficiencies identified in the opposition bill in regard to whistleblower legislation. The Leader of the Opposition can take some compensation in this debate in that we will take this as a very firm reminder that we need to get the whistleblower legislation before this House. We certainly are expediting the process to that end as we speak. It is an election promise. It is one we certainly intend to keep. I can only say that, while it has been some nearly five years since that promise was made to the electorate, we have not been inactive in that period of time, as I outlined from the development process we have gone through.
We believe that the legislation that has now gone through Cabinet and been finalised, along with the care that we are taking in placing the operation of this legislation in an appropriate place within the overall government structure, will ensure that we not only deliver on the election promise, but we will have good legislation that will serve Territorians well, and will serve public servants and people in other bodies outside the core Northern Territory government agencies. It will provide the protection they need to help in maintaining integrity within the operation of these agencies.
We look forward to introducing our bill. We look forward to exposing it to the full scrutiny of parliament. We certainly expect to do that well before the end of the year. However, we will not be supporting the opposition bill for the reasons I have outlined. We certainly look forward to debating our bill with you in the near future.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for both the contents of his speech and the manner in which it was delivered. It is interesting that the legislation has been worked on for five years. Five years is a very long time, given the fanfare that accompanied this election promise. I suppose that in another five years we might see the code of conduct given legislative strength, because it has taken them five years to get to this; although the Chief Minister says - if she is to be believed but I certainly do not - that it is in the pipeline.
I wondered why the Attorney-General did not, in the context of the previous couple of debates, say that the code of conduct was as advanced as the whistleblowers legislation. I believe I know the answer to that; that is, someone has just got it out of the bottom drawer of their desk and thought: ‘Oh dear, the opposition think that we should have a code of conduct and we do not want them delivering our election promises, so can someone look at it please?’
When we introduced the whistleblowers legislation on 30 March this year, I said in conclusion:
Whistleblowers, although straightforward on the one hand, can be technical. I did say, though, when I introduced the bill that there was no reason in my view why the government could not have introduced it years ago. These people have been running the Northern Territory for five years. Five years for whistleblowers legislation? Clearly, not a high priority. I hope the government’s bill is not going to be like the freedom of information legislation which is often referred to as the ‘freedom from information act’. We have had enormous difficulties with it, and it is a pale imitation of what Labor promised. Whilst I thank the Attorney-General for his comments, I cannot say that I am optimistic about the contents of the whistleblowers legislation when it is delivered. My hunch is that it will be like the freedom of information legislation – a shadow of what was promised or a pale imitation thereof.
In relation to the code of conduct - and they are all similar, I guess, in so many respects - if the motions and the legislation that we introduced today have a similar effect on the code of conduct as our bill in March this year has had on whistleblowers legislation, then that will not be such a bad outcome as well.
It is ironic, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have to assist the government - with all of its numbers, all of its resources - implement their election promises. Anyway, assist them we will. Thank you, Attorney-General, and I look forward to the bill.
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The issue of alcohol abuse is one of the most critical matters facing the Territory government. Alcohol and substance abuse is at the core of all social disruption. Its financial and social cost is considerable. Government has focused significant resources and energy on overcoming alcohol abuse and turning around the social harm it causes. Since the election of June 2005, the government introduced a package of legislation to address antisocial behaviour. Those changes included establishment of an alcohol court and new provisions for dry premises in private areas within urban areas.
In addition, the government is working with local communities to implement local area management plans. We are successfully walking the fine line between addressing social harm and ensuring that people can still have a good night out. Legislation, which will be debated next week, is another tool in the hands of the community to address chronic drinking.
Prior to its introduction in the Assembly today, the legislation has been the subject of widespread community consultation. It has included the Darwin and Palmerston City Councils, Alice Springs Town Council, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory. My colleague, the member for Brennan, did an excellent job in informing his electorate through a public meeting, and staff of Racing, Gaming and Licensing have worked hard to ensure everyone who wanted to have a say has had the chance to do so.
The legislation will allow the Northern Territory Licensing Commission to make declarations prohibiting the consumption of liquor in specified public areas. The amendments contained in this bill will build on the existing legislative framework that gives the Licensing Commission the power to make restricted area declarations and restricted premises declarations. These amendments will allow the Licensing Commission to make a declaration with respect to public places. It extends the changes to the Liquor Act made as part of the government’s antisocial behaviour package which gave the Licensing Commission the power to make declarations with respect to private premises.
The proposed amendments will allow an application for a public restricted area application to be made by a local government council, the Commissioner of Police, or the Director of Licensing. A declaration under this new law would only prohibit the consumption of liquor in public and it should be understood that the declaration would not affect persons transporting or carrying liquor in an area that has been declared a public restricted area.
The Licensing Commission will be required to conduct an inquiry when it receives an application seeking declaration of a public restricted area. Individuals and bodies will be invited through newspaper advertisements to make submissions. When deciding whether to make a declaration, the Licensing Commission will be required to take into account information about the consumption of liquor in or near the relevant area; the incidence of crime in or near the relevant area; the views of those who live, work or have an address in the relevant area; and the views of local government councils, police and other relevant Territory government agencies.
The Licensing Commission may only make a public restricted area declaration if it is satisfied that it would be in the public interest as well as consistent with the objects of the Liquor Act which include harm minimisation. A declaration may be made for a specific period or indefinitely, and the Licensing Commission has the power to amend or revoke a declaration. Once the Licensing Commission makes a declaration it will arrange for notices to be placed in the Northern Territory government Gazette and a newspaper that circulates in the area regarding the declaration.
Before the declaration takes effect the Licensing Commission will be required to set up signs in the relevant area that provide information about the declaration, the offence of contravening the declaration, and the penalties that apply to the offence. The Licensing Commission will maintain those signs which will be erected in accord with local council signage by-laws.
The commission may also enter into an arrangement with a local government council that applies for a public restricted area declaration to also undertake publicity including signage regarding the declaration.
Public restricted areas will be different to existing restricted areas in Part 8 of the Liquor Act. The provisions regarding seizure of vehicles will not apply, and a permit may only be issued for a specific function within a public restricted area. A permit may be sought so that a public place that has been declared a public restricted area, for example, a public park, may be used for a special function such as a wedding or other time and date specific function where the consumption of liquor is sought. Under delegation from the Licensing Commission, the Chief Executive Officer of a local council, police officer of or above the rank of sergeant, or a police officer in charge of a police station, may issue a permit for a function within a public restricted area. A permit issued under delegation from the Licensing Commission will be able to be amended or revoked by the officer who issued the permit.
Where a person contravenes a declaration made for a public restricted area, police will have the power to seize any opened or unopened containers of liquor. Penalties for failure to comply with the public restricted area provisions are forfeiture of the liquor seized and a fine of up to $500. The offence may also be enforced by a contravention notice or infringement notice. The penalty and enforcement provisions are consistent with those in relation to a restricted premise declaration whereby a person may be charged and taken before a court, including an alcohol court. This option may be used for repeat offenders where it was apparent the person might benefit from the treatment available through the alcohol court process.
The public restricted areas amendment to the Liquor Act further illustrates the active approach being taken by this government to address issues of alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in our community. This amendment provides another mechanism through which our community will be made a safer and more pleasant place. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Deputy Speaker, last year the Martin government introduced a portable long service scheme for construction workers. Nhulunbuy constituent, Tim Dodding, a tradesman on the G3 project in Nhulunbuy, is a strong example of why this scheme is critical. If the Territory had a portable long service leave when he commenced working in Gove 20 years ago, he would have had 16 weeks long service leave up his sleeve. Instead, every time he accrued long service leave down south, he lost it when he moved back to the Territory. He has been a strong advocate for the establishment of the scheme and now is an advocate to his workmates about its virtues. I am pleased the government has been able to put in place a long-held policy benefiting the workers of my electorate and of the Territory.
Teacher, translator and academic Raymattja Marika was announced winner of the 2006 Territory Day Award. Raymattja is a very worthy recipient of this award, having grown up at Yirrkala and now a senior member of the Rirratjingu clan, she has worked tirelessly for her people, particularly in education and her representation on a number of national boards. Raymattja holds a Graduate Diploma in Adult Education and Training obtained from Melbourne University, and has an Advanced Diploma in Teaching from the Batchelor Institute.
Director of the Council for Reconciliation Australia, Raymattja has always believed in developing harmonious relationships between Yolngu and Napaki. Raymattja is now a Justice of the Peace, and interpreter for the courts and the hospital. She has worked closely with Alcan Gove, translating various documents into Yolngu Matha to improve cross-cultural understanding. Raymattja has worked hard to improve opportunities for Aboriginal people, especially in the areas of education and training. She has been a driving force behind the proposed Liquor Management Plan and the Women’s Community Patrol for the Gove Peninsula. I congratulate Raymattja. I thank her for the important contribution she makes to our community for both Yolngu and Napaki.
Dhimurru Director, Djawa Yunupingu, and Parks and Wildlife ranger, Phil Wise, recently returned from the 5th International Ranger Congress held in Stirling, Scotland. A total of 40 countries were represented at the congress, and many rangers gave presentations about their work situations. Most of the stories presented were extremely inspiring and showed hardships faced by rangers in protecting the world’s biodiversity and cultural integrity.
Dhimurru and Parks and Wildlife NT gave a presentation on the unique joint management arrangement that exists in the indigenous protected area. This received a lot of interest from many government agencies trying to engage with indigenous landowners in their own corner of the world. I was pleased to launch the Dhimurru Sea Country Plan at the Garma Festival, celebrating the release of a written plan articulating Yolngu vision for managing sea country and the progress made towards implementation. The plan searches for ways to promote productive, respectful working relationships and interactions with other users of the sea country, and promotes a whole-of-government community approach in managing the sea country.
My congratulations to Djawa Yunupingu and Steve Roeger for their very successful launch and their ongoing, firm partnerships with those they share the sea country with, and who have a major stake in its sustainable use and management.
The Garma Festival proved again to be an outstanding success with the key forum theme, Indigenous Training and Education, being coordinated by Charles Darwin University. The focus was on past and present education and training policy examining ways to build indigenous and non-indigenous capacities to learn together. I congratulate Yothu Yindi for another great event with various activities such as film, a youth forum, ceremonies, music and other cultural presentations to involve and entertain the visitors from different parts of the country and overseas. I also particularly appreciated the fact that the member for Arnhem was present for a good part of Garma and was involved in various presentations on her own behalf.
Congratulations to Sarah Bendyna on being the first student at Nhulunbuy High School to complete the school-based Australian apprenticeship. Four agencies helped Sarah successfully complete her Certificate in Business: Sodexho, NT Group Training, Darwin Skills Development Scheme and Nhulunbuy High School. Sarah completed her Northern Territory Certificate of Education in 2005 while, at the same time, undertaking her Certificate II in Business, and has been working with Sodexho since September last year. My thanks to Sodexho for their ongoing support – they are proving to be a valuable part of our community in the many things that they do.
Baluka Maymuru, an artist from Buku Larranggay Mulka, has again been awarded a prize in the prestigious Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award. Baluka was honoured with the Wandjuk Marika Award for Three Dimensional works with three hollow logs depicting the cycle of life and death.
It took Baluka 12 months to complete the three memorial poles and his work is done meticulously with great care for detail. Baluka has received many art awards over the years as far back as 1982. The poles have been purchased by the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. Buku Larranggay Mulka manager, Will Stubbs, says Baluka is a timeless man. He is an embodiment of indigenous values, gentle and persistent. My congratulations to Baluka and to the Buku Larranggay who ensure these important artists are well supported and showcased for their outstanding abilities in portraying their culture through art.
Mr Deputy Speaker, just a word in response to a couple of the points made about leadership by the Leader of the Opposition tonight. It is pretty thin ice on which she treads, when I am told by those senior, some quite senior, in the CLP, that she is regarded broadly as an embarrassment to her party. She has not enhanced her reputation over the past two days of these sittings. I refer to the Darwin Research Centre, ‘Murphy’s View’: ‘Welcome to Darwin Research Centre. Our aim is to promote good governance and policies conducive to economic development in our region’. It has a little column here.
Patricia Jobson, signs her own name. I do not know whether she is a CLP member or not, but, ‘have your say on current issues of importance’. Well, there is one that the Leader of the Opposition might take into account.
I appreciate the difficulties of a party with opposition membership of just four, where one of those current four members has, in fact, had a go, and at least he put his hand up. The member for Blain had a go. It did not work out for him, and he resigned or stepped down from the position. That leaves two of the four who may put their hand up. The Leader of the Opposition might feel a bit comfortable. She just might feel a bit comfortable that she is beyond threat or beyond reproach in that position no matter how abysmally she carries out her duties as leader.
However, there is probably another option. I refer to the member for Braitling, if she ever – and she probably would not ever entertain going back to the CLP – but she does present as a person of credibility. She does have great experience in this parliament. She has served in a ministerial capacity in this parliament. She does wear the former sign of office of the CLP with a great deal of pride. I would not like to embarrass her, and it probably is something she would never in her wildest dreams imagine. I would understand and appreciate some of the reasons why, if that was her view, that she would never entertain going back to the CLP. I could understand why, and she referred to an incident tonight that is still close to her. We shared her views of that incident on that occasion.
Notwithstanding those sorts of incidents of the past, and the pretty shameful way in which she was treated by the CLP when she was a member she, to my view, remains the best option for leadership of the conservative forces in this parliament. I do not think she ever would. It may pay, perhaps, the other members to remind the current leader that perhaps there may be another option and she better lift her game.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, sorry, I am chuckling after those remarks by the member for Nhulunbuy, surely said as a joke with his tongue in his cheek.
I wish to report on my recent overseas study trip. I intend to do it over two nights. Tonight, I want to concentrate on the visits I made to the parliaments of the United Kingdom, Scotland and Wales. I believe it is always particularly enlightening for us to visit these parliaments and see them at work. I urge other members who have never been to visit. I was privileged to be hosted by Lord Peter Snape for Question Time at the House of Lords - and later in the dining room might I add. Peter Snape has, in the past, been hosted by this parliament, and has remained a good friend of the parliament over some time.
The point of having our connection with the House of Lords is that we can actually jump the queue, as it were, because there is always a long waiting list to get into Question Time. However, when you are hosted by one of the peers you are able to go in. The House of Commons Question Time was over for this term, even though I did go there to see them debate. I was particularly pleased to go in to see the House of Lords.
This almost follows on from what I was saying earlier about regulating your own behaviour. The House of Lords is a self-regulatory House. Members do regulate their behaviour. Although there is a Speaker, the Speaker did not participated in Question Time whatsoever. Members tend to be very polite to each other. When one member stands to answer a question, the others concede and sit down and wait their turn. It goes backwards and forwards and to the cross-benches and they take it in turn to answer questions. If you go into the House of Commons at Question Time - and I have done that before – it is quite rowdy and noisy, probably similar to what it is in here. It is really quite refreshing to go into a parliament, the House of Lords, where they regulate their own behaviour. I guess you would expect that of a lord.
Saying that, it is not just a rubber stamp for the House of Commons. While I was there, the House of Lords voted against two bills that had come before them. Those bills had to go back to the House of Commons for reconsideration and, perhaps, amendment.
Interestingly, the members of the House of Lords are unpaid and unelected. As you are probably aware, they are either included by heritage, or they are appointed hereditary peers. While I was there there was a scandal of ‘peers for cash’. There was an insinuation that some of them had gained their peerage by paying large donations to certain political parties. No matter where you go, you sometimes get these innuendos.
There are about 700 members of the House of Lords and, obviously, not all of them could turn up at the one time. There are archbishops and bishops, hereditary peers, and the appointed peers. At the time I was there, the eldest lord appeared in the House. He was 96 - quite sparky, quite lively, and was there to participate in Question Time. Although they are unpaid, they get an attendance allowance. Although there are 700 - and you would never get 700 in at any one time - the ones who do turn up are paid. I think it was 300 a day for appearance money - I guess you could call it that.
It is a very interesting place because they are doing a lot of reconstruction on the old House of Lords which was bombed. To see this magnificent building really brings a bit of history back to you.
I just want to say to people in this House: if you get a chance, go. There are people in the House of Commons and the House of Lords who have been here to this parliament, and would welcome and host any visit by members here. I thank Lord Snape for his hospitality in the dining room and out on the terrace. They must have the most beautiful view in London overlooking the Thames on the terrace and also of the London Eye that goes around like the big Ferris wheel. That was great.
I have a lot of materials from these visits. I will not table them because I intend to give them to the Parliamentary Education Unit; if members wish to have a look at them, that is where they will be.
I also visited the National Assembly of Wales. That was interesting as they have not been a National Assembly for some time. Their Assembly is a little like a territory; it has limited powers. Its structure is extremely unusual in that it has an executive government and a parliamentary legislative arm as the corporate body. In most parliaments such as ours, the legislature and the executive are quite separate. They were given powers in 1999.
The House is really weird, I would say. If you could imagine this building being circular, and above us a see through circular ceiling with people peering down, because that is where the observers and the visitors to parliament are. So you have this round building with this see through ceiling and the public all the way around it. I am not sure if I would like to know there was someone above me looking down upon me. The people of Wales have adopted this devolution that they have now, with much enthusiasm, and the parliament was extremely busy while I was there.
I went to their parliamentary education section. They have a facility separate to the parliament. It is an old building that they have set up in that way. Unfortunately, we do not have the facilities here as they do. Many school children visit the parliamentary section. Members go in and talk to the children; members even go in for Question Time to the children. It is just a very good set up. They invite school councils in, which is something I had not thought about. We tend to think about bringing schools in, but they bring in the school council so they can understand how the parliament works. It is not a bad idea.
I brought back one of their booklets. As you can see it has English at the back and it is written in Welsh at the front. The Welsh language is incredibly difficult to read or – well, I could not understand it and when I look at the way it is written, and I am not a linguist of any sort, I found it very difficult.
I encourage our education section to do up all their materials in a pack such as this; we have good materials but we do not have it as well coordinated. These are for teachers. The teacher I spoke to in the parliamentary section was seconded from the Education Department. She said there are around eight teachers who work in that particular section, and they are aiming at primary school students as we do. This particular folder, which I am sure the member for Blain would be interested in, has a teacher’s guide and all the lesson plans and activities. There are a couple of examples of the Peerhead Post, ‘A record turnout as 10 year olds vote for the very first time’, so they give them fun activities.
This was an election poster. This guy is called Iva Lesson. ‘Vote for Iva Lesson for shorter school holidays; extra maths lessons for all’. It is done also in that fun way. I took over the Parliament of Birds that we foster here. They were impressed with that as it is a different concept because it is peculiar to Australia. I thought what they did was interesting, and we could learn from it.
I left some of our material behind, and although their facilities are specific for that, I still think our parliamentary section here does a very worthwhile job. I am quite sure if they look at this particular pack they will see how they could also develop such a folder. I am leaving behind a lot of materials so that the parliamentary education section can have a look.
The other parliament I visited was the Parliament of Scotland. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you were around 12 years ago when this building was built, and you may recall in the years leading up to it the hoo-ha about the CLP government building this at the time of the recession. It cost about $130m and there was a lot of ‘why should you be spending this money, what are you building this big monstrosity for, what a crazy idea’. In fact, it probably was one of the best things that the CLP government did, and they did it to keep tradesmen in Darwin, and in the Territory. It has turned out to be a magnificent building and it is one that will be here for a lifetime.
I could not but smile when I went to the Scottish parliament to find out that it went over budget and over time. What was the cost of the Scottish parliament? 400m. You can imagine how the Scottish people felt about that. What about the design? I think our design here is great. It complements the Top End of Australia. Their design was done by a Spanish architect and, in my view, it is completely out of touch with the rest of the surroundings. There are so many beautiful old buildings in Scotland, yet you have this architect whose work many people do not understand. For instance, it has some strange wooden features on the outside and when we asked what they represented, they represented curtains. It was beyond me.
The Scottish parliament has devolved powers the same as the Welsh parliament does and it is a new parliament. They still rely heavily upon the UK government to fund them, but they are not anywhere near as large, of course. Seating arrangements for members have built in computerised equipment which makes it very easy for them. The public gallery has 200-odd seats for people to view proceedings. So even though we can fit in quite a few here, you can imagine it is quite an extraordinary parliament and you will be able to get some idea from this document just what it looks like.
The Scottish parliament has 129 members and it is a form of proportional representation. Each voter has two votes: the first is for a constituent member of the Scottish parliament, for which they have a first past the post voting system; and the second vote is to elect a regional member. There are 73 constituent members and 56 regional members. It is interesting that they have started off the devolution in many of the areas that we as a parliament do also, education and health, and their devolved powers are growing as time goes by. The Scottish parliament has more powers at the moment than the National Assembly of Wales, but in time you can see this evolution will occur and they will take on the responsibility of providing services to their people far more than they have in the past.
It is a big step in the UK for these two parliaments to have these devolved powers, with the House of Commons and the House of Lords making the major laws for them. They are still young parliaments. We are a young parliament and that is why we can learn a lot from each other and we can transfer ideas.
Mr Deputy Speaker, next time I intend to speak about the areas of public housing that I looked at and the policies there. I also did environmental work in Ireland, which I found fascinating, and the fact that they have had for sometime a ‘no plastic bag’ type of policy, and a levy if you do ask for a plastic bag when you are buying things. I urge members who have not been to the House of Lords or the House of Commons to take the opportunity to visit.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, first let me thank the member for Braitling for her presentation tonight. I found it very interesting and I look forward to the second instalment. She has given a comprehensive report of her trip overseas. I found it fascinating, particularly the bit about 700 members of the House of Lords. I am not sure if they all decided to come at one time whether they would all fit in the door. Thank you, member for Braitling.
Tonight I would like to talk about my electorate of Johnston. On 4 July this year, Larry Baker of Moil in my electorate retired after 39 years service and valuable contribution to the public service. Larry commenced work as a junior trades assistant in the Electricity Supply Unit in the Commonwealth Department of Construction, Northern Territory Division in December 1966.
A few months later, he accepted a five year plumber apprenticeship with the Water Supply Unit, and after completing his training, worked as a qualified plumber, achieving leading hand status from 1972 to 1978. In July 1978, Larry transferred to the Department of Transport and Works in the Northern Territory public sector. At that time, he was acting foreman, and during the course of his NTPS employment, his career path progressed as a technical officer, predominately in the NT water supply industry. During the late 1980s, Larry’s job was transferred to the Northern Territory Water Authority, now the Power and Water Corporation.
In recent years, Larry has been working as a Sewer Rehabilitation Officer, managing sewer rehabilitation programs, asset upgrades and maintenance programs, and auditing the water supply and sewer systems. Larry was also heavily involved in review protection with respect to unauthorised access to the water supply system.
Over his time in government, the Northern Territory has undergone significant changes and Larry’s expertise in the water reticulation and sewer rehabilitation areas of the water and wastewater industry has been well recognised and will be greatly missed. It is people like Larry who do such important work to maintain the infrastructure that really keep our society and our town going.
I understand that Larry will remain in the Northern Territory in close proximity to his immediate family, relatives and friends. Thank you, Larry, for your enormous contribution to the Northern Territory. I am sure other members join me in congratulating Larry on 39 years of valuable contribution to the Northern Territory public service and the public of the Northern Territory.
As usual there are many things happening in the schools in my electorate. I was pleased to award my Quiet Achiever awards to Randy Ku and Damien Jongue of Moil Primary School; Vernon Francisco and Karlee Truscott of Wagaman Primary School; and Ben Rioli and Arnya Hoffman of Jingili Primary School for their fine efforts throughout the second school term. It is fantastic that these kids are recognised for getting on with their work and play in a consistent and quiet manner. I congratulate them for their worthy contribution and for the recognition they have received through the Quiet Achiever awards.
Other outstanding children I have heard about include Sunisa Scott of Moil Primary School who, along with her team from Waratahs Hockey Club, were the joint premiers in the Under 10s girls hockey. Sunisa is thrilled with the trophy and her medal.
Jedda Bennett-Kellam and Madison Campbell, also of Moil Primary School, were also big winners. Jedda was awarded a trophy from the Darwin Basketball Association Challenge Season 2006 Under 12 Boys Division 1, and Madison was awarded a trophy from the Australian Callisthenic Federation 18th National Graceful Solo Championships Darwin 2006 Closed Division for third in the juniors. Three fantastic achievements by Sunisa, Jedda and Madison.
At Jingili Primary School, the concern shown for their sister school at Lea Lau in Timor continues with the Student Representative Council organising a special project to encourage the students to donate exercise books to send to the school. Their aim is to get enough books to cover the entire floor of the assembly area. What a great initiative from the student council.
Ben Rioli of Jingili Primary School was recently selected to represent the Northern Territory in the Australian Football Exchange. The games were held in Darwin last week. Ben competed against students from around Australia. I am sure we will be hearing more of Ben’s football career as the years go by. Go Ben!
Wagaman Primary School won the Paul Henderson Perpetual trophy at the Regional Athletics Carnival earlier this month. What a fantastic achievement for a small school. The school fielded 47 athletes who produced some incredible results. I hear the kids were the epitome of model sportsmen and sportswomen during the carnival, and were there for their mates and friends, cheering them on in every race. Well done, Wagaman!
Another fantastic story of a Wagaman Primary School student is Oliver Markey’s results in the cooking division at the Royal Darwin Show. Oliver won a first for his decorated Milk Arrowroot biscuits, and a third for his pikelets. I saw the Markey family at the show, and they were a very proud family. I saw Oliver’s special Milk Arrowroot biscuits and the great decoration that he had on them. His mum and dad were certainly very proud of him. Move over, Jamie Oliver – the next Cook Oliver is coming! Keep up the good work, Oliver. I know he is busy thinking about what he is going to put on his Arrowroot biscuits for next year to win that coveted prize.
As the member for Johnson, I would like to congratulate a famous inventor in my electorate. Mr John Waldmann of Moil recently featured on the New Inventors program on the ABC. John’s Waldmann’s Multi Panels are receiving not only national but international attention, and will be a boon for the construction industry in Darwin and in similar places which can be affected by natural disasters such as cyclones and earthquakes. The panels are made of a lightweight low mass cement and fibre mix. I am led to understand that it is the vibration method in which the cement and fibre are combined that is really the innovation of this invention. John has recently visited Malaysia - I also met John and his wife at the show and he told me that they were going to Malaysia and that he would be briefing a minister there on his invention. I wish John all the best with the next stage of the New Inventors program and with marketing his panels.
As we are all aware, the last few months have been extremely busy ones with all the Dry Season activities. I had a fantastic time at the Greek Glenti Festival, and I am continually amazed at how far the Glenti has come since its inception in 1998. I heard that over 15 000 people attended this year, and the Greek food and Greek beer were extremely popular. I spent many enjoyable hours assisting serving on the refreshment stand. I was happy to spend many hours with Mr Tony Miaoudis, Mr John Nikolakos, Mr Jimmy Hatzi, Evan Papandonakis, Nick Halkitis and Costa Simeon. It was great working with those people for the community. I know many members here, including you, member for Brennan, were present at the Greek Glenti.
At the beginning of July was the great V8 Supercars, another major success for the Territory, bringing in hundreds of visitors to the Territory at a time where Australia is starting to experience a downturn in people holidaying in Australia. Together with the Darwin Cup Festival, the Territory can be proud it is able to attract the numbers to ensure that these two major events are so successful and so well patronised.
At the V8s, I spent many enjoyable hours talking to Mick O’Meara of Jingili, and Kerri and Brian Williams of Wagaman and Domino’s Pizza fame. I should add that I have heard recently that Kerri and Brian have sold their interest in Domino’s Pizzas. We know that Kerri and Brian have experienced some family sadness in recent years. They have always worked very hard in their business. I know that there are many young people, including my children, who have been given a helping hand by Kerri and Brian in that business, giving them a job in the pizza business, teaching them what work is all about, and teaching them what team work is all about. I know that my children certainly look upon Kerri and Brian as second parents. I know that there are many other young people around the Territory given a start by Kerri and Brian, gone on with their lives, but still look upon Kerri and Brian with a lot of affection, and almost as second parents. Kerri and Brian, well done. I am sure you will have a bit of a break, but you probably have other business plans. As always, through your hard work and commitment, I am sure you will be very successful.
Also at the races were Peter and Tita Jones of Jingili. Peter has just started a new business of a new way of treating swimming pool water - a new non-chemical treatment; I am sure it is going to be very successful. I wish Peter all the best with his new business. Mr Alex Tsopanaglou of Moil and Mr Ken James of Jingili were also at the races. All of them had a great time.
At a luncheon held on the Friday, I met up with Afif Whykes, Abbie Burke, Tristan Garces, Tiara Ladju, Jack Russell and their teacher, Donata Jonjic from Wagaman Primary School. The kids had a great day on the Friday at the V8 Supercars and it was just fantastic to host them.
It was my honour along with other people to attend the Darwin Cup races. I am not much of racing man but I do attend once a year. I had an abysmal day all day. I did not back a winner or a place until the last race. I took approximately $100 with me. I had $5 each way on each race. I was just losing. I had $25 left and I put that last $25 at 5-1 on Nozi which won the race. So, on the day, I won $25 which was enough for one pizza, I think, for the family that night. We had to buy another pizza as well! It was a great day out. I had a wonderful time and I know the people of Darwin also had a wonderful time.
There is no doubt the Territory is a great place to live. We have a fantastic lifestyle here. Just the friendliness of the people - I know everyone who visits the Territory just feels it and that is why people keep on coming back. That is why we have 2500 at our Darwin Cup Ball because it is so popular, it is so friendly. I would not live anywhere else. I certainly would not live anywhere else other than the electorate of Johnston. I am proud to be the member for Johnston and I am very glad to be living in the electorate of Johnston.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as I mentioned last night, I will continue my comments on issues related to engagement with our near neighbour. Firstly, some background that I did not provide last night. It would be useful to place this on the record for the information of members and anyone who reads Hansard.
East Nusa Tenggara is the province to our north. It is known as Nusa Tenggara Timur which translates to be the central islands in the south. It is a province of Indonesia and includes West Timor. The provincial capital is Kupang, located in West Timor. The province consists of about 550 islands dominated by three main islands, Flores, Sumba and West Timor – that is the western part of the island of Timor. The eastern part of Timor is the independent country of Timor-Leste. Other islands include Adonara, Alor, Ende, Komodo, Lembata, Menipo, Rincah, and Rote Island, the southernmost island in Indonesia. A few years ago when I had an exchange here of students from West Timor, we visited the East Arm port,. Their eyes fell upon the ships that were moored in the port and they knew exactly where they had come from, Rote Island. There are also the islands of Savu, Semau, and Solor.
The province is divided administratively into 14 different regencies, and one municipality which is the provincial capital of Kupang. The population of the province is estimated to be – this is in 2003 – over 4 million people. The religious mix of the province is not typical of Indonesia: 91% Christian (Catholic and Protestant); 8% Muslim and 0.6% Hindu or Buddhist; and 4% holding traditional beliefs. Nusa Tenggara Timur has become a refuge for Indonesian Christians fleeing from conflict in Maluku and Irian Jaya.
In the province, the secondary school enrolment rate is only 39%, dramatically below the Indonesian average of 62%. Clean drinking water, sanitation and lack of health facilities mean that child malnutrition, 32% and child mortality, 71 per 1000, are higher than the rest of Indonesia.
A little history about Kupang: it might surprise members that apart from Port Jackson, the first major port established on this continent, the next significant and established port was Kupang. It has received quite a prominent place in history. The first visitor was William Dampier in 1699. He called in to find that the Dutch were lodged there and they asked him to move aside. Then, when it looked like he proposed no threat, they invited him back. He wrote an account of his first visit to Kupang.
Captain Cook passed by, but turned away and moored at the nearby island of Savu. There was also Captain William Bligh in April 1789. After the mutiny, he and some crew managed what is regarded to be one of the greatest navigational feats of all time: to find his way to the port of Kupang.
There is also a story of some convicts who decided to escape from Port Jackson and they made a similar journey all the way to Kupang, to be arrested by, I think, the British and taken all the way back to the old country. Interestingly too, when Port Essington was established, the closest provisioning port was the port of Kupang. There are many other historical aspects about the port of Kupang and it is a fascinating place to visit. It is well worth learning a little more about the stories behind the story.
The reasons for visiting such a place are obvious. One, being our neighbour, we must learn how to engage and relate to our neighbour. What opportunities are there? One was the obligation to explore aspects of mutual benefit, but what opportunities are there for the Territory in the region? First, in the Republic of Indonesia, with a population of well over 200 million people, there are many opportunities for trade and projects of economic benefit jointly. If we are to engage in the immediate region more actively at a cultural and social level, we are then provided with the linkages into the rest of the republic. It is those personal connections, if anyone has worked in the region, that have the currency and then negotiations can occur once the relationships are established.
The immediate opportunities that lie in the region lie through understanding how to make better use of the AusAID dollar that flows into the region. For many quite obvious reasons, the focus of much of the AusAID dollar flowing into Indonesia, well over $300m a year, not to mention the $1bn that was provided just after the tsunami, which had many aspects - some of it does flow into the eastern provinces, which is Nusa Tenggara -but the focus, for the reasons I outlined at the beginning, of this project money goes into East Nusa Tenggara. There are opportunities for the Northern Territory, through engaging in that immediate region, to administer and to be the conduit and support for the programs that operate in our near region. If we are talking about, in any one year, nearly $100m being used to run programs within that region, the Territory could have a greater access to that revenue stream.
Currently we do not, and we are outside of that game. That is one issue I have been exploring for some time. It is health and education primarily where we are specially equipped by reasons of our close proximity. In previous times, there was a stronger focus in our education system on language and that has faded in recent times, and it must be brought back. That allows greater educational exchanges. The university has begun to focus more closely with the predominant university in the province, which is Nusa Cendana, and through that engagement there is the emergence of the opportunities for greater application for AusAID funding.
At the moment, it appears that the vast majority of the AusAID dollar which flows into the eastern provinces is administered outside of the Territory. Last time I looked, and I need to refresh these facts related to the education allocation, there are only a very few scholarships awarded in the region, and there are about 900 each year in our immediate region that are funded by the Australian government through the AusAID project, there was only a very small number and, if I recall correctly, a couple of years ago, it was only about three or four that found their place within the Territory. We could do, and should do, much better than that.
I do not know. It has been a funny day in parliament, but I just wonder whether there is a place for reasonable, sensible debate about such matters that could be explored. If government does not want to do it and wants to play their own game, I am happy to continue on this path as I am anyway. I have had meetings with the Deputy Director of AusAID to find better ways of accessing and engaging the region, and making sure that we could take advantage of our geographic advantage as well as our knowledge of the region.
One case in point is the issue of maternal mortality levels, which are extraordinary high levels. This is a project that has been worked on for a period of time with the Palmerston Kupang Sister City Committee. It has been a very difficult project. In fact, one of the reasons for going was to try to find a way forward in what had become a difficult impasse for the Sister City Committee and the regency of Kupang. The maternal mortality levels in the region are much higher than the national average of the Republic of Indonesia, which is an astonishingly high figure of over 1000 mothers who die in childbirth per 100 000 live births. How does that compare in Australia? In Australia, it is 13 per 100 000, compared to over 1000 per 100 000 in the eastern provinces, and for indigenous in Australia, it is 34.8 per 100 000. So, by far and away, there is a clear need.
That need has been recognised too by the Australian government and many other governments which release money into the region to run programs to help change those indicators. Currently, they are not moving in the right direction. In briefings that I have had with the West Timorese parliament, they are concerned. I have here a report from the NTT parliament which outlines that fundamental concern. The money is flowing from a number of agencies, and particularly from Australia, but the indicators are not improving. They pose some solutions that are a bit hard for me to grasp at the moment as my grasp of Indonesian is not at that level where I can quickly grab the report. I am getting that translated. However, the meetings were very good. I spoke to a man who works in the parliament specifically focused on this issue. He has worked in that area for 24 years and is an advisor to the Governor. It is that area and that project that I particularly want to advance.
The issue I raised last night with the emergence of a strengthened trilateral agreement between the three countries of Indonesia, through West Timor, Dili and the Northern Territory through Darwin, with the support of the Indonesian government, the Ambassador of Australia and the representative of the Timor-Leste government, provides an opportunity for the provision of a regional support centre within Kupang to administer in a different way the programs that are run within the regions. That is the project that I was looking at, aside from supporting the soccer trip; to assess whether this was the way to go. Currently, the bulk of the projects to improve the maternal and child mortality levels within the province are largely centred in Jakarta. Exploring the possibility of moving a regional centre back to Nusa Tenggara Timur, through Kupang, might be a better way of strengthening regional delivery. That was the matter that I spoke with AusAID about before going, and it appears to have been confirmed and particularly strengthened by this new trilateral agreement.
These matters are in their earliest stages. I only hope that the government will take the time to assess the value of this emerging relationship, and to see if we could build upon this new connection and find our place as a conduit for a greater acquitting of the AusAID dollar through the Territory. What is at stake there is a real difference could be made, we could strengthen our strategic focus within the region, and we could have a greater flow of real money - money that is new to the Territory - through the Territory, strengthening our health and education services.
They are the services that are needed within the region. We are at a place where we could strengthen ourselves, and at the same time, reach out to our near neighbour. I will continue tomorrow night.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to advise parliament of some of the many wonderful things that have occurred in the schools of my rural electorate of Goyder, to give you all a snapshot of what has been happening most recently.
Bees Creek Primary School has held two very successful fundraisers this term. Firstly, a hotly contested quiz night which raised $700, and secondly, a preschool fete which raised a fantastic $1800. The school has proudly announced that Stage 1 of the huge new sandpit, including a water feature and shaded area, has been completed for the early childhood students. It has clearly proven to be a hit with all the ages by the look of the photos in the school newsletters. Also, a much needed new special education unit is being built by Brustolin Builders to cater for students with special needs.
At Berry Springs Primary School, upgrading of many of the school facilities were either commenced or completed over the school holidays. Especially exciting is the new roof over the hard court area. Interestingly, the crane which has been lifting the roof beams in place has proven to be an eagerly watched event by students.
Girraween Primary School is one of the newer rural schools and is located in a rapidly developing rural area. The school council has been working hard at fundraising recently. Just a few of the activities held recently include a very successful big barbecue fundraiser at Bunnings Palmerston in August which raised $800. They are also doing the gate keeping duties at the Speedway on Saturday nights to earn money for the school. Furthermore, the school community is currently preparing for a major raffle, as well as organising for a school dance night in September. A vote of thanks must go to the council chair, Zoe Langridge, and the rest of the school council team for ‘rising to the challenge’, which is the Girraween school motto.
At Humpty Doo Primary School, I recently joined my esteemed colleague and Education minister, Hon Syd Stirling, for the opening of the chicken yard. This is a practical ‘learning for life’ example of the best of the middle schooling philosophy. The school is really getting involved in making their environment a better place, with a current grant proposal to incorporate water saving devices into the school facilities, and also by their desire to start a native plants garden in the new play area. The most exciting news in recent days is that the new shade cloth over the ‘big kids play equipment’ has now been completed. I know the school committee is very grateful to Mrs Jenny Eddy for writing the submission last year.
Litchfield Christian School is 10 years old this year and recently celebrated with the biggest and best ever bush dance. It was very well attended by past and present staff and students as well as the general public. Former principal, Mr Andrew Kernick, praised the school for keeping up the tradition of providing quality Christian education in the rural area and congratulated the Year 6/7 students for taking out first place in the 2006 ENGQuest competition for the design of playground equipment. Well done. Litchfield Christian School also won second prize in the lower primary section with an entry they called a ‘Sparkling Ding Ding’ which was a catapult that could toss a marshmallow more than one metre. Again, congratulations. I must point out that this national design construction competition was run by Engineers Australia, of which I am also still a proud member.
Middle Point is one of the smallest schools in my electorate but the students there have their eyes firmly on the future. With one computer to every five students they probably have more access to IT equipment than is the case for many larger schools. Many of the students used this technical know-how to contribute to a project called Snapshots of Remote Communities which was coordinated by the National Museum in Canberra in conjunction with our very own Territory Museum and Art Gallery. Disposable cameras were provided and 17 of Middle Point’s budding photographers were encouraged to show the whole world what is important in their community. I can personally recommend that you visit the community exhibitions page on the National Museum website at www.nma.gov.au and follow the links through to the Middle Point School slide show to see those wonderful photos for yourself. It surely has put Middle Point into the annals of history and I thank past principal, Grant Errington, and the recent acting principal, Michele Ralph, for facilitating this endeavour.
Palmerston Christian School is another wonderful school in my electorate. I recently attended a musical event put on by the junior school called ‘The King’. The production clearly showed that many hours of hard work went into learning the songs and creating the props. The action was non-stop and really very entertaining and in keeping with the school’s family oriented Christian values. Along with everyone who attended, I really did enjoy the night. I am also looking forward to talking to the Year 9 students about their research trip trekking along the Larapinta Trail in July. I have heard they experienced temperatures as low as minus five degrees and survived! I hope to share some survival tips with them before venturing on my own experience on the Larapinta Trail later in the year.
Taminmin High School is currently focusing on the implementation of middle schooling. The school will have the benefit of a $4.6m facelift with a new classroom block planned for the middle school. Senior students are currently preparing for a student expo to be held on 13 September which will showcase their very exceptional musical and dramatic talents to the local community. The school has recently played host to 26 students and staff from their sister school of Kamitonda High School in Japan. This has in the past, and continually proves to be a tremendous cultural experience for students of those schools. I was fortunate to meet them at a special welcome assembly just last week, and again to meet the Japanese students in their Taminmin High School friends during a Parliament House visit during the August sittings.
As you can see, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, our rural school communities are high up there with the best in the Territory. My congratulations go the principals, teaching staff and school councils at all our rural schools.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I make a few comments about some great functions and some great people in my electorate. I will particularly make reference to the Adelaide River Show which occurred last weekend on 19 and 20 August. The show was postponed from earlier in the year because of Cyclone Monica and obviously the damp ground. It was great to see that it happened and the show could never have happened without some very special people.
The show was headed up by Jane Ellem, the coordinator, and Deborah Koch. These ladies put a great deal of personal time into these events and certainly Jane was busy helping the show during the Darwin Show with her partner, Carl, trying to get exhibitors and the side show exhibits down to the Adelaide River Show.
This year was a trial for the show due to the cancellation arising from Cyclone Monica. The last couple of years have been a struggle, but this year it was revamped as the Back to the Bush Show. Gate takings were up on last year despite not having the Adelaide River Talent Quest, which occurred earlier on, but they also had the gymkhana and the polocrosse.
One of the special events that occurred along with the show was the camp draft and Jane Ellem was the coordinator of this. The upgrade of the campdraft cutting yards was very well received by the participants and certainly the crowds. Jane coordinated the campdraft in conjunction with Mr Rod Bremner. The judge was Paul Stone from Mt Sanford. He volunteered his time all weekend and it certainly was well judged over the weekend. The competitors came from as far afield as Flora Valley Station and all the Heytesbury stations, the AACO stations, Tipperary Group stations, and Ban Ban Springs were all very well represented. These events do not happen without a great deal of participation from these far flung stations.
The Tipperary Group boys volunteered their time to put up the yards and get them ready for the draft. I would like to say a special thanks to the managing owners of Tipperary Station who jumped in and provided a lot of the cattle and certainly a lot of their staff to help with the events. The winner of the Chief Minister’s Golden Bell Open was Gary Faulks from Moolooloo Station. The winner of the ASH’s Open was Mr Wayne Bean of Flora Valley Station. Kate Townsend, also of Moolooloo Station, won the Ladies Draft, and the Geoff Hill Memorial Junior Draft was won by Monica Tasker of Camfield Station. I was there for the open of the camp draft where Gary Faulks did an excellent time on a beautiful grey horse. It was good to see such a great ride.
The upgrade of equipment could not have happened without the support of the local businesses and local volunteers, especially Jane Ellem, Don MacLean, Carl Wilken, Tommy Fawcett, Colin Malin, and the Rixon family, and also the prison work crews - it was good to see those guys coming down and helping out – and, of course, the Tipperary boys.
The rodeo on the Saturday night was a great event. When I passed back through on the Sunday morning, there were still a few boys kicking on. I do not think they had seen their swags, but there was great coordination and organisation by Kelly Bergemeister. She again volunteered her time to organise the rodeo. Despite problems with the professional organisations that occurred, it all ran very well for a local rodeo. I received a lot of positive feedback about these guys having a chance to ride the cattle that had been provided. All sections were taken out, which provided great entertainment. A special thanks to Daniel Tapp who, as well as the Tipperary mob, stepped in at the last minute to solve some of the stock problems, and Rob Bremner who was the judge for the event, who again jumped in to call the rodeo.
These bush shows are real Territory old style shows where local people exhibit a whole range of produce and enter those traditional competitions. There was a range of competitions in the pavilion organised by Trina Railton, and I thank her for her effort. She asked me to be the judge and I certainly enjoyed most of it. One category included 21 chutneys so I was not feeling too good by the end of the judging! The cakes were wonderful.
The upgrade of the pavilion was well received. It is a Sydney Williams hut and it looked very smart. This year, the cooking and photographic sections were very hotly contested. Some of the photographs which were submitted by the kids from Adelaide River and Batchelor were absolutely fantastic. The photographic judge was Terry Knight, no relation I do not believe, and he was very impressed with the calibre of the photos. Donna Renshaw cleaned up in the Wildlife section, which was a great display. The cooking and home brewing areas came from Batchelor, Tipperary, Douglas Daly, Cosmo camp and the Adelaide River area.
Mr Geoff Sellems, a local councillor from the Coomalie Community Government Council, and I judged the cookery, together with Sandy MacLean. We had a lot of trouble in coming up with some of the winners, because it was so close between them. The best exhibit for the cookery area was taken out by Tipperary Station. It was a fantastic cake and I believe the people at Tipperary spent a great deal of time on it. It did not win the best cake within its category, but it certainly was the best displayed cake. Lexie stepped in at the last minute to judge the kids cooking section and, again, there was a great deal of competition there.
Jan Powick had the dubious honour of being a participant in the cane toad exhibit. We had cane toads the size of very large dogs with very long fingers and stick-on nails with red paint. They were very unusual cane toads, but a lot of work went into them. There were also very interesting exhibits such as the fishing rods; there were some old style fishing rods there.
The horticulture section was hotly contested again this year, with Lu Richardson of Tipperary cleaning up. Entrants from these areas came from right across the region and it is good to see they are using Adelaide River as their centre. I believe that will grow over time. The judge, Barry McDonald, brought a wealth of experience judging on experience and the nutritional value of those areas.
The kids art and craft section was judged by Elaine Stanton. She volunteers her time every year and was helped by Margaret Wardrope. The local Top End Group Schools were also well represented. These include Adelaide River, Tipperary, Douglas Daly and Batchelor Area School. All these kids got involved, which is great for the local community, to compete in those areas. They displayed community projects throughout the pavilion and it certainly showed that they put a great deal of thought into what was going on. There was a display of the Kakadu Seasons which won first prize in the upper primary classes exhibition. The Batchelor Preschool with a beautiful purple horse with pink hair took out that section. The plants were judged, again by Tina, who gives her time every year. This year, the exhibitions in the pavilion showcased the wider region and also sparked a great deal of interest, so no doubt there will be further interest next year. I may put in some photos and even cook something next year.
The overall winner of the two aggregate trophies, the cooking, craft and horticulture, was won by Patsy Fawcett, and the Ada Sargent Memorial Trophy for cooking and craft was also won by Patsy. Patsy had quite a lot of jams and chutneys and other exhibits entered. She spent a great deal of time on it. She also had a stall at the show selling her mango and watermelon drinks. I certainly was as refreshed as many other people who sampled here drinks. She said it had taken her 38 years of entering these competitions to win them. I presume she started at a very young age!
The upgrade of the pavilion could not have happened without Andy Smith. Andy has been the caretaker of the Adelaide River Show Society, or the ARSS Club. He gathers together the local grey brigade who stay at the park and they help out free of charge with organising and putting up stalls, and doing a whole range of things. I say to Andy and his partner who are heading back down south to Adelaide, I believe, and then across to Bundaberg: thanks very much. Their time this year at the ARSS Club has been certainly well received.
I would also like to give special thanks to Wayne Parsons who has again given his time helping out with the organisation and making the day happen. The Beaut Ute competition was organised by Donna Renshaw. She picked up the Beaut Ute at the last minute. The decision was a very difficult one. In one section, the winner decided by doing a bit of circle work - I think everybody understands what that means. I also thank the judges, Donna, Russell Neal and Phil D’Alessandro.
The entertainment for the day was helped out by Mick Renshaw who acted as the barman and the DJ at the same time. The Drumming Monkeys were certainly a great asset to the day.
Special thanks for the organisation of the sites to Chrissie Leavey, who also won one of the sections in the cake competition. It was an absolutely beautiful cake.
Special thanks also go to some of the exhibitors. Jaemie Page certainly did a great deal of work there, as well as the Bushfires Council and MRM, who had displays there.
It was a great event and I pay particular thanks to Karen and Colin Malin and Mick Loone for their long hours of work. This event has grown from last year and I look forward to a bigger and better show in 2007.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I had the honour of attending the Vietnam Veterans day and Long Tan service on 18 August, and to host a reception for Vietnam Veterans on behalf of the Chief Minister.
The events of 18 August 1966 should be etched into our national psyche. All Australians should be aware of what happened on 18 August 40 years ago. It was a day when young Australian and New Zealand soldiers - 108 of them in all - battled incredible odds and unimaginable hardships in hostile surroundings a world away from home.
It is another day to add to the record of the spirit of Anzac. It was a day when the men of D Company, 6 Royal Australian Regiment lost mates, and a day that changed the course of their lives forever. That they prevailed against more than 2500 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops is astounding. That 84 of them survived the battle borders on the miraculous. It is an event that all Australians should know about. However, for many different reasons, recognition has been painfully slow.
The commemoration on 18 August is all about recognising and raising awareness about the Battle of Long Tan and the place it has in our nation’s history. It is about recognising the achievements of Australian soldiers and the ultimate sacrifice many of them made for their country and for their mates. Importantly, it is a day about acknowledging the contributions of all our Vietnam Veterans, service men and women who are now being recognised for their courage and service of our country.
I thank Mr Peter Mansell from the Northern Territory Vietnam Veterans Association for giving me a copy of Lex McAuley’s book about the Battle of Long Tan. It is a very moving read and it really gives the reader an insight into this famous part of our history. I thanked Peter on the night for providing me this book to read and I thank him again. It is a very moving account of what occurred.
The motto of the Vietnam Veterans Association is: ‘Honour the Dead. Fight like hell for the Living’. We can all say that the Vietnam Veterans Association has done just that. I hope all the veterans felt the service and the reception appropriate. I spoke with a number of the veterans about their experiences on returning home. Many experienced rejection and open hostility from the people whose interests they thought they were fighting to protect. They left the politics to others. They just got on with doing their duty and they did it extremely well. 1 Australian Task Force was given one directive by the American General, General Westmoreland: take control of Phuc Toy Province. When Australians left Vietnam they had done exactly that.
This month, television, especially pay television, has run many documentaries on the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these have focused exclusively on the American experience. The American experience is not the Australian experience. There are many books that detail the Australian experience. I ask broadcasters and producers to consider investing in documentaries and films that recount the Australian experience of the Vietnam War. The stories of our veterans need to be made known.
Throughout today and earlier tonight more young men and women from 1st Brigade based at Robertson Barracks begin their journey to Afghanistan. I wish them a safe tour of duty. I am certain that they will acquit themselves admirably as those before have done. I look forward to welcoming them home once their tour of duty is complete.
This Saturday the NT Rugby Union minor semi-final is to be played and Craig ‘Squirter’ Leach will play his 300th A Grade game for the Palmerston Rugby Union Club. This is a fantastic achievement and will be celebrated enthusiastically by the club. Craig Leach started his rugby career at Brisbane’s Boys College where he was sent to boarding school as a 12-year-old. His parents, Mal and Wendy worked Mt Ringwood Station just south of Adelaide River and so both of their boys, Cameron and then Craig, had to leave home for their schooling. When Craig finished Year 12 he returned to work in the Territory and by then rugby had become his game of choice.
He joined Palmerston Rugby Union Club in 1985 and began playing in C Grade. Within no time he was called up into A Grade where he remained for most of the rest of his career. At Palmerston in those days, he can remember massive forward packs who fed on small, unsuspecting backs such as himself. He was given his nickname of ‘Squirter’ by just such a forward, Tony Morris, who coined it because of Craig’s skinny body.
Craig says it was when these large forwards who helped harness his skill of elusive running and fast release of the ball. The half-back in those days was his brother, Cameron, and the two soon formed a great partnership which lasted nearly 100 games. In Craig’s time at Palmerston he has won many awards: the A Grade Best and Fairest in 1996-97; and Best Back three times. He was awarded the club’s highest honour of Life Membership No 10 in 2003. Craig has played in all three of Palmerston’s winning A Grade grand finals. A big moment in Craig’s rugby career came in 1992 when he captained the NT representative side to an historic 17-16 win over Scotland at Rugby Park in Darwin.
In 1992, Craig moved south to try his hand at rugby in Sydney where he played for Eastern Suburbs. Returning to Darwin in 1994, Craig slotted back into the NT side and Palmerston. In 2000, when the Mosquitoes concept was born for the NT representative side, Craig was the first captain. He played 55 games for the NT between 1988 and 2001, including being captain during 1990-92 and 1995-2000.
He remembers well when he was moved from his favourite number 10 spot to inside centre against Queensland when Kris Shirley took the number 10 position. His opponent was Tim Horan, who many of us will recall went on to make the inside centre position his own with the Wallabies for many years. It was a long day at the office, trying to contain the running skills of Horan and I am sure it was a proud moment in Craig’s football career.
Craig has also played rugby in every state of Australia. He represented the NT Under 20s in Taiwan and captained the Mosquitoes in Sri Lanka. He has travelled far and wide with his first love, rugby, and has met some great friends and had great experiences. Craig, however, counts playing NT representative rugby with his brother, Cameron, as one of his great thrills. While not admitting to be ready to hang up the boots just yet, Craig is preparing for life off-field.
He recently married Mel and they have a lovely daughter, Jessie. Craig this year is coaching the NT Under 16 side which will see him travel to Sydney for the national championships. I know all members join with me wishing them every success. He is a Level 2 National Coach and is interested in pursing this side of the game.
On Saturday, when Craig runs onto the field for Palmerston for the 300th time in A Grade I understand his parents Mal and Wendy will be there, as they have for nearly all of the 300 games. They travelled from the station at Mt Ringwood for many years until they moved to Batchelor and then continued their weekend journey to support their son, a return journey of over 200 km.
Some of the other highlights in Craig’s career involved kicking the winning penalty in Palmerston’s first A Grade grand final win in 1990-91. He was captain of the Palmerston A Grade winning side in 1998-99 and NT Player of the Year in 1996. He has been top point scorer in the NT Rugby Union A Grade competition three times. He won the Australian Sports Medal in 2000. I would like to acknowledge Garry Russell for providing me with much of the information about Craig’s history. I look forward to witnessing Craig run on for his 300th game at the weekend.
Recently, FrogWatch, together with local MLAs in Palmerston and beyond, coordinated a series of toad busts around Palmerston in July and August. I was lucky to lead the first community toad bust in Palmerston at Sanctuary Lake Park in Gunn on 21 July this year, together with FrogWatch coordinators, Graeme Sawyer and Paul Cowdy, as well as a great many keen volunteers.
It was fantastic to see such strong support from the people of Palmerston, with many families and their children turning up on the night to assist FrogWatch. Graeme Sawyer from FrogWatch gave a brief discussion and provided everyone with a bag and a set of gloves. Volunteers split into groups to scour the park, hunting along the banks of the lakes and in nearby drains and culverts, capturing 14 adult males, five adult females and 82 sub-adults. The 101 toads were disposed of humanely. I would especially like to thank the residents of Gunn and surrounding areas on the night for all their efforts. I also thank Graeme and Paul for their knowledge, their leading and their organising of this event with me, as well as the other events that occurred. I know the member for Drysdale and the member for Goyder, as well as the member for Blain have been involved in FrogWatch toad busts.
The member for Drysdale, Chris Natt, and I were on hand to assist FrogWatch coordinators, Graeme Sawyer and Paul Cowdy, unload the new toad detention centre at the Palmerston tip gates. It is great for residents of Palmerston who can drop off live cane toads 24 hours a day. Residents can drop their live captures down the chute where they remain until collected. FrogWatch clear the detention centres on a regular basis. The first detention centre, as my colleague, the member for Goyder, well knows, was installed at Freds Pass Reserve in February earlier this year, and to date has seen more than 3000 live toads dropped off by local residents.
Detention centres are large insulated bins with solar-powered light, and water, where the toads can live comfortably until collection each week. All captives are then humanely euthanized with CO2 gas, frozen and stored before delivery to a fertiliser factory to be processed into liquid fertiliser, which I understand is called ‘Toad Jus’, where they do have a much better effect on the environment in that form than in their live hopping form.
FrogWatch recently conducted the Toad Audit Day and asked everyone in the community to check their back yards, with a good result by Top Enders with 121 toads being captured on the night. 18 August this year was, funnily enough, the anniversary of the first release of cane toads into the Australian environment in 1935. That is not something we wish to remember too much, disastrous as it has been for our flora and fauna.
They are just some of the great events happening in Palmerston and the surrounds. I am sure many more will happen and I will see people on Friday at the Palmerston markets.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, on Friday night, 11 August, the 2006 Katherine Deb Ball was held in the grounds of the Katherine Museum. This venue has become a favourite for large functions in Katherine for several reasons. The grounds, with magnificent mahogany trees, grass and the raised gazebo are beautifully maintained by the many volunteers of Katherine who give so willingly of their time. There is plenty of parking and the venue is quite private and secure. The concrete slab used for dancing on is the remains of a long gone building that was once part of the Katherine Airport. The dance floor was transformed with a huge central maypole installed from which there were hundreds of fairy lights extending out to poles around the edge of the dance floor. In addition to this, there were fairy lights and coloured lights scattered throughout the grounds which gave a wonderful fairytale atmosphere to the ball, as well as candlelit tables, and not to mention to the full moon.
What a fabulous night it was, not only for the 19 beautifully presented debs and their smartly dressed partners, but also for all the families and friends who were fortunate enough to be present.
This particular night was the last night of the Defence Force’s exercise run between Tindal and the base in Darwin. I am very happy to say that they decided to take off in the opposite direction, which meant that we were able to hear the music at all times, and hear the debs’ names. It was a very pleasant evening. So thanks very much to the Defence Force for taking off in the opposite direction for that particular night. It just made the debs and their partners very much appreciate it.
Jodie Locke, an alderman on Katherine Town Council, took on the challenge of organising the ball this year, and she is to be congratulated for the excellent outcome. No detail was overlooked in making this evening the success that it was. I had the pleasure of receiving these beautiful young people, sashing the girls with a silver and white sash, and giving the boys a scroll as a memento of their special evening. I was assisted at this special occasion by my husband, Mike.
Debutante balls are a very old English tradition of introducing young ladies into society, so to speak. I am glad to see that this tradition is still so willingly supported in Katherine. It gives the young people the opportunity to feel very special on a special night, to dress up formally, and to learn to dance the older style dances such as the waltz and barn dance. These young couples have been practising their dance routines for over two months under the guidance of Graham and Sue Newhouse who are very experienced ballroom dancers and a delight to watch. Graham and Sue were justifiably very proud of the debs and their partners’ dancing presentation.
The colour theme for the night was white with silver, with the maids of honour, Sinead Stubbs, Caitlyn Lowe and Sally Cook looking absolutely gorgeous in strapless black gowns with silver waistbands. The debutantes and their partners were Kate Barnes and Paul Jennings, Jo Clarke and Michael Paice, Ricci Colvin and Gary Jackson, Amy Cook and Philip Morrow, Jenna Gorman and Andrew Bannan, Lauren Hawkes and Alex Brindell, Madeline Ingrames and Warrick Newton, Courtney Jeffery and Mark Clifford, Brett Marie Johnston and Chris Berto, Tayla Johnston and Kevin Patterson, Sinead Linton and Patrick Tune, Danielle Liversey and Jed Henderson, Rachel Magraw and Michael Travers, Kirstie Sequitin and Nic Brindell, Sky Simlat and Darwin Flores, Jessica Skinner and Paul Mark, Rhianna Smith and Ty Hodgetts, Rhian Wardley and Tyle Guymer; and Abby Pond and Edward Hagger. The flower girls were Taylah and Asha Locke and Hayley Lyle, with page boy, Haydon Locke.
MC for the evening was in the very capable hands of John Jansen, with the lively music provided by local band, Fusion.
As with any large function that is organised in a regional town, the success of this function is only measured by the volunteers who helped to put everything together. Katherine’s 2006 Deb Ball was no exception. I sincerely hope that if I have inadvertently missed anyone from the following acknowledgements, they will forgive me.
A huge thank you to: Jodie Locke; Graham and Sue Newhouse; the Katherine Historical Society and the many volunteer members who assisted in the preparation and the cleaning up of the grounds; Macs Hire for tables, chair, crockery and cutlery; Brad and Tina Lowe from the museum; Pauline and Mark Gage; John Jansen and Teresa Cummings; Marcia Beaumont; Richard and Narelle Cook; the Power and Water guys - Steve Lamble and Garth Lambert - who transformed the venue into a night-time fairyland; Jackie Balmer who loaned many of her fairy lights; the bar staff who included Lorna and Barry Hart, Michael Whelan and Mickey Aloisi; Rhad Security who kindly volunteered their services; Caryn Chalk for baking and decorating the magnificent deb cake which was cut by the recently-married Graham and Sue Newhouse; Steve Laurie and his band of workers from Kumbidgee Lodge who provided a sumptuous three-course dinner. Not only was Steve busy catering for the ball, but he and his partner, Annette Duncan, became the proud parents of a baby son, Nicholas who decided to arrive four weeks early on that day. It was a pretty hectic day for Steve. Also thank you to Katherine Hospital laundry staff for the pristine white tablecloths; Katherine Country Music Muster; Doug Glasson and Greg Bird for allowing their vintage vehicles to be part of the decoration and backdrop for many photographs and my goodness, they were well used; and also to Don Walsh.
Last but not least, a big thank you to all the parents for supporting their young people to be able to participate in an evening that they will always remember with very fond memories. Well done, everyone. The reason I say it will be very fond memories is it is just a little while ago that I was debutante in South Australia in a country area. I can remember just how special that evening was and I always have very good, special memories of that. In fact, one of the debs that I was presented with called in to see me at my electorate office only this week. It has been a long time since we did the foxtrot, the barn dance and the quick step and all of those dances at our Deb Ball in Streaky Bay in South Australia.
The museum venue was again the gathering for many local people when last Sunday Katherine celebrated its first ever Teddy Bears Picnic. I am a bit of a softy for teddy bears and when I knew that they were going to have this teddy bears picnic I decided I would embarrass my husband and take all the teddy bears that I own to my office and had a display in the window. My office has looked very warm and cuddly for three weeks now and that encouraged other people to come in and volunteer to put their teddy bears in their as well.
That included the Casuarina Street School which has two teddy bears, Fuzzy and Aussie, which do a lot of travelling with the teachers and students wherever they go overseas. These two teddy bears took pride of place in my window. One had just come back from the UK so he is a well travelled teddy bear, but he could not tell me much about it, unfortunately. Casuarina School also loaned me their major school bear who is a lovely big, well used and well loved bear. So this was just something that was really nice and warm and cuddly and fuzzy for the Katherine area.
On the Sunday, while there were many young people with their favourite teddy bear under their arm, most people of all ages were quite happy to declare their softer side and have their favourite teddy bear with them which created a very happy and relaxed atmosphere. It was just lovely to see the number of grandparents who came along with their young grandchildren too and spent that special time with them at the museum grounds at the Teddy Bears Picnic.
The idea of the picnic was Jodie Locke’s - she has been a very busy lady this year and she must be congratulated for organising the event. The day was very well supported. All Teddy Bear Picnic helpers were dressed in purple t-shirts with of course a teddy bear on the front and were easily identifiable. MC for the day was Henry Higgins, also an alderman on Katherine Town Council. I also need to add that Henry has just become a grandfather. I think he is in practice and I know he thoroughly enjoyed himself. Henry dressed in the purple t-shirt with a waistcoat of Humphrey Bear prints over the top all in keeping with the spirit of the day and it was a job that I know Henry thoroughly enjoyed. Some of the events included three-legged races, egg and spoon races, foot racing, dress up races, face painting, bead making, thong throwing, colouring-in competitions, and cooking damper on sticks over hot coals. That was well supervised by adults.
Purple t-shirt helpers on the day included Jodie and Iain Locke - Iain was also Mr Vegie Man for a short time; Henry and Vicki Higgins; John McNamara; Ruth Murphy; Jean Fullgrabe; Kath Neil; Lisa Alexander; Lorna Hart; Caryn Chalk; Pauline Gage; Lorraine Reid; Deb Lambert; and John Forrest. There were many people who contributed one way or another to make Katherine’s first Teddy Bears Picnic the huge success it turned out to be. They included a Neighbourhood Watch stand with Keith Currie, school Constable Dani Ford, Sharon Hillen and Duana Job providing a free sausage sizzle and information about keeping our communities safe. Well done, Jodie, to you and all your helpers. I look forward to next years Teddy Bears Picnic as I am sure most of those children who were there and the parents and grandparents will as well.
I know that Jodie will probably be embarrassed with me doing this, but Jodie is a young mum of three small children. She is an alderman on Katherine Town Council. She is on the Katherine Show Society, she organised the Deb Ball and the Teddy Bear’s Picnic - an absolutely amazing job for a young mum. It just goes to show the commitment that she and her husband, Iain, show towards the Katherine community. What a wonderful place communities are with people like them who live and work and dedicate their time so freely to the community. Well done, Jodie, a great year, but – gosh! – there are a lot of expectations for next year!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITIONS
Save Our Parks Estate
Save Our Parks Estate
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 20 petitioners praying that the decision to hand over the 11 Central Australian National Parks be rescinded. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirement of standing orders.
This petition is in similar terms to Petition No 18 presented during the May sittings. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
To the Honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
We, the undersigned, respectfully showeth our great sense of betrayal by the Northern Territory government in its plans to handover 11 Central Australian national parks to a select group of people.
Your petitioners do humbly observe that the government plans to handover Arltunga, Chamber’s Pillar, Corroboree Rock, Devils Marbles, Finke Gorge, Ewaninga Rock, Gregory’s Tree, N’Dhala Gorge, Trephina Gorge, Emily and Jessie Gaps and the Western MacDonnells, including Simpson’s Gap, Ellery Creek, Ormiston Gorge, Serpentine Gorge, Glen Helen Gorge, Redbank Gorge and the Alice Valley extension.
Your petitioners do further observe that the handover is akin to asking New South Wales residents to handover Bondi Beach or South Australian residents to handover Glenelg Beach, no questions asked.
Your petitioners do humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory take the necessary steps to make the Northern Territory government immediately rescind its decision to handover the parks estate to sectional interests and to retain ownership of the parks for all Territorians.
Save Our Parks Estate – Top End
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 353 petitioners praying that the decision to hand over the 48 Territory-owned parks be rescinded. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. That makes a total of 5137 petitioners since it started. The petition is in similar terms to Petition No 29 presented during the June sittings. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- We, the undersigned, respectfully showeth our great sense of betrayal by the Northern Territory government in its plans to handover 48 Territory-owned parks to a select group of people.
Your petitioners do humbly observe that the government plans to handover Top End parks including: Mary River, Gregory National Park, Gregory’s Tree Historical Reserve, Fogg Dam Nature Reserve, Harrison Dam Conservation Area, Kuyunba Conservation Reserves, Flora River Nature Park, Melacca Swamp Conservation Area, and Black Jungle/Lambells Lagoon Conservation Reserve.
Your petitioners do further observe that the handover is akin to asking New South Wales residents to handover Bondi Beach or South Australian residents to handover Glenelg Beach, or indeed the waterways and beaches around Darwin, no questions asked.
Your petitioners do humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory take the necessary steps to make the Northern Territory government immediately rescind its decision to handover the parks estate to sectional interests and to retain ownership of all parks for all Territorians.
Keep Public Service Jobs in Alice Springs
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 11 petitioners praying that the Salaries Section of the Department of Corporate and Information Services in Alice Springs be retained. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
I do not propose that the petition be read as it is in similar terms to Petition No 19 presented during the May sittings.
Modernise Subdivision Process
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 569 petitioners praying that the subdivision process be modernised. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to, petition read:
- To the Honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory,
We, the undersigned, respectfully showeth the subdivision plans in greater Darwin, including Darwin, Palmerston, and Litchfield, are being made and approved by the Development Consent Authority without enough regard to environmental sustainability so important to residents. Catchments become cement drains, escarpments broken by roads, vegetation lost, water wasted, and fauna movements inhibited.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government modernise the subdivision process, including Specific Use (SU) areas such as The Chase, so government planners and the DCA are responsible for ensuring the arrangement of lots, roads and open space accords with natural landforms, catchments, drainage lines, fauna needs, water resources, etcetera. In this process the public must be consulted. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Golf Course Estate, Alice Springs - Name
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 10 more petitioners praying that the Northern Territory Place Names Committee retain the name of the Golf Course Estate for the suburb adjacent to the surrounding Alice Springs Golf Course. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
I do not propose that the petition be read as it is in similar terms to Petition No 31 presented during the June sittings.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Darwin City Waterfront Project
Darwin City Waterfront Project
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the impressive progress being made on our exciting Darwin City Waterfront project. I can report that work is proceeding smoothly and on schedule, with completion of the convention centre anticipated by early 2008.
Last Friday, we saw a significant milestone in the construction phase with the first concrete pour at the ground floor level of the convention centre. With the foundation in place, the building will now move upwards and become very evident as it emerges on the skyline. Once complete, the ground floor will cover 8960 m2 and will require nine separate concrete pours over the next two months. More than 22 000 concrete blocks have already been laid, and around 1000 tonnes of structural steel is waiting in the wings.
As you would expect with such a massive exercise, a skilled and dedicated workforce will be required during construction. Around 1000 jobs are expected to be created, and some 300 workers have already been inducted to work on the site. Members will be very pleased to know that 96% of all staff across all trades involved in the Darwin convention centre are locals, although we know that it only takes five minutes to be a local.
Local companies involved in the construction of the convention centre include: Wagner; Nilsen Electrical; Project Plumbing; A. E. Smith Mechanical; Gosaero Formwork; Independent Fire Sprinklers; M and J Welding; Tropi Cast; Ground Force Excavations; Earl James and Associates; Connell Wagner; Hassell Architects; Smorgon Steel; True Blue Hire; Richards Crane Hire; QS Services; Fleetwood Portables Hire; Grant O’Callaghan; Quick-Fix Steel Fixing; J A Concreting Pty Ltd; Dick’s Pumping Service; Humes; and Vern Cridland.
All up, more than $40m in contracts has already been awarded to local companies to date by the joint venture partners. A memorandum of understanding between the joint venturers, the Northern Land Council, Territory Construction Association, and the Larrakia Development Corporation to deliver training and employment opportunities to Aboriginal people was signed this month. This is expected to deliver up to 25 immediate jobs for Aboriginal participants, with further opportunities as construction progresses.
The construction of the sea wall is progressing well with earthworks extending to approximately 600 m. With the wall about 80% complete, the construction emphasis has turned to the installation of water, sewer, power and communication services. Work on the much awaited wave lagoon is imminent, with Macmahon NT to start excavation works in the near future.
All stormwater drains located on the escarpment side of Kitchener Drive have now been constructed, and dedicated pedestrian walkways, which provide safe access through the site, have been installed as part of the site traffic management plan. The lagoon flushing system pipes, which will supply water to maintain water quality, were installed earlier this month.
I can also report that an application has been lodged with the Development Consent Authority to enable construction to start on the cruise ship terminal. The development of the project is proceeding within strict environmental guidelines. For example, when hydrocarbon affected soils are encountered as part of the services installation works, they are treated at the dedicated soil remediation site, and experience to date shows that affected soil is suitable for reuse within about 12 weeks.
The Community Infrastructure Project Delivery Deed between the Territory government and the developer requires government to provide infrastructure headworks to support the waterfront development. The contract for the $1.9m McMinn Street Headworks Stage 1 has been awarded to Wolpers Grahl. The scope of that work includes a roundabout at McMinn Street/Frances Bay Drive intersection; a four-lane carriageway through the McMinn Street cutting, extending 75 m up McMinn Street; stormwater pipelines; water main augmentation; sewer mains; ducting for power and communications cables; fuel line relocation and decommissioning of existing pipelines; street lighting; and landscaping. The provision of vehicle access to the Stella Maris site has been incorporated into this contract.
The promotion of the Darwin convention centre is ramping up with the operators, Ogden IFC, launching their new look branding and undertaking a sales road show in conjunction with the NT Convention Bureau to Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT and Western Australia. I am pleased to advise the House that Ogden has received an overwhelming response to this sales mission, with a strong number of leads generated for conventions from 2008, when the centre opens, to 2011.
Clearly, the Darwin City Waterfront is already providing jobs and opportunities for Territorians, including more than $40m in contracts to local companies. As far as construction goes, we are right on track. I look forward to updating the House on how things are progressing in the near future.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement from the Chief Minister. There are a number of issues associated with this development which, in case members forget, the CLP supports, and why wouldn’t we, as it was initially proposed by the Country Liberal Party when in government.
It is interesting to see a slight change of terminology by the Chief Minister. What was a wave pool has now become a wave lagoon. I would be grateful if, in her reply, she would tell us what the difference is and advise why she has now changed her terminology. Do Territorians need to be worried about this? It is interesting that there is a change. There is a view by some that the wave pool was such a difficult exercise, albeit the government was so desperate to pitch it to Darwinians, that, in fact, it may not come off. So I ask the Chief Minister to explain the difference between a wave pool and a wave lagoon.
Members will recall that the opposition wrote to the Auditor-General in February, I believe it was, asking the Auditor-General to look at Public Private Partnership arrangements. He said during estimates that he would do so. We look forward to his report in that regard.
I understand, Chief Minister, that there have been some environmental issues; some pipes have been damaged during the excavation process. Can you advise whether that is having an impact on increasing costs to contractors? Also, what is your current estimation of the costs? Our figures, all in, suggest that it is something in the region of $550m. You keep using the phrase ‘in today’s terms’. Finally, can you confirm that when negotiating this project you, or perhaps your CEO, ensured that contractors working on the project would all be able to avail themselves of AWAs?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask the Chief Minister about the wave pool. The government had a display at the Royal Darwin Show which I had a look at, and one thing I noticed straight away was that the wave pool was not where it was originally planned to be. It is running in a completely different direction. The government should give an explanation as to why there have been these changes. I support a wave pool, but it would be nice for the public to know why there have been these changes – the matter of cost, design, did it not work in its previous design? It would be good to hear from the Chief Minister as to why there have been those changes.
Without pre-empting debate on the waterfront legislation that is coming through, I wonder whether we get things a little complicated when it comes to the whole waterfront project. I know the government has set up a public/private partnership, and it has reams of legal documents and people working on all of these things to show us how it is all going to work. Yet, when I asked why the government did not just take out the private land it wished to sell for residential development and take that money it would have received from that residential development to use to build the convention centre and the wave pool, for some reason that was too simple.
We are now creating a corporation which will come out of the Darwin municipality. Could you not have thought of something simpler by saying: ‘This area is private. Everything that is in there is private land. The land still comes under the Darwin City Council, but we will regard it as one private block and will operate and do our work within that’? Are we going to come back with another complicated corporation with all these issues about who pays rates for what and who will be in charge of this, and when will it go to the council? I believe we made this whole project extremely complicated and difficult for people like me to understand. I just do not know why we have gone down the path of what I feel is a complicated way of doing something, when it could have been done much simpler.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): We will discuss more about the Waterfront Corporation tomorrow, member for Nelson. We did offer municipal coverage of the project to the Darwin City Council and they rejected it. We had to put in a proper alternative, and that was simply it. We hope, over time, once the residential stage is developing, that Darwin City Council will talk to us about providing those municipal services.
Madam Speaker, regarding the wave lagoon or wave pool, although there is difference in the name, a lagoon is probably more reflective of the width of this. If you look at designs of wave pools from around the world, particularly in the United States, some of them are very narrow, and some have a much more lagoon look. Probably lagoon is more in keeping with the wave pool we now have. Much work has been done. There have been changes because of aesthetics, outlooks, and of positioning better, and the wave pool will be a great addition to the waterfront site. So, onwards and upwards, and taking more rides on that wave pool I would say.
Delegation to Brunei and Sabah
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I report on my participation with the recent Northern Territory delegation to Brunei and Sabah. In Brunei, with the Chief Minister, I attended an informal meeting with the Australian High Commissioner to Brunei, Ms Ruth Adler. The briefing provided us with useful local information in preparation for our meetings the following day.
I met with the Minister of Industry and Primary Resources, the Hon Pehin Dato Dr Awang Haji Ahmad bin Haji Juma Jang Mulia, and the Deputy Minister of Industry and Primary Resources, Dato Paduka Haji Hamdillah Bin Haji Abd Wahab
Amongst the issues we discussed was the possibility of the Northern Territory providing technical services in cattle management against the background of increasing cattle export from the NT to Brunei. I invited both the minister and the deputy minister to visit Darwin in the near future to advance this issue.
In Sabah, I was briefed by staff from my department prior to attending the official launch ceremony for the Sabah International Expo 2006. The launch was well attended by members of the Territory business delegation. It was interesting to note that specific reference was made to the NT buffalo industry during the speech by the Expo’s chairman, Mr Andrew Lo.
The following morning, the Chief Minister and I attended a breakfast meeting with the Chief Minister of Sabah, the Right Hon Datuk Musa Haji Aman, and the Minister of Industrial Development, the Hon Datuk Dr Ewon Ebin. This provided an opportunity to discuss a range of issues prior to the official ribbon cutting opening ceremony for the Expo.
Following the official opening, along with the Chief Minister of Sabah and our Chief Minister, I inspected most of the display sites at the Expo, and I am pleased to report that the combined Northern Territory government/private sector display was of high quality in a prime location, and received compliments from many people - all in all, a job well done. I must say that the freshly cooked tender buff was a real hit with many Expo visitors, including the Chief Minister of Sabah, Dr Musa.
That afternoon, I met with senior officials from the Sabah agricultural agency and visited a small research scale feed mill, as well as a newly constructed cattle holding facility. Of the two facilities, it is the new holding yards that are of significant strategic interest to the Territory’s cattle industry. The facility is first class, relatively close to a newly-constructed abattoir, and bodes well for the temporary housing of Northern Territory cattle prior to either transporting to the abattoir or nearby farm for holding and fattening prior to processing.
The following day was a real highlight of the brief trip, with the Minister for Agriculture and Food Industry, the Hon Datuk Abdul Rahim Ismail, I toured the newly-constructed Sabah Meat Training Centre. The centre incorporates a retail outlet, a training facility, and abattoir. Officers from my department have been assisting in the provision of training services, specifically in the area of food hygiene and meat processing, and officials from Sabah are clearly appreciative of this assistance. I have no doubt that the continued strengthening of our relationship with Sabah will have spin-offs for our livestock industry.
I also received a briefing on horticultural industry developments in Sabah, and discussed with minister Rahim potential areas of collaboration. However, at this time, with constrained resources on both sides, the focus will remain on livestock issues with an active watching brief being maintained on other areas.
My final duty in Sabah was to represent the Chief Minister at the official Expo State dinner. It is worth noting that the Northern Territory was the only sub-national government accorded official status at that dinner. I know that the Sabah government appreciates the level of engagement between our governments and our private sectors. I believe there will be further opportunities to strengthen and build upon the relationship which will include an expansion of trade. While we should not discount the importance of existing markets in the region, it is important for us to identify and nurture emerging opportunities. Sabah, and to a slightly lesser extent Brunei, falls in this category. To that end I will continue to use the memorandum of understanding we have on primary industries matters to foster further linkages between our economies.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition welcomes the report. More than ever it is important to recognise the need for strategic engagement with the region, and such visits are essential and must be followed up. However, what is of increasing concern is the need for a clear strategy and the vision whereby that vision can be actually realised. I would like the minister to describe where he sees our relationship with the region in five, 10 or 15 years time. What has actually occurred in this engagement is in fact the proactivity of the cattle and buffalo industry. It is the private interests that have forged their way into the region, and it is, in this case, government that has come in behind and doing what is fairly normal activities, that is, providing some kind of brokerage and engagement.
We need to be proactive. There are others in our country and in the wider region who see the great potential and have formulated clear strategies, and are employing them with significant resources. We need to lift our game in the region. I welcome the report. I need to know, as all Territorians need to know, where we are going to be in five years’ time. Let us hear the strategic plan. Let us hear the vision. Let us see if we can broaden our markets and really make some runs in our region, otherwise others will steal our place.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support. I assure him that this is exactly what we are currently doing: we are looking to broaden our markets. I am worried that we have a single market for the cattle industry - that is Indonesia. If something goes wrong in Indonesia our market will be totally destroyed. Sabah, for us, is different. It is a good indication of what our government is prepared to do to support our industry. The training centre and meat abattoir in Sabah is used as an example, both in Brunei and Sarawak. We have the great example of the previous meat abattoir that was developed in Sabah but with our resources and expertise that abattoir is now exporting a significant number of animals every year to peninsular Malaysia.
We have strong links with Sabah. We are developing strong links with Brunei, and, not only in my professional time but also in my personal time, I try to find links in different countries. During my recent holidays in Sarawak I met with the Deputy Prime Minister of Sarawak discussing cattle issues. I am pleased to say that Sarawak is coming back to buy cattle from the Northern Territory. I agree with you. We have to forge strong relationships with our neighbouring countries and this is exactly what we are doing now.
Wave Hill Walk Off – 40th Anniversary
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I report on the recent celebrations held at Kalkarindji to mark the 40th anniversary of the Wave Hill walk-off. I was given ministerial responsibility to coordinate the government effort for the celebrations. I met with the organising committee both here in Darwin and at Kalkarindji during the preparations. Also in attendance over the two days were the Chief Minister, the Attorney-General who is the local member, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, as well as the members for Arnhem, Macdonnell and Millner.
His Honour the Administrator not only attended but performed a fantastic rendition of his famous Gurindji Blues. The celebrations were also attended by a range of Aboriginal organisations including the Northern and Central Land Councils, community groups including officials from various unions such as the AMWU, CFMEU, CPSU, ETU, LHMU and MUA. Local union involvement in the walk-off was recalled by Brian Manning, a former official of the Waterside Workers Federation which is now the MUA, who was of tremendous support to the Gurindji people at the time.
As members would be aware, in 1966 Vincent Lingiari led pastoral workers at the Wave Hill station on a strike campaign. As put so eloquently by the Administrator, the pastoral workers received ‘little bit flour, sugar and tea’. In simple terms, the Gurindji wanted to be paid for their labour. What followed the walk-off led to the modern land rights movement. In 1975, the Gurindji people were promised their land, and that event is famously captured by the photograph of the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, pouring red dirt into the hand of Vincent Lingiari.
Mr Les Johnson, who was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at the time of the handover, also attended accompanied by his wife, Marion. He spoke most eloquently about the events and particularly the attitudes of the political opponents at that time to the struggle of the Gurindji people, but he noted that Coalition members including former minister Billy Wentworth, and former Attorney-General Mr Bob Ellicott QC, and others attended the original ceremony. The first parliamentary leader of the CLP, Dr Goff Letts, and CLP Speaker, Mr Les MacFarlane, also attended, and I think Sam Calder was also in attendance. I saw a picture of him also, Madam Speaker.
The absence of the CLP and Coalition representation at the 40th anniversary was noted and regrettable. At the time it was argued that the Gurindji people should be required to purchase their land like anyone else. Of course, this begs the rhetorical question as to how people who are not being paid for their labour are expected to earn enough money to purchase their land. Put simply, the Gurindji wanted to be paid for their labour.
As minister for planning and infrastructure, I was pleased to support the whole event, and in particular a contribution of $150 000 for the relocation of the truck stop to enable the camping grounds to be set up.
Some of the events that we were able to enjoy were the re-enactment walk, a concert at the Kalkaringi CEC which included artists such as Kev Carmody, Mary G, and NokTuRNL; a barbecue at Wattie Creek, which was the site of the camp; a range of speeches, dances and singing from local communities; and art exhibitions and displays. One particular performance that rates special mention was the Kalkarindji students singing From Little Things Big Things Grow.
The event was considered an outstanding success by all who attended. The list of people involved in the organisation of the event is too long to mention them all, but it would be remiss of me not to mention Maurie Ryan who did a fantastic job over the two days, and hats off to Maurie, he did a great job; Michael Freeman from the Daguragu Community Government Council; Julie Cathcart; Trevor Van Weeran; Charlie Ward; and the festival organisers.
It would also be remiss of me not to mention the fantastic job done by Norforce in taking care of the logistics of moving and accommodating a number of guests, including myself. Thank you, Norforce.
In conclusion, it is important for us to reflect on events that have occurred in the lifetime of most members in this place. The Gurindji people did not go on strike over some minor dispute. The Gurindji were sick and tired of being treated as slaves. One comment was made by a Gurindji elder who went through the strike: ‘We were treated worse than dogs’. What followed brought about small steps towards reconciliation, which, it must be said, has not been advanced by the federal government.
It is quite true, Madam Speaker, that out of little things big things do grow. I have a list of the attendees of that function some 40 years ago, which I table for the information members.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am interested by the minister’s half swipe. Had I been able to be there, minister, I would have been. No doubt, it would have been a very moving occasion. I do not know about you, but I have Paul Kelly’s song loaded into my iPod and every time I hear it, and I am sure members would agree, it is a bit of a goose bump moment. Had I been able to be there, I would have been.
It was a very significant, almost iconic, moment in this country’s history. The courage and determination of everyone involved to effect a solution is well documented. I am very sorry, minister, that I could not have been there. Had circumstances been different at the last election, I would have been there because I am very conscious of the place this holds in our nation’s history.
Having said that, minister, and given that you referred to land rights, I wonder whether in your reply you would be good enough to give us your views about the most recent amendments to the federal land rights act. Is it your view that changes affecting the land councils are bad? Is it your view that land councils have demonstrated themselves to be somewhat aggressive gatekeepers over the years? Is it your view that land rights, all these years on, has not, in fact, created what people wanted all those years ago, that is, economic development and prosperity? Is it your view that the federal Labor President, Warren Snowdon, and your Chief Minister are at odds? Is it your view, that you, as a Minister of the Crown and a member of Cabinet, should tell the people of the Northern Territory about your views …
Mr Henderson: Tell us about your view about the permit system. What? Scrap that?
Ms CARNEY: You can be quiet, sport! … about the changes to the land rights act.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I accept the Opposition Leader’s apology for not attending the event. However, as Les Johnson said so eloquently in his speech - the land rights movement actually grew not only out of what Gough Whitlam and the Labor Party did, but also Malcolm Fraser. He did point to Mr Ellicott and also Billy Wentworth and others as being supporters, along with the Labor Party, in a bipartisan approach to get justice for Aboriginal people in terms of land rights.
He did say it was regrettable that there were no coalition figures there: Mal Brough was not there; certainly Senator Scullion was not there. I accept your apology, Leader of the Opposition, but it was glaringly obvious that there were no coalition figures there and it was regrettable. I hope the coalition heeds Les Johnson’s call that there needs to be a bipartisan approach to this.
You asked me questions about land rights. It is a very long and complex issue. If you ask me whether land rights has delivered …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister.
Dr BURNS: … economic and social benefits to …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Reports noted.
MOTION
Amendments to Planning Act and Regulations
Amendments to Planning Act and Regulations
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move –
That:
(a) the government accepts that hundreds of Territorians have been discriminated against by recent amendments to the Planning Act which allowed regulations to ban third party appeals by residents living in RL zones in Litchfield Shire area;
Madam Speaker, this debate should not take that long. All I am asking of the minister is to change a regulation, and that regulation, under the Planning Act Regulations, relates to Part 4, Section 14. Part 4 deals with appeals and it says:
- (1) A residential zone, in relation to a Plan, is a zone specified in Schedule 2, column 2 opposite the Plan.
Schedule 2 is basically a list of town plans from Alice Springs through to Tennant Creek in one column, and in the other column, it lists what somebody - I do not know who that somebody would be - has classified zones within those town plans as being residential zones.
The problem is that there are people who live in these residential zones in Alice Springs, Batchelor, Borroloola, Darwin, Katherine, Namarada, Palmerston, Tennant Creek, and Jabiru who, because they live in zones that someone in the department has classed as residential zones, are allowed to appeal. If you go further into the regulations under Part 4, section 15(3), there is a statement which says:
- There is no right of appeal if the determination relates to any of the following …
Then you go to subsection (c) which says:
- any other type of development on land in any zone except a residential zone …
What that means in plain English is that, if you do not live in what the government refers to as a residential zone, then you have no right of third party appeal. I know the minister said, when the government promised that it would introduce third party appeals, they would be limited. The government is entitled to say that, but what is not clear and what has not been explained to the people, is that it is one thing to limit it on what you can appeal against, but it is another thing to appeal against a group of people simply because they live in a certain zone.
A classic example is the case of the dog kennels in Howard Springs - and that has possibly brought this on. Here we have a case of land that is zoned RL1, and this particular case has its certain quirks. There was an application for some kennels on a block of land which is about 1.3 ha. It is actually a little smaller than the normal lot size that you expect on RL1. RL1 stands for Rural Living 1, minimum lot size 2 ha. To the north of this block, there is an historical area which is unique in the Litchfield Shire made up of about 25 blocks which would average about 0.2 ha, and they are classed as Rural Living 1 even though they are well below the minimum lot size. In fact, some of the blocks of land in earlier parts of Palmerston would be equivalent to some of the blocks in this area. They, obviously, would not be as small as some of the blocks you see in Palmerston now which, unfortunately, require people to wear velcro pyjamas so they can sleep vertically there is so little room in them. However, they are small blocks in relation to the rural area. The blocks to the south and south-west of this application for kennels are 2 ha blocks and are regarded as the standard RL1 zone.
The application for the kennels was passed by the Development Consent Authority after quite a number of objections from local residents. The local residents then asked if they could appeal, and they found out they could not appeal. The reason they could not appeal is because the land is zoned Rural Living and is not classed under Schedule 2 as Residential even though, on one side, the blocks are so small they would be equivalent to those in Palmerston. Some people say those people had an opportunity for their land to be rezoned to RR (Rural Residential). The fact is that, I am told that only one person got a letter with that intent from the government. Also, those lot sizes are even smaller than the minimum lot size for that particular RR zone. The government would have had a problem trying to rezone it for that.
Regardless of the complaint of those people who live on the small blocks, there are people living on 2 ha blocks right next door to these kennels who would be subjected to the same amount of noise and disruption to their lifestyle but, under this planning regulation, they are not even allowed to appeal. If anyone has lived in the rural area, especially on 2 ha blocks, you will know that noise travels much further than in urban areas because there is less build-up. Noise travels further when there are no walls or a large number of trees to block that noise. In many cases in the rural area, having a kennel on a block next to you on 2 ha can be far worse than having it in an urban area.
The problem is that, regardless of the issue of whether, in this particular case, there were small blocks of land next to the kennels, the government has discriminated against people’s right to third party appeal based on your zone. That is what I am getting at in this case. If your zone is not classified by the department as residential, you have no right of appeal. The minister said that we would only allow limited third party appeals and forgets that he already has that in the regulations. He says, for instance, you have no right of appeal relating to any of the following. I refer to 15(3)(a) and (3)(b):
- (a) a detached dwelling not exceeding 2 storeys above ground level;
(b) attached dwellings not exceeding 2 storeys above ground level;
Minister, that is where you have limited the number of appeals; you said it would be limited. What you have done is you have limited where you can appeal. You have limited the type of development that a person can appeal against and the government has every right to do that. What you have also done is that you have discriminated against people because of their zone. I do not believe that was the intention of limiting the rights of third party appeal.
All this would need is a small change to Schedule 2, column 2 under the Litchfield Area Plan 2004 next to the column adding ‘RL1, RL2’ to RR. This might apply to say the rural areas of Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. They may be in the same position. I do not believe this would cause a major increase in the number of third party appeals that the government would have to hear. I do not believe you would get very many third party appeals. It is there for people to use if they wish. I do not think this would put undue pressure on the government by having hundreds of third party appeals. What it would do is allow people in the rural area to have the same rights as people in urban areas.
We have 14 000 to 17 000 people living in the rural area. Most of those people cannot appeal against a planning decision simply because someone made up a column which for some reason did not regard RL1 and RL2 as being residential. While RL1 and RL2 are defined as rural living 1 and rural living 2, people reside on those blocks; it is not as though they are non-residential blocks. I believe they should be entitled to that right of appeal.
I am also very interested to hear what the members for Goyder and Daly have to say on this issue. I am sure rural residents would be very pleased to know their opinion. I know the minister will give his opinion and I am not sure what that is at the moment. I hope that he will consider that my motion is not telling him to do it today but is asking him to consider changing those regulations. People in the rural area, as has been found out in the particular case of the kennels, expect that right to appeal.
I am interested to hear whether the members for Goyder and Daly support the right of those people in the rural area. They also have a fair part of the electorates covering Litchfield Shire. I am interested to hear whether they would support these minor amendments that really would do very little to the workload that the government has but take away what I call a discriminatory clause which I do not think serves any purpose at all but would at least allow people the same rights as other people in the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Mr Deputy Speaker, the government does not support this motion. An election commitment when first coming to office was that Labor would introduce limited rights of appeal for what are termed third parties to appeal against a decision of the Consent Authority under the Planning Act. As part of the review of the Planning Act, which culminated in the Planning Amendment Act last year, government delivered on its commitment.
Prior to these amendments the only person having a right of appeal to appeal a decision of the Consent Authority was the applicant. In extending the appeal rights to third parties, government is conscious that it does not create an environment to the detriment of people engaging in development or commerce that they have a reasonable expectation of being able to do according to the planning regulations of the day.
Government chose to constrain the right of appeal to zones where the principal use is residential. In those areas, the size of blocks is such that there is minimal setback between the dwellings and therefore greater potential detriment to neighbours from development or non-residential uses.
Under the Litchfield Area Plan, the only prescribed residential zone is the RR or Rural Residential zone. Owners of these properties do have a right of appeal when neighbours are proposing a development or non-residential use. Lots within the RR zone have a minimum area of 1 ha. This reduces the setback between dwellings and could cause potential detriment to neighbours from non-residential uses.
By contrast, the minimum lot sizes of the rural living zones in the Litchfield Shire are much larger, being either 2 ha in the RL1 or 8 ha in RL2. While some people have clearly purchased lots in these areas as a lifestyle choice, others have purchased principally for other uses, whether or not they also live on the lot. It is worth noting that the Zone Purpose Statements of the Litchfield Area Plan, which the member for Nelson will recall was implemented after much discussion and consultation, are as follows:
For the RL1 zone, the purpose is:
- To provide opportunities for low density rural living and a range of rural land uses. Subject to consideration of the potential impact of non-residential uses on existing and future amenity, it can be anticipated that agriculture and horticulture will be amongst the uses likely to establish within the zone. A minimum lot size of 2 ha and control of potentially incompatible land uses will maintain existing amenity in established areas and emphasise the protection of residential amenity in new localities.
For the RL2 zone, the purpose is:
- To provide land for agriculture, horticulture and intensive animal husbandry and other enterprises in conjunction with residential use and to restrict closer settlement in the recognition of environmental constraints to development. The larger lot size provided for in this zone will facilitate separation between potentially incompatible land uses. On-site effluent disposal is to be in a manner that will ensure that it will not become a source of pollutants to ground water supplies.
So, in framing the regulations, government took the view that the generally larger lot sizes of the rural living zone coupled with the planning regulations of the Litchfield Area Plan minimises the potential for uses and development to cause circumstances where a right of appeal to a third party is justified.
As the member for Nelson indicated, his motion, at least in part, is motivated by the recent controversy over the proposal to develop a lot in the RL1 zone for dog kennels. In that case, the land is within an area subdivided before the introduction of planning regulations in the shire and the lots are below the minimum size now prescribed. No doubt the member would contend that this exacerbates the potential detriment and that local residents should therefore have been afforded the right of appeal.
It is my advice, member for Nelson, that the potential or capacity for people to develop those blocks into the intensive animal husbandry use has existed for some time and, clearly, the proponents of the kennel bought that land with that in mind.
I am also advised that residents in that area were advised when the Litchfield plan was rolling forward that they could indeed apply for rezoning to an RR zone. I have spoken directly with these residents; they did come and see me a number of times at the Rapid Creek Markets, and I put that to them. Some said that they had never been contacted in that way, but I was advised that people were written to about that issue. I am advised that subsequently now they have applied for an RR zoning over that area. I will consider that as part of the process through the Development Consent Authority. So those people have asked for a rezoning to RR and I will consider it. I will take the advice of the Development Consent Authority in that instance.
The member for Nelson appears to have extended that line of thinking that I mentioned before about potential detriment and exacerbation of potential detriment to cover the majority of the shire. The government is not of that view. The expectation of the zones, particularly of the RL2 zone, is that there will be non-residential activity. I have confidence that the existing processes for the consideration of those activities through the Development Consent Authority will provide sensible outcomes that balance competing interests.
I will lay it on the record again, member for Nelson. We have had conversations on this matter. I have indicated to you – and I might even be on the public record in terms of this - that once the implementation of the planning scheme that is currently out for consultation is implemented, government, in time, will consider amending the Planning Act. I am more than happy to consider, at that time, extending rights of appeal. However, as I have indicated in my speech, it has to be balanced with people’s reasonable expectations who have bought some of those properties that they can develop them in certain ways.
I think it was Tim Baldwin who told me when I first became Planning minister that it is a hard job, it is hard to please everybody, and whichever decision you make will not satisfy one party or the other. It is a bit of a portfolio like that, but in my endeavours through my portfolio of Lands and Planning, I have always tried to be consistent, fair and flexible, and I have asked the Development Consent Authority to do likewise.
With those assurances to you, member for Nelson, unfortunately I will not be supporting it today. When we come to the point of looking at further amendments to the Planning Act, as I foreshadowed when those amendments went through – I believe it was in February 2005 - government will be more than willing to consider other amendments and further amendments to the Planning Act.
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we move on, member for Braitling, I wish to advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of the public tour program visitors. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion. I have listened carefully to what the minister has said. The member for Nelson has explained in great detail the changes that he is espousing and why he thinks it should happen. However, I guess I am talking about a principle that we need to talk about. That is about the people’s right of appeal, people’s right to have a say in decisions that have been made by a tribunal that perhaps are not always reflective of that particular area.
I would like the minister to clarify exactly why he will not change it. What is there, in fact, that causes him to be hesitant about that? To say we may change it a long time down the track is not good enough. Basically, it is not giving us anything; it is a ‘perhaps I will, and perhaps I will not’. We are asking you why we have these third party planning appeals applicable in other parts of the Territory, or in different parts of the Territory. You talk about consistency, and you have said that you like your consistency, and fair and flexible, but it seems to me that this is an inflexible approach, an approach that really is not fair across the Territory, because you are giving some people the right of appeal, and some people not.
For instance, if the Alice Springs residents in the rural area had not had the right of appeal, they would have found that some suburban-type subdivisions would have gone ahead in the rural area. But, as you have said, people buy blocks in the rural area mainly because of lifestyle, and they buy them with the expectation that that lifestyle will be able to be maintained. There were many appeals over time in the rural subdivision of Alice Springs against proposals that wanted to make blocks a lot smaller than they already are. Constant appeals by these residents, in fact, have prevented blocks getting too small. Residents would prefer to keep their larger blocks because they know they will have their lifestyle protected.
Minister, I really believe this is an issue about people’s rights to appeal. We talk about democracy within our society and yet we have this big brother approach that says: ‘Yes, you can appeal on this hand, but you cannot appeal on that hand’. I believe that that is something that this particular government should really think carefully about. I would have thought they would have been the type of government that was on people’s side from a social agenda.
The minister seems to have an assumption that all circumstances are covered by his appeal process at the moment. Obviously, the example of the dog kennel shows that there are flaws in the planning process. I support the member for Nelson’s approach and say to the minister: think about people’s rights, the right of appeal, and getting something across the Territory that is common and the same for everyone so that all Territorians are dealt with in the same way.
We should not have some Territorians denied their right, whereas others in other parts of the Territory have that right. There is a complication there that the minister has not really resolved and that I particularly ask him to think about. Is that not what we are all about: giving people the right of appeal, particularly when it affects their lifestyle? That would occur to anyone, whether they live in a rural or residential area; they would believe that they should have a say.
Madam Speaker, I support the member for Nelson’s motion and am disappointed the minister will not. I believe he should take on board some of the comments that have been made in this debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am disappointed I did not hear from some of our local members in relation to this. It shows you belong to a party and you are just one opinion.
Dr Burns: Other members have had input into my reply, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I am sure the public would like to know what that input is. That is why this is a House of debate. I am very interested …
Ms Lawrie: Play the issue, not the person.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Karama, and may you live forever in your suburb.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Thank you, thank you. Madam Speaker, this is a …
Mr Warren: We are a team; we work together.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Member for Goyder, if you would like to address the parliament today and put your opinion in Hansard for the people of the Litchfield Shire to hear, whether it supports my motion or not, I am sure the people in the Litchfield Shire would be pleased, as you are their representative. I would have liked to hear the member for Daly do the same.
Mr Warren: I support what the minister has said. I go on record saying that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder!
Mr WOOD: It is a pity the member for Goyder, Madam Speaker, did not get up when he had a chance …
Dr Burns: Stop playing politics!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: It is amazing, Madam Speaker. We are talking about a very minor change. The minister is talking about fixing up the entire Northern Territory Planning Scheme and then reviewing the whole of the Northern Territory Planning Act for two minor changes to a schedule to put RL1 and RL2 on a schedule - which you can do without a blink of the eyelid, which would make no difference. I was nearly going to say ‘bugger all’, but you would not allow that, would you, Madam Speaker? It would make little difference …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson! Withdraw, please.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I withdraw that Madam Speaker. It is a colloquialism sometimes used in the rural area, but I do withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson.
Ms Carney: Just in the rural area?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: And other places too.
Madam Speaker, it would make little change. It would not upset the whole bureaucracy of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. It is a minor change that says something very important; that people in the rural area will not be discriminated against. Minister, you have said a couple of things …
Mr Warren: We do not discriminate against rural people.
Mr WOOD: Member for Goyder, you had your chance. Why did not you say it before I got up here now?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, the minister has said a couple of things …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, can you please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr WOOD: I am. I have been facing in your direction, Madam Speaker. .
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, the member for Arafura is not in her right chair.
Mrs Braham: Is not in her right chair?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please continue.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, the minister has made a number of contentions about land in the rural area. He has stated that we are allowing RR because it is smaller. An RR block is 1 ha. Its dimensions are on average 100 m by 100 m. An RL2 block is 2 ha; its dimensions are 100 m x 200 m. You can still get the same problem on a 1 ha block as you can on a 2 ha block. You can have a set of kennels in an RR zone that can cause just as many problems in a RL1 zone because the width is more or less the same.
The issue is not about the Donington Road kennels. That is just to highlight one of the problems we have. I have raised this issue before. The RL1 zone in the Litchfield Area Plan, minister, has a column and that column allows you to do certain things. It allows you not to do certain things but allows other things to be done with consent. In any other part of the Northern Territory, if you did not agree with the Development Consent Authority, which was hearing a consent application, you could appeal. For some reason the Litchfield Shire, when you get a consent application on RL1, the minister is saying that is okay, consent is okay, you do not have a right to appeal just because you are RL1. I believe that is discriminatory against people in the rural area. If that is all the minister is basing it on, and he is basing it on just that it happens to be a slightly smaller block, that is purely arbitrary. I believe the answer the minister has given is lacking in logic, trying to argue the case that therefore we should not have the right to appeal.
_______________________
Distinguished Visitor
Honourable Alex Somylay MHR
Honourable Alex Somylay MHR
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, do you mind if we pause to recognise some people in the Speaker’s Gallery?
Honourable members, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the Honourable Alex Somylay, House of Representatives member for Fairfax, and Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, together with other members of the committee. The committee is visiting Darwin as part of its inquiry into health funding, conducting public hearings in the Litchfield Room today.
Mr Somylay was Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government from 9 October 1997 to 21 October 1998. On behalf of all honourable members I send to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_______________________
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I was looking up the key land use objectives for Litchfield Shire and one of them is about culture and lifestyle. One of the policies is to maintain and enhance the high level of amenity for residents of the shire and visitors. Residents! People live in the rural area. Because they do not get classed by some silly schedule that says you are residential and you are not, it does not mean that people do not live on those blocks of land. They do live on those blocks of land. That is why we have columns in our Litchfield Area Plan which states that some activities are consent. You are right, minister. Agriculture and horticulture can happen in RL1 but your government changed it from being permitted to consent. It did that because, as you would know, there were many problems with horticulture from spraying and people complained all the time. They had no right of appeal. The government did change it and now it is consent. You cannot have horticulture unless it is consent.
Once you make it consent, surely you give the right for people to appeal. They cannot appeal against something that is permitted and they cannot appeal against something that is prohibited. The kennels require consent and surely people have the right to appeal against the kennels if they think the amount of noise coming from that is going to disturb them at night, or the traffic is going to be day and night with people dropping of dogs. Kennels are the classic example: kennels have caused heaps of problems in the rural area. There was a classic case on Daniel Circuit; they were prohibited. Why? This was some years ago, an application went for kennels on Daniels Circuit up in Herbert. It was knocked back. There was a case in my area on a 1 ha block where it was knocked back. Kennels are always controversial.
I know the Development Consent Authority has to make a decision. I must admit it is probably time the government looked at the whole issue of kennels and said whether they should be in the rural area at all, or whether they should be on industrial land. They always cause problems. They are a necessity but they do cause many problems with neighbours. Yet we are not allowed to have them. I do not know what happens in Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs when you have kennels but I gather that they would require consent. I understand that if they are near a residential place they would now have the right of appeal.
The government is saying is that people in the rural area do not have that same right, even though it can make just as much noise and be just as much of a nuisance. Yet the minister’s reply is basically: ‘Thank you. We have said when we were going to be elected that we would like limited third party appeal.’ What it did not tell people is what that limitation was going to be until they put it in the Planning Act. They did not say that they were going to discriminate against rural people. It just said that it would be limited.
You have to have some limitations on third party appeal, and, as I said before, the government has put some limitations on it: detached dwellings not exceeding two storeys, attached dwelling not exceeding two storeys. There are some limitations and they might make good sense; that might be an appropriate limitation on third party appeals. But to put limitations just because someone lives in the rural area on a lot size that might be slightly bigger than Palmerston or Alice Springs or Darwin is a poor decision by the government.
I will tell those people that we have tried to change it, that we have tried to give people those rights. As I said before, it will not make a big deal for the government; it will give people those rights. Those people with the kennels are not going to win. It has been passed. They cannot appeal. That will not change anything, but surely we have learnt by that case that people should have that right to appeal. We are not giving any comfort to anyone except when the Northern Territory Planning Scheme is completed, which could still take heaven knows how long - it has only taken seven years so far - and then when we review the Planning Act, and we know what reviewing the Planning Act is like - I remember in Mr Hatton’s time as Planning minister, it took three years to review the Planning Act.
If I have to stand here and debate this in about five years’ time, if I am still here, could we please change two things on Column 2, RL1 and RL2, two minor things in a regulation that I have to wait five years to get amended, we are not doing our job. Here is a simple case of you impacting people’s rights. The government always espouses people’s rights. This is a Labor government. It stands up for the workers.
Mr Bonson: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: I wonder if you will say ‘Hear, hear!’ when I ask for a vote on whether you can put two zones in Schedule 2 which would support the average resident of the rural area. There is no big deal about this. It is not going to bring the government down. There is not going to be some great political scandal.
Dr Burns: What about people with existing rights?
Mr WOOD: No, no. It is a sensible alteration to the regulations. I am sometimes astounded. I know it comes from an Independent on the wrong side, I suppose, from your point of view, of parliament, but so what? Parliament is here hopefully to work for the people and if it means that you are not bringing it forward and I am bringing it forward, so what? Perhaps I could get a guarantee from the minister publicly that he will look at this before the next sittings and bring it forward as a motion, or let me know that he is going to change the regulations. It does not need to come here for that.
I will ask the minister to look at it and say: ‘Would this change benefit people?’ There is a good test of what we are doing. Would it benefit the average person? Would it restrict development? No more than any other third party appeal you have in the rest of the Territory. I agree that development should occur. I believe you need to find a balance between development and people’s rights to appeal. So if you put it through that test, minister, and you came back and said: ‘We have changed it’, I would say: ‘Congratulations’, because that is all I am asking: give people a fair go, give business a fair go, but do not have regulations that are discriminatory.
Thank you for your response. I believe it is the same response I have had a number of times because I have debated this before. I ask you to reconsider it and perhaps come back at the next sittings. It would be a great pleasure for me to announce to the rural people that the minister has at least thought about the proposition, discussed it with his colleagues, the members for Goyder and Daly; that would be very good. He could even talk to me. It would be a great to announce to people that they do have a right to appeal. I do not think it is a big deal. It is important. Many people talk about human rights, this is one of them: that people will have a right like everyone else in the Territory has but, for some unknown bureaucratic reason, we are not allowed to enjoy.
Mrs Braham: Simple.
Mr WOOD: Simple. You can do it, minister. I will wait until the next sittings to see what happens.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 2 Noes 21
Mrs Braham Ms Anderson
Mr Wood Mr Bonson
Mr Burke
Dr Burns
Ms Carney
Mr Henderson
Mr Kiely
Mr Knight
Ms Lawrie
Dr Lim
Ms Martin
Ms McAdam
Mrs Miller
Mr Mills
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Review of Conduct of
Estimates Committee Process
Review of Conduct of
Estimates Committee Process
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That the Assembly review the conduct of estimates hearings and associated allocated hearing time frames for ministerial portfolios, noting:
(a) that the time allocated to such portfolios as Chief Minister, Treasurer, Health, and Education, Employment and Training, is insufficient, and
(b) the inability to question the senior public servants directly inhibits the transparency and accountability of the government through the estimates process.
Madam Speaker, this motion comes as no surprise; in fact, I gave notice of it after the conclusion of the estimates process in June. Every year, I get to my feet and government members get to theirs and, although I have no intention of doing so today, I traditionally cite the wonderful words of the now Deputy Chief Minister about the estimates process and how it was to be open, accountable and transparent, and how he aspired back then to those very lofty and worthy notions.
What we have seen is what Labor promised has not been delivered. Certainly, we have seen that in a number of other areas, but the estimates process needs to be improved. Indeed, in the Deputy Chief Minister’s speech in about 2002, he said that if improvements need to be made, they can be. This motion provides for the Assembly to authorise, instruct, request – whatever - the Public Accounts Committee to review the estimates hearing. Every year, both sides of the House say the system is not perfect, and it is fair to say that we at least have that concession from the government. It is timely to review it, and we ask that the government do so.
This motion would be difficult for the government to oppose as it is very reasonable by its nature. We recognise there is no process requiring scrutiny of the budget that is ideal; however, I come back to the point that it should be reviewed. As I have said in the parliament before, the mechanism used by previous administrations had its positive points as well as its negative ones, as does the current process. We are, as parliamentarians, compelled to ask: does it need to be reviewed; if so, then how do we do it?
The situation that we have at the moment is that there is a political barrier between the question and the answer. It is appropriate to have the minister available to step in where questioning becomes beyond the scope of what is reasonable to be asked; we have no difficulty with that. However, to have the minister as the filter through which all things must go consumes valuable time and fails to allow for legitimate in-depth scrutiny of the operations of the departments. The questioning of this government’s policies is something that the opposition does, both in and outside the House. However, it is fundamental to scrutiny of any government’s budget that those asking the questions, particularly opposition members, are compelled to ask on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory how effective the government has been at resourcing the agencies which implement the government policies. Therefore, policy and money are clearly integrally linked, and it is appropriate that we quiz government as to the effectiveness. Government would expect no less and, certainly, Territorians expect and deserve no less from us.
All too often, when the questions were asked we were shut out of the process of extended questioning of an agency or departmental representatives because the minister would seek to bat away particular questions with political rather than significant or substantive responses. Anyone who saw the estimates process will know that that occurred.
When questions were able to be put directly to public servants - and there was no consistency whatsoever on that, we had to go through the somewhat ridiculous process of saying: ‘Through you Mr Chair’, or ‘Through you, minister, asking public servant X’ a question. Often, it might have been a quick follow-up requiring a yes or no answer, but we would still have to go through the laboriously ridiculous process of saying ‘Through you, Mr Chair’ and ‘Through you, minister’. If ever there was a case to illustrate a wasting of time that surely is one. I am not sure whether the Assembly staff are even capable of recording how long it took us just to get a question through, but if they did I am sure we would all be quite amazed by the length of time it took.
In any case, the government pitches its estimates committee process on the basis that we, the opposition, are able to question public servants. We are not able to directly question public servants. In the federal parliament they are able to directly question public servants. I know we had some visitors in the gallery before, Madam Speaker, who were from the Commonwealth parliament. They no doubt would be very surprised that we need to go through the Chair and/or through the minister to ask a public servant, and then we cannot even have direct dialogue, although all of us on occasion did, and you had a sense that maybe the public servant was wondering whether they would be spoken to sternly afterwards. It is not even in accordance with the way human beings talk to each other, to go through this rather bizarre process.
That must be looked at. It is clear it has to be looked at. I am interested to hear what the government has to say. Unfortunately, their arguments with these things tend to be somewhat predictable, but we are putting this motion up in good faith.
It was not the CLP which promised the estimates process. Labor promised it, and used very colourful language before it did so, and indeed afterwards. They sold it to Territorians on the basis that it was going to open the books of government. That was what the Deputy Chief Minister said. Open the books of government, and it would be accountable. It has only opened the door a fraction. If Labor is serious, they would seriously look at this motion.
The Ombudsman gave a refreshingly frank and honest appraisal of her office. The Chief Minister struggled through that output group with gritted teeth, but to the Ombudsman’s credit she gave a refreshingly frank account. It was not an opportunity for the Ombudsman to embarrass government, or to score cheap points. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the Northern Territory Ombudsman saying that her office needs more money. If that is not open, honest and transparent, I do not know what is. The Ombudsman stood out because, as I said, she was refreshingly frank.
If the government was serious about having scrutiny of their resourcing of agencies, and initially I thought they were although it is hard to know where they are now, then direct questioning would be available for all agencies because we could ask questions generally much more directly of both the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman. However, through the current arrangements and unless the government is prepared to allow for such direct questioning then we can only include that Labor’s definition of scrutiny is nothing but a political definition designed to be sold and sold well at the polling booth.
It is a deficient process. It is not a bad process. It just has its problems. Again, I say that we ask government to seriously consider …
Mr Stirling: It is not a bad process. That is not bad.
Ms CARNEY: The Deputy Chief Minister is mumbling. I do not know what he is saying, Madam Speaker …
Mr Stirling: It is not a bad process, I said. It is not a bad process.
Ms CARNEY: … but already he has indicated: ‘Sit down, Carney, because I am not going to have a bar of it’. Are you indicating, Deputy Chief Minister, that there are no faults with the estimates process? If that is what you are saying, you should have the courage to stand up, put your little mouth very close to the microphone and say it. If you say that, every person in the Northern Territory will take you for the very strange individual that you are.
Mr Stirling: Sorry for agreeing with you!
Ms CARNEY: Deputy Chief Minister, if you have something to say, say it loud, say it bold.
Mr Henderson: He just has.
Ms CARNEY: You might have been able to hear it, member for Wanguri, but I did not.
Of course, the Deputy Chief Minister is never backward in coming forward. He gets up and his face goes red and his little veins start to pop. It is always wonderful to see but he is getting tired. Obviously, he will be retiring at the next election. He is getting tired because we are not seeing the popping veins. It is always very enjoyable. I remember in my first term I saw it when the Deputy Chief Minister kept thinking for the first year that he was still in opposition - and, by God, he was there a for a long time - because he used to feign outrage and indignation. I remember one particular time he sat down and you could see it in his face: ‘Oh, we are in government. I do not have to be really angry anymore’. From time to time, we see him digging deep and giving us a bit of a display. So, Deputy Chief Minister, if you have something to say, please say it in your usual way or, at the very least, so I can hear it.
Back to the point, Madam Speaker: there were obviously time constraints forcing an entire output group - this year it was Sport and Recreation - to escape any form of scrutiny. Sport and Recreation and the budget for Sport and Recreation was not scrutinised because we ran out of time. Is that scrutiny? I do not think so. Does that make for good government? I do not think so. Of course, many of us actually receive questions from members of the public. They e-mail us: ‘You have estimates coming up. Ask this question’. It is not just the opposition trying to find things, although that is our job. Often, we ask questions on behalf of members of the public. I know I do in my shadow portfolio of Justice. Many people in the legal profession provide me with questions and invariably I just cannot get to them.
The Attorney-General’s record for responding to a letter stands at nine months. That was very disappointing and it backfired on him because the particular letter I wrote was on behalf of some members of the legal profession who, in private practice, of course, would lose their business if it took them that long to respond to a letter.
In any case, there were other time delays and issues as to time. After an opening statement by the minister, the chairman informed all and sundry that he needed time to chew his food and he called a halt to the proceedings. Millions of Territorians’ money went unchecked and the chairman wanted to chew his food. The chairman, of course, in my view cannot walk and chew gum, but he wanted to delay the proceedings so he could chew his food. Is that good scrutiny? I do not think so.
I quote from the Estimates Committee hearing another example:
- Mr CHAIRMAN: There are some 15 seconds to go with this session. However, given that I want some time to chew my food, I am going to finish this. We will finish the session early.
Could we take one question, at least?.
Mr CHAIRMAN: No. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the minister for attending and also thank officers who provided advice to the minister today.
How utterly extraordinary, Madam Speaker. Who would have thought that we would have a situation where a minister was seriously asking for another question and it was cut short because the chairman was chewing his food? It must have been embarrassing for everyone there, particularly the public servants. No doubt it was somewhat embarrassing for the minister as well.
Most importantly, it is Territorians’ money and in the limited time we have, it is important for all this parliament, that we devote every single ounce of the time we have to scrutiny. Our view is that the government should allocate more time because we consistently run out of time.
In that regard, the number of times that opposition members used the term, ‘Due to time constraints, I will not ask another question’, was, on my count, 21, and the number of output groups that a question was not asked for was 37. So, you have a budget or a department with various output groups in the budget books, and the theory is that the government is to be questioned on every output group, in other words, every area of departmental spending. Across the range, there were 37 areas or sub-agencies where no questions were asked. Is that good scrutiny? I do not think so. They are pretty shocking numbers, minister.
The purpose of the Estimates Committee is to provide a forum and process whereby government decisions can be examined in an open, orderly and informed way. It is always very interesting to see members of the public come in. Often the room is filled with politicians, staffers, departmental officers and media, but every estimates, we have members of the public come in. They must be appalled. We have ministers batting away, we have a chairman saying, ‘no more questions’, despite being asked by a minister to have a question, because he wants to chew his food. We have the absurd process where we have to go through one or two filters in order to talk to a public servant, and then we have the minister pretty much standing in the way all the way through deciding on what they, that is the minister as well as the public servant, should answer and, of course, so often we ask questions, like Question Time, where we simply do not get the answer. I ask again, is that scrutiny? I do not think so.
It is the case that estimates has improved over the years. We have all become better at it. I remember the first estimates was extremely difficult on all of us, and after that there was a change. The one I remember was the written questions; I am not sure that was such a good idea in hindsight, given the numbers in opposition, but we were able to improve the system after the first run. I say again, though, it is still not perfect. When we say it is not perfect, we do not mean give us more time just so we can ask some questions for the sake of it. The opposition, though small in number, takes its responsibility very seriously and it is an extremely arrogant government, indeed, where it berates – well, there is the word again. The Deputy Chief Minister is having a bit of a chuckle.
This government is a very arrogant government. Its arrogance is spilling out all over the place. It is good to see that the Deputy Chief Minister has gone for a bit of a walk, because he knows it is true. For seemingly thousands of years, he has sat, probably in this seat on this side of the Chamber, and said: ‘Talk of the arrogance of the CLP’. This mob on the other side, as I said yesterday during another debate, has become everything they said they despised of the Country Liberal Party, and sitting in this Chamber, it has been incredible to watch. The arrogance is pretty much pumping out of all of you and it is demonstrated in almost every way. One recent example is the way in which the Chief Minister refused to put any pressure whatsoever on the member for Sanderson who should not hold his seat in this parliament.
In any case, the fact is that we take our obligation very seriously. No government escapes, or should be allowed to escape, scrutiny. I know you people on the other side think you are all pretty good, but even in your most private thoughts, you would concede that you should, quite properly, be held to account. You say you concede it every four years at election time, but surely you concede that you should be held to account between elections. That is our job, and we will continue to do it on behalf of the people whom we serve. If we all get this process right, it is good for all of us. It is not just, oh well, the opposition might issue an extra one or two media releases. It actually restores the confidence in this parliament by the people of the Northern Territory.
There is a proposal, and I ask the government to consider this, it will require allocating an additional amount of time and, in the unlikely event that it does, instruct the Public Accounts Committee to consider allocating 6.5 hours for the Department of the Chief Minister, the department of Treasury, the department of Health, and the department of Education. They are the significant portfolio areas in the Northern Territory.
In my case, the Minister for Central Australia has three very important portfolios - Central Australia, Health and Justice. I shadow him in the area of Justice. Justice has an enormous budget, as does Health. To have a bit over two hours each - even if you put the Central Australian portfolio to one side - on Health and Justice is just bizarre, when you factor in dorothy dixers from government, opening statements, opening statements for output groups, and the filtering process that goes on. I ask again: is that scrutiny? It is not.
We are suggesting 6.5 hours for the key portfolios. We think this is a reasonably constructive way of pushing us all along a bit in terms of the hours. In other words, it will make it longer because of the hourly allocation; however, the fact is that none of us can do justice to those weighty portfolios - Chief Minister, Treasury, Health and Education - unless there is an allocation of 6.5 hours.
Each of the remaining departments would have up to four hours. I do not think four hours is enough, but we are trying to be considerate and thoughtful in this proposal in the motion we provide to the parliament today.
Madam Speaker, we do not want to overburden this government, but something does have to change. We ask that they give the proposals a go. I suspect they will not. I suspect in reply we will be walked down memory lane - the old story about how the Deputy Chief Minister parked his bags over at the old Darwin Hotel and kept talking until 7 am and then went over and picked up his bags and flew home. We will probably get that one. We will probably get: ‘You have had your 42 or 45 hours’. They say that every year. We will also probably get: ‘If you asked better questions none of this would be happening’. I expect that. They are the main ones the government has used, member for Blain, to resist any movement for change. I am sure there are others. They will pull out the old, useful ones from their tool box.
Having said that, maybe I am being unnecessarily pessimistic. On occasion I have cause to be when I see this government in action, in particular the Leader of Government Business who will, no doubt, rise to speak about this. It will simply add to the growing impression that this government is a profoundly arrogant government if the Leader of Government Business and his colleagues stand up and actually have the gall to say the estimates process is working really well.
In parts, it works, but all of us can improve. It is certainly incumbent upon the government to undertake such improvements, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Any further speakers?
Mr Henderson: I want to hear what you both have to say.
Dr Lim: Your turn. Go on, get up.
Mr Henderson: I just want to be convinced by your argument, that is all. I am happy to go.
Ms Carney: Do not tell us you have an open mind, Hendo!
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it is just the Leader of the Opposition did not quite get me there, so I wanted to hear what other members had to say before putting the government’s position.
This is General Business Day and, I suppose, there are some issues where we are going to pick up the motion or the legislation from the opposition and Independents and say point blank: ‘No, we are not going to have a bar of that’, but there are other things that we might be thinking that it would be good to hear the full debate on before we formally respond. If you do not want to do it that way, I will give you my response as per the motion and after listening to the Leader of the Opposition on yet another debate about the operation of the Estimates Committee.
I did say to the Leader of the Opposition in conclusion to debate on the report of the Estimates Committee after the budget this year, that the Standing Orders Committee would again look for submissions on ongoing refinement of the Estimates Committee process. I have already given that commitment, as we did a couple of years ago when we invited submissions from all agencies. It is important to understand at an agency level how they deal with the process, and whether agencies believe that there could be further refinements. It is a public process and it is open to the media. I suppose the media issues would go more towards the configuration of the room and the access they have in order to do their work. Public submissions would obviously include the opportunity for members of the House to make submissions to the Standing Orders Committee, and then the Standing Orders Committee would consider those submissions and report to the parliament.
As Leader of Government Business and Chair of the Standing Orders Committee, that is the process that I have said we will adopt in a continual look at how we refine the operation of the estimates committee.
We have made changes. I believe each year we have made changes. The Opposition Leader named a few. The first run at it we required written questions. We ditched that after the first estimates committee process, and have just gone to questions from the committee direct to the minister. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we are all getting better at it, and in preparation for estimates, ministers and departmental staff - I can say it is like swatting for exams – take the process seriously. I know there is a lot of work going in from the opposition and the Independent side regarding what questions to ask. I did a couple of years in opposition, and worked pretty hard in my shadow portfolio areas through the previous Committee of the Whole process on what questions I was going to ask. I do appreciate the opposition and the Independents put a lot of effort into it, and so they should.
Similarly, ministers and departmental staff put a lot of effort into preparations for estimates. We are all getting better at it. We can all anticipate the standard questions that go to consultancies and advertising and what have you, and we have all that material there. Portfolio by portfolio, there are the obvious questions and issues that come up every year that we also prepare for.
In preparation there is a lot of work that goes on and, in continuing to refine that, government is very open and will consider the submissions that we get. However, we have this debate seemingly ongoing. I suppose the fundamentals are whether we are going to change the total allotted time portfolio by portfolio. We will wait to see what submissions come in. But I flag here and now that I am not inclined to do so. We had a decision to make this year because we had an extra minister this year. We could have taken the decision that – I forget what the numbers were - but say there were 40 hours allocated to the whole process, we would just wrap the extra minister in and take 20 minutes off everybody else, and reduce the total amount of time each minister asked to keep within the 40 hour time limit. We did not do that. We allocated an extra 4 hours for the additional minister. We allocated extra time to the estimates committee process this year to accommodate the additional minister.
I still believe that the Treasurer and Employment, Education and Training minister gets seven hours. He gets a fair work out. But 4 hours per minister is a significant amount of time. We made a decision this year regarding the operation of the committee. I have not read through the Hansard of the committee deliberations, but we would not be asking many dorothy dixers. I do not think that that happened this time through the estimates committee process. I stand to be corrected because I have not read the Hansard, but I do not think that it will show dorothy dixers bowled up from government members on the committee this time.
The comment about opening statements is something that I will have a look at. Again, it is always difficult, but off the top of my head, I think confining opening comments to about five minutes would be okay. I cannot see why ministers would need to talk for more than five minutes in their opening statements to the committee. Maybe we can put a time limit around that so time is not taken up with ministerial statements. In the broad, I think 4 hours is a significant amount of time. I do not think other committees around Australia would have more time per minister in bigger jurisdictions with bigger budgets, although the issues tend to be the same.
Let us have a look at it and if the submissions to the committee convince the Standing Orders Committee that we will amend the time frames, we will bring that back to parliament for debate.
In relation to the point about inability to question senior public servants, I would have to say that, at the end of the day, this parliament is all about the government of the day with the mandate implementing its election commitments and the policy decisions that it makes and allocates budgets to agencies, but the Westminster system is all about ministerial accountability. The Standing Orders Committee will look at this if that is a formal submission from the opposition to the Standing Orders Committee. I am not convinced that the capacity for the committee to directly grill public servants and potentially grill public servants with political and hostile questioning is something that we should tolerate.
I have the highest regard for our public servants. They do faithfully implement the government policy of the day. Certainly, CEOs are answerable to the minister. I do not think it is appropriate to expose CEOs to direct questioning from committee members that can be political and hostile.
We have had this debate before, and the opposition will not agree with me, but there have been comments made in this parliament and statements made against public servants who do not have a right of reply that have been offensive. Certainly, target the ministers by all means. We are ultimately accountable in the Westminster system, but do not make allegations and politically attributed comments to public servants. They do not deserve it and they should not have to put up with it. I do not agree with the claim that inability to question senior public servants directly inhibits the transparency and accountability of government. That is just not the case because accountability for government rests with the minister. That is the way the Westminster system operates.
The Leader of the Opposition did state, and I made some notes, that it is not a bad process. There are deficiencies and, I agree, not every process is perfect. She mentioned that it had improved over the years, and I agree with her. She also said that it was not perfect. I would agree. Nothing is perfect in this world as much as we would like it to be.
What I am prepared to state here again today is that the Standing Orders Committee will have another look at the operations of the Estimates Committee. We will once again be asking for CEOs to make comments in regard to any refinements that they believe to be warranted, and also the media. If members of the public want to make submissions in regard to the operation of the committee, they can do so. The Standing Orders Committee will consider that and we will report to parliament with any proposed amendments that the Standing Orders Committee agrees to.
The government is not prepared to accept and support this motion as it stands for the reasons I have just articulated.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of members of the public who are here as part of our public tour program, and students from Amanbidji School, accompanied by Mr Reg Robinson. I have been told that this school is 72 km south of Victoria Highway and 170 km west of Timber Creek and 455 km west of Katherine. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Review of Conduct of
Estimates Committee Process
Review of Conduct of
Estimates Committee Process
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, this motion relates to the call for a review of the conduct of the estimates hearing and associated allocated hearing time frames for ministerial portfolios. The assertion of the opposition is that the time allocated to such portfolios as Chief Minister, Treasurer, Health, and Employment, Education and Training is insufficient; and that the inability to question senior public servants directly inhibits the transparency and accountability of government through the estimates process.
The contribution of the Leader of Government Business in its tone was welcomed; the content superficially seemed to be supportive of the position put by the opposition. However, I was surprised, and should not have been, to find that even though the words gave the appearance of support, I could not find the strength of character to support the motion, if I heard correctly. I cannot understand why not. The purpose of the estimates process is to ensure that government is accountable. That being the objective, the purpose of this motion is to allow for a comprehensive review. In his contribution, the member opposite said that such a review is under way and that adjustments have been made. Therefore, I cannot really understand why this motion would be resisted by government.
The intent of it is to ensure that that central objective is strengthened. You have not had comments from members of the opposition and Independent members that completely can the whole process. We have provided support; we recognise that there is some merit in the new format and we welcome those different aspects that have been brought in under this new government - now in their second term. There is room for active and open debate to find a method that is suitable to the entire parliament - not skewed in favour of government.
We have opportunities during Question Time to ask questions of ministers. It is an immensely clumsy and inefficient means to find the answer to issues of concern. To be honest - and we all know this - it is rather embarrassing at times to be a part of that process because it descends more into game playing than a genuine means to find out something. It has been described as theatre for the ugly. It can be dissatisfying for anyone who wants to really find out what is going on and to hold government accountable. Ministers stand and deliver. They seem to have no constraints on the amount of time they are able to take to spin the particular line, whereas opposition has a limited time frame to pitch a single question. As we know, in that context the minister is able to wander widely and, generally, as far as they possibly can from the answer that has been required in the opposition’s question. That aside, we have that mechanism through Question Time.
Estimates is a completely different process. In the contribution by the Leader of Government Business, the tempered language that was used created the impression that everything was hunky-dory and we are all going to get along well together: ‘Leave it up to us and we will sort this out. We will have a look at the submissions that may come in’. In the midst of that, there was this sense of: ‘All right, you have access to senior public servants but let us be reasonable about this, sometimes the questions you ask are a bit delicate, and so there needs to be a mechanism for a minister to come in if the matter becomes excessively political’. The politics generally happens here. There is generally some politics between the shadow spokesman and the minister concerned at estimates.
However, when you want further detail and a greater and deeper understanding of strategies of government, you need full and unhindered access to the senior public servant. If we raise this idea of ‘We have to protect them because the nasty opposition may embarrass the senior public servants. We will only let them go a little way before we pounce in and start to put up a smokescreen to prevent deeper scrutiny’, then we are not dealing with the central objective which is to ensure that government is truly accountable.
Accountable - you need not be afraid of that. It is a difficult thing for any person in any sphere of life to be accountable. The responsibility we have in this parliament is to be accountable, particularly a minister - accountable during Question Time in a very inefficient and unsatisfactory manner, just by the nature of the way we conduct our business. Estimates is a different matter.
I welcome the tone that came through in the Leader of Government Business’s comments. In fact, he said little. He said that this motion would be rejected, which compromises the central objective to ensure that there is true accountability. I cannot help but feel, as anyone who watches this process, that it is more about public relations than it is about accountability and fact: ‘Let us just see how far we can go to create the impression that government is accountable without fully allowing accountability to be affected’. That seems to be the objective. How far can we go to create the impression?
For a government that is fixated with public relations as its priority strategy, you have achieved that objective. You have created an impression that there is a whole new creature out there called the estimates process. There never was such a thing. Have we heard that mantra pumped out there time and time again? Yes, there was such a thing. It has changed slightly, the badging has changed. Pepsi and Coke, both colas, put them in unmarked glasses and you would hardly tell the difference. What we have is a different process by virtue of its name. Yes, the system that was in place before was not called an estimates process, but it was a similar process, different name.
There was another difference which is welcomed by the opposition and a position which was taken up by government whilst they were in opposition and that is to have a system whereby the opposition member or the Independent member could ask questions of the senior public servant. That is now available and that is welcomed. In any comment that has ever been made on this process there has been no comprehensive criticism of that. It is just the level of access and the tendency of ministers to want to control that access. It is not too difficult to read what is going on there. Sometimes there is a well qualified, very committed, senior public servant who would really like to be involved in a process where we could talk openly and honestly about the issues that are of real concern, without treading across the political line and incurring the displeasure of the minister. It is palpable at times to sense that awkwardness, that desire to talk openly and let us conduct our business in an open way so that we can make the Territory a better place, and the reticence and the fear of stepping over that invisible line and to protect the minister.
That whole culture could be improved if we are genuine about our objective to ensure that government is accountable. The Leader of Government Business made reference in his contribution of the time he spent in opposition. I similarly spent time as a backbencher in government. I remember quite clearly the position taken by the then opposition with regard to how they would conduct their business once they had the opportunity to do so. That to me is the saddest thing that I can reflect on in my time in parliament. The rhetoric from here to there has not translated in fact. In essence, not at all. What we have had is a focus on creating an impression, and a focus on public relations in making sure that people have a sense, but an uncomfortable sense, that it is perhaps not all as it seems. It seems to be a government that has tended to be more focused on itself, and how it looks, than what it does.
There are the differences. There is a name difference. I accept that. There is a welcome addition of the direct or indirect access to senior public servants, which is welcomed but could be improved, as I have already referred to.
The issue of ongoing concern - if you were genuine in making some changes to allow that central objective to be achieved, that is, accountability – is the time allocation. There is a central difference in the system that was in place before this Labor government came to office, and that was that the minister had to stand and deliver. They had to stand in that position until all questions had been asked to the satisfaction of the one asking the questions, which meant that the minister had to know a fair bit. They had to really be across their brief, and they were right in the firing line. They could seek advice, but they were the ones fully accountable, fully responsible.
I put it to you that the ministers, perhaps in their first term, would have been completely at sea in that scenario because it takes some time, as I can only imagine - not ever having been a minister in government - how much time it takes to get completely across your brief. We have a compromise situation where the minister does all the political stuff, the skating around, and allows the senior public servant to say a bit as long as he does not step over the line and embarrass the minister. We end up in some twilight zone where we are not really able to get through to the heart of the matter.
The time allocation is the concern. This goes back to what looks like something that seems to be pretty good, when in fact you cannot actually deal effectively with weighty matters because the clock is ticking. Easy for government to come back and say: ‘You need to manage your time better’. Come on, give us a break. There are some matters that require a very deliberate and careful line of questioning to try to unravel what it is that is actually going on so that we can make sure government is accountable. That is the objective, is it not? So, that makes it very difficult.
If we have equal weighting of every minister, it makes it impossible to unravel some of the complexities of government’s actions; impossible to do so when you have the Department of the Chief Minister, the department of Treasury, the Department of Health, the department of Education having exactly the same time allocation as, dare I say it, a junior minister. It creates, once again, the impression that you have something, but in effect it is deficient because you run out of time. ‘You should manage your time better’. As I said before, give us a break.
There are some very complex matters that need to be unravelled: education, for example. There are so many threads, lines and issues that need to be explored, weighed and measured very carefully, and that cannot be done sufficiently. The same with Health. With time allocation, we then move, for example with the Chief Minister, I think in the last two or maybe three years, when it gets down to Tourism, which in itself needs time, we have been unable to do it. It is not just a matter of the opposition or the Independent members not managing their time. It is in this area that there is a very reasoned and well justified call for an adjustment to the time allocations. The senior portfolios should have more time.
It would be excessive to even commence this sort of discussion by saying: ‘Let us go back until we are finished asking the questions’, because I am sure that government would be very afraid of that. Let us go to at least an adjustment whereby senior portfolios receive an increased allocation - for example, 6.5 half hours for Chief Minister, Treasurer, Health, Education in themselves so that you have the time to unravel, to decode, and to balance one answer with another.
The estimates process is beneficial for the opposition and Independent members. It is gruelling, though. We come out of it having learnt a lot more about the mysteries of government when you get that tangle about good public policy and politics all mixed up in one with politics seen to be playing the top card all the time. It is the one time when we have a chance to have a little look behind the game and see what is really going on so that we can do our job as well.
That is one recommendation, that there be an adjustment to the allocations. There is something else, too …
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, do you mind if I just interrupt you to recognise these people in these people in the gallery?
Mr MILLS: Please do, it is a great time to interrupt.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Casuarina Senior College Year 11 and 12 students, accompanied by teachers. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr MILLS: Thank you. I have now remembered what I have to say. The issue related to time allocations is also reflecting the central objective - accountability. Has government been held accountable? ‘Oh, yes, we have kicked it off, we have an estimates process, we have been held accountable, people asked us questions, hard ones too, and so we have been held accountable’. No, come on. Put that aside. Have you been held accountable in area X, Y and Z?
If you are fair dinkum, you would do an audit, as has been referred to by the member for Nelson, and I totally agree with him. There are areas that, year after year, receive no attention because of the restricted time allocation. You are unable to deal with certain areas where government should be held accountable. You do not need to be afraid, government. You need to be more afraid, I would suspect, of never being able to be asked the question. You might get away with it time and time again, and manage the public relations well enough to get re-elected, but, at the end of the day, it is actually about people out there. It is not about you and your political fortunes. It is about doing your job properly. That is what this is about.
Another proposal, echoing I am sure what the member for Nelson will say if he is contributing, and what the member for Nelson has already said on the public record, is that we need to check what has not been covered so that we can ensure proper coverage of all aspects related to government, so that we can be certain the job has been done well, we have acquitted our responsibilities, and government also has been held accountable, so that honesty, openness and transparency can actually mean that.
I noted the Leader of Government Business’s words, so did the Leader of the Opposition, that you were calling and inviting the opposition to ‘make a submission and we will look at it’. I have been around long enough to know what that means. Nonetheless, I will take you at your word. We will make a submission and put it to you so you can have a look at it. The words that have been spoken in this debate, I trust, would also be weighed up in that contribution. In fact, the words being spoken now, and the Leader of the Opposition’s words that are on the public record, would be counted, I trust, as contributions. Do we have to write a letter so that you can have a look at it and write back? Do it through the proper process? This is parliament, these are contributions, and contributions have been made before. I trust that those contributions are weighed and measured properly to ensure that objective is properly prosecuted, that government is held accountable, and opposition and Independent members can be satisfied they have done their job.
In the event, after due consideration of all the contributions that have been made by opposition and Independent members, not just in this debate but in previous debates, if there is any further information that the Leader of Government Business seeks, the door is open. We are more than happy to make further contributions to assist the Leader of Government Business in advancing this issue. Taking him at his word, he said that he would take these words, these contributions, and duly consider them. If further information is required, I am happy to provide it. I have the assurance also from the Leader of the Opposition there would be no problem with that whatsoever, as we are all interested in doing our job properly and we will make our contribution.
All that said, I will finish with what I sadly reflected on at the beginning: I thought the Leader of Government Business’ words indicated support of this motion. All of his words gave the impression that he supported the motion. In fact, look at those words. If you get Hansard and read those words, you will see …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Mr MILLS: Oh, you are kidding! I should have been looking.
Mr WOOD: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Blain to complete his remarks in accordance with Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: I only have a few minutes left.
Mr Wood: Even though you did not support me last time.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No quarrelling, ladies and gentlemen!
Mr MILLS: You talked about forgiveness yesterday.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ten minutes, member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: That is fine. The essence of the words that were spoken by the Leader of Government Business, notwithstanding the rider that came along with it which contradicted the substance of the words, was supportive of this motion. This is what galls me; that you can have platitudes and nice talk which indicates an understanding, support and a dealing with the central objective of accountability, etcetera. Once all that is packaged up into a nice little bundle, presented before the parliament, even with the sincere - or apparently sincere - gesture of saying: ‘I would like to give both of you a shot so that you could probably persuade me’, I have been here long enough to know that that is bull.
At the end of the day, all those words were uttered; he gave a nice impression - just as the estimates process gives a nice impression - but they will reject it nonetheless. Why? Because it comes from the opposition. Why? Because the central objective of allowing government to be accountable is not really their core business - public relations is. They would just like to keep it just the way it is: create an impression. ‘Please do not ask the hard questions; do not allow opposition or Independent members to unravel the mysteries of government because we would like to stay in government. We would like to keep as many people as possible in the dark so that we can play our little game and ensure that our central objective is served’ That is getting re-elected.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support what the member for Blain has just said. I might do it in a more prcised form, however I do go along with the sentiment which he has enunciated. The motion is just asking the government - not telling the government to do anything. The motion is that the Assembly review the conduct of the estimates hearings and associated allocated hearing time frames for ministerial portfolios. That does not set the government up so that it has to do what the review says; it is just simply asking that the government review the way we run the Estimates Committee.
I have spoken on this a number of times. There are a couple of options when it comes to allowing some of the portfolios to eventually get an airing at the Estimates Committee. If the government is not too keen on increasing the number of hours that we sit, one way is to do an audit, as the member for Blain mentioned, and look at those portfolios that have not been questioned over the last few years, and change the order in which those portfolios are put forward. Some of those areas - for instance, the port - go to the top of the ladder at the next Estimates Committee, not put at the back of the pile. I do not think we have ever had a question on the port yet. We spend an awful lot of money down there, and it would be nice to know how much it costs every time it falls down - when the steel pylons crack or the crane is not put in the right place because the light poles are too high. It would be good to question the government on those sorts of things. Why do we have three gates to the port and why is the new one actually too high to reach the trucks that go past, etcetera.
It is our job to ask the government those sort of mundane questions. However, we have not reached that stage, unfortunately. It would be good if we looked at turning the portfolio numbers around according to those ones which have not been questioned. That might achieve, at least once every two years, a chance to get some of those areas covered that we do not cover at the moment.
The other way around is, as the Opposition Leader has put in her motion that we weight different departments according to how many portfolios they have. I know that she has Chief Minister, Health, and Employment, Education and Training. I would probably without much doubt throw in Planning and Lands or Planning, Lands and Infrastructure or whatever that huge department is, because it is probably the one department that spends a huge amount of money. It covers nearly the entire Territory, affects all of us and we really need to fully question the minister on the workings of that department. That will be hard, I suppose, because someone is going to have to make up their mind as to which departments should get a higher rating and which should not. We have that other option …
Mr Stirling: I will give up some Treasury time.
Mr WOOD: Oh well, Treasury, you know, we can …
Mr Stirling: I will give up some of my seven hours.
Mr WOOD: As I said, we can look at it the other way including some of the individual portfolios that have not been questioned over the last few years and put them at the top of the table.
The second part of the motion was about the inability to question the senior public servants directly and this inhibits the transparency and accountability of government through the estimates process. I know they are only little things, but much of the time you are questioning a public servant and all the time there is a requirement to go through the Chair or through the minister, and it goes back to the public servant. Just for the sake of efficiency, if you are rolling along on a series of questions to the public servant there should be a blanket approval that you can keep questioning the public servant. Perhaps if you change the topic you were discussing with the minister, then it goes back through the Chair, through the minister, and so on. Every time you ask the public servant a question, it is not very good time efficiency if you have to keep going through the minister.
I believe there is some merit in that. It would only require a bit of commonsense from the Chair or if we are not likely to get that, then perhaps we need to put it in the guidelines for the Chair so that it is something that does not require debate, but is taken as part of the standing orders for the Estimates Committee.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe it is a good motion. It does not require the government to stick its neck out. It is just asking for a review, a public review, and we can all put our two bobs worth in. In the meantime, the government can do some numbers, see how long we spent on various departments, see which departments have not been looked at, come back to this little review with those figures, so that we can have an educated debate on the process. You may come up with a better solution. I welcome the opposition’s motion and think it should be supported.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, although my colleague, the member for Blain, indicated that I may not be summing up, I thought I would if only to restate just a couple of matters and also to avoid the potential accusation that we were not interested enough in this which is why we did not sum up. I can assure you, and other members, that we are very interested in this motion, which is why we brought it to the Assembly.
I thank both the Leader of Government Business and the member for Nelson for their contributions. I thought this debate was conducted in a pretty good spirit and was pleased, frankly, that the Leader of Government Business agreed with me when I said we are all getting better at this estimates process and indeed that is the case.
The challenge for us all is to get even better at it so that scrutiny exists properly in the Northern Territory of the government’s budget. We all know the shortcomings and it is fair to say based on this debate at how it can be improved. I hope, as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, the Leader of Government Business will take an estimates review back to that committee. I know he has indicated that he will not agree to the motion, and although I disagree, I certainly understand his position on that. What we in the opposition will do is forward a copy of my contribution today as well as that of the member for Blain. I also invite the member for Nelson to do so. We will get the Hansard and, as a courtesy, bundle it up, and send it to the Leader of Government Business, addressed to him as Chair of the Standing Orders Committee. At the same time, I will say to him in that letter that if he requires any other information by way of a submission or what have you, then I would be very happy to assist the Standing Orders Committee undertake its functions, as I am sure all members would.
I take it, Mr Deputy Speaker, from what the Leader of Government Business said, that there will be some sort of review. I notice that he said that the government would review various things in terms of checking - and I do not know the process - with CEOs, I think he mentioned other senior public servants, involving the media, because government always goes through a process, apparently, after every Estimates Committee of hearing from those people as to whether there are any issues arising from Estimates Committee.
I ask whether the minister would be prepared to table in the Assembly those comments from either the public servants and/or media. If he is not willing to table them here, would he be prepared to provide the bulk – no doubt it can be in summarised form if there are any confidentiality issues there - of the comments from those whom government is consulting to the Standing Orders Committee because all committees need all of the information. I would hate to think that the government would be saying on the one hand: ‘Oh, yes, we reviewed the process’, and yet on the other hand not being willing to share with this parliament or the Standing Orders Committee the effect of its review because that is keeping one side in the dark. For an issue as important as this, I do not think it would be the right thing to do. We are happy to assist. We will bundle the Hansard from today and send it to the minister. In the letter I will ask if the minister is prepared to share any of the information from his own review, and ask what time frame the committee might have in terms of coming up with some changes.
I am not so nave to believe that the government will adopt all that we have suggested. That is politics. I am, surprisingly perhaps, a little hopeful that we will not go to next year’s estimates process with exactly the same formula as we did this year. I remain reasonably hopeful as to that. There are some changes. We accept that we will not probably get all of them, although we would encourage government to listen to us in that regard, but even some changes, minister, would be appreciated.
With those comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you and we will not be taking the matter to a vote.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Northern Territory Open Education Centre
Northern Territory Open Education Centre
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move – That this Assembly -
- 1. condemn the Northern Territory government for reversing its pre-election position to retain the Northern Territory Open Education Centre; and
- 2. call upon the minister for Education to explain why reducing staffing levels by half and exchanging a successful model for an untested one is not about cost cutting.
This is an important debate and an opportunity taken by the opposition to effectively put some questions to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training so that we can hear, on behalf of those who are concerned within our community, both here in the Top End and in our remote locations, exactly what government has planned on their behalf.
My contribution will not be long, but it will contain some questions which I hope provides a prompt to the minister to provide a justification for the implementation of the plan to significantly alter NTOEC.
This is done with a disturbing background in mind. It was before the last election. The Gregor Ramsey review into secondary education had been conducted. Interviews were held across the Territory. The whole review process was kicked off with great fanfare, and then it seemed to go quiet, though those of us who were watching knew that this review was in process. Government seems to be very excited when a review is conducted because it buys them time. They know that their chickens are going to come home to roost because this review will arrive, and then they are in the uncomfortable position of having to make some decisions.
In that whole process, the review then was presented to government and they sat on it for some time. It was not until some heat in the community that ultimately it was released, unlike a number of other reviews that have disappeared into the black hole of government. This one did come out after some time - a very important and a very public review.
In that review was the clear message by those conducting the review that NTOEC should change substantially, so much so it was assumed to be no longer identified or recognised as NTOEC. The government was mute in regards to that recommendation. However, notwithstanding what the minister may say here, and has said before, there was enough information flying around the networks to indicate that a clear indication in the mind of government – or certainly the department, I hope that is the mind of government – that plans were well afoot to implement the recommendations of the Gregor Ramsey report.
I give great credit to all of those who are supporters of NTOEC. They recognise the work that has been done from the Open Education Centre. They made their protest loud and clear. They conducted their business professionally, and they made sure that all aspects of that issue were properly brought to the fore so that there could be a proper debate. Once the heat increased on that issue, and the opposition called upon the government to make it intentions clear that it would not close NTOEC down, the CLP’s position was it should be shown due respect and further strengthened.
The government, ultimately with its eye on the polls, with its eye on an election date, recognised it would be strategically valuable to reassure all of those who were concerned by the ambiguous comments of government, that NTOEC is just fine: ‘We will not close you down’, gave them a bit of space. The NTOEC breathed easy. Support warmed for government; at least it was not against or hostile to government. They managed that political issue. People took the sincere words of government as sincere words, and off we moved to the polls.
After the polls were conducted and government was reinstated with an increased majority, another review was conducted. The review was Building Better Schools, developing a new, leading edge distance education model for the Northern Territory. I have had an opportunity to read most of this report, and surprise, surprise, it seems to echo the same recommendations, or similar recommendations of the initial review.
It is quite clear that government now, with their election in the rear vision mirror, and with plenty of mileage on the open road before it – 19 members in the Chamber - can now proceed with its original plans of significantly altering NTOEC. The language in all of this will be very interesting to listen to. I fear that NTOEC will no longer exist as we know it. Government, of course, will not say that plainly. They will say: ‘No, we are going to enhance it, strengthen it, alter it - we are going to do this, that and the other’. There may be justification for some of those aspects but, nonetheless, we need to be front and centre about the breach of trust. You cannot say one thing one day and wait to suit yourself for your own political objectives, and then change your message in quite a sophisticated way - not so sophisticated now the electorate can tell what is going on, particularly those who are affected.
My comments are going to be particularly focused not on the prerogative of government to make changes, to take risks and do things, but the breach of trust - saying one thing at one time and something else later when it suits your political objectives. It is the people who have been affected by this. I have been surprised – moved, in fact - by the strength of conviction of the people who work in distance education. Over my time in education, I have had the opportunity to know some of those good folk who work in NTOEC. They are truly dedicated teachers and, in many respects, are not fully understood. Anyone who is familiar with the teaching profession knows it is an immensely taxing job, coupled with this driving sense of duty and obligation to provide a most important service: education.
There are those who understand a word that is not often used these days - vocation. It is a vocation. There is a deeper satisfaction that comes from teaching and serving in that way than a lot of other occupations that are not easily transferable or understood by those who have not served to meet the needs of those in this context, that is, education.
Those who endeavour to support educational aspirations of people in remote areas have worked hard and well over an extended period of time. They are to be complimented and supported. That is what grieves me more than anything: I can hear the pain from those who feel betrayed and offended by this whole exercise - betrayed because of the assurance and platitudes that were given before an election which have ever so subtly changed after the election. That is what concerns me more than anything. There will be a number of good people who will feel that all of their investment over an extended period of time has counted for little. I hope in the minister’s comments there will be due reference to that aspect. That is the one that concerns me more than anything.
When I learnt of the timetable that has been provided to those at NTOEC - and there has been a nice little flyer going around telling them what to do - they seem to have been given this process. This is the question at the top of the mind of anyone working in NTOEC: what is the process for the annual teacher transfer round? Make your applications for a transfer. ‘Can I still apply?’ is a question. ‘Yes, DEET will work closely with you, with temporary contract employees, and we will clarify individual status by the end of term three 2006’. This is the process, you will get a memo - they would have received their memo on 24 July - and a month later is the closing date for your application for a transfer. Get your transfer in. Why? ‘We are making some big changes around here’. About three or four days later, information will start to flow.
There has been enough information revealed to those who work in NTOEC to indicate that nothing will be the same again. First, the respect, appreciation and valuing the contribution that has been made. Will the new system the government is wheeling in, that we do not know enough about, improve? There are many who are, quite understandably, very sceptical as to whether this change proposed by government will improve outcomes to those who most need it. Is it the best system? Is it, in fact, not about education but about greater economic efficiencies and greater concerns about the cost of delivering? It is an argument you can run in a narrow frame and satisfy objectives today, bottom line.
With education you must take a strategic approach. I do note, before I leave myself exposed, there are many important aspects that were covered in this review, the Developing the New Leading Edge Distance Educational Model for Northern Territory. I am waiting to hear how the minister is going to implement these recommendations. I need to see, as shadow spokesman for Education, how it all stiches together. I need to be convinced on behalf of those who are concerned not just about their previous contribution, about their current contributions as educators, but more importantly whether the proposed changes once implemented by government will actually make a noticeable difference to those remote students who have aspirations. Will it improve outcomes?
I ask if the minister is considering putting on his old record, that being the one about the new guys, the CLP. Do not worry about that too much if you do not mind because we are oriented towards what lies ahead and you are making decisions, and you are implementing recommendations. I would really like to hear for my own satisfaction, and on behalf of those who will be delivering education, the educators and support staff, and for the remote students and the aspiring families, whether this will actually be delivered, and whether the core objective is to improve outcomes. Please convince me on behalf of all those I have mentioned. I need to be convinced.
I will hear it but I want to be strengthened in my belief that it will, and that it is not about reducing the cost to government, that it is not driven by economic rationalism. That it is not a callous implementation of a policy to serve an economic objective. That it is not, in fact, in a couple of easy moves, to close the show down completely and pass it over to South Australia. I would like to know, too, in the minister’s reply, exactly how many positions will be shed because there have been representations made to the staff there of varying numbers of how this will impact.
How many will be lost from the current operation, removed from it? Will the staffing ratio be a change from 42 to 1 as it currently exists to what I have heard - and I cannot come to grips with - of 68 to 80 to 1? Help me to understand how the new structure is actually going to provide a strengthened delivery. Not just the words; I want to really be convinced. I know that there will be indirect and direct delivery, but will this work?
If it is based on the core principle that it is to improve education, then that argument should run all the way through in a convincing way. But if the hidden agenda is to reduce the cost to government, to the Education department, and hand it over to South Australia that will run counter to the core objective. You can judge it. If you listen carefully you will know whether this is a sincere motivation or an insincere motivation; an educational value-adding or bottom line cash issue.
Tell me more about the contract positions. What is in the mind of the minister with regards to contract positions? What are you doing to add greater security to those who are on contracts, particularly in times like this? What will the ratios be? I understand that many of the staff - I am not sure how many; you could inform me, I hope, minister - have been instructed to seek transfer. Please tell the story after that. What is in the mind of the minister with regard to what that means? Does that mean that you seek a transfer and, as I read it, it appears that we will send you anywhere we choose?
Tell me more about how it will be delivered remotely. Convince me and those concerned that this will strengthen the service delivery end because, as the minister has said, and I agree with these words, nothing happens in education until it happens to a child, to a student. Will this strengthen delivery? I will listen carefully to see whether I am convinced. I do have an open mind. I want to see improvements and if this review is being implemented, be honest: one, you had the intention of restructuring, you called it off prior to the election, brought it back on, put that aside. That is just the ugly business of politics which grieves many in the community, particularly those who are directly affected by these decisions. That aside, will there be improvements? Convince me.
Do you really want teachers to serve remote areas? Of course, the answer will be yes. From time to time, I hear stories that astound me. I cannot believe that the good folk who choose to serve remotely are experiencing such difficult situations. I do not have to hand the name of this community, but I heard during the show circuit of a teacher who had just taken delivery of a bed and up until that point, did not have a bed to sleep in. We were talking about the end of the first semester. I know what it is like in education; your focus is trying to deliver. I know that there would be obvious interest in that. I will investigate that further and pass it on to the minister. If that be the case, I do not know what to think.
Those who do work remotely need a proper connection, but, as I alluded to before, if you are in the vocation of teaching the last thing often is your own concerns. It is the concerns first and foremost of those you are endeavouring to affect positively. From time to time, I hear of these stories and it troubles me. I know that at times there is that issue where a teacher may not openly complain about their lot.
The questions, I presume, have been taken by the minister. There are these and many other questions that I would like clarified. More importantly, as I will restate in closing, the proposition that this will improve education remotely needs to be put convincingly so that I, for one, can be satisfied that the government’s intentions are genuine. I look forward to the contribution of the member for Greatorex who previously held the shadow responsibility for education, particularly at the time when the Ramsey review made the recommendation to government, which government did make moves on to then restructure NTOEC. The member for Greatorex will make an additional contribution with regard to NTOEC.
I look forward to the minister’s contribution so that we can be assured that the objectives will be achieved. I also restate that I need to hear from the minister, on behalf of those who have been affected by this decision-making process, which has been interfered with by the political objectives, which has offended and confounded many teachers who have been affected by this minister’s decisions, and to the way that these decisions have been made. With these words, I look forward to the minister’s contribution.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are there any more speakers? Minister for Employment, Education and Training.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): It would appear not, Mr Deputy Speaker, in which case, I have great delight in responding to the member for Blain.
Probably one of the greatest points of difference between 27 years of Country Liberal Party government in the Northern Territory and five years of this Martin Labor government is the quality of education and the quality of those services delivered throughout the Northern Territory.
When we came to power five years ago, we identified the improvement of education right up there as an immediate and top priority for this government. We promised all Territorians a quality education no matter who they were or where they lived. In five short years, the transformation has been remarkable.
Today, we have an education …
Dr Lim: Yes. From zero to Year 12 in five short years. Zero to 12 in five short years. How remarkable. They are brighter than the minister himself.
Mr STIRLING: … system leading the nation in its clarity of purpose and delivery effort, most especially evident in our service delivery to remote communities – and the member for Greatorex is giving me a pain in the head, because he was part of the government that refused to deliver secondary education to remote indigenous students because they were a racist government who did not …
Dr Lim: We will talk about your lying shortly.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr STIRLING: … believe that black kids could be educated!
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! He should withdraw that because he is calling the CLP government racist. He should withdraw that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, please cease. What is your point of order, member for Greatorex?
Dr LIM: My point of order is that this minister got up and labelled the Country Liberal Party racist. That is out of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw that statement.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. … a member of the government who refused to provide secondary education to remote indigenous students. You can put any colour on that you like, but you refused point blank to spend as much as one cent on secondary education to remote indigenous students. Why? Because they were remote, or because they were indigenous? Let the people decide that. People suffered, and people were denied their rightful access to education services under the CLP government.
Unlike the previous administration, we believe in delivering education services to the bush, and furthermore, we are absolutely determined to bring those outcomes of indigenous kids living in bush and remote communities up to national benchmark levels. That is our pledge. This is our aim. That is our commitment. Unlike our predecessors who would not even deliver – would not provide secondary education to these kids.
After 27 years in power, the CLP never delivered proper secondary education to the bush, never graduated so much as one indigenous Territorian with the NTCE in their own community. Only in the late 1990s, offered minimal vocational education training outside of Year 11 and 12 to students in Darwin, Palmerston and the townships. Initiated, but never implemented, never looked at, the Learning Lessons report. They stripped the regions absolutely bare of any autonomy, any delegation, any regional decision-making power. That was just a snapshot of the many failures of the CLP in regional remote education.
In the last five years, we have had to work doubly hard to overcome that generation’s neglect: preschool programs for the first time are being delivered to small remote communities through the mobile preschools program; the program of employing 100 additional teachers in the system above and beyond the formula; primary school students and teachers now receive support services at unprecedented levels in areas such as special needs, ESL, PE, sport and student wellbeing.
As the member for Nhulunbuy before we came to government in 2001, I argued for 11 years straight - 11 years straight - that at Galiwinku, Shepherdson College, Elcho Island ought to have a special needs teacher. Guess when they got the first one? After this government was elected. It was after this government was elected before a special needs teacher was sent to a remote indigenous community that just happened to be my electorate. Of course, many of our remote schools now have those special needs teachers. School counsellors are available for the first time ever in remote and regional areas. The implementation of middle years will see remote schools extend their service delivery to Year 9. The new staffing formula, when in place, will see remote schools staffed in exactly the same way as urban schools.
I do not shy away from the fact that we have an enormous amount of work still to go to extend equal education opportunity to regional and remote students. But, my God, we have made a bit of a start on it in five years, compared to our predecessors after 27 years.
The unimaginable is now a reality, and nothing serves as a better example than the 25 young indigenous students who graduated through NTCE last year in their own communities. It was 2003 before we ever saw one, 25 last year, and on track to better that this year.
In 2002, the Chief Minister announced commissioning of the most significant review of secondary education since self-government because the Territory’s Year 12 results were lagging five percentage points behind South Australia and more compared to the rest of Australia. Primary schools and special education provision were regarded highly, but confidence in secondary education was lacking, and there is no hiding from that. It was cited as a reason why Defence personnel were reluctant to transfer to the Territory, and by executives of major companies who were asked by the Chief Minister why they would not put an office in the Northern Territory. They said their executives will not come; they do not trust your education system.
The review undertaken by a team led by Dr Gregor Ramsey reported - perhaps a little unexpectedly - on widespread stakeholder dissatisfaction with the services provided by the Northern Territory Open Education Centre. Such was the level of dissatisfaction, the review went as far as recommending closure of the NTOEC by the end of 2005. It is now August 2006; the NTOEC remains open. The motion put before the House by the member for Blain stands wrong and deserves to be corrected on that point alone. The motion says:
- … condemn the Northern Territory government for reversing its pre-election position to retain the Northern Territory Open Education Centre ...
We never did any such thing. In August 2006, it is still open. We chose not to adopt the Ramsey recommendation because distance learning happens to be an absolute key part of delivery of education in the Northern Territory, and a service which we believe required us to strengthen and overhaul and modernise rather than close it.
Improvements were needed in the areas of technology, sourcing materials, and service delivery. Contrary to the notion of closure of NTOEC, the government decided to use that recommendation in the Ramsey report as an opportunity for renewal. It presented an opportunity to create a leading edge, distance education service; one that could hold its head high nationally and internationally as well as deliver a quality product for students and teachers in our remote areas.
We are the second most remote jurisdiction in the world after Canada; it is a jurisdiction with some of the most isolated students in the world. We do need to be leading the way in distance education. To this end, we sought the best distance education expertise in the country, engaging Mr Gary Barnes and Mr Phil Buchanan to work collaboratively with stakeholders to develop a leading edge distance education service. Gary had just undertaken a similar exercise in Queensland, and was nationally recognised for his work.
Their report addressed both systemic and operational issues by bringing together NT Open Education Centre, Katherine School of the Air and Alice Springs School of the Air in a cooperative working relationship; implementing leading edge initiatives relating to virtual schooling; development of collaborative partnerships with other jurisdictions; improving the development of quality materials including the use of innovative information technology approaches to teaching and learning; better addressing the needs of indigenous students in remote schools; redistributing and relocating current NTOEC teaching positions to support indigenous students in remote schools; and improving consistency of delivery by ensuring all distance learning home based students have access to interactive distance learning or IDL.
The end product is a leading edge, world-class distance eduction system warmly welcomed by the Isolated Childrens Parents Association, warmly welcomed by bush schools, warmly welcomed by educators in remote communities, welcomed almost by everyone except the CLP.
In focusing on what is a sloppy and ill conceived motion, it is impossible, absolutely impossible, to condemn the Northern Territory government for reversing its pre-election position to retain the NT Open Education Centre because we have not reversed our pre-election position. Take a drive out to Chrisp Street, Rapid Creek, member for Blain, member for Greatorex, you will see the college still there, you will see the doors open, you will see the teachers walking in and the college working as it will be in 2007 and into the future.
Dr Lim: Half of them missing.
Mr STIRLING: If the member for Greatorex had any sense, he would keep his mouth shut because if there is one area he or his previous government has no expertise and no credibility on which to speak, it is indigenous education. Every time he tries to open his mouth he just works me up that little more to remind him of the absolute neglect, criminal neglect, of him and his colleagues in all of the years that they were in government.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, the bloke who never made a mistake in his life, the bloke who never made a mistake in his life. Just did not do anything.
The second part refers to cost cutting and it is quite simply wrong. The creation of a new leading edge distance eduction centre is about providing a quality eduction service to remote Territorians not about cost cutting. Not one dollar will be cut from the current operational budget of NTOEC. In fact, the overall cost of delivery has increased, but will be paid for in part by redirecting resources from within the education system. It is not cheaper, it is more expensive, but it will be infinitely better.
The motion suggests that staff levels will be reduced by half. That is wrong. More staff are being placed out bush. More positions are being created to provide materials and information technology support. A formula change has been proposed which will make sense. Combined with these new positions the result is a nett loss of 12 positions out of an organisation of over 80. The loss of these positions are not in themselves cost cutting because the freed-up resources will fund that placement of teachers in remote locations as well as the materials development unit and the ICT and innovation unit.
The member for Blain’s suggestion that the NT model as it stood was successful is a further indication of just how out of touch he is with the community on this issue. Widespread stakeholder dissatisfaction as reported to Professor Gregor Ramsey all those years ago does not equate to a successful model. When it comes to education, this government is modern, it is progressive, it is innovative. We will continue with reforms to make our education system the envy of Australia. We will continue with our quest to provide a quality education to all Territorians no matter where they live.
I want to pick up this issue of the bed. The show circuit was quite some time ago, back in July. If the member for Blain was approached about a teacher who could not get a bed, or the government would not provide them a bed, I would have thought it was incumbent on him as the shadow minister for Education to maybe ring the office, e-mail the office, speak to someone, or pass it through, or even write to me. The fact is, I do not believe there is a teacher out there in the system who does not have a bed. It certainly never came to our attention. No attempt was made, to my knowledge, through either the department or to our office, to bring this to our attention.
It is the sort of issue we do get when we go to places like Groote Eylandt or anywhere else in the Territory where someone is not happy with their furniture. This government has placed $500 000 a year for remote and small schools to purchase and continually improve the furnishings in remote teacher housing. So, if the member for Blain actually did hear this story as opposed to making it up in here today, he had a responsibility to bring that to my attention, or explain why he did not.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! By way of explanation, the report I gave was that I heard that a bed had been supplied.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?
Mr MILLS: I did not make that up. I would never make that up. I am also saying that I only heard that it had been supplied. So why go and tell him so that …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr MILLS: The point is I have been misrepresented. I did not make that up.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, in the first place, the member for Blain says that there is a teacher that cannot get a bed, and now he is telling us that a bed was supplied, or he heard that a bed was supplied. So if he is not making it up …
Mr Mills: Yes, after the end of the first semester.
Mr STIRLING: … he has a pretty great good story to tell. It is a pretty perky story.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Blain, you will resume your seat. There is no point of order. Minister, continue.
Mr Mills: I am offended by that.
Mr STIRLING: I am bemused. Mr Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion moved by my colleague, the member for Blain, and perhaps ask the minister to think about how he dares claim success in a vacuum. Every generation, whether it be people or governments, builds on the scaffold of the previous generation.
Mr Stirling: You have no credibility.
Mrs Miller: Go and have a pill.
Dr LIM: This minister …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment. Member for Katherine, I ask you to withdraw that statement.
Mrs MILLER: I withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: The minister thinks that he was able to produce Year 12 students out of thin air, that in the five years he has been in government, he has been able to get students doing Year 12. I say to him: walk cautiously, talk cautiously. Every success his government has, including the railway and the Darwin port, whatever it maybe, scaffolds on the success of previous governments. It is no different with education. It scaffolds on the success of previous governments. Otherwise those children would not be there to go to secondary school and to achieve Year 12.
The opposition moved this motion because since the election of 2005 there appears to be a dismantling of the Northern Territory Open Education Centre. It appears that this government is hell-bent on removing the NTOEC overtly or by stealth. I recall that when the Ramsey Report came out in 2003 or 2004 this government sat on it for nine months or even longer - I cannot remember the time line exactly. People were concerned that this government kept sitting on this report. No one was able to get any information out of it. Eventually, through a lot of pressure from the AEU, me, and many others, the report dribbled out and eventually we received the whole report.
Contained within the report was the recommendation to close the Northern Territory Open Education Centre. Not only was he going to close it, but then outsource distance education to South Australia, which hardly had a very successful record on distance education. In fact, the Open Education Centre of the Northern Territory had a much better record of success with their students.
In 2003, they had nearly 1000 students, nearly 40% of whom were indigenous students doing quite well. In fact, the NTOEC produced several top NTCE students out of the top 20 from each year of our Year 12 graduates. Indigenous and non-indigenous students were, on average, high achievers when compared across the Northern Territory. Indigenous students at the NTOEC had gone from low rates of about 16% success in 2000 to some 70% success in 2003. Finally, some 80% of indigenous students studying Stage 2 courses were achieving satisfactory results. You have to admit that NTOEC was achieving its targets well beyond what this government ever gave it credit for. When the Ramsey report came out, you had to question how they got the data, and what data they ignored. What I have just read out obviously indicated that the NTOEC was performing a lot better.
Through my representation of the NTOEC, meeting the staff, inspecting the premises and being shown around, what they do, including their distance education modules through interactive communication with the students, they were able to achieve what South Australia could not. After a lot of clamouring, and representation, and the government read that it was going to lose the support of the teachers at the NTOEC, and the families and students of the NTOEC community, it politically made the choice to not touch the NTOEC. It did not give any guarantees that it would enhance it, but it did say, yes, we are going to keep the NTOEC going.
In the last 12 months, yes, it is going. You can say a person is walking with two good legs, or, if you cut off one leg you can walk with a leg and a pair of crutches. Well, the NTOEC would like to be able to run, and it needs two good legs to run. To tell the staff that they best get themselves transferred out of the NTOEC or they might miss out causes a lot of concern. The staff, for their own financial security, are going to chose that option: transfer out in case this government closes NTOEC and they find themselves high and dry without a job and with no teaching post to go to. Of course, they will get transferred out.
As late as June of this year, the minister, and several other ministers of this government received letters and e-mails from staff at NTOEC expressing their concerns, telling them that almost half of the teachers would be cut back, yet they still have to handle some 3000 subject enrolments. So, there is a significant drive by this government to slowly push for fewer numbers of teachers within the NTOEC. It is not by attrition really, it is by subtle coercion. When the government talks about, ‘We have to have more teachers out in the bush to teach’, funny that, when you think indigenous students would have to have a lot of English as a second language teaching, yet the number of ESL teachers has also been significantly reduced. So what is this government trying to achieve?
Then, when you see that the Katherine School of the Air and the Alice Springs School of the Air have continued to receive good support from this government, nothing has been touched. In fact, they have been enhanced significantly, and good on them, they should be. The NTOEC, on the other hand, is slowly being emasculated. If that is not a signal from this government that the NTOEC is facing certain demise, I do not know what the signals mean. In his response, the minister has not been able to explain why there has been such a huge reduction in staffing levels. Why a model that has been working so well, as demonstrated by the statistics that the college has produced each year in their annual report, why such a good model is going to be substituted for something that is untested? The minister, in the early days of this debate three or four years ago, misquoted information. He quoted that the school had, at that stage, some 70% indigenous students. I do not believe that he has ever resiled from that publicly. He has said it in this Chamber - I have heard him admit to his error - but he has never withdrawn that statement publicly. Maybe he needs to do that also.
The school community in Central Australia and stations around the Territory have written in saying: ‘We do need the NTOEC; it is doing a great job with our children’. Even learned bodies such as the Darwin area school educational leaders and ANTSEL, the Association of Northern Territory School Educational Leaders, have been supporting the functions of the NTOEC, saying that it is definitely required. They have criticised the minister for misrepresenting the statistics and have tried very hard to correct that in a public way. The minister would do well to correct his erroneous representation of NTOEC in a public fashion, to at least show some goodwill towards the college. If it is true that he is not going to close the NTOEC, then he needs to say it in a way that is believable, because his very actions belie the words he says, that he wants to keep the NTOEC going.
The only way that NTOEC can perform well is to ensure its staffing levels remain at a level that makes it not only just functioning, but to continue to improve and provide subject development which it is very good at. There is no point my reading out lots of letters of support from parents and the centre’s community. The minister would have received all those letters himself, if not, at least through his priority education group.
Definitely, when you cut out some 29 out of 50 teaching positions, it will jeopardise education of indigenous children, without a doubt. The loss of 29 positions is now confirmed with the department and, so, it is a reality, is it not minister? It is a reality. Nearly 1000 students with nearly 3000 subject enrolments will now have to be managed by less than half the teaching staff that they had. You say: ‘We will send the teachers out bush’. I understand only two teachers have taken up that offer. Where are you going to find the rest?
The numbers of indigenous students have slowly increased each year as the NTOEC continues to make great successes and positive inroads into indigenous education. I commend them for their action. Whenever the minister gets up, he slams the Country Liberal Party for neglecting indigenous education. Far be it from the truth that education has been provided to indigenous students in the best way that could possibly be provided in the years past. Through that, it has provided this minister with a body of students that he can continue to educate and get into secondary and, hopefully in years to come, tertiary education. This is what I would like to see: indigenous students achieving tertiary education as lawyers, doctors, professional people who could serve the Territory.
A recent e-mail was received from concerned people about the shrinking of the numbers of teachers. Each time they write to us, the numbers decrease. Minister, I am saying to you that until and unless you are able to halt the attrition that you have caused at the NTOEC, no one will believe that you are not out to dispose of the NTOEC in time to come. Yes, it is still operational, yes it is, but half the rate that it was doing just over 12 months ago.
Mr Stirling: Not true and you know it.
Dr LIM: I pick up the interjection from the minister that it is not true. I also warn the minister that his interjections …
Mr Stirling: If that is your maths I would be frightened to be in your room, 12 out of 80 makes up …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, minister!
Dr LIM: I also warn the minister that his interjections are being heard by staff at the NTOEC. They will decide for themselves whether the minister is telling them what is believable or whether they will choose to believe what they see around them at NTOEC: colleagues have left, their rooms are now vacant because there are no staff in there, where activities that used to be run industriously at NTOEC are now not being done.
The minister was talking about remote area teachers. Since you only have one or two teachers offering to go, what is going to happen to the rest? Where are they going to recruit them from? I repeat lastly that because the Schools of the Air at Katherine and Alice Springs have not been touched, you have to ask so why it is happening to the NTOEC? If the minister does not do it, I suppose he has three years to try to patch up the trauma that he has caused for the teachers. Hopefully, from this minister’s perspective, they will not hold a grudge against him in three years time and vote him back in again. I would be very fearful of that. I do not think the people will ever forget this.
This is something that this government has promised. They will promise whatever they have to promise to ensure that they regain government. They did that and now once it is over, as the member for Blain said, it is behind them now, they can do whatever they like and NTOEC will be closed and there will be a loss to the Northern Territory. You have done so well in the past. Why on earth would you want to get rid of something that has done so much good for the Territory to replace it with something that nobody knows will work? That is the problem: you do not know whether it will work. Minister, I am sure you will continue on your path relentlessly and not caring about what happens to the teachers at the NTOEC. That will be a tragedy.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I only hope the minister did not hear what I had to say in my statement because I asked some very direct questions, not as a means to personally criticise the minister, but as a means of assuring that the decisions that this minister has made will, in fact, work. I can only assume that he did not take the time or have the respect to listen to my contribution, which I gave on behalf of Territorians. The reply contained no reference to any of the issues that were raised.
The one that was referred to was a passing reference I made to information that I had received during the show circuit that a bed had finally arrived at a remote location, and I was accused of lying. That was the core response to the debate that had been presented to the government in good faith, the core response.
Mr Stirling: Dealing with your lies? You did not even know what your story was.
Dr Lim: Can the minister withdraw that because …
Mr Stirling: You did not even know what your story was. One minute they did not have a bed, the next thing they did have a bed.
Dr Lim: Get the minister to withdraw that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, minister.
Mr Stirling: You changed your story.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw the accusation of lies.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw the reference to lies. It was misinformation and mischievous, I think.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue, shadow minister.
Mr Stirling: Get all indignant. Come in here with your nonsense, making it up on the spot.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The minister needs to desist. You have told him to withdraw; he has withdrawn. He continues to interject with nonsensical comments and calling my colleague misleading and mischievous, the whole works.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Greatorex. There has been a level of interjection on both sides. I ask the shadow minister to continue.
Mr MILLS: Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an issue I will now pursue and, for the purposes of demonstrating that I am actually concerned, the issue focuses the attention of the minister, which reveals the shallowness of the minister’s actual concern about matters that affect people.
The broader comments that I made were in relation to the public policy to which he refers, which has received no defence or no articulation in this opportunity provided in this parliament, none at all. It was a shallow and personal defence of some problem that the minister obviously has with something that has happened in the past. I made reference in my comments, as my colleague did, that the issue here is one that is a decision of government and it is a responsibility of government, perhaps through arrogance they are not particularly concerned about addressing, and that is: please convince. Please strengthen our belief that these decisions will improve outcomes. We heard nothing of that, nothing at all.
The government is more interested in its own agenda, which is to preserve, control and to deal with some problem that the minister carries from the past. If that is the way this minister would like to live his life and conduct his business, so be it, but there are other issues that really do need to be considered in this debate. They have not been given the respect or the attention of the minister who once, in opposition, would have been deeply aggrieved. I am sure he would have had his veins fair popping had he received the same sort of treatment I have just received from the minister. Now he is sitting in government behaving in precisely the way that so deeply offended him when he was in opposition. That is what offends me more than anything. Shame on you, minister.
Mr Stirling: If someone told me they did not have a bed, I would have told the minister, I tell you.
Mr MILLS: Excuse me! Just so that it is clear: if you want to read the Hansard, minister, and get this clear, I will not abide an accusation of lying. The report was during the show circuit someone came to me and told me that they had finally, after a whole semester, had a bed supplied. That is the issue.
Mr Stirling: That is not what you said the first time.
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Check the Hansard.
Mr Stirling: I will have a look at the Hansard.
Mr MILLS: You shallow grub.
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: You shallow grub.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am deeply offended and seek a withdrawal.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will take the point of order. Shadow minister, you must withdraw that. I ask you to withdraw that statement.
Mr MILLS: Oh!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shadow minister, if you feel you have been misrepresented, you can seek to make a personal explanation.
Mr MILLS: Oh look, I am not going to. I appreciate the offer, but it sits on his conscience.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Larrakeyah Sewage Outfall
Larrakeyah Sewage Outfall
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that -
- the Assembly call upon the government to immediately take effective steps to shut down the Larrakeyah Sewage Outfall, more commonly known as the ‘poo shooter’, which is pumping over 1 billion litres of untreated sewage into the Darwin harbour each year, and to redirect the sewage from the Darwin CBD to the Ludmilla Sewage Treatment Plant in accordance with the plans already described in several PAWA reports.
The Darwin ‘poo shooter’ is causing major problems in Darwin Harbour. It has taken this government five years of doing nothing to allow this situation to continue. As was said earlier by my colleague, the member for Katherine, this is a core function of government: providing adequate power, water and sewage services for all Territorians. However, the ‘poo shooter’, which discharges more than 3 mega litres of sewage into the Darwin Harbour every day, is a major problem that this government must address.
I understand as of today, as of this instant, 1.2 billion litres of sewage has already gone into the harbour since this government was re-elected in June of last year. Every minute, as we talk, it continues to discharge into the harbour. It was a core function, but what has it done about it? Nothing very much, as far as I understand.
Let us go through a little practical demonstration. Anyone in this Chamber goes to the toilet - having flushed it, it takes some several hours - at the longest, 24 hours - for the flush to go through to the harbour. It first of all goes to the pumping station where the macerator churns and breaks up the solids creating a fine particulate suspension. That is untreated and it just goes straight through to the harbour. No antiviral, no antiseptic, no chemicals of any kind are added to the discharge. It is no wonder that people are concerned about what could possibly happen if one comes in contact with that discharge in the harbour. Indeed, somebody who was diving in that area came in contact with the sewage outfall and became sick. When you were asked if you tested the water to find out whether that was the cause of his illness, apparently no samples were taken immediately after that incident. I do not believe that sampling is done on a regular basis. There is no expectation by Power and Water, nor the government, for regular sampling of the discharge. If it is done, Power and Water and the government looks forward to receiving the information, but there is no prerequisite.
Strangely, though, since the events when the scuba diver became ill after exposure to the outfall, there has now been an exclusion zone placed around the outfall. Why would you put a 1 km exclusion zone around the outfall if there was no concern? Obviously, there is a concern, even though the outfall is below the low water mark, therefore, you expect that most of the outfall would be drawn out into the ocean rather than stay within the harbour. Nobody knows for sure.
The government continues to ask people not to swim or recreate around that area but, if you do fish in the harbour, not knowing whether the fish has been past or through or foraged at the point of the outfall, it is okay to eat the fish because it is going to be all right. Nobody has done any testing on the fish, as far as I know. If they have, I have not seen any results of that either.
What is interesting, though, is that on a radio program recently, a couple of fishing enthusiasts were interviewed by Julia Christensen about the possibility of contamination of the fish caught in that area. There were expressions of concern that maybe the fish may not be as healthy or as clean as it could be. Recently, I understand that an Australian Navy diver went into the area to do some investigation, and what happened was …
Mr Wood: He will never swim again.
Dr LIM: Thank you, member for Nelson, he will swim again. Apparently, they found what was thought to be an unexploded mine was a buoy that had sunk and had come to rest against the ‘poo shooter’ in the harbour.
I will read a quote from this transcript of the ABC News with Michael Coggan on 17 July 2006:
- Reporter: The dive chief said the buoy was not the biggest threat to the mission.
Lieutenant Shane Day, clearance diving team: The biggest issue for us was issues to do with contamination in the water - very hot on the surface and very uncomfortable.
Remember that Lieutenant Shane Day was dressed in a full diving suit so that he could not come into contact with the water. Getting back to the ABC News:
- Reporter: After emerging from his unpleasant dip, Chief Petty Officer Matthew Hanrahan underwent stringent decontamination.
The reporter went on to say:
- The area around the sewage outfall has been a major concern for environmentalists for a long time.
Matt Coffey, an environmentalist, had a voiceover on the same program:
- Occupational health and safety of Defence is at great risk. Not only is there sanitary napkins, condoms, and plastic bags, but some of the fisherman have noticed syringes floating in the harbour there.
The reporter went on to say:
- Power and Water says the contamination is coming from damage caused by the buoy.
It is not the damage that is causing the contamination. It is the outfall; it is the stuff that is coming out of the pipe that is causing the contamination.
The reporter also went on to say that the Navy diver will continue to receive treatment in Sydney. I understand that he was going to get some hepatitis A, or B perhaps, injections as well as tetanus shots when he returned to his base - wherever he came from. Obviously, there are issues there. Even the Navy divers in their fully sealed diving suits were concerned about their health and decided they must do something about that.
We know that the sewage will continue to flow there every day. We asked the minister some time ago - in fact, in 2005 - what was happening, and he said: ‘Everything is done and we are ready to go’. However, when he was pushed for more answers, said: ‘Oh, hang on a minute, we still need something like $40m to $50m to do some more work digging under the Darwin city’. Nobody has been able to come up with exactly what needs to be done. As the minister said in 2005 in response to my question, all sewage upgrades from Dinah Beach to allow closure of the Larrakeyah outflow have been completed. A new rising main from the Frances Bay Pump Station was completed in 2003. Yet nothing has progressed since then and that is what is concerning many people. There seems to be no motivation to continue the development of processes to ensure that the outfall eventually closes.
In 1998, we had a report from the Power and Water Authority through Transport and Works, as it was then, on the Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant and Associated Facilities, Assessment Report No 26, published December 1998. PAWA had indicated that a new sewage pumping station associated with a rising main between Ludmilla and the Larrakeyah outflow would be built at the wastewater treatment plant. The effluent pipe and the clean water pipeline route along Gilruth Avenue to Conacher Street is mostly on land within the Botanic Gardens and further pipeline will be built on land controlled by the Darwin city. That was in 1998.
In 1999, in an environment report by Power and Water, it says that major elements of the Darwin sewage strategy were going to spend about $25m. It was under the former minister, Daryl Manzie, who was the minister who provided the funding to get this under way. It was to stop the discharge of disinfected macerated sewage to Darwin Harbour at the Larrakeyah outfall, upgrade the Ludmilla Treatment Plant in two stages, upgrade the East Point outfall, and provide up to 12 mega litres of treated effluent per day for reuse.
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: The minister is not in her seat and she should be out of the Chamber altogether. If she cannot stand to listen to me that is fine. She can get out or put her earplugs in.
Ms Scrymgour: Oh, stop bleating. Get on with it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr LIM: Obviously the minister has some issues with this because it is her …
Ms Scrymgour: Get your attention back …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister!
Dr LIM: … environment portfolio that also has to be responsible for the water quality and outfall that flows into Darwin Harbour. The fact that it was her department which issued the licence is also very pertinent. I wonder whether another licence has already been issued as the one I have in my hand here expired …
Ms Scrymgour: How many years were they in power?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: The minister is particularly sensitive. Me thinks she protests too much. She rattles on, obviously pretty touchy and sensitive about the whole thing. This licence expired on 31 July 2006. Strangely, reading through this closely, it allows Power and Water to discharge into Darwin Harbour. It does not require regular reports by Power and Water as to the quality of the water surrounding the outfall, although it says that the Larrakeyah macerator must be within certain parameters which are detailed. However, I have never seen a report from the Environment minister as to whether her department has monitored the water, or demanded of Power and Water the quality of the water around that area.
I also note from this licence that while the government has legislation about litter, this licence says nothing about litter that is discharged into the Darwin Harbour by the ‘poo shooter’. Who is responsible for the litter? There is legislation which says we must not litter. We have a government agency that gives another government agency a licence to discharge sewage - not litter, just sewage.
Do you want to silence those people out there?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Could the members for Millner and Brennan please lower your voices? Thank you.
Dr LIM: We have a government agency that provides a licence to another agency to discharge sewage into the harbour. Nowhere in this licence do I see that the department for the Environment allows Power and Water to discharge litter into the harbour, yet we know that litter is discharged daily into the harbour and no one takes any responsibility for it.
The minister for the Environment does not particularly care that plastic bags are floating around causing damage to the fauna of the harbour, and Power and Water says: ‘We do what we can, but we cannot put a sock around it to sieve off the plastic bags because it will stop everything else’. Interestingly, a sock has recently been installed at the mouth of the ‘poo shooter’, and how they decided to avoid blocking off the ‘poo shooter’ is something that only time will tell.
It is important for the government to get off its backside and get something done with this ‘poo shooter’. A five-year plan to get the sewage diverted is taking too long. In 1999, the Country Liberal Party government committed significant funds to the project and it has stalled because this government has done very little since. That is definitely not good enough.
I gave you the time sequence of 1998, 1999 and then, for some reason, the whole thing just went into abeyance. Obviously, when there was a change of government, there was some loss of impetus about this project. In 2003, there was another report from Power and Water which dealt with Stage 2 of the plant upgrade that is required and then - I cannot read this because of the fax - one of the conditions of the licence requires Power and Water to enhance a hydro-dynamic model of Darwin Harbour. This will enable the movement and fate of discharges in the Darwin Harbour to be predicted in a wide range of conditions. A model was then supposed to be provided by, I suppose, the university, but that has since been delayed as well for a further three years. So, in 2003, things were supposed to have happened. They have not happened and now it has been deferred to 2006. So before the end of the year, I trust this model will be available.
For the next two years, nothing was mentioned about the sewage outfall. Again, you ask the question: what has happened? Why has there been a lapse of this project? Just before the next election – lo and behold! - we get another report from Power and Water reviving the issue of sewage services.
Darwin continues to grow. It is now 100 000 people. The government is building the waterfront premises. The development is going to have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people living there …
Mr Henderson: Hundreds and hundreds of thousands? I don’t think so.
Dr LIM: No, hundreds or thousands of people living at the Darwin waterfront precinct, which means this government is developing infrastructure that is going to produce more sewage for Darwin Harbour.
Mr Henderson: No, it is not.
Dr LIM: I pick up on the minister’s interjection: ‘it is not’. People are not going to use their toilets ....
Mr Henderson: It is not going through the Larrakeyah outfall. You did not listen to me.
Dr LIM: People are not going to use their toilets living at the waterfront …
Mr Henderson: Didn’t you listen to my supplementary answer after Question Time?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: So they are not going to flush their toilets to the waterfront. They are going to get in their car, drive to parts elsewhere in Darwin where they can go to the toilet. What a load of hogwash, well, more than hogwash. Anyway, there they are, developing a dormitory complex at the waterfront and therefore producing more discharge into the harbour.
I will not take up much time, but there is a real problem. This government has allowed the whole matter of the sewage outfall in Darwin Harbour to continue. It is a broken promise, without a doubt. Until this government refocuses, comes back to its core duties, which is to provide essential services to Territorians, it will just not be able to progress any further.
Finally, if you talk to people who have continued to monitor the fate of Darwin Harbour, they can tell you that there are problems there. When Defence and Health people are concerned about it, even talk about the member for Nelson, who is very caring about it, then I believe this government has to do something soon.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support the motion that the Assembly call on the government to immediately take steps to shut down the Larrakeyah Sewage Outfall, more commonly known as the ‘poo shooter’, which is pumping over a billion litres, and fast rising, of untreated sewage into the Darwin Harbour each year. I am also calling on them to redirect the sewage from the Darwin CBD to the Ludmilla Sewage Treatment Plant in accordance with the plans already described in several Power and Water reports. As I am talking to you, Madam Speaker, I have the Darwin ‘poo shooter’ on the web, just rolling over with that number increasing considerably every second …
Mr Henderson: I am glad you are enjoying it. I am glad you are enjoying it.
Mrs MILLER: No, I am not exactly enjoying it at all actually. The visual impact would not be good.
The government is responsible for the provision of essential services, and one of those important services is sewage. Talking about sewage is not very sexy, but it is a very fundamental service that has to be looked at closely by government, so to speak, and a service, if it is not provided to the highest standard, can cause serious health problems for the community.
The Larrakeyah facility has been in operation for many years, and at the time it was built, the population was considerably less than it is now. The density in the Darwin area has escalated considerably and, of course, that proves to be of a major impact to that Larrakeyah facility.
The Country Liberal Party recognised the need to prepare for the future needs of Darwin, and had budgeted in 1999 for plans to redirect the Larrakeyah outlet to Ludmilla. As we are all well aware, Labor was successful at the 2001 election and, in their wisdom, chose not to go ahead with the redirection. As I said earlier, this important essential service that is not visible to the voters was pushed to one side and government chose to spend money in areas that were much more visibly attractive to the voters in Darwin. However, you can choose to ignore sewage for only so long, and that time is well and truly here.
It is fortunate that the concerns about the Larrakeyah outlet were brought to the attention of government and to the public by a diver who happened to be filming around that area a couple of months ago. He must have got a huge surprise and been very alarmed when he first sighted the outlet and the volume of un-macerated effluent pouring into the Darwin Harbour at that time, and rightly so. It is most unfortunate that that diver became ill after this particular dive.
Since that time, there has been a lot of media about the Larrakeyah outlet, affectionately called - and I will probably continue to call it the ‘poo shooter’, because it is much less of a mouthful. Everyone can relate to that name and, of course, it has more impact on the community than calling it an outlet.
The media has helped to keep the issue of this very important essential service alive in the public’s mind and to ensure that they are aware of the importance of redirecting this waste. The public is now aware that there are 1000 Olympic size swimming pools of untreated waste dumped into Darwin Harbour every day - a huge volume by anybody’s standards. They are also aware that, at times, the macerator becomes jammed or clogged by foreign objects and then the effluent is pumped in its raw state into the harbour until the macerator is maintained and re-established. Not a good sight and, certainly, not a situation that is acceptable.
In June, I visited the area of the Larrakeyah ‘poo shooter’ and talked to a resident who has lived in that street for many years. He told me that the odour from the outlet has become increasingly worse over the years, to the point that one resident living in the street now does not have her windows open when the wind is blowing off the ocean, and her health has been affected by the odour. This street is in a prime location and the residents who live there have made significant investment in their properties. The odour from the outlet detracts from these properties, not to mention that the outpour from the outlet is directed into the harbour in front of these properties.
It is also not a good image for tourists and visitors to the fish feeding at Doctors Gully. That facility has been a very popular attraction in Darwin for many years, and for visitors to realise that the sewage outlet for Darwin is just out from where they are standing, knee deep in water feeding fish that have highly likely swum through that outlet area, is not a good image for Darwin. This very popular tourist area needs to be protected.
The Harbour Master has implemented a 0.5 km exclusion zone around the outlet at Larrakeyah as a precaution. That is a wise decision, but his very action of doing this highlights that there are some serious issues with the outlet. The ban that is enforced under this inclusion includes fishing, swimming and scuba diving. In other words, the ban will also prevent any person from taking any samples from that area of water or sand. Therefore, it will be up to government to do the testing of that area and we will just have to trust that that testing is done.
When the Minister for Essential Services or the minister for the Environment will possibly be responding to this motion today, I ask them to include in their response just what monitoring of the Larrakeyah outlet has been, and is, taking place. I have had various reports, but would like it to be clear to everyone and to provide assurance to the Darwin community on what testing is taking place and how regularly that is done.
When the media first raised the problems of the Larrakeyah outlet, government defended their position of not going ahead with the original plan to transfer from Larrakeyah to Ludmilla saying that the cost of redirecting the outlet was some $40m and was too expensive. Government is the biggest business in the Northern Territory, and good business always has forward planning in its business plan. That is the only way business remains viable by careful planning. Therefore, I ask government to tell Territorians just what its plans are for the Larrakeyah sewage outfall, and to provide a time frame for its redirection to Ludmilla.
Mr HENDERSON (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, government will not be supporting the motion that the members for Katherine and Greatorex have before us now. It is interesting, in responding to statements by both members this afternoon as there is an old saying about never let the facts spoil a good story. I know the opposition is enjoying this and thinking this is a great little story, and they have coined the cute little phrase about a ‘poo shooter’ and have certainly captured the public’s imagination. They are enjoying and relishing every minute of this debate.
We also have a responsibility as parliamentarians, particularly in the areas of public health and the environment, but more importantly in terms of public health, to tell the truth and not to exaggerate the risks. Public health is something that we should not be using as a political football.
As Minister for Essential Services, I have had on the record that it is not acceptable in 2006 to be discharging untreated sewage into our harbour. We do have a strategy. The allegation is that somehow since we came to government in 2001 we have abandoned the strategy and thrown all of the money into the waterfront project. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since we came to government in 2001, I am advised that we have spent $7m progressing the Darwin Sewage Strategy of which the closure of the Larrakeyah Outfall is but a part. Out of the $14m that has been committed to date, we have an estimated cost of about $40m to go. The allegation that we have not spent any money and we have abandoned it and taken our eye of the ball, nothing can be further from the truth.
What I find quite remarkable about both contributions this afternoon is that there was no mention of the report from the department of Environment on the quality of the water in the harbour in the region close to the outfall which was released just earlier this month. This was a publicly released document. I assume it is on the Internet. There was media done at the time. I have a copy of the minister’s media release here. It states: ‘Darwin Harbour fish and crabs given the all clear’. With all of the glee surrounding this debate from the members of the opposition, no mention at all …
Mr Wood: Excuse me, Madam Speaker. Minister, when you are finished with that would you be able to table it? I have not seen a copy of it.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely, I will table it. It is a public document. I will be quoting from it.
No mention at all of the testing and the sampling that has been done under very strict Australian Standards for water quality. The member for Greatorex is always in here deliberately misleading any number of positions saying the fish have not been tested. Well, the fish and crabs have been tested. I will go to the results of that testing. AFANT has been briefed. AFANT was very happy with the briefing, so I do not know what sort of networks the CLP have left these days to inform them about community groups and broader groups about the issues of the day and whether they are happy. Obviously, they have not been speaking to AFANT in the lead-up to this debate here this afternoon.
We all have a responsibility in the area of public health to ensure the highest standards are met at all times, and also to not unnecessarily and irresponsibly put concerns in the minds of the public. We all have a responsibility to do that. I suppose the best thing I can say about this is that to not mention this report is very mischievous and downright disingenuous at the worst.
I will go to the executive summary because the summary states that this report has been compiled in response to public concern about the discharge of macerated sewage from the Larrakeyah outfall into Darwin Harbour, and the potential impacts of the discharge on recreational values and the health of harbour users. The report makes an assessment of the health risks potentially posed by the Larrakeyah sewage outfall and is a snapshot based on water quality testing on wild catch fish and crab sampling undertaken in June and July this year. I will go to the results of that in a moment.
The report has a series of charts which show where the outfall is; and where the testing of it was done in 17 different sample areas from the immediate vicinity around the harbour. For those boffins amongst us, there is a table here of all of the samples, the amount of E.coli and other matter in the water. I am not a scientist, but for the boffins amongst us who want to go through all of that to check that the department has not gilded the lily, all of that is there. There is also a series of graphs in this report which show under National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines where there are microbes in the water, or faecal coliforms where the water needs to be treated at various points, and minuscule amounts were detected in the water. All of the scientific data is there, as well as the report on that data.
There was not one mention of that in the gleeful dissertations provided by the members for Greatorex and Katherine in their discussion here today.
I will go to the report and quote from sections of it:
- Recently, concerns have been raised about whether the water is suitable for recreational use such as diving, and whether fish and crabs caught in Darwin Harbour can be consumed safely. This report has been compiled in response to these concerns.
So the government has taken this issue very seriously, particularly the public health aspects of it and, very quickly, my colleague the minister for the Environment commissioned a report.
If we go to the testing benchmarks that were applied for recreational water quality:
- There are several references available to assess water quality and health risks with respect to sewage contamination. The most appropriate is the Australian Government’s National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water June 2005 (hereafter NHMRC 2005).
- Wild Catch Fish and Crab Testing
- Testing was based on the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000, which provides guidance for the protection of human consumers of fish and shellfish from microbiological contamination under the National Water Quality Management Strategy.
It gives some details of the documentation. We then go to Methodology and Results. I will not read the whole document but what the document does say is that:
The results show that on the day of sampling all samples were substantially below guideline values of concern for indicators of microbial water quality. Most of the microbial data indicate a zero counts result.
…
- The findings are supported by historical evidence of microbiological water quality data collected between 2001 - 2004 at four sites in the mid Darwin Harbour … These historical data also indicate that this area of the harbour is safe for full body immersion (swimming, wind surfing) and recreational boating and fishing activities.
- Overall microbial assessment monitoring results indicate that there is a ‘low’ risk to recreational users and fishers from contact with the waters around the Larrakeyah outfall.
If we go to the wild fish and crab testing, the member for Greatorex made an assertion that fish have not been tested. Twenty seven fish and crabs representing 11 species in total were caught by Fisheries officers from several locations near the sewage outfall. Cooked and uncooked samples were tested for E.coli using a NATA accredited interstate laboratory. The results were:
- The microbial assessment results therefore indicate that the fish and crabs caught in the Larrakeyah outfall area and beyond are safe to eat.
That is the assessment and we still have the member for Greatorex in here, very irresponsibly, raising concerns about whether the fish in our harbour and in the area around the outfall are safe to eat. He should have known that this report has been presented and made public. There has certainly been media discussion and comment around it.
The other part of the report goes to Sanitary Inspection - Larrakeyah Sewage Outfall and Recreational Waters, and the results are:
- The Larrakeyah outfall is considered to be an effective outfall due to its long length of 800 m, giving an effective buffer to the main shoreline recreational areas. It is also effective because the outfall is located at 14 m depth in marine waters.
The overall sanitary inspection risk assessment finding is ‘low risk’.
In terms of the public health issues, which are the core of the concerns that the minister for the Environment and I had when this issue was raised, government very quickly commissioned a report to assess the public health risk. That report has come out and said that there is a very low risk, and that the fish and crabs taken from the harbour are safe to eat.
I find it extraordinary, in this motion this evening, that neither of the members opposite chose to mention that that report had been completed and those were the results of the report. They just want to continue to have their fun with this particular issue and continue to raise concern in the public mind.
In regard to the outfall itself and the status of the Darwin Sewage Strategy, as I have said, since we have come to government we have spent $7m progressing that particular strategy. Since the strategy commenced, approximately $14m has been expended. As I have advised this parliament, and as the Power and Water Corporation made a statement in the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee on 23 June, that is in estimates, we have just had a debate about estimates, the corporation’s chairman confirmed that work was continuing and it is estimated that, on the current program and the work that needs to be done, the final closure of the outfall will occur in around five years time at a cost of some $40m to complete that particular part of the program.
The majority of the work completed to date involves sewer reticulation upgrades in the CBD, Frances Bay and Parap areas to cater for increased developments and the diversion of the Larrakeyah outfall, plus progressive modernisation of the existing Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant. I can advise members that there will be further money expended this year in upgrading Ludmilla to take the 10% of the total outfall into our harbour from Larrakeyah to Ludmilla.
The major works remaining to close down the Larrakeyah outfall encompass expansion of the Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant and a tunnel to divert sewage from the outfall. There are planning issues and engineering issues that need to take place to route the tunnel.
So, for the opposition to come in here and say we have abandoned the strategy - we have not done anything, all the money has been piled into the waterfront, and that is why essential infrastructure is not being upgraded - is nothing but arrant nonsense. To use public health concerns as a lever for running that political argument is pretty dangerous and very irresponsible of the members of the opposition.
The member for Greatorex said that there were still ongoing concerns about health risks. The only ongoing concerns about health risks will be if the opposition continues to run the line that there are concerns about health risks, in spite of the report handed down that says there are very low public health risks, and that is why we have marked the site of the outfall and placed an exclusion zone around it. That is a responsible thing to do, I have to say, and it should have been done a fair while ago. However, it is all about risk minimisation and saying to people, ‘you should not go diving in this area’. Certainly, if I knew there was a sewage outfall in that area, I would not go diving there either, and I would like the authorities to let me know that that is the site of the outfall.
It is all about risk management and minimising risk, rather than saying that it is dangerous and there is a significant risk to public health in that area. Of course, the closer you get to the actual discharge point the least the dilution rates are and the more risk there is. However, in the general use of the harbour, it is totally irresponsible for the opposition to run that particular line. The member for Greatorex says there are health risks; he is wrong. I have to say I am astounded. I encourage the opposition to continue to run the line that we are running infrastructure down to pay for the waterfront and the waterfront is a bad thing. There has been consistent opposition to the waterfront from the day the government announced that we were going ahead with this program. There has been consistent undermining at every single step of the way. Now the waterfront is being blamed for sucking up government money, while my colleague, the minister for Infrastructure, every time in Question Time explains that we are going into deficit budgeting to fund the public components of the waterfront whilst the capital works program, the infrastructure spend of government, continues to increase. However, as I said, never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
We do not support this motion by the opposition here today. I condemn the opposition for their ongoing campaign to scare the public in regard to the recreational use of Darwin Harbour and the quality of the fish and crabs caught in Darwin Harbour. That is a very irresponsible tack to take. I would like whoever is going to respond, in summing up this motion tonight, to apologise to members of this Assembly, for running the line they have in spite of the scientific evidence that has been collected, analysed and published that states that there is a very low risk to public health in swimming and recreation facilities in the vicinity of this outfall. I challenge whoever is speaking here in response tonight to acknowledge that the fish and crabs that are caught in Darwin Harbour are safe to eat.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): You have me, minister, but I am not speaking in response, I am speaking in general about the whole motion.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion. The reason I support it is for the very same reason you started off your speech, minister; that you believe in this day and age it is a disgrace that we put raw sewage into our harbour.
We need to go back a little in time to see why this issue was first raised. It was raised because there were people diving near a sewage outlet …
Ms Lawrie: No, it was raised in 1971.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: It was.
Mr WOOD: I have not got more than three words out! The reason this was raised was because divers did not know where the sewage outlet was. One of their complaints was that this was not marked, and …
Mr Henderson: It is now.
Mr WOOD: I am very happy for that. That is part of the reason it was raised.
Mr Henderson: And it should have been done a while ago, I said that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: This will be very hard to get through being so disjointed. I will not know where I am.
Madam SPEAKER: Please continue, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I will go back to where I started. The reason this debate was first brought forward was simply because of complaints from a diving company that there was a sewage outfall where raw sewage was being put into the harbour and there was no way that anyone would know where that was because it was not marked. The other reason was that on inspection of that site large amounts of plastic and other materials were also being put into the harbour. This motion is effectively saying that we need to do something about that, that is, putting raw sewage into the harbour.
I understand that it has been put into the harbour for many more years than this government has been in existence, but time has moved on and we need to change that. This government needs to do something more urgently about it, not wait another five years.
It surprises me that when you look at regulations for shipping under the Australian Maritime Safety Authority that there is a total ban on plastics being dumped from a ship or a boat; no plastics can be thrown into the sea. No garbage is to be discharged within 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. When it comes to sewage, under an international convention that Australia signed, with ships over 400 tonnes for instance, sewage discharges will be restricted as follows: untreated sewage may only be discharged at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land; comminuted and disinfected sewage may only be discharged at a distance of more than three nautical miles from the nearest land. Sewage is defined as drainage and other waste from any form of toilets and urinals; drainage from medical premises; drainage from spaces containing live animals; or other waste waters when mixed with the drainage defined above.
It seems strange to me that in Australia we still have one rule for ships which would obviously dump a limited amount of sewage from a ship, but we seem to have another rule for what we do from the land where we pump billions of litres of sewage. Whilst that might be an historical fact, this motion is trying to say: ‘Let’s not wait the five years, let’s look at changing it’. I know at the time when this was raised, the federal Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Greg Hunt, made the statement that there is $1.6bn of funding under the National Water Commission for water infrastructure upgrades across the country. He said he will support Power and Water or the Territory government in any application to the government’s water fund.
Mr Henderson: It does not fit the criteria. We have tried that.
Mr WOOD: I would be going back to him and saying: ‘You said it; put your money where your mouth is’.
Mr Henderson: We have done that. I will talk to you about that later.
Mr WOOD: All right. Whatever we might think about the history of this sewage outfall, it would be good if the government could try to expedite the changes in it.
The other issue with the whole matter of sewage into Darwin Harbour is that even though the plans are to take it to Ludmilla, all we are doing at Ludmilla is killing off the E.coli but we are still shoving a huge amount of nutrients into the harbour. You could say that the harbour is big enough to take that, however, in this day and age when we are talking about water recycling and better water usage, should we not be looking at something a little more lateral? We use it at the Marrara Golf Course and at the Marrara sporting stadiums. Should we really be starting to think a little more in line with the thinking today that we have to reuse our natural resource water much better than we do at the present time. In Darwin we are basically pouring millions of millions of gallons into the sea.
We are talking about putting an extra one metre on Darwin River Dam to increase the capacity of that dam. We are talking about, in 10 to 15 years or so, building a new dam at Adelaide River. Regardless of how much water we think we have at the moment should we be thinking of recycling that water? I know people would have heard the discussions about Toowoomba and a referendum was held there. I honestly feel politics got mixed up in that and, unfortunately, when politics gets mixed up in scientific debate, things go out the door. All I am saying to the government is whilst the strategy for some years has been to take this sewage to Ludmilla perhaps it is an opportune time to ask if this is the long-term solution we need to be looking at? It may not be. Has the time come when we really should not be putting sewage in to the harbour?
I might be wrong here, I will be corrected if need be, but I think Larrakia people were looking at putting a prawn farm just up from the mouth of the Ludmilla sewage plant. I do not know; has someone looked at that? This same issue came up with the large prawn farm on the Blackmore River that is now being built. If you look on plans for the Weddell area, there is a sewage outfall just upstream or downstream from where that prawn farm pumps its water. And, as you know, we have large tidal movements. What is the future there? Some of these issues need to be looked at in the longer term.
Even though there have been people making various statements about the sewage outfall at Larrakeyah, it is a good opportunity for the government to ask: ‘What is our policy in regard to future use of sewage water?’ It would be good to hear what that is. It would be an opportune time, minister, to come to this parliament with a statement about the future plans for sewage in the Darwin region, not forgetting Palmerston is growing and you are going to build a new city of Weddell. Maybe we can change that name, by the way, to something a little more catchy, but there will be 65 000 people.
A member: What’s wrong with Weddell?
Mr WOOD: Did you say ‘Warren’?
Mr Henderson: What about ‘Ah Kit’?
A member: Woody!
Mr WOOD: I am not dead yet. You are going to build a city of about 65 000 people. What are you going to do with the sewage? It is an opportune time as part of this debate to start looking at a policy for reuse of water. They are the issues that come from the discussions to date.
Minister, I have not seen that report. In fact, I was trying to get a copy when you announced it was there. I have not seen the report at all.
Mr Henderson: I will have one distributed.
Mr WOOD: I was given some notes that there were some fairly high bacterial counts in the Coonawarra Naval Base area and as far around as the port. I am interested in reading that report to see if that is correct. It would be of some concern if we are going to put the old wave pool around there and we are pumping out of the harbour and there are bacterial counts.
Mr Henderson: There are no …
Mr WOOD: I was given that information, and without any information to the contrary, they are the questions I was going to ask today.
The other issue besides sewage is litter. The member for Greatorex mentioned that there was a sock put on the sewerage pipe. It is not a pipe where the sewage just comes out the end. The actual pipe was blocked. It has a series of about 10 large holes on the side of the pipe, and my understanding is there is only one sock down there, so I am not sure how much material in the form of litter is being caught and whether it is only there to catch a bit of the material to get a sample, or is there some sort of litter trap over every hole in the pipe? If you look at the video, you would see that it is not just a single outlet.
My contribution is basically saying: ‘Minister, it is good that there is a buoy there now. It is good that there is an area which is marked “not suitable for diving”.’ I do not think the statement of full-body immersion applies actually in that area.
Mr Henderson: No, that is why it has been marked off.
Mr WOOD: No, I would challenge someone - that is right, but I am not sure it says that in the article in the NT News. I appreciate that the government, through Power and Water, has done something about that. The litter side of it has to be investigated more. As the member for Greatorex said we do have a Litter Act and in theory, if you know you are pumping plastics, syringes, condoms and whatever into the harbour via a sewage outfall, then there has to be some investigation as to how that material is getting in there. If you cannot do much about stopping it getting in there, then there must be some way of trying to filter it out of the system before it gets into the harbour. That is a fair request in this day and age and there surely must be some ways, either using centrifugal filters or just simply physical filters of different kinds of mesh, to make sure that that sort of material is not getting into the harbour.
Minister, I ask, in your summing up, that whilst I appreciate that one is not going to change this overnight, it would be good if a definitive plan was put to parliament. That is: ‘This is what we are going to do this year, next year, etcetera’ so people know what is going on and they can feel confident there is going to be a definite change. It would be an opportune time to also review the future of sewage water for the greater Darwin region, considering we are going to have another city come online in maybe 10 to 15 years. What are we going to do with that kind of water? Should we pump it into the harbour, and can we use that water better, understanding that it is a resource that we just should not throw away?
Madam Speaker, I support the motion before us. I hope the government will come back to this House with a statement on it.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the contributors to the debate. I thank the members on this side of the House who have supported the motion. I am disappointed that the minister for the Environment did not contribute to the debate at all. I would have thought that this is crucial to good management of the environment of the Darwin Harbour, if not of the Top End in general. I was disappointed with the Minister for Essential Services’ response that it is steady as she goes, he is not going to do very much about it and just gradually plug on over the next five years.
In five years, there will be a total of over 5.4 billion litres of sewage pumped into the Darwin Harbour. That is a heck of a lot of the proverbial in the harbour. When this issue arose several months ago, it caused such national angst that the federal government was embarrassed by the Northern Territory. In fact, the federal Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment offered funding to assist the Northern Territory to get things going. The federal Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment mentioned, and I quote him from the ABC on 30 June of this year:
- There is $1.6bn of funding under the National Water Commission for water infrastructure upgrades across the country.
He was prepared to match dollar for dollar with the Northern Territory to provide funding to get this outfall fixed up. He went on to say:
- They’ve effectively let this coastal vandalism continue. They’ve not taken steps to address it on their watch. Now it is time and it’s just unacceptable in the 21st century to be dumping raw and primary sewage into Darwin Harbour.
I am sure the minister will have read Darwin Research Centre’s article written by Peter Murphy …
Mr Henderson: That is impartial, Peter Murphy, huh?
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: … when he said …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
A member: You are kidding.
Mr Henderson: You are a joke.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: … when he said:
- Minister Henderson insisted that the staged development of Darwin’s sewerage system had not been abandoned in favour of Labor’s pet project, the waterfront development. He claimed $13m had been spent on the sewerage system - not a lot for a five year time frame - and that fixing the problem would take another five years, $40m, and involve digging tunnels under the CBD.
Which came as a bit of a surprise?
Nobody else had heard of the need for these tunnels before.
Including Mr Henderson, apparently, until very recent times.
In answer to a question from Dr Lim in the August sitting of parliament, minister Henderson replied: ‘All sewerage network upgrades from Dinah Beach to allow for the closure of the Larrakeyah outlet have been completed’.
- The issue has gone away for the time being …
… but the answers do not gel.
That is the problem: the government’s response and Power and Water’s response do not seem to match up at all. When Power and Water said: ‘Yes, we have slowed down on the project. Yes, we are embarrassed about it’, this government gets upset: ‘No, everything is on track; we are doing it all right. Everything is going fine’. Nobody believes this government, unfortunately. The environmentalists, the people who are in conservation are saying: ‘We are going to pump another 5.5 billion litres of sewage into the harbour’. That is the problem.
I have not even talked about what is happening in Alice Springs; it is outside the motion. I will not address that. The reality is that this government has taken their eye off the ball. The federal government is prepared to help ...
Ms Lawrie: Oh, really?
Dr LIM: It has been very generous - prepared to help. The minister for Karama is saying …
Ms Lawrie: Minister for Karama!
Madam SPEAKER: Order.
Dr LIM: The minister for Karama - that is about all she is - interjects.
The federal government is prepared to help. It is about time that this government got off its collective rear and did something about the Larrakeyah outfall. Darwin expects it; Darwin wants it. The Minister for Essential Services should get on with the job.
As for the environment - I am very pleased to see that the minister is here to listen to what I have to say about the environment - she has to take more responsibility for the Darwin Harbour environment. She has to take more responsibility for the quality of water around there, and ensure that her licence takes into consideration the litter that is being pumped into Darwin Harbour.
On the one hand, we advertise that we have to look after our sea creatures; we must not let them get trapped in fishing nets or allow sea creatures to swallow plastic bags. This government, through its licensing regime for Power and Water, allows litter to be pumped into the harbour, and it is not acceptable. Anybody with any love for Darwin Harbour would tell this government that. I am very disappointed that the government will not support this motion because it is very worthy. Had they done so, they would have won themselves a lot of brownie points from Darwin.
Motion negatived.
MOTION -
Establishment of Independent
Environmental Protection Authority
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I move –
That –
1. The Assembly condemn the Australian Labor Party and the Territory Labor government for –
(a) deceiving Territorians prior to the last election by asserting that they would establish an independent EPA;
(b) leaked documents from NRETA that recommend a ‘preferred model’;
that it is part of NRETA;
the minister will run its paperwork and administration; and
that NT government will fund its functions; and
2. The Assembly instruct the government to remove the word ‘independent’ from all future references to the EPA if this preferred model is adopted.
Madam Speaker, there is not an argument coming from the CLP that there is no need for an EPA because there is, nor that the EPA should be abolished; it should be encouraged and developed. Rather, it is an argument that the current model proposed by the Labor government is flawed, restrictive and, above all, is not independent of government as claimed - rather like the current Clayton’s code of conduct.
If this government was serious about meeting its promises to Territorians, it would establish an EPA that was truly independent, and take the unbiased advice of the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts and develop a model of the EPA that is professionally preferred and not just politically preferred.
There is a real opportunity here for the government to create an EPA that serves the Territory and its natural environment. Once again, here is a big policy position of the Labor government that fails to serve the people of the Northern Territory and instead serves the government. This is a wasted opportunity. This government does not have the courage of its convictions. The talk is all romantic about the democratic and transparent process but the reality is all spin and little substance. This government needs to come good on the promises it made to the people of the Territory. Or are you all just becoming too arrogant?
An independent EPA should be a credible source of information and advice to industry, government and the community. This will assist industry performance and promote informed debate and public participation. What is credible about an organisation that is so influenced by government that it will cause inadequate participation by all other necessary elements? This will ultimately lead to poor decisions and outcomes and creates the potential to lead to real long-term costs for the Territory and for its future generations. There could be members of the public confused and forgiven for thinking that an EPA already existed. It does not. The Labor government may have a proposed model for an EPA waiting for assent. However, in the meantime, why wait? It has already established a proxy EPA. The government has merely renamed the Office of Environment and Heritage the EPA.
If this government were fair dinkum about the process of constructing an independent EPA it would not have undertaken this confusing and completely unnecessary step. Any semblance of independence that this agency had hoped to garner once established is now well and truly sunk thanks to the misleading tactics of this government, and the hopes for its future relationships with industry and the public will be forever strained.
So far, the newly branded EPA has tried to scuttle the McArthur River mine and told us that the Darwin Harbour is free of harmful toxins despite the now infamous ‘poo shooter’ pumping out tens of thousands of litres of human excrement and litter daily. Navy clearance divers needed to be decontaminated after operating near the outflow.
Members of the public who are consuming these reports are under the false impression that the independent EPA, the formalised agency that the government promised to establish, was making these decisions. They would, through no fault of their own, be wrong. This is a prime example of how this government relies on smoke and mirrors, spin and grin to deceive the public. They are deceiving them now and will be deceiving them in the future with the claim of an independent Environmental Protection Agency. To quote a truly independent source, the Independent member for Nelson, whose passion for the environment is well known and documented, described the EPA as: ‘nothing more than a government department hiding behind a dodgy letterhead’.
This government has mastered the art of deception. Unfortunately for them, they cannot harp back to the CLP and look for scapegoats, as is their usual fallback position. This is a decision that will haunt this government long after it has gone. Let us just hope that this deception will not haunt the future generations of Territorians that it claims to represent.
A leaked memo of the government’s preferred model for the EPA’s structure and institutions describes an EPA as ‘a discrete unit within the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts’ where NRETA will provide support and manage the financial transactions of the EPA. A discrete unit is something that is perceived to not be connected to its greater entity but in fact is. Just like the independent EPA’s relationship with NRETA. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, generally it is, and in this case the proposed independent EPA is clearly part of NRETA. Its paperwork, administration, HR management, financial support, and levels of staff are all managed by NRETA.
The debate from those on the opposite side of this House will come down to semantics. What really is meant by ‘independent’? What really is meant by ‘discrete’? What it really means is that you have not delivered on your promise. The project is either too big for you, or you just cannot ease it off the power.
What is on the shopping list of all the ingredients that goes into this government’s recipe for an independent agency pie. Number one: the minister appoints the board. Number two: the minister deals with any industrial relations matters. Number three: the minister gets a daily briefing of just what the independent EPA is up to and, for any major findings, decides if they will be publicly released. Number four: that it is a unit of NRETA, and number five: as such, NRETA runs its finances and its administration, and finally: the government funds its departmental functions.
Here is one I prepared earlier. It is called a government department. This government wonders why the public is sceptical of its intentions and does not want a piece of its independent EPA pie because, just like the government, the proposed independent EPA pie that they are industriously baking looks golden brown on the outside, but inside, it has no filling and is full of hot air.
The nature of the EPA’s reporting arrangements are critical to its independence, yet the measures being proposed by this government heavily impinge on its ability to approach environmental assessment and protection with any real independence. The day-to-day operations of the EPA will be reported directly to the minister and, in the case of major environmental impact assessments, the EPA’s findings will be recommended to the minister for approval or disapproval, yet these findings are not automatically made public.
Transparency and accountability are two of the most important characteristics of democracy and governance. To use the term ‘independent’ for an agency that is transparently anything but, just as a means to give the agency credibility, shows that this government is just keen to tick another box on its election promises, with no thought to the process and the end result.
The whole rationale of creating an agency such as the EPA is to act in the public interest, not political interest. The limitations that the Labor government has placed on this agency are barriers to its ability to perform the duties that the government promised would be the components of its service delivery - mainly its independence. It is easy to be independent when you are not reliant on others for your sustenance, but to remain independent when you are reliant on others, that is a true test, and one that I am afraid this proposed model will fail.
The dictionary definition of ‘independent’ is:
- not governed by a foreign power; self-governing; free from the influence, guidance or control of another or others; self-reliant; not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity.
Following this definition of independent, it is not a long bow to draw to see that the government’s preferred model of an EPA does not fit neatly into the term ‘independent’. Perhaps the title ‘influenced’ or ‘restricted’ would suit the model proposed by government better.
An EPA that is not seen as independent by the public, as is the one proposed by this government, will constantly need to overcome fear of retribution in the community if people speak out about issues. This is just another problem caused by the mislabelling of ‘independent’ on the EPA. The EPA needs to take an holistic view in its work, and seek to transcend the political cycle. Under the current model, the EPA is another fixture of the government, and the word ‘independent’ is just fixed to its title to allay the fears of an ever cynical public.
The proposed independent EPA put forward by the Labor government after much hyped community consultation and deliberation is independent in name only. The community groups and individuals who attended these sessions must now wonder why they bothered. Once again, as the Independent member for Nelson said: ‘Nothing more than a government department hiding behind a dodgy letterhead’. Well, I can conclude for the member for Nelson that the letterhead was already printed long before the process began, and despite the misgivings of her own department and the suspicions of the public, this minister, and along with her, this government, will press ahead to adopt an independent EPA that, in reality, is merely a government-dependent agency.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend and support this motion. The motion itself, and obviously I will speak to it, is worth going through. However, this Assembly condemned the Australian Labor Party and the Territory government for deceiving Territorians prior to the last election by asserting that they would establish an independent EPA. How can anyone argue with that? They did deceive Territorians, and they did promise that they would establish an independent EPA. That the government be condemned for the leaked documents from NRETA that recommended a preferred model – well, we all know about those documents. Ascribing a model that describes an EPA that is a discrete unit of NRETA, and that NRETA will provide administrative HR and financial support to the EPA – worthy of condemnation.
The government should be condemned for restricting the preferred model of the EPA with the following limitations, namely, that the minister will do the hiring and firing; the government will pay the wages; the minister will deal with any industrial matters that flow from the EPA; that it becomes part of NRETA, that is, part of a government department; that the minister will run its paperwork and administration; and that the NT government will fund its functions.
The second part of the motion is that the Assembly instruct the government to remove the word ‘independent’ from all future references to the EPA if this preferred model is adopted. Good manners in the first instance, and good governance in the second, demands that the word ‘independent’ be removed from the EPA. This government takes the view that Territorians are stupid. That is not a view I share. Territorians know and are learning about this government’s tricks, and it is certainly not the case, by any measure, that the EPA can be described as independent.
What we have, despite the promises made before the last election, is a Clayton’s model. This is about the third reference I have made to a Clayton’s model in the last couple of days. Clayton represents a lot under this government because they have Mickey Mouse organisations that they have spun to Territorians as representing a particular thing, and yet the reality is quite different. So we have a Clayton’s EPA that does not meet, cannot meet, with the information we know, the promise of the Labor government, namely, to set up an independent EPA.
The minister is on the record. One example, and it is just one that I have in front of me, is from a Stateline interview on 25 February 2005. The minister says: ‘It will be independent and we do not want it to be overly bureaucratic’. Well, the model that the government seems to prefer does not meet those two points that the minister spoke about. So it is a Clayton’s one. We say that if the government was serious about meeting its promises to Territorians, it would establish a truly independent EPA that would take the unbiased advice from the minister and the department, and develop a model that is professionally preferred and not just politically preferred.
We are worried for a number of reasons. In the documents that were leaked, there is clearly no budgetary allocation for the title - and this is one of the documents. The title of the initiative says: ‘A preferred model for an Environmental Protection Agency’. In every column - in 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08, even 2008-09: nil, nil, nil, nil.
Putting to one side that the government is not meeting its promise to Territorians, it is giving us our friend Clayton and, at the same time, actually not committing any money to it. It is quite an extraordinary proposition for a government to assert that, yes, it is independent; yes, it will be funded; and, yes, everyone will be happy. Clearly, that is not the case, and we see it pretty much across the board.
I know we will be talking later about a code of conduct. We remember that the government, prior to 2001, promised a code of conduct and promised that it would have legislative strength. Now, it is the opposition, five years on, which is seeking to implement Labor’s promise. The world is strange at times; this is one of those times. Five years ago, the government, prior to becoming a government, promised Territorians whistleblowers legislation. Five years on - nothing. Again, somewhat strangely, it is the opposition - and we will be talking about this later tonight as well - introducing whistleblowers legislation. And here, again, we have the EPA.
The government has form when it comes to telling Territorians one thing and doing another. If ever there was a document that was a damning indictment of the minister’s and her colleagues’ inability to sell this idea, then this document is it, because there is clearly no intention to make any financial allocation to the EPA. Why is that? Because it is not an independent EPA; it is going to fall under the umbrella of a government department.
The member for Katherine read out definitions of the word ‘independent’. I say again, on any measure what the minister is proposing, or has proposed, cannot be described as independent. Without this level of independence, it will, ultimately, lead to poor decisions and outcomes, and creates the potential to lead to long-term costs for the Territory and for future generations, because we all know the importance of an EPA. An EPA should be independent in operation; it should have a structure that reflects the Territory’s jurisdictional size. It should be given powers to observe, comment and audit environmental protection regulations and regulators in the Territory. It should be given powers to set best practice standards and guidelines.
A memo of the government’s preferred model for the EPA structure and institutions describes an EPA as, and I quote: ‘a discrete unit within the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts’. NRETA will provide support and manage the financial transactions of the EPA. On the one hand, government promised an independent EPA and, on the other, we now know that it will be a discrete unit within government, not unlike the Office of Crime Prevention. The government members have tidied themselves up a bit in the last couple of years but, some time ago not long after setting up the Office of Crime Prevention, the word ‘independent’ was bandied about a bit. The Office of Crime Prevention is not independent; it is a part of the Department of Justice. If the Attorney-General wants to play with a straight bat on that one, why does his ministerial colleague not want to play with a straight bat when it comes to an EPA? Maybe it is illustrative of the conflicts within government ranks at the moment. However, I will not get into that. I digress.
In any case, what a shocking list of all the ingredients that goes into this government’s recipe for an independent agency pie. The minister appoints the board; the minister deals with industrial relations matters; the minister gets a daily briefing on just what the independent EPA agency is up to; and, for any major findings, decides what will be publicly released. If that does not make Labor members feel uncomfortable, I am not sure what will. Labor members come into this Chamber and wax lyrical about the great filters in society and how everything should be open, honest and accountable. They used to include themselves in that and yet they are standing by while their minister decides what information is publicly released from the EPA. Does that not make some of you feel remotely uncomfortable? If it does not, it should.
We know that it is going to be a unit of a government department. As such, NRETA runs its finances and administration and the government funds its functions. The nature of the EPA’s reporting arrangements are critical to its independence yet the measures being proposed by the government heavily impinge on its ability to approach environmental assessment and protection with real independence. The day-to-day operations of the EPA will be reported directly to the minister and, in the case of major environmental impact assessments, the EPA’s findings will be recommended to the minister for approval or disapproval. Yet the findings are not automatically made public. There is no guarantee that the findings are going to be made public.
All the members on the other side whine about what they described as the 26 years of oppression under the CLP. They say: ‘We were never given information’. You were such victims. Well, we are not victims here. Small in number, but we will not be victims. Not like the victims that became Labor although I suppose it is understandable if you were on the losing team for 26 years. For a long time, Labor members had a go at the filtering of information, and had a bit to say about the lack of independence. From time to time one of their more nutty members suggested that there was no democracy left in the Northern Territory.
Surely there is something in members of the Australian Labor Party, albeit in the Northern Territory branch, that based on your own history would make you very concerned about the present model. Forget about the embarrassment of actually promising something before an election and not delivering it, although I assume that that would be embarrassing in and of itself, but are you not at least discomforted by the fact that despite all of your collective bleatings over the years that a minister of the Crown is going to decide what goes out to the public and what does not when it comes to environmental impact assessments and the impact that will have or may have on the citizens of the Northern Territory. I would be very discomforted by that if I were a member of the government.
Transparency and accountability are two of the most important characteristics of democracy and governance - words not often mentioned by members of the government these days. I wonder if they are, well, I assume they are still paid up members of Labor, I do not know. Something strange seems to have happened, or has happened, when they came to government. They do not use the words democracy and good governance anymore. No doubt that is a disappointment to their membership and to their friends.
However, to use the term independent for an agency that is patently not independent just does not give Territorians the assurance and the confidence they need and ought properly have in an environmental protection authority. What it does indicate is the government is willing to go through, tick boxes, and say that they have delivered on promises which they have not. Call it independent, keep flogging it because there is one line in politics that is say it, say it again, say it again. Members of government think if they keep saying it is independent, or time again say to people it is independent and may be they will believe you. Well, you might think, members of government, that Territorians are stupid. That is not a view we share.
The whole rationale of creating an agency such as the EPA is to act in the public interest not political interest. The limitations that this government has placed on the agency are barriers to its ability to perform the duties that Labor promised would be the components of its service delivery, namely its independence.
They include: that the minister will do the hiring and firing; the government will pay the wages; the minister will deal with any industrial relations matter; the minister will runs its paper work; and the NT government will fund its functions. That is not independent. An EPA that is not seen as independent by the public, as is the one proposed by the government, will constantly need to overcome fear and lack of confidence in the community. This is just another problem caused by the mislabelling of ‘independent’ on the EPA. The EPA needs to take an holistic view in its work and seek to transcend the political cycle. Under the current model, the EPA is another fixture of the government and the word ‘independent’ is just fixed to its title to allay the fears of what Labor sees as an ever-cynical public.
Territorians will know the truth. The proposed independent EPA proposed by the Labor government after much hype in the community and after some consultation is independent in name only. The community groups and individuals who attended these sessions must surely wonder why on earth they bothered.
Back to the motion: the government should be condemned for, in essence, saying one thing, doing another, being dishonest, disingenuous. Had it not been for the documents that fell off the back of a truck we probably would not have known as much as we do. It is going to be the case that, increasingly under this government, more documents will have to fall off the backs of trucks because this government does not approve of Territorians getting information from the government.
It is a sad day indeed when we have a government that in five short years has become so arrogant and so believing of its own political spin that we are in a position as an opposition where we need to call government to account to deliver its own promises. The irony and the significance, I might say, of this is certainly appreciated by members of the opposition. It has not gone unnoticed by many people in the Territory community. For obvious reasons, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I had great concerns about this EPA since day one. I support the concept of an EPA, but if it is not independent and it is not seen to be independent, it will lose credibility in the wider community.
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The minister should make her remarks from her chair. I learnt that from the Treasurer. He taught me well in these matters.
Mr Stirling: I taught you a lot, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Yes. The minister said, on 19 October in her media statement - and what I am trying to highlight here is whether the minister thinks I am barking up the wrong tree, I have just taken into account what the government has done. When I read it, I get confused as to what they actually mean. The minister said: ‘The board will oversee the development of the final model, the EPA’. We do not have an EPA, but then she says: ‘The EPA will now …’ - this is in the same media release – ‘… take on most of the functions of the former Office of Environment and Heritage’.
The first thing you would say is: ‘We do not have an EPA, so how can you go and get an EPA to take over most of the functions of the former Office of Environment and Heritage? That is where you start getting the confusion, and that is why I have always believed that this thing has started off where the government wanted to go, not necessarily where the people wanted to go.
One of the classic examples of why I think this government had already made its mind up is the McArthur River issue. We have been told that there is no EPA at the present time. After all, that is why we have an EPA board which has been dealing with a discussion paper in May 2006 titled Towards an Environmental Protection Agency. Discussion Paper, May 2006. Then we have Assessment Report No 51: McArthur River Mine Open Cut Project: Environment Assessment Report …
Ms Scrymgour: Oh!
Mr WOOD: You can always just have a pillow there, minister. … by the Environment Protection Agency. The Environment Protection Agency which does not exist. It does not exist. But it does here, because the government put its stamp on it - EPA, Northern Territory. It told a very large mining company that its mine was not to go ahead, and signed it ‘EPA’. It did not sign it NRETA, which it could have been entitled to, it signed it EPA. But, we have not done it yet because four months later, we bring out a document that says, ‘towards an environment protection agency’. I do not think you need to be Einstein to say we have already got one, because you put your stamp on it in February, and then you told everybody, well we really do not have one, and we would like to know what you think about having one. That is confusion.
I cannot see how the government can say that we are all doing this independently. From an outsider’s point of view, you have already predetermined what you want to do. Even this document, and you would have heard of the document that the member for Katherine spoke about, the so-called preferred model. Even if I had not got a document that fell off the back of a truck, I have this discussion paper, and I went to the discussion group in Darwin. In it, it says ‘proposed structure’. That does not sound like a neutral position. It has one structure; that is the proposed structure.
I was on the Sustainable Development committee. We put out four structures. I asked at that meeting, why weren’t the four structures put there? What was the point in having that committee? It came up with four structures. If someone thought of a better structure, well, obviously put another one there. The government spent thousands of dollars having a committee which came up with four structures, and what is the only one they picked? The government’s one - proposed structure. I do not believe that structure makes a lot of sense, nor is it particularly independent, but that is the only one the people have to look at. I believe that that was a real gap in the discussion about having an EPA.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many things in this motion that we discuss. I could go back over time, and I can read sections from questions in parliament where I asked the minister about this very same thing. I asked questions about the McArthur River EIS, which I stated there, and the minister inferred that I had been misleading the public: ‘despite the misinformation the member for Nelson had been peddling out there’, and she said there had been no misleading by the EPA. We do not have an EPA. Not on 28 March 2006. More confusion; 28 March 2006 is before May 2006, unless the world has gone backwards. How can you discuss an EPA that you do not have? You cannot use it in your media releases. You cannot use it in your statements. You could use, if you wanted to, even an interim EPA, but the word ‘interim’ is not being used here.
An EPA is being bandied around, and if I was a person from the public reading Hansard and I read that, I would presume we had an EPA on 28 March 2006. That is the very essence of the problem here. The government has explained itself very poorly. It is about what it is really doing. I am pretty sure I have seen recently the words ‘EPA program’. Did the government at any stage tell people what an EPA program is? As I have said before, a program is a list of what you are going to do, but the government is not using it in that form. It is using it as a thing, like a body. It is stamping some documents with ‘EPA program’. Well, what is it? I have never heard it used, unless it is an agenda for what you are going to do, it is a program for the future. For some reason, in the documents, you will hear the minister talk about an EPA program. That was a new in word that not many people had heard about and seemed to have to accept as a normal word, unless you wanted to show your ignorance. I do not think many people have understood what an EPA program ever meant.
What I am trying to highlight is that I believe there has been much confusion right from the start about what the government was, on one hand, saying it intended but, on the other hand – in its media releases and its documents – it was coming out with words that already presumed that we had it. If you look at what has been put to the public, what has been put out in the documents, it is very difficult to believe that the government has not already made up its mind.
The only hope we have is the chairman, Gordon Duff and his board saying in the discussion paper:
- The establishment of an independent Environment Protection Agency (EPA), combined with the formulation of a new Environmental Protection and Management Act, is crucial to strengthening environmental protection in the Northern Territory.
An EPA and its associated legislation will be the lynchpin of a broader environmental protection system for the Northern Territory, many elements of which are already in place. For example, there are dozens of existing acts and regulations covering everything from marine pollution and roadside litter to mine site management and nuclear waste. An independent EPA will complement and strengthen the protection we now have.
Together, these measures will help ensureenvironmental sustainability for the Northern Territory and protect environmental values for generations of future Territorians.
Input …
Input in May 2006!
- … from Territorians is critical to the successful establishment of an EPA.
Oh, hang on, we already have one in February 2006 - what happened to this one? This must have been a …
Ms Scrymgour: It is actually 19 October 2005
Mr WOOD: This one here must have been a - that is a mirage; that was just a misprint:
- Input from Territorians is critical to the successful establishment of an EPA. Its form and function will be based on consultation with stakeholders and the broader community. This discussion paper has been developed as part of that consultation.
- On behalf of the interim EPA Board, I urge you to read this discussion paper and provide your feedback. Your views will help shape the future of environmental protection in the Northern Territory.
Shape the future? I believe it has already been shaped. It was shaped in February 2006. We already had an EPA. That is the problem.
It is good that the interim board has gone out asking for people to comment. Unfortunately, there have not been many people attending those meetings. I went to the Darwin meeting and there were probably about 20 people there and, out of those, probably five or six were government people. That is unfortunate. We should definitely be promoting and trying to get this message out about the importance of an EPA to the community.
I notice the comments from the EPA meetings. The one in Darwin wanted to make sure that the EPA was independent. One of the reasons for wanting it to be independent was to make sure that - and I quote:
- … that the government should not be able to issue itself environmental licences or approvals without public scrutiny.
If the EPA is actually the Office of Environment, and the Office of Environment is handing out licences or making environmental decisions, how can it make an independent assessment of those decisions? That is one of the important reasons the EPA has to be out there. It has to be able to judge what the government is doing just as much as it is going to have to judge private developers. The government cannot be outside the same requirements and rules that will apply to industry. That is why it is important.
In summing up, I believe we should have an independent EPA. I do not think it should be very big in the Northern Territory, because to create a large bureaucracy like the one in Western Australia would be irrelevant. I still believe it should be, basically, directly responsible to the minister only, and their decisions should be made public. The minister should have every right to override their decisions, as long as the public knows that the EPA made a decision and they also know if the minister supported, or not, that decision for whatever reason. As long as that is public, that is the process.
However, I do not believe that it should be out there being the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage. I have always said that in a place as big as the Territory, it really should be taking on the big projects, not the little projects.
Minister, I will just give you one other example why confusion reigns. I went to a Development Consent Authority meeting regarding a freezer in the rural area for shark to be used as bait for crabs. That particular container had a motor on it which was causing people a lot of concern because they could not sleep at night as it would come on at night. I went to the meeting. I opened up the documents and here is a response from the EPA. This is earlier this year. We do not have an EPA but we have a letter here from the EPA. What do you think I thought? I said: ‘Hang on. The minister said we are looking at having one’, and in comes a letter from an EPA talking about noise from a container. Even if we had an EPA, do I really want an EPA to be looking at noise from a container on a small block out in the rural area? No, no, no, no. If you are going to start building a large uranium mine out in the rural area, I might expect the EPA to be popping along and looking at it. But those sorts of things, that is the Development Consent Authority with comment from NRETA. That is where that comes from. You do not need the whole EPA to discuss those issues.
The problem really was why were letters coming from the department stamped ‘EPA’ when we do not have an EPA? I do not know whether I am getting old or cynical, or been here too long. It does not make sense. That is what I am saying. I had to explain to people about an EPA. They said: ‘I thought we had one. I got a letter the other day complaining about my fridge making too much noise and it said EPA’. How do you explain this to people that we are hopefully going to get an independent EPA but there are all these letterheads going around with EPA already written on them?
I support the motion simply because I am just stressing the point that the government has done a poor job in establishing the EPA. It has been poor in its public promotion of what it is doing. It has been poor in what it has explained it is doing and there has been no logic in what it is been doing. It is not a logical approach. That is where the confusion is.
I do not think it is too late to change that, but I certainly do not want to see the EPA being the Office of the Environment because while that happens and if that is what the government wants, then I am sorry. The public is not going to wear that. They are going to see it as just a branch of the department and that will not be independent.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, the Environment and Heritage): Mr Deputy Speaker, I oppose this motion on all counts. For a start, the assertions from the members for Katherine and Nelson, and from what I have looked at, are simply wrong. I will go over this a bit slowly and I think that you should stay in here. I will try to speak as slowly as I can and as clearly as I can so that we can get rid of some of this confusion. For too long, both the members for Nelson and Katherine have been running around, they are the ones who are putting the confusion and stirring this up.
Mr Wood: We did not write the paper.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Hang on, member for Nelson. I had to sit here and listen to you go through all your gobbledygook and your queries on what should be a preferred model.
The member for Katherine talked about and described a preferred model for an EPA which she gets from a leaked document. It is quite interesting. During estimates I talked about the leaked document which found its way into the hands of the Minerals Council at that stage, and how that document from the Minerals Council got into the hands of the shadow minister, the member for Katherine, and all the conspiracy theories that prevailed from that. Well, if this is the best the opposition can do as a source of information, they need to try a bit harder.
Checking the facts would be a good start because the leaked document did not have any official status. It was an early draft which did not go to government. Government had already announced that we would establish an independent EPA. The only people who do not like that word, because when they were in government the model they took to the election was never going to be an independent EPA. So, I think both hate the word ‘independent’ EPA.
I decided that we would not take any preferred model out to public consultation. So that model was abandoned, The member for Katherine has been getting hot and bothered over a model that was no more than a draft, which had no status, and which was never endorsed by government in a document which had already been abandoned by the time it was leaked. Please get the facts right. I do not know how many times I have to repeat the process of what we are doing.
In October 2005, I appointed an Interim EPA Board. I will just go back to 19 October 2005, and I have repeated this on previous occasions when the same motion was moved on 19 October. I said, and I quote:
- I report on government’s progress in establishing the Northern Territory’s first Environment Protection Agency. Last year, government announced that it would respond to emerging environmental challenges by establishing the Territory’s first EPA. Labor reaffirmed this commitment during the recent election campaign. We announced that the EPA would be developed in two stages.
- Stage 1 would see the introduction of a three-member, independent EPA board …
The member for Nelson really needs to listen to this bit, too, and maybe the member for Katherine because she looked up the definition of ‘independent’. Maybe she can find the definition of ‘reorganisation’.
- … and the reorganisation of the Environment and Heritage Office so that services are re-aligned into an EPA program. The immediate task of the EPA board would be to consult with the Northern Territory community on a final preferred model for the EPA and advise government on new supporting legislation.
- Stage 2 of the EPA establishment would see the final EPA model put in place, the new legislation in operation, and significant additional resources provided to improve environmental services.
I also talked about the three members who would be part of the interim board. The member for Katherine, at that time in responding to my report in parliament, said:
- Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. The establishment of an independent EPA in the Northern Territory is a very important step. I am very pleased, as I am sure all members on this side are very pleased to hear the names of the eminent people who will be on that board. I know that those people will take on a serious responsibility of preserving our pristine environment. I trust that our heritage in the Northern Territory will be well protected by this EPA Board.
The member for Nelson responded:
- … I also welcome the minister’s statement. It is important we do have an EPA established in the Northern Territory. I hope the government bears in mind one of the things that all sides of parliament who were on the committee were looking at: to make sure it did not become a big bureaucracy. I know you will have done some reorganisation in the department to suit that.
You have form, as my colleague, the member for Johnston, always says to you, member for Nelson. You say: ‘We are confused, I am confused, I do not know what has happened’, and in my report on 19 October 2005, you supported what I was saying. You fully understood that the EPA was a reorganisation of Environment and Heritage and then selectively, you go around your electorate and through the community, when it suits you to play politics with this issue, and tell everyone that it is confusing and what government has put out is confusing.
You have been caught out one too many times with this because you have form on a number of these things when it comes to the environment.
Mr Wood: No, I have not. You have been caught out by the McArthur River Mine.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You can argue all you want, member for Nelson. You have form. You say ‘no’ to cotton and everything else, and then when it suits you, you stand up, you support it to see which way the wind blows and when it blows the other way, then you change your mind and you talk about getting confused. The only confusion that happens …
Mr Wood interjecting
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson. Member for Nelson!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You need to start taking a good look at this and working through the facts as you have them rather than …
Mr Wood: That is your document, February 2006 …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, if you could desist.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr Wood: Tell her to speak through the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Mr Deputy Speaker, when the interim board reports to government and when government considers its recommendation, only then will decisions be made about the form and function of the EPA. The interim board released a discussion paper in May 2006, which canvassed a range of issues with regard to the establishment of the EPA.
The interim board has now completed a round of public workshops in Darwin - and I am glad that the member for Nelson actually found the time to attend one of those meetings, that is very good - and regional centres in order to hear from Territorians their view about the form and function of an EPA. Written submissions were also requested by the board. It is indicative of the opposition’s attitude that they would like to ignore the fact, and move motions of criticism and be openly negative about what we are doing. However, not one of the members opposite bothered to attend any of the forums and none of them put in a written submission.
Many Territorians did take the time to attend the forums and 13 made the effort to write a submission. But, tellingly, not a member of the opposition did. I believe that clearly demonstrates the level of commitment to getting this right.
I repeat that no decision has been made on what the final permanent EPA will look like. No decision has been made on whether the final EPA should be brought directly to parliament or through the minister.
I pick up on some of the issues that are constantly bandied around. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Katherine constantly say: ‘Oh, a Clayton’s EPA. You know it is a big sham, it is a Clayton’s EPA’. The government’s EPA is not a sham. We have said very clearly that it will be independent in the advice that it gives. It will be established in legislation and there will be improved services. There is nothing untoward in agency’s officers being part of an EPA. Every EPA around Australia that has a board also draws on the expertise of the agency.
It is the combination of expert scientific advice from the agency and the independent perspective brought by the board that makes the EPA’s work and engenders community confidence. Member for Nelson, you suggested the board source its expertise. If he is arguing that the agency cannot be trusted, then he is arguing for a board to have its own panel of scientists and that would be duplication. That would be the very thing he has argued against, and you have argued against it. When you were a member of the committee, you were saying it would just be another layer of bureaucracy.
The opposition and the member for Nelson are obviously confused. They think that having independence means casting completely adrift from government. Established independence is less about where an agency sits in a bureaucracy and more about its functions and how it reports to government and the minister. The EPA board will report directly to me as minister. It does not report and make recommendations to the chief executive or the department. The role of the EPA and its staff will be to look at and provide expert advice. They will also administer the act. Those are experts that are in the agency or outside expertise if used.
I will repeat that we are at stage one, which I have clearly outlined. It has been bandied around at different forums that I have misled not only this parliament but the whole of the Northern Territory community, which I find quite offensive, because there has not been any misleading. That is quite a serious allegation to make against a person, that I have been deliberately misleading. I take my role quite seriously, and I have said that a number of times in this parliament.
I actually believe the prayer that we say every morning, that we should be acting and doing our jobs in the interests of all Territorians. To hear the members for Katherine and Nelson that I have misled people in the Northern Territory, I find …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! At no time have I said that the member misled the parliament - no time.
Mr Kiely: You can make a personal explanation.
Mr WOOD: I just explained it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue, minister.
Mr Wood: She misheard.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There has been time - no, if we go back in Hansard and look at when we had previous debates on the EPA during estimates and in other areas, member for Nelson, both you and the member for Katherine - the hypocrisy of members of the CLP who stand up here and hold their hands to their hearts and say: ‘Terrible, terrible, terrible government. You are doing this all wrong’. They did not do anything? They lead by example? It just smacks of hypocrisy. They say that it is the record that I have misled Territorians, and I find that totally offensive. I have not, at any time during this whole issue about EPA, misled Territorians.
The member for Nelson also said that the EPA should only deal with major projects. Why should an EPA not comment on all environmental management issues on any development applications ...
Mr Wood: Just keep it small.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, please!
Mr Wood: She asked me a question, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That is what you would want to set with that sort of agency. It is not about just the big end of town or the big projects. The EPA has functions of waste, and water pollution, and waste management; it should be involved in those areas. It is not just about McArthur River mine or those areas that they should be looking at. You have, obviously, forgotten your previous views on that. You said it should not be another layer of bureaucracy, as I said. So, we set up another EPA that looks at major projects and a department doing the same thing but for minor projects?
Mr Wood: Have you looked at my option?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You argued in the past that it should have strong links to the DCA, and now you are saying it should not be wasting its time providing environmental comments to the DCA …
Mr Wood: I did not say that.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: ... on development applications.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Why on earth would an environment protection agency not provide environmental advice?
The member for Katherine talked about MRM and the issue that happened there. She is on the record saying that the MRM decision is crook because the agency is a Clayton’s EPA. To say that it is crook because the assessment was done by the agency is absolutely insulting. I am glad that people in the agency listened to what you people said. The staff of the EPA did a totally professional job. Their job is to provide expert advice to me. They did this by calling expert scientific advice when it was required. They do a professional job, regardless of what structure they work in. They did a good job with the MRM and the first round of the assessment, and they will continue to do a good job. Due process is happening with their Public Environmental Report, so we will see.
I will finish off with reference to part (d) of the member for Katherine’s motion, condemning government for proposing an EPA where, and I quote:
- …
Etcetera. Let me tell you, regardless of the final model adopted, it is the standard convention that there is a government portfolio responsibility for budget funding and employment. Is the member for Katherine proposing that the EPA be established as a self-funding business? That is what she appears to be suggesting. Hardly an attractive or efficient alternative to an independent EPA.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I could keep going but I believe that we have gone through it. This is not the first time that we have gone through this issue of the EPA. It might be timely that when we go to the next step, the member for Katherine, or the shadow minister, might seek a briefing and some guidance through the process so that it is much clearer and we try to ensure that there is less confusion out there. I do not support the motion.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also come into this Assembly each day and believe the words of the prayers that are said. I am very serious about the job that I have and the responsibility that I have as well. I am sure most members here feel exactly the same way. We do not say those words lightly. My commitment to ensuring that the right information comes out of this Assembly is definitely a commitment that I make to the people I represent.
I wanted to make a comment on the minister’s slap in the face that I did not attend the Katherine community discussion. It is just a little difficult, minister, when you have your neck in a brace and you are totally restricted, to be able to attend any particular function. I am very sorry I was not at the community discussion. However, I am certain there were people who represented the Katherine community who had enough to say at that function.
The minister claims that I have stated that she has misled Territorians. Well, minister, do you know something? You have misled Territorians when you used the word independent.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mrs MILLER: That word ‘independent’ has got you into strife …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, member for Katherine. There is a point of order.
Mr KIELY: The member for Katherine can only make allegations of misleading people in parliament by substantive motion. I ask that she withdraw the misleading comment.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, you have accused the minister for Natural Resources of misleading the parliament. Are you able to do that by substantive motion, or are you able to withdraw?
Mrs MILLER: Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister accused me of misleading parliament. I do not see that there is a point of order. It is on Hansard where the minister accused the member for Nelson and the member for Katherine for misleading parliament.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, I am asking you to either withdraw or make a substantive motion to the effect that the minister has misled the parliament.
Mrs MILLER: I will withdraw it and I will reword it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Rephrase, thank you.
Mrs MILLER: The minister has made claims that the member for Nelson and I have misled the Northern Territory community in relation to the comments that we have made in this Assembly and outside of this Assembly. I have not misled them because the minister has used the word ‘independent’ in everything that she has described for this EPA. The word ‘independent’ must surely have been the worst word that she could have used, because it has got her into so much strife.
If she had just stuck with the word EPA we could have had a discussion about EPA and concentrated and focused our energies on that. Where the minister has got herself into strife is to introduce the word independent. It truly is a sham when you say this Environmental Protection Authority is ‘independent’, because of the very things that we say in here: that it is a discrete unit of NRETA; and NRETA will provide administrative, HR and financial support to the EPA.
It also goes on to say the preferred model of the EPA has the following limitations: that the minister will do the hiring and firing; the government will pay the wages; the minister will deal with any industrial relations matters that flow from the EPA; that it is part of NRETA; that the minister will run its paperwork and administration; and that the Northern Territory government will fund its functions.
The word ‘independent’ is the one that keeps coming back all the time. I will explain again what ‘independent’ means. It means not governed by a foreign power; self-governing. It means free from the influence, guidance or control of another or others. It is self-reliant. It is not determined or influenced by someone or something else and it is not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity. What we have seen from what the minister has presented does not fit ‘independent’ at all, and that is the big hurdle.
I thank my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, for her comments in support of the motion, and the member for Nelson for his comments. I know the EPA and environmental issues are extremely important to him. He places a lot of emphasis on the EPA and the model that has been proposed, which, I am sure, retains the word ‘independent’ in it because at the last election and the one before, the government promised to introduce an independent EPA. That was another promise broken by the government and the words ‘open and accountable’ must keep coming back to you at all times. You had better introduce ‘independent’ to this agency because you made the promise, but in every other essence of the proposal, it is far from independent.
It is interesting that there has been no budgetary allocation for this independent EPA.
Ms Scrymgour: An extra $500 000.
Mrs MILLER: No, it would be really – well, if it is not formed yet, it is quite interesting. As the member for Nelson said, there is enough information and letterheads around with EPA on it and yet it is not even formed. It is also obvious from the member for Nelson’s contribution that the preferred independent model was chosen from other models because it is controlled by government. That only enhances and reinforces the argument that it is far from independent.
The reason that there is so much confusion in the community is because of the information that comes out to them. You think I am confused and you are blaming the member for Nelson and me for being confused, but it is the information that is provided to the community that is just as confusing. I suggest you look again at the information that is going out.
I know that it is not in government’s best interests to accept any recommendations, of course, that come from opposition. That is politics and that is the way the numbers go, there is no doubt about that. I did not anticipate that there would be any change in that today. However, I strongly encourage the minister to look at part 2 of this motion, which says that: ‘the Assembly instruct the government to remove the word “independent” from all future references to the EPA if this preferred model is adopted’.
If you remove that word ‘independent, you will remove a lot of confusion from the public. You just remove it, and there is no confusion in the public’s mind at all. And do not refer to it in future as an ‘independent’ environmental protection agency. An EPA will be fine. There is no doubt that we support an EPA. There has to be one, but you need to give it a level of independence so that you are seen to be accountable, that government is seen to be accountable. I thank members who contributed to the debate today, and I ask that the minister consider the motion that has been put to her.
Motion negatived.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (CULTURAL PRACTICE AND CUSTOMARY LAW) BILL
(Serial 62)
(Serial 62)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This is the third time a bill similar to this has been introduced. Eternally optimistic, it could be third time lucky. Members of the Assembly will recall, for anyone who was interested, and it was very difficult to detect the level of interest on the government’s side given that no-one except the Attorney-General spoke on it. Very disappointing, given the five indigenous members of the government, that is the five included on the now famous memo written by the member for Millner and, according to one media report, leaked by the member for Macdonnell. That was just in case I needed to refresh your memories; that was the memo in which the member for Millner expressed his frustration, dissatisfaction and so on with the Chief Minister, and also in which he referred to a level of hate in the community against the Chief Minister.
It was very interesting, on the last occasion, that none of the indigenous members of parliament spoke, and particularly disappointing that none of the women members of parliament on the Labor side spoke. Perhaps next time around, when we get to further debating this bill at the next General Business Day, we might hear from them. Although, we know how the Chief Minister likes to keep a gag on some of her members, although clearly it failed with the member for Millner.
In any case, the objections of the government have changed over the years I have been presenting this bill. The first time round, it was basically a philosophical one. It was, no, no, no you cannot do this because it is discriminatory. They referred at that time, I believe it was 2003, to the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act. I suggested at that time they change it. In 2005, the Attorney-General had different reasons for opposing the bill, and that was that the bill if enacted would offend the provisions of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act.
Accordingly, and having dealt with and spoken with the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock about this matter, I have decided to propose a slightly different bill so that, and our advice is that even if we accepted that the second bill I introduced last year did offend the provisions of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, then this new bill would not. The Attorney-General may well say that proposed new section 5(5)(b) may offend the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. In any event, if that is the case, he could always propose an amendment to this bill so that we are left with the expression in subclause (a) of: ‘a cultural practice of a community of which the offender is a member’. I wrote to the federal Attorney-General, and thank him and his office for their assistance.
It is interesting that since the last time this parliament sat, there has continued to be a very passionate, at times, national debate about violence in Aboriginal communities. We have seen the Chief Minister embark on her kneejerk response to the criticism levelled at her about her general incompetence, no doubt shared by the member for Millner and others, but as a result of those criticisms, she cobbled together an inquiry which, as members know, sat around doing nothing due to the lack of leadership demonstrated by the Chief Minister. It sat around and did nothing for the first two months.
The debate about the inquiry is for another day, but I make the point that there has been a national debate and discussion about these issues. Indeed, it has been heartening to see the issue of customary law being talked about by politicians other than me. It has been great to see the issue of customary law talked about by so many other Australians. That, I guess over time, will create pressure on this government ultimately, so that it can remove its philosophical and other objections to removing the veil of customary law for sentencing purposes.
Since this parliament was last in session, there was a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments, referred to as COAG. That was a meeting unlike the National Summit on Indigenous Affairs called by Mal Brought which was not attended by the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister was good enough to turn up to COAG. The Law Council of Australia wrote a submission to COAG which I read with interest. I was asked to write an opinion piece for The Australian newspaper, which I did on 21 July 2006. I was asked specifically to comment on the Law Council’s submission because it involved, inter alia, recommendations about customary law. I said in that article, and I quote:
- Having read the Law Council's submission, which was prepared for the Council of Australian Governments, it is clear to me that the insidious way customary law is used to benefit violent Aboriginal men is conveniently ignored or, perhaps, simply not understood. This may explain why there has been an hysterical rejection of any consideration of the removal of customary law for sentencing purposes by some in the legal profession.
- The Law Council's submission states that “there has been no case in which the court has accepted such evidence [customary law] as justification or excuse for violent behaviour”'. If this were the case, why then did all governments deem it necessary to agree at COAG that “no customary law or cultural practice excuses, justifies, authorises, requires, or lessens the seriousness of violence or sexual abuse”, and why did they agree that the laws of all jurisdictions will reflect this?
I went on to say:
Put simply, if customary law is not meant to “lessen the seriousness of violence” why do violent Aboriginal men seek to rely on it for sentencing purposes when the aim of doing so is to lessen the sentence?
There has been a view held by some in the legal profession and some other commentators - and no doubt it is a view shared, sadly, by members of this government - that customary law is not used very often. That is not the case, and it is mischievous in the extreme to make that assertion. I well know who has made the assertion. Whether I agree politically or legally with some of those people is neither here nor there. The fact is, if any person walks into a court in the Northern Territory, they will see, in its very wide spectrum, customary law being used every day of the week. It is used in its many guises. I will give some examples of that shortly.
However, if I go back momentarily, members will recall that what I and, indeed, others are calling for, a national debate about violence in indigenous communities was sparked by an interview on 15 May 2006 by Dr Nanette Rogers, Crown Prosecutor in Alice Springs. She said in that interview, when talking about her research for her doctoral thesis that she was:
- … taken aback at how much emphasis was placed on Aboriginal customary law in terms of placing the offender in the best light, and how it closed off the voices of Aboriginal women.
She went on to say that
- … sometimes Aboriginal cultural practices do not benefit the victims. They benefit, more often than not, the offender, and if it means criticising those Aboriginal practices that constrain victims or witnesses from giving evidence and ensure the ability of the offender to keep behaving in exactly the [same] way, then why should there be an Aboriginal cultural practice that sustains that?
It is important that I outline how customary law in all its guises is used frequently in the Territory courts. It is used in an attempt to reduce or excuse an offender’s criminality. Defence lawyers urge the court to take into account the fact that some violent men have been subjected to payback and they ask the court to take that into account when sentencing. Sometimes they argue that the woman victim referred to men’s business which made her attacker angry which is why he beat her. On other occasions courts hear how violent men are initiated and have ceremonial responsibilities and are asked to take these into account when sentencing. Those are mere examples of how customary law is used, and I stress in all its guises, in courts of the Northern Territory every day of the week.
When writing about a particularly violent case in Alice Springs in 2004 for The Bulletin, Paul Toohey quoted a Central Australian lawyer who said when referring to the offender: ‘Just because he lives out bush and hunts and dances, so f***ing what’.
There is nothing culturally appropriate about violence. Customary law in all its guises should be precluded from the court’s deliberations when sentencing. I have said it again and I will continue to say it: it is an unconscionable mechanism by which the criminality of an offender is reduced or excused and it should not be used to mitigate a sentence for crimes of physical or sexual violence. It is a veil behind which violent Aboriginal men hide and politicians and lawyers should not sanction its continued use.
Dr Rogers also talked about a culture of violence in some, though not all, indigenous communities. If ever anyone doubted there was a culture of violence and, somewhat miraculously, apparently some people do doubt that there is a culture of violence in some Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, they should have had the same sort of discussion I did with a police officer, some time ago, who relayed to me what a violent husband told him about the assault on his wife. He said, and I quote: ‘I thought she’d eventually wake up after I bashed her; she usually does’. My point is if such a man hunts, dances, or has ceremonial responsibilities, or lives out bush, what possible difference should it make? In other words, it is a veil behind which violent Aboriginal men are able to hide and use as an excuse to reduce their sentences. Surely that is not something that civilised human beings should continue to sanction.
Getting back to the Law Council of Australia’s submission for COAG, the submission concluded saying that removing the court’s discretion to consider customary will ‘unfairly discriminate against indigenous Australians’.
In the article I wrote for The Australian on 21 July 2006, I said:
- Opponents to the removal of customary law from sentencing assert that to do so is to impinge on a person's human rights. One wonders whose human rights they prefer: violent Aboriginal men, or the women and children who are their victims.
The Law Council submission ignores the culture of violence that is destroying many Aboriginal communities. It somewhat dismissively suggests that anyone who has been critical of the effects of customary law in the criminal justice system should have a Bex and a good lie down. If only Aboriginal women and children could do just that.
I have argued the case for the removal of customary law in sentencing twice before. This is my third time. I have tried to address the objections raised by the Attorney-General, and only raised by the Attorney-General. Who knows? This could be another point of conflict within government. Maybe half a dozen people on the other side do have different views. Maybe this is another rift in the Cabinet. Maybe that is why no-one else stood up to talk in this important debate about violence in Aboriginal communities - not one indigenous member, not one indigenous woman member, no woman member. I do not think they ever have. I will be able to level at them claims of hypocrisy if they want to stand up outside this Chamber and talk about issues involving violence in Aboriginal communities, if they are not able to take their place in this House of Assembly and not get involved because this is where it happens.
Because of the numbers, I do not expect much to happen in relation to this legislation. However, behind closed doors, cracks are starting to show and things are leaking out, thanks to the memo and so on, but you would have thought there would at least have been some robust debate in the past. I hope and implore government members to embark on robust debate in the future so that we can get a better result.
Are there other things to do in indigenous communities? Clearly, but this is, as I have said before, something practical that we as legislators can do. We have had a national summit. COAG spent, I think, 45 seconds on it, ultimately. So we have had a national summit, we have had COAG. We now have an inquiry into sexual abuse in the community.
Politicians, governments and other experts will continue to propose various solutions. Is this not something concrete that we can do now? Is it not worth sending a symbolic gesture to the women and children who are the victims of these violent Aboriginal men who then go to our court houses and hide behind Aboriginal customary law or cultural practices, as I have called it, for the purposes of the bill? I have made plenty of comments in the past. I will not bother repeating them other than to say this bill, Attorney-General, is slightly different, having regard to a cultural practice of a community of which the offender is a member. I am saddened to say that I know what will happen with this bill, but mark my words, Attorney-General, by the time I am an older woman, this will be changed.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ASSAULTS ON POLICE OFFICERS) BILL
(Serial 66)
(Serial 66)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Territorians are aware that our police do a tough job. They work long and hard hours and they often do so in circumstances that are less than ideal. They are employed in one of the few workplaces where people are deliberately and intentionally trying to thwart their efforts to bring peace and good order to our communities. The job is a dangerous one. There are people in our community who would not think twice about hurting a police officer, man or woman. There are others in our community who, in a drunken flush, for instance, might think that having a fight with a police officer is a good idea. Police officers are all too often punched, spat upon, kicked, scratched and abused by members of the public for a variety of reasons.
Some time ago, the NT Police Association called for the introduction of minimum sentences for those who assault police officers in the course of their duties or because of their duties. The opposition agreed with their view and, indeed, I advised the Police Association at the conference when I spoke to them on Monday morning that I would be introducing this bill.
The bill that we have elected to introduce makes some simple amendments to the Criminal Code. The aim of the legislation is to provide minimum sentences that arise out of assaults against police, covered by section 189A of the Criminal Code, and the bill seeks to repeal that section and replace it with a new section.
Subsection (1) creates the offence of assaulting a police officer. Subsection (2) states that a minimum penalty must be imposed for a person who has been found guilty of assaulting a police officer. It also imposes a requirement that a person found guilty will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than six months. Subsection (3) goes on to say that a person who has been found guilty of an assault against a police officer can be sent to gaol for a maximum of two years if they are dealt with by a court of summary jurisdiction, or a maximum of five years if they are found guilty by a superior court. Subsection (4) deals with assaults that cause bodily harm, that is, when the police officer suffers a physical injury that is not permanent in nature. Subsection (5) outlines a requirement that when a person who injures an officer in such a fashion they will serve at least two years in gaol. Subsection (6) says that a court of summary jurisdiction can impose a sentence of up to three years in such an instance, or that a superior court may sentence a person convicted of causing bodily harm to a police officer to as much as seven years in prison. Subsections (7) and (8), in essence, say that, if a person injures a police officer with a permanent injury that constitutes grievous harm, then that person should go to gaol for at least five years. Subsection (9) says that a person convicted of causing grievous harm to a police officer stands to serve a maximum of 16 years in prison.
This message could not be more straightforward: if you assault a police officer and you are convicted, then you will go to gaol, and that is stop, end of message. I know that this has widespread support from both individual policemen and women, as well from the association which called on government to do this some time ago. As I said at the police conference, I invited the members there to talk with the Police minister with a view to ascertaining what the basis and level of his objections were to such a proposal. I think I saw him leaving, so I am not sure that they had that opportunity, but no doubt the association will make representations to the minister.
Madam Speaker, I note that I have 45 minutes to talk about this bill if I wish. It is very straightforward legislation. I do not believe there is anything constructively that I can add. I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General at the next General Business day.
Debate adjourned.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (CODE OF CONDUCT) BILL
(Serial 67)
(Serial 67)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is reasonably straightforward and, clearly, not understood by members of the government. I suppose that is not surprising. I am not sure of the level of collective intelligence on the other side. In any event, I well understand why it is that they would seek to politically spin their way out of this issue. They should, of course, be trying to spin themselves or catapult themselves as farther away from the member for Sanderson as is humanly possible. However, they have elected not to do this.
This bill is necessary for supporting legislation for a code of conduct. It is designed to support a specific code of conduct, which will be dealt with before too long. Of course, this was a promise by the Australian Labor Party; that is, Labor promised to introduce a code of conduct. They also promised to give it the legislative strength that it should have. Sadly, like many other promises - whistleblowers is a good example - Labor has not implemented that and it falls to us to do our bit. Of course, this arises from the comments of the member for Sanderson.
I am on the public record as saying that, in the past, I have not been wedded personally to a code of conduct for members of parliament simply because I did not think you needed to spell out for politicians what was required of them. However, due to the behaviour of the member for Sanderson and the inaction of the Chief Minister, it has become blindingly obvious that something needs to be done - noting that the code of conduct that the government has produced is really not enforceable. We are still waiting for the legislation that will give it the strength it requires, even though the code provided by the government is not anywhere near as comprehensive as the one I will be tabling shortly.
The bill sets out the disciplinary process for members and ministers who do not adhere to the code of conduct. It establishes a Legislative Assembly disciplinary committee as a parliamentary committee that is made up of six members of parliament. Three members would be appointed by the Chief Minister and two by the Opposition Leader, with the other one from the ranks of Independent members. If there are no Independent members as the sixth committee member, they would be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair of the committee would be appointed by the Legislative Assembly. A quorum is achieved when four members are present at the meetings of the committee.
The committee would then receive references from the Assembly in respect to identified potential breaches by members or ministers in respect of the standards set by the code of conduct. The committee would look at the issue brought before it, and could recommend penalties starting from dismissing the matter, up to a fine of up to 50% of a member’s base salary. The disciplinary committee will have the ability to call witnesses and take such evidence into consideration in its deliberations. It is then up to the Assembly to determine whether it accepts the recommendation of the committee. Any fines would have a time frame attached for payment. If a payment is not received, then the member concerned would be held in contempt of the parliament and, as such, could face further fines or up to six months imprisonment.
I will pause here because this is going to be very enjoyable. The Chief Minister - and I think the Leader of Government Business - has described this penalty provision for contempt as bizarre. There are two points to make. One apparently the Chief Minister made late today was in reference to a fine. She seemed to have difficulty with the fact that if you do not pay a fine, you might go to gaol. I invite the Chief Minister to look at various legislation passed by this very parliament. In that legislation, it will say words to the effect of: ‘If you do not pay a fine you go to gaol’. I wonder why it is that the Chief Minister is happy to preside over the passing of legislation that says if you do not pay your fine you go to gaol for other Territorians, but she has such difficulty with if you do not pay your fine you go to gaol for politicians? That is but point one.
Let us go to point two: the green book. When I became a member of parliament, and I have kept a letter I received from your predecessor, Madam Speaker, or the one before the member for Braitling, from Terry McCarthy. It was dated 27 August 2001 and he says that he was very pleased to distribute to new members this booklet and basically it is everything you need to know in order to be a politician in this Assembly.
Let me refer members to section 25 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act. I actually read this book. I quite enjoy reading legislation if members have not picked that up already. I do go through it, I have always been into statutory drafting and, quirky though it is, has always been an interest of mine. I went through this book with great enthusiasm after Terry McCarthy presented it to me in August 2001 and I remember the contents of the legislation. I am very interested to know if any other government members read it.
In relation to section 25 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act it says:
- The Assembly may impose on a person a penalty of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months for an offence against the Assembly determined by the Assembly to have been committed by that person.
What, I wonder, would be an offence against the Assembly? I think it would be contempt. Contempt of the Assembly would be an offence against the Assembly. So, there is already the power in legislation in existence in the Northern Territory about the Legislative Assembly and its members that provides for a gaol term. So when the Chief Minister was flapping about today saying, oh it is bizarre, it is really weird, she obviously did not read the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act when she started in parliament.
Let us go to section 25(5):
- The Assembly may impose on a person a fine –
Fancy that? Fancy that being in existence? Good God! So the Assembly may impose on a person a fine. Subsection (a):
- … not exceeding $5000 in the case of a natural person …
and:
- not exceeding $25 000 in the case of a corporation.
It goes on, etcetera.
Obviously this applies, not surprisingly, to anyone else who would commit an offence against the Legislative Assembly. Of course there was the incident last term where people committed offences against the Legislative Assembly. However, it equally applies to members of the Assembly. To argue that it does not would be a seriously challenging argument indeed. I am not sure that there is any case law on it; I have not had the opportunity to look. But if the government suggests that section 25 of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act does apply to everyone in the Northern Territory except us, then I reckon I am very interested to find that case law. So the potential for going to gaol already exists in legislation. I heartily recommend for the benefit of members the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly Acts and Other Information relating to the Assembly book. It is a thoroughly good read.
So, what is the change? The change is an increase in the penalty up to 50%, although that is determined by the Assembly. In the event that someone does not pay their fine, just like other Territorians they will face the possibility of going to gaol. Nothing like consistency.
Getting back to the code of conduct as promised by the Australian Labor Party, I refer to a speech made by the member for Arafura. She said this on 20 June 2002:
- A code of conduct that underpins the professional standards of politicians and one that says very clearly to members of the community that politicians are here serving them not serving themselves, that we politicians are in this House to serve members of the community not to serve ourselves, that is what a code of conduct very clearly spells out.
The code of conduct has an enforceable set of standards which defines acceptable and unacceptable conduct in office and provides for disciplinary and other action in cases of non-compliance.
She went on to say:
- To give the code teeth …
Which I think is an unfortunate expression:
- To give the code teeth, a new overarching act will be introduced called the Legislative Assembly (Members Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) Act …
Not an act I am familiar with. Would you like to know why that is? Let me tell you: I am not familiar with that act because it does not exist. So in 2002, Labor members said: ‘This is what we are going to do. By golly, we are going to introduce it.’ I am still looking, Madam Speaker.
What we have done is extensively researched and looked around the country. Are there additions to this code of conduct? Yes. I might get to that in the course of the motion, but we have given a code of conduct in the Northern Territory the legislative strength it requires. If I understood what someone was telling me last night, one of the objections government would have to legislation giving the code of conduct legislative strength is that you cannot legislate for people’s behaviour. We legislate for people’s behaviour pretty much every day we are here. The legislation of the Northern Territory - let us take a couple of examples: we tell, as a parliament, what side of the road people should drive on; what speeds they should drive at; where they should smoke, if they need to be a couple of yards away from a door; whatever. We legislate for people’s behaviour. That is a component of what Assemblies and houses of parliament do.
Is it not hypocritical for us as legislators to legislate for others and yet not legislate for ourselves? Parliaments do legislate for the behaviour of others and it must surely be one law or one system for all. If we legislate for other people’s behaviour, should we not legislate for our own?
It is the case that as politicians we are public figures. A higher standard of behaviour is demanded, as it should be. I am very happy to be doing what the Labor government promised to do, that is come up with a code, make it legally enforceable, and aspire to some of those comments made by the member for Arafura so optimistically on 20 June 2002. I am happy to provide members of government with the famous green book, always a good read. There is nothing new in this in terms of the contempt provisions.
I look forward to talking about the motion before too long. I wait with bated breath to hear what the government members have to say in relation to the legislation in due course which, I note, today or yesterday, the Chief Minister said: ‘It is on its way.’ It is on its way! So is Christmas, Madam Speaker, Christmas this year, next year, whatever.
After the member for Sanderson insulted so many Territorians, not one Labor politician made reference to the code of conduct. I would like to suggest why I think that is. Either they forgot they had one, and I suppose that is understandable because there is certainly no legislation backing it up, or, in the alternative, you were so utterly and indescribably embarrassed by it because it was not really a tough or comprehensive code that no-one wanted to mention it. It was only after the opposition talked about a code of conduct and, incredibly enough we raised the issue of a code of conduct only a couple of days before this incident found its way into the paper. Then, not even the Chief Minister, in those couple of days before this incident, came out and said: ‘It is on its way. It is on its way’. It is only when we came in here with the paperwork, doing the work of government, albeit the four of us, that the Chief Minister has the audacity, the gall, to say: ‘Yes, yes, yes, it is on its way.’
Madam Speaker, with those comments I will conclude. I look forward to discussing the motion.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Sandridge Band from Borroloola, and also the Tableland Drifters from Tennant Creek and the Tablelands. They are here for the Darwin Festival. The member for Barkly tells me that they are performing tomorrow night at the amphitheatre. I hope it goes very well and that some honourable members may be able to attend. On behalf of honourable members, we offer you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Code of Conduct for Ministers and Members
Code of Conduct for Ministers and Members
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That the Assembly rescind the optional and non-legislative Code of Conduct for Members, dated 31 May 2004, and adopt the comprehensive ‘Northern Territory Code of Conduct for Ministers and Members’, in the terms tabled and circulated to members.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the Northern Territory Code of Conduct for Ministers and Members. In doing so, I advise that Section 2 has been amended to reflect the non-compliance penalties within the enforcement legislation of the Legislative Assembly Code of Conduct Bill and the revised code will be circulated to all honourable members.
Madam SPEAKER: You do not need to seek leave, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This will obviously, to some extent, repeat some of my comments in relation to the earlier bill. I say again that I was not originally wedded to a code of conduct because I did not think it was something that you needed spell out for serving politicians. However, a comprehensive code was something that was promised by the Chief Minister five years ago, and like the rest of those protections, it is something that has not seen the light of day.
In May 2004, we had what might be described as a Clayton’s code of conduct – there is our friend Clayton again – adopted by the Chamber - the code you have when you are not having a code. I say again, after the member for Sanderson embarked on his disgraceful behaviour, nothing from this building, nothing from government, about, ‘Oh well, it is in the code of conduct’. And, in fact, the Chief Minister could not even answer yesterday, when asked specifically whether the member for Sanderson’s conduct would have offended the existing code of conduct. It is a Clayton’s code in almost every respect.
The Clayton’s code did need to have supporting legislation, which was promised; I believe it was the Leader of Government Business who said, at the end of 2004, that it would be forthcoming. His Chief Minister obviously has taken that lesson from him, and that is why she said in the last couple of days, it is coming, just wait for it. So, our friend Clayton has lapsed. It lapsed and it failed to have any meaning, as is demonstrated by the fact that the member for Sanderson is still here and has not suffered any real consequences. However, those on the other side will say that the code is the one that the code is the one that is on the government website, so therefore it does exist in name only. Our friend Clayton has no muscle, no power, and does not exist in any meaningful way. We know this because, had there been a code of conduct of any substance, the member for Sanderson would not be here.
Let us take a moment to remind ourselves of his behaviour. He attended a cricket game as a government representative, in a government-sponsored corporate box, and along with the member for Brennan and a few business people, knocked back, I think the reports were over 100 Crownies, over the course of the afternoon. After a few drinks, he made lewd and sexually offensive remarks to a 61-year-old woman. If the Clayton’s code had any real power, there is no way such behaviour by a member of the Legislative Assembly could be in any way condoned by this Chamber. The fact that he does remain reflects very poorly on all of us and it highlights the deficiencies of our friend Clayton, that is, the Clayton code of conduct.
When government members say: ‘Oh, no, Opposition Leader, you have it all wrong; we already have a code of conduct’, I say; ‘Do not even bother’. Your aspiration code, if you like, lapsed when you failed to provide the necessary legislative strength that would have given it any basis, and you failed to give the people of the Territory any confidence - some more than others - in the politicians of the Northern Territory. Clayton is certainly not recognised by the Chief Minister, let alone the member for Sanderson.
I have been somewhat of a supporter, albeit quietly, of a code of conduct for ministers. Because the events unfolded in the way that they did, it is now abundantly clear - and clear to the average Territorian - that a code of conduct that means something is necessary for members and ministers.
The development of parliamentary and ministerial codes of conduct has varied in Australia. Some have been adopted as a result of inquiries, and others have been the result of public pressure due to inappropriate behaviour. In respect to the state and territory levels of government in Australia, we - with only a register of interests and, of course, our friend, Clayton - are the least accountable among our peers. Some parliaments such as New South Wales and Queensland have gone so far as to have ethics or standards mechanisms in place.
The bill I introduced earlier prescribes penalties for those who fail to comply with the code of conduct. I do look forward to hearing the arguments from those opposite who promised such a code five years ago, notwithstanding that they promised it five years ago because, in effect, they would be arguing against themselves - always an interesting proposition. If the current performance of the Chief Minister is anything to go by, she would not be in favour of a fair dinkum code of conduct because it would raise the bar too high in determining what is or what is not appropriate conduct for a parliamentarian in the Territory.
Right now, we have in front of us a comprehensive code of conduct that can be adopted by this Chamber through this motion to be the benchmark for behaviour of those who sit in this place. We will also have the necessary legislative strength that Clayton’s sadly lacks if the legislation is adopted. The code of conduct is commonsense. Its provisions include things such as if you are compromised in your decision-making by some personal interest, then you will relieve yourself of the factor that is compromising you, or remove yourself from the decision-making process. It sets out appropriate conduct for leaders in the community who sit in this place.
I am certain, had the code been in place and had the supporting legislation, importantly, been in place as promised five years ago by those opposite, then the incident with the member for Sanderson would have had far greater consequence than a rap over the knuckles. It did not, and he got nothing more than a pat on the backside and he keeps his position as a community leader. As I have said, he still has his job; he can still go to corporate functions, can still get drunk, and still be rude and offensive to women.
I am the first one to concede that some former members of the CLP could not be given a clean bill of health. However, an associated purpose of us putting forward the motion and the bill is to say that, under my watch, that will not happen. If a member of this parliament who represents the CLP was to behave in the same vile manner as the member for Sanderson, I would immediately call for them to resign their position and, if they failed to do so, unlike this Chief Minister, I would do all that I can to ensure that they would be removed from my party. Unlike the Chief Minister, I do not want seedy men in my party. It cannot and should not be tolerated. This is not just because the member of Sanderson’s behaviour was directed at a woman, or because it gives men a bad name; it is because it is behaviour unbecoming of a leader in this community. It is interesting to see, in his pathetic letter of apology to his constituents, that he said his behaviour offended ‘a member’ of the public. Wrong, wrong, wrong, member for Sanderson. Your behaviour offended every decent Territorian.
I am left wondering whether the promise to put in place a code of conduct was just glamorous words that the Chief Minister had no intention of seeing through. Perhaps in that regard, it is like the whistleblower legislation which is not too difficult to do. We have introduced whistleblower legislation and I look forward to us debating that before too long.
The bill that I introduced earlier in relation to the code of conduct is what Labor should have done five years ago - and they have nowhere to go on this. The Leader of Government Business will get up and strut his stuff but you cannot get away from the truth and you cannot hide the facts. You are on the public record, you have put it in brochures, I think, and it is pretty much everywhere. So it is very interesting to hear what you say; more interesting for some than others.
The code of conduct can be adopted. It can have legislative strength. You simply need the political leadership, determination and conviction to do it. The Labor Party talked about the culture of fear that was in the Territory under the CLP. I can say that if that culture of fear existed, and I do not know, I can tell that you that my own experience is that there is a culture of fear operating in the Northern Territory at the moment. That is no doubt why the government is so unwilling to introduce its whistleblower legislation, something it promised to introduce five years ago. So what Labor members felt strongly about five years ago, obviously they do not even care about now. If ever there was a need for whistleblowers legislation, it is now.
The code of conduct sets out, at a pretty basic level in many respects, what is and is not appropriate. It is not so proscriptive as to affect the normal day-to-day operations of ministers and members of parliament. It can be said that it is based pretty much on commonsense, and it strikes a balance between broad markers and necessary inclusions. For instance, an inclusion in the code is a prohibition on a minister having a personal relationship with a senior executive in their department. There must be a line of distinction where there is a separation of powers between the legislative arm and the implementation arm of government. If such relationships were tolerated, this line can become blurred. There are many organisations that accept this and have marked out clearly the consequences of such relationships in different levels of organisations. Why should not we in the Territory have a similar prohibition? It is just commonsense and I cannot begin to imagine why on earth those opposite would have a difficulty with that.
The ministerial and members code of conduct recognises that ministers and members of the Northern Territory parliament are in a position of trust bestowed on them by the people of the Northern Territory. It recognises that ministers, in particular, are responsible for decisions that can have a marked impact on individuals and groups in the Territory. The ethical and effective working of government in the Northern Territory depends on ministers and members having the trust and confidence of all their parliamentary colleagues both in their official dealings and in the manner in which they discharge their official responsibilities. For these reasons, it emphasises that ministers, in particular, must accept standards of conduct of the highest order.
The code aims to guarantee the integrity of the parliament and its officers. In particular, ministers will ensure that their official powers or position are not used improperly for personal advantage and that any conflict between personal interest and a public duty which may arise is resolved in favour of the public interest. Ministers will recognise that they have an obligation to their ministerial colleagues to inform the Chief Minister, or in the case of the Chief Minister, Cabinet, if the minister is subject to any inquiry, investigation or criminal or civil proceedings. Ministers and members of parliament should ensure that their personal conduct does not adversely affect their ability or the ability of other MLAs or other public officials to perform their official duties, or adversely affect public confidence and the integrity of the system of government or public service management.
The code requires ministers to disclose details of any private interest that might conflict with their duty as a minister. The code prevents ministers from acting as consultants or advisors to companies and organisations during their terms in office, except in their official capacity as a minister. The code prevents ministers from employing members of their immediate families or close business associates to positions in their own offices. The code sets out specific obligations in relation to procedures for the disclosure of conflicts of interest in respect of matters going before Cabinet and the parliament. The code outlines the standards of conduct expected of ministers and members of parliament, including respect for the law and the system of government, and the respect for individuals and relations between ministers and the public service.
On respect for the law and the system of government, the code states:
- Ministers and members will uphold the laws of the Northern Territory of Australia and will not be a party to their breach, invasion or subversion. Ministers and members will act with respect towards the institution of parliament and are to ensure that their conduct, whether in a personal or official capacity, does not bring the parliament into disrepute or damage public confidence in the system of government.
In addition, the new code defines more clearly the type of action that parliament can take against ministers or members who are in breach of the code, whether it be a reprimand requiring an apology, a monetary fine, or asking the minister or member to stand aside, or the minister or member to resign.
I suggest to government members that there is nothing in this code that is in any way inappropriate and should not be adopted. I ask those opposite if they are going to oppose this, which, no doubt, they will, to do better than just political spray. Come up with something of substance and argue seriously what is offensive in this code of conduct because it is going to backfire on you anyway because you will be the government that has not given any legislative strength to a code of conduct notwithstanding your promise. What do you have to be afraid of? That is what I would have thought most Territorians would ask.
We say to the Chief Minister that every so often, it is possible for her to do the right thing. She can show us a bit more substance and she can endorse this code of conduct. I will again quote from what the member for Arafura said on 20 June 2002. She said:
- A code of conduct that underpins the professional standards of politicians and one that says very clearly to members of our community that politicians are here serving them, not serving themselves, that we politicians are in this House to serve members of the community, not to serve ourselves. This is what this code of conduct very clearly spells out.
We say that the code of conduct we have produced is much more comprehensive and, of course, with the accompanying legislation, which Labor always wanted to introduce, which we have now introduced, and given that there are no new contempt provisions, there is nothing in either the motion or the bill that should cause any concern to government members. If you are going to do a political spray, it is hard for me to take it seriously because I think you are gazumped, and you have painted yourselves into a corner.
Around Australia, most jurisdictions have an array of codes of conduct. Victoria has legislation to support its code. The Victorian one - and I am giving this example because it shows the serious way in which the Victorian government takes its code of conduct - provides that infringement of the code constitutes contempt – no surprises there; well, there should not be for some – for which the member may be fined $2000 by his or her House. It goes on to say that non-payment of the fine renders the member’s seat vacant. Our code of conduct does not quite go that far, although if someone goes to gaol, it would naturally follow that their seat would become vacant.
So, if government is going to say no one else has legislation – wrong. Other jurisdictions do. There is a range of codes of conduct in this country. Where there is no legislation - if you take, for instance, New South Wales and Queensland - Queensland has a mechanism which gives a code of conduct strength. That is the Crime and Misconduct Commission. I know some people who work there and they have provided some assistance to me. The Crime and Misconduct Commission exists in Queensland and it can examine the conduct of politicians and it provides the legislative instrument by which penalties can be brought against politicians. We do not have a Crime and Misconduct Commission in the Northern Territory so why would you not legislate? It is a logical argument.
In New South Wales, there is the ICAC, the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I cannot remember the history now that I come to think about it, but it also considers the conduct of politicians. There are procedures in place that ensure that a code of conduct is not a Clayton’s code of conduct, that it becomes fair dinkum, because if someone can breach a code of conduct, then it is possible for ICAC to investigate a member of parliament’s behaviour and dealings.
We do not have an ICAC in the Northern Territory. We do not have things in the Territory like an integrity commission, for instance. Maybe we should have one. I am increasingly of the view that we should. Where Queensland and New South Wales have codes of conduct without legislative strength, there are other mechanisms to ensure the contents of the code of conduct are adhered to by members of parliament. That is a very important difference. For anyone to suggest that there is no other legislation in this country, that is wrong; there is some in Victoria, and I think the ACT, from memory, as well.
That is probably as far as I can take it. I sum up by saying this: it is certainly somewhat ironic that, as a result of the member for Sanderson’s conduct, that we, the opposition, by this motion and the previous introduction of the bill, are seeking to implement Labor Party policy. The irony is not lost on me, and I am sure it is not lost on others. However, that is life. Of course, when you see the arrogance and the intransigence of this Chief Minister and her colleagues, then I suppose it is fairly predictable that we in opposition would do what this government promised the people of the Northern Territory and, indeed, promised them sometime ago.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the government’s support of the motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it will come as no surprise to the Leader of the Opposition that we will not be supporting this motion. I say up-front to the Leader of the Opposition that, in terms of General Business Day when notices of motions are given, and when legislation is introduced for second reading, we take the business that is put before this House by the opposition and the Independents very seriously.
Mr Mills: Oh, really?
Mr HENDERSON: No, I am paying compliment, I suppose, to the way we do take this seriously. The motions and legislation go through a full Cabinet process. Ministers have to take responsibility for the bills and the motions which they have carriage of, and consider those in a professional way to see if there is merit to the legislation that is being proposed, or the motion that is coming before the parliament. Ministers report to Cabinet as to whether we should be accepting that legislation or the motion.
In regard to this code of conduct for ministers and members and the legislation that received its second reading here this evening, as Leader of Government Business, I have sought to obtain some preliminary advice as to the constitutionality and legality of what is being proposed by the opposition. When you are talking about the potential for members of this House, by dint of processes and procedures of this parliament, potentially losing their seats, then there are obviously constitutional issues that come into play. Certainly, my first reading of this code yesterday, when it was tabled in the parliament, and can I say that I have had absolutely no legal training at all, my only legal background has been what I have picked up around the Cabinet table and in my role as minister.
In reading the code regarding enforcement, failure to comply, and default, it certainly looked a bit dodgy to me regarding whether this was legal or constitutional - whether this parliament actually has the powers to do what is suggested within this particular code of conduct. I have sought preliminary legal advice on the code. Of course, we now have the legislation we will get formal advice on. The legal advice that I have says that, particularly the enforcement provisions, which is the ultimate sanctions that underpin this code - that if you transgress against the code, you are found guilty in the committee; the parliament upholds the committee report and imposes a fine; and, if you do not pay that fine within a defined period, you lose your seat - that the enforcement provisions of the proposed code would not survive legal challenge. It is just unenforceable. Essentially, if the enforcement provisions cannot be met then, obviously, the code is not worth the paper it is written on.
I will go through some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, who is a trained and qualified lawyer, regarding the interest that she personally and professionally takes as a result of her professional qualifications. She said she goes through legislation thoroughly; it is a personal interest of hers. She has a particular interest in statutory drafting. Well, good luck, I love the footy. However, the Leader of the Opposition is interested in statutory drafting and she has a very specific interest in the legislation and how it works. She talked about the introductory new members’ kit that was provided by former Speaker McCarthy and what was in that in regards to our current standing orders. Given all of that specific interest that the Leader of the Opposition has, and the politics that has been played over the last few weeks in regard to codes of conduct, I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have at least ensured that what she was proposing is (a) constitutional, and (b) legal. The advice I have is that it is not.
Specifically, I asked for advice on the validity of clause 2.2 of the proposed code which goes to default of payments of a fine. I will read from the code:
- In default of the payment of any fine imposed on a member within the time set by the parliament the seat of the minister or member shall become vacant.
- The question is whether such a provision is inconsistent with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 … The provision is inconsistent with the Self-Government Act and 2.2 could not validly operate to deprive a member of his or her office.
Therefore, it is inconsistent with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act and it could not operate ...
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I point out that the minister is reading from a draft of the document. He should be reading what was tabled this moment. Otherwise, he is reading the wrong document into the record. I suggest that he reads the right document.
Mr HENDERSON: I have the thing that was tabled. This was tabled in parliament yesterday. This was tabled …
Members interjecting.
Mr Stirling: If you have a revised version, circulate it. Are you misleading the House?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, when introducing this, did mention it was changed. The minister is now reading from an old document that has been superseded by what has just been tabled.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, members!
Dr LIM: If I can explain again. This was tabled just a short while ago.
Mr Henderson: And this was tabled yesterday.
Dr LIM: The Leader of the Opposition drew attention that this is the current document she mentioned. The error that was contained in the previous document was tabled yesterday, and said that this is the current document. If the minister proposes to read out of this document for the record, then he should read from the correct one, not the incorrect one.
Madam SPEAKER: If you could just pause, minister. Please resume your seat. I will ask the Clerk for some advice.
There is no point of order. Having discussed it with the Clerk, the Leader of Government Business has every right to continue to discuss the motion using the tabled document as it was yesterday. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make a personal explanation at a later stage regarding the document she tabled this evening she may do so. Given that the Leader of the Government Business was working on a document which was tabled yesterday, and which he could not possibly have known there were going to be changes before he started speaking, he may continue speaking as he wishes now.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, if I may, at the outset I moved two motions. You said in respect of the second one that was the one that I did not need to seek leave for. That was the one …
Madam SPEAKER: That is because you are the Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In any event, I sought leave to table the Northern Territory code of conduct for ministers. In doing so, this is what I said, this was the document …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please …
Ms CARNEY: I advised …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition …
Ms CARNEY: … I advised that it had been amended.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, when I am speaking, I do not wish you to speak.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You will remain silent for the moment, please. The minister may continue speaking. He can speak on the document which was tabled yesterday, which is the one which government members and all other members are aware of. If you wish to, you can make a personal explanation later, after you have come to seek permission from me to do so. I do not wish to hear any more.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We take the processes of this parliament seriously and consider on merit the motions of the opposition legislation that was tabled. Notice was given and the Notice Paper states, and this is what the business of the House is now, the motion that we are currently debating is: That the Assembly rescind the optional and non-legislative code of conduct for members dated 31 May 2004, and adopt a comprehensive Northern Territory code of conduct for ministers and members in the terms circulated to members. As circulated when this motion was given notice yesterday.
This code that I have here does not say ‘draft’ anywhere on it. There is no reference to this being a draft code. It says ‘Northern Territory code of conduct for ministers and members proposed by the Country Liberal Party, August 2006’.
If the Leader of the Opposition is actually going to bring business before this House for government to consider, then she has to do it with a degree of accuracy rather than putting slapdash proposals before the House for consideration and expecting us to take it seriously when there are going to be such significant amendments on the run of which no notice was given to us whatsoever.
This goes to the diligence of the Leader of the Opposition, her capacity to do the detailed work that the electorate would expect of a potential future Chief Minister. The business that the opposition brings before this House should be accurate and it should reflect the policy position that they are bringing, and not have significant amendments thrown on the table two minutes before debate is about to ensue.
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Given that the Leader of the Opposition has stated that how thorough she is, how well prepared she is, how she works with such diligence, that this was a significant piece of work that has obviously been worked over for quite a period of time. With the media that the opposition did yesterday on this proposal, the key sanction was that if you failed to comply with the code and you did not pay the fine, you shall lose your seat. That was the public position of the opposition yesterday, just yesterday.
It was the media that they did on this issue yesterday, and it was the detail of the code that was circulated to members yesterday. We picked this up very quickly and thought: ‘This is a bit dodgy’. Even Hendo, who isn’t a lawyer - a second-rate suburban lawyer would have picked this up. Even Hendo picked it up and he is not a lawyer. I thought that this looked very dodgy and was not constitutional, and not legal, and sought advice.
I went out yesterday and said that this was dangerous. It was reckless. The Chief Minister has gone out and said the same thing. What has happened is that the Leader of the Opposition has said: ‘Crikey, I might be in a bit of trouble here. I had better get some accurate legal advice because my own understanding of the law is not that strong in this area. I had better get some legal advice’ and then she’s gone: ‘Whoops! Can’t do that. I have made a big blue here. I am not as smart as I thought I am. I am not as smart as I thought as I thought I was and I have made a big blue here. I am going to try to sneak in a change in the debate and they will not pick up on it’.
We take our role seriously in this House. All the Opposition Leader is about is political stunts, political grandstanding, too lazy to do the detailed work. When she gets caught out, she does not admit that she has been caught out. The Leader of the Opposition has been speaking to this motion, speaking to the code. If she had any ounce of integrity, any ounce of professional integrity, a single skerrick of professional integrity, she would have pointed out the change. She would have stood up and said: ‘In respect of …’
Ms Carney: As I did, as I did!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition!
Mr HENDERSON: No, you did not, Leader of the Opposition. You did not. You certainly did not. You did not stand here and say: ‘In respect to the key sanction that underpins this code that was circulated yesterday to members that you shall lose your seat if you do not pay the fine, I have taken legal advice overnight. It is unconstitutional. It could not be enacted. It would not stand legal challenge. I will change that provision’. She did not come in and say: ‘Here is the new document and here is the new code’.
She has no integrity whatsoever. No integrity, not a shadow, Madam Speaker. She is so shallow in terms of political opportunism, trying to capitalise on a mistake, and a bad mistake that was made by my colleague, the member for Sanderson, for which he has paid a high price. She has come in over the top, trying to be, in her sanctimonious way, holier-than-thou and ‘I will implement this code and ensure people stand up to it’. The key sanction that was aimed at targeting my colleague, the member for Sanderson, was that: ‘He would lose his seat if I was ever Chief Minister. I would implement this code. That man would lose his seat and this is the new standard I would bring to the parliament’.
That is what the previous month of public debate has been all about. This is what this motion was about. This is what the code was about. When we pointed out yesterday that it was dangerous and possibly could not be enforced, she has taken advice overnight and found out that her own great legal skills have been found somewhat wanting in this regard, and she cannot do what she was proposing to do.
This has all been about targeting the member for Sanderson. It has had absolutely nothing about conduct and ethics. It has been a political game. The Leader of the Opposition has been totally exposed as a person who has absolutely no integrity. She cannot stand up straight in this parliament and say: ‘I made a mistake. I have made a significant error in the code that was circulated yesterday. I bring to the attention of honourable members the error that has been made. It has been rectified, but the principles remain the same, except for the key sanction that was in that code, which was “a member shall lose his seat”.’
Mr Kiely: Let’s hear your apology.
Ms Carney: I would not say too much if I were you, sport!
Mr HENDERSON: She has been caught out and for somebody who is supposed to be a trained lawyer, well, I do not know what sort of lawyer she was.
Mr Kiely: Where is your apology?
Ms Carney: Oh, I beg your pardon, you grub.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to retract that statement. She called me a grub.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: I did, Madam Speaker, and I withdraw it.
Mr Kiely: So, where is your apology?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, cease interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, what we have here is political opportunism of the worst kind by the Leader of the Opposition, cynicism of the worst kind in attempting to portray herself and her party as holier than thou in dealing with issues and events that happened a few weeks ago. This is all being aimed at trying to say that if she was ever Chief Minister and a member behaved in such a way, she would have the power to introduce legislation for a code that would ensure a member in similar circumstances would lose their seat. She has found out overnight that this House does not have the power to effect that sanction.
I will read further from the advice that I have, that if the Leader of the Opposition had done her homework instead of relying on her own flawed legal capacity, she would have found that not only does the code as circulated yesterday contravene the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, it also goes to the powers of the Parliamentary Privileges Act of the Commonwealth in 1987. I will read from the legislation that I have.
Section 12 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act states:
- The power of the Legislative Assembly conferred by section 6 in relation to the making of laws extends to the making of laws:
The advice I have is that:
The proposed provision …
which is ‘the member shall vacate their seat’,
- … would exceed the powers of the House of Representatives both as to the extent of the fine and as to the office of the member becoming vacant.
This is because under the Parliamentary Privileges Act, an act of the Commonwealth parliament, section 7(5) provides:
- A House may impose upon on a person a fine, (a) not exceeding $5000 in the case of an actual person.
Advice: a fine of 50% of base salary far exceeds this amount and would be in conflict with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act.
The Leader of the Opposition’s act said we could fine you up to half of a member’s or a minister’s salary. Again, this parliament does not have the powers to pass such legislation or a code, because we cannot exceed the federal parliament under the Parliamentary Privileges Act, and the federal parliament can only impose a fine of $5000.
So, her code is unconstitutional in regards to a member having to vacate their seat. We cannot impose a fine exceeding $5000. When we go to further advice that I have, there is a more fundamental problem, however:
- I have already observed that the privileges and powers of the Legislative Assembly cannot exceed those of the House of Representatives. The Houses of federal parliament can only punish offences against the House and offences against the House require essential elements. Section 4 of the Privileges Act provides:
Essential elements to offences.
- Conduct (including the use of words) does not constitute an offence against a House unless it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or a committee of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member’s duty as a member.
That is the definition of conduct.
- The proposed code deals with conduct that does not have these essential elements.
So, the code is flawed because it does not have these essential elements.
- It extends to conduct affecting non-members and presumably conduct in private. The power to punish for conduct beyond the essential elements in section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act exceeds the powers and privileges of the House of Representatives and is beyond the legislative capacity of the Assembly.
I do not know what other changes the Leader of the Opposition has made in here, but this is all targeted at the member for Sanderson in regard to what occurred at the cricket. The legal advice here says that we do not have the power, as a Legislative Assembly, to enforce a code with those provisions in it.
Therefore, on three counts the Leader of the Opposition has brought a code into this parliament to be underpinned by legislation that is unconstitutional and that this House does not have the legislative capacity to enforce. For the Leader of the Opposition to try to sneak a last-minute change in, which probably only goes to one of the three areas where the code is flawed and cannot be enforced, is testament to her credibility as a potential Chief Minister such that the people of the Northern Territory could not have any confidence in her whatsoever.
The Leader of the Opposition is shallow. She is politically opportunistic. She does not do her work with any degree of diligence whatsoever. The political opportunism that she has advanced over the last few weeks in the pursuit of the member for Sanderson has ended up in the House here tonight with a code that this parliament does not have the capacity, under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, to legislate and enforce.
Extraordinarily sadly for this parliament, the Leader of the Opposition has tried this evening to mislead this parliament in consideration of a fundamental proposal that she is seeking by the due process of this parliament to implement into law here in the Northern Territory. It has been an outrageous example of contempt for this House, for the processes of this House, for the scrutiny of legislation, which were all due to one grubby political motive: to continue to chase the member for Sanderson.
Madam Speaker, I wish to formally table the legal advice that I have from the Solicitor-General. This debate has further to go as we consider this new so-called Mickey Mouse code that seeks to establish a kangaroo court here in this parliament. It has been an absolute travesty of process and a contempt for this parliament by the Leader of the Opposition. The government will not be supporting this motion and there will be more debate to come on this particular issue.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thought long and hard whether I would contribute to this debate. As people know, I did not contribute to the censure motion of the member for Sanderson yesterday. I decided that the best approach was to ring personally and tell him what I thought of him, and also inform him that if I had been the 60-odd-year-old person I probably would have snotted him there and then if he had said that to me. My way of dealing with him was to do that. This is a knee-jerk reaction by the Leader of the Opposition to this particular situation.
In saying that, I spent considerable time going through the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I feel fairly frustrated at the moment that most things I was going to say now probably do not need to be said because they have been abolished by this new paper that is on the table.
I was a member of the Standing Orders Committee which introduced this code of conduct - at the beginning of the last term. I know the members for Blain and Greatorex were on the Standing Orders Committee at the time. We spent a lot of time looking at codes of conduct from different states. We even looked at the code from New Zealand. We amended, changed, discussed, debated - it was quite a lengthy process before we finally got to a document that we all agreed with. It was with the consensus of all members of that particular Standing Orders Committee.
I was prompted when I was re-elected to also make sure we had a code of conduct. Members who were present in the parliament at that time might remember that I had been verbally abused by the member for Greatorex. If you can recall the tacky attack he made on me:
- A Territory CLP minister, who suggested a former colleague had started taking hormone replacement therapy has been branded ‘ageist and tacky’. Central Australian minister, Dr Richard Lim, directed his comments to new independent MLA, Loraine Braham, in parliament last week.
- Dr Lim said: ‘She has suddenly discovered this new-found vigour. I wonder what she is taking. Perhaps she has just discovered hormonal replacement therapy at this late stage’.
To give him his due, the Chief Minister, Denis Burke, said that he should apologise and that he thought his words were most inappropriate. Dr Lim also received a lot of criticism from people in the electorate.
Is it any wonder that I felt we needed a code of conduct? When people do things like that within this parliament, as far as I am concerned it is up to the parliament to censure that particular member. What the member for Sanderson did outside I believe it is up to the party to make sure they censure him and do what they need to do. It is a party matter now and a government matter.
Yesterday, I was concerned with the tone of this parliament. I am not trying to be self-righteous; I know at times I have been rather boisterous in this parliament. However, I thought the way the Leader of the Opposition attacked the censure motion and some of her remarks and interjections were most unparliamentary. I am not making any comment about you, Madam Speaker; please do not take this personally. I am talking about the tone and the way things have slipped in the last day or so.
I am referring to the fact that people are calling each other by their Christian name across the floor. We all know that is not on but you are all doing it. I have heard it probably six or seven times as you have too, Madam Speaker. I am referring to the fact that many of you walk out the door and you do not make obeisance to the Speaker. You just walk out and do not acknowledge that she is there. You use colloquialisms - and if I used them I would be accused of using unparliamentary language. You have heard the type of colloquialisms that have been thrown around here in asides or interjections, or even in speeches. The Leader of the Opposition has even responded to you, Madam Speaker, sitting in her chair when we all know in this parliament you stand on your feet to speak, particularly when the Speaker asks you to.
I am saying that as parliamentarians we should look at ourselves and our code of conduct and the behaviour within this House. I believe the Leader of the Opposition needs to have a good look at her behaviour and her language and the way she is behaving in the House. I do not believe she is showing you the respect she should, Madam Speaker. I do not think she is showing this Chamber the respect we should have.
I do not want to sound like a teacher or a school ma’am, and you are probably going to say I am, but let’s face it, how are we going to say to those people out there in the electorate that we are worthy to be the government of them, to make the laws for them, if we behave in this way? It is incumbent on all of us to take a big, deep breath now before this parliament degenerates into a slanging match over the next few days and make sure we become professional, make sure we become parliamentary, make sure we remember the standing orders, and we treat each other with respect.
This is not a battle ground for personal attacks. We all get hurt when we are attacked personally. This is the battle ground for political debate and that is what we should be doing.
I am saying to all of you and myself as well, because I know at times I interrupt Madam Speaker and you have called me to order on numerous occasions. I sometimes do it for fun because I sometimes get a little bored sitting here listening to the debate so I like to throw in something for a bit of humour. A bit of humour is fine. We all like to laugh but the viciousness of some of the personal attacks really worries me and that is what we should be talking about tonight. We need to gain back that respect from the voters out there in the community. If they were in here yesterday, what would they have thought about the debate that went on in this Chamber?
Madam Speaker, obviously I will not be supporting this motion. I find it incredible that a paper has been tabled and been changed overnight. I wonder whether Peter Murphy had something to do with it. I heard him on the ABC making comments on what he thought of the paper, and he was not overly impressed. Perhaps some advice was taken from an ex-CLP advisor, a man with a head on his shoulders for seeing things the right way.
We do have a code of conduct. Government can get on with the job and legislate, but we should not need it, Madam Speaker. We are all big people now. We are all intelligent people. We are all voted in to do a job. We should be doing it with dignity and in such a way that people in the community respect us and like us for it.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in almost 16 years in this Assembly I have never seen the likes of this where the opposition - ourselves included in all those years - have produced a document, given that this parliament allows plenty of time for the work of General Business Day in order to work up and prepare tabling papers and information put before the parliament, so there was plenty of time to get this right, that is the first thing. For the Leader of the Opposition, only brought to our attention by the member for Greatorex - dill that he is, he did not realise the damage he was doing by drawing the Leader of the Government Business’ attention to it - we were actually dealing with a fraudulent document.
The document that was tabled yesterday and the document that was supposed to be debated before parliament today are different. No one brought that to the attention of the House, including the Leader of the Opposition whose own motion it was. It is disgracefully unprofessional in the first instance, fraudulent at its worst, and probably misleading in the middle is the best description that should apply to that sort of behaviour.
Nonetheless, it is good. I always learn things. I have had 16 years in here and I am still learning things and still seeing different things that people can do, disgraceful as they are.
I want to refer to page 7 of 12 in this description of:
- Personal intimate relationships between ministers and executive staff in the departments and agencies for which they have direct responsibility are prohibited and must be declared.
Personal intimate relationships: I imagine it would be a bit hard to be intimate without being personal as well, Madam Speaker, so I am not too sure about that. In the first case, they are prohibited and, equally, they must be declared. Here is a superb little irony:
- Ministers will inform the Chief Minister, or in the case of the Chief Minister, Cabinet, of any intimate relationship with a member of the departmental executive staff.
This is extraordinary. So the minister has to go along to the Chief Minister:
- Excuse me, Chief Minister, I have been in an intimate relationship with the chief executive of my department. What do you think we should do?
Well let’s have a look at the Clerk’s Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I would maintain every minister in every government is guilty of an intimate relationship with their chief executive:
- (a) inner most; most inward; deep seated; hence essential; intrinsic; now chiefly in scientific use; pertaining to the inner most thoughts or feelings; close in acquaintance or association; characterised by familiarity; very familiar; pertaining to or dealing with such close personal relationships.
I would imagine every minister under the Crown in every government would have that type of relationship with their chief executive. They deal with highly sensitive things on a daily basis. They deal with all manner of information between them. Of course, there is an intimacy in an effective working relationship between a chief executive and the minister responsible for that department.
- (b) euphemism of illicit sexual intercourse.
On the one hand it is prohibited, but it must be declared. That is an interesting one. We should put that before the criminal world: if you are going to do bad things, you have to declare it. You have to go and tell the police if you are going to break into things, if you are going to drive drunk, because that is the way it works. That is the way it works, according to the Leader of the Opposition. If you are going to do something prohibited, you have to declare it. There is the answer to all of our problems. Do away with the police force because we are going to make them all declare it! What an absolute nonsense, what an absolute nonsense.
It goes on:
- (d) of knowledge or acquaintance; close; of a relationship between things; very close.
I am no lawyer either, but I was a bit worried when I saw this document yesterday, and probably even more worried the more I read it, but this Leader of the Opposition claims to be a lawyer and comes in with this half-baked claptrap, and then doctors the document, puts a fraudulent document before us for debate, adopted from the document that was circulated yesterday. I want to refer to the last page, where it says:
- Domestic partner means the person who lives with the person in a domestic partnership, and includes a spouse (a ‘domestic partnership’ means the relationship between two people, regardless of gender, living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis).
I do not have any problem with that. However, I wonder if that was put past the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister had a little look at that, because he might have a difficulty with this. The federal Liberal Party could well have, and the Prime Minister I refer to, could well have a difficulty with a parliamentary code of conduct referring to ‘a domestic partner regardless of gender’. We all know the Prime Minister’s views on this, and I doubt that the CLP put this past their federal masters before they brought it in here. I tell you: the Prime Minister would have that little paragraph out in a twinkling.
This is an absolute nonsense. It is a fraudulent document compared to what was put in here yesterday. It shows the lazy, sloppy attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and her staff to allow her to be exposed to trying to manipulate and mislead the House in this fashion. We certainly would not be supporting such utter claptrap.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few things on the code of conduct. I announced on radio yesterday, and I think people knew, that I would oppose the first draft of the code of conduct that was put before us. I am disappointed, after spending some time on a fairly busy day with other legislation, to come across another bit of legislation that completely wiped out all the arguments I was going to put opposing the code of conduct. Perhaps someone was listening to my comments last night, I am not sure, I did not hear the radio this morning. I certainly did a broadcast last night, and the two areas I was concerned about in the first code was the right to sack someone from this parliament. I believe that is the right of the constituents.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: It is a fundamental right.
The second one is I felt the idea that one could have a review board which would be made up of the majority of the governing members of parliament - who would then pass judgment on a person, take you back to parliament for a ballot where, naturally, they would win that ballot because otherwise, in the case of the Labor Party, they would be out of the party - could easily be abused for political reasons.
I kept thinking to myself: what would happen if someone did not like me and I had not done the firebreaks in time, the dog was not registered, or I drove the trailer to the tip without the brake lights working, and they found that out. If they already felt that they wanted to have a go, they would say that was not the sort of thing a parliamentarian should be doing – not showing a good example to the community. I could possibly get fined. And if I did not pay the fine, my seat could become vacant. I just think that might be an over the top story about how it could be done. However, I have been around long enough to know there are people in politics who believe politics is the be-all and end-all, and will find any method possible to win. That clause in the original code would certainly leave it wide open for abuse.
It was on those two grounds that I felt I could not support this code of conduct.
I am not opposed to a code of conduct. I believe once you make the distinction between code of behaviour - that is personal behaviour - and code of conduct as a legal definition in the manner in which you deal with money and your position as a parliamentarian or a minister, that that certainly should be written down and people should have to conform to that code of conduct.
Codes of behaviour are difficult. I am not saying that one should not attempt to put something in, but codes of behaviour can be subjective. Some people might not get upset at all by someone’s particular mannerisms or what they say, and other people might be quite offended by it. It is a subjective thing.
In the end, people who elected me or any of you people here, will make that judgment as to whether they think what you have done has reflected poorly on this parliament, and they will not vote for you if they think you have done the wrong thing. That is a clear indication and method of making sure that members do maintain good behaviour. As well as that, we have the press, as the member for Sanderson would know; he has received a lot of publicity. People might think ‘Well, so what?’, but I imagine that is fairly embarrassing to him and to his family. He is not the only one. The press can certainly bite. The pen is mightier than sword is probably a pretty fair thing when it comes to these matters. We do have other ways in which people have checks and balances on them for stepping over the line.
I was not against the proposal coming forward as a means of asking the government to look at where its legislation is, and to hurry it along. If that is something good that has come out of today, I say that is okay. However, I find it very disappointing, having spent the time going through the original code, that there is no way I can support this one, for the simple reason that I have not given it a decent read. I would be regarded as a pretty silly member of parliament if I decided I supported something that I had not had time to read and analyse. On those grounds, I cannot support the motion.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker …
Mr Bonson: Come in, spinner!
Ms CARNEY: … what a very interesting debate it has been. The expression - and it is a great Australian expression, come in, spinner - works every time.
Yesterday, we had the Attorney-General proposing an amendment to legislation which he conceded - I think if I heard him correctly - was wrong and he needed to change it. When we come into this parliament - and the Attorney-General is a very good example - we deal with legislation. There have been numerous occasions - too many to mention - where we come into the Chamber and, if we are lucky - if I am very lucky - I might get an amendment or series of amendments under the door just before 10 am. If I am a little lucky, I will get some amendments tabled. As a parliamentarian, you look at the amendments and you take it from there.
I made reference yesterday to a hearing aid, to which the member for Goyder seemed to take great exception. I remind members that, at the outset - and I do not know whether the member for Nhulunbuy was here then …
Mr Stirling: I wish we all had hearing aids; we would turn them off.
Ms CARNEY: … ‘Nearly fraudulent’, he said, ‘Nearly fraudulent’. I do not think so. Let me remind members what I said:
- Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the Northern Territory code of conduct for ministers and members and, in doing so I advise that section 2 …
Mr Stirling: Say what you like, you do not have any credibility.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: I can yell, too, sport.
- … section 2 has been amended to reflect the non-compliance penalties with the enforcement legislation. The Legislative Assembly Code of Conduct Bill and the revised code will be circulated to all honourable members.
In fact, there were several changes in the bill. You fools, there were several changes in the bill …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw that, please.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw ‘fools’, Madam Speaker. I will say to members opposite that it is a sign of your arrogance and it is a sign of the collective lethargy in your government, divided though you are …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: We even made it look different, and you still did not pick it up. My God, you people are paid well for your jobs and you did not even notice? Notwithstanding, then I said and I might even read it again for the benefit of members: ‘Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the Northern Territory code of conduct for ministers and members and in so doing I advise that section 2 has been amended to reflect the non-compliance penalties within the enforcement legislation. The Legislative Assembly Code of Conduct Bill and the revised code will be circulated to all honourable members’.
So there is in addition to collective lethargy and arrogance, and that is I think what has emerged through at times what has been a surprisingly vitriolic debate, particularly from the member for Nhulunbuy who I note with interest spent a lot of time on the part of the code dealing with intimate relationships with CEOs but it was particularly instructive. It shows the sensitivities of members opposite. Not only are they unable to listen, let alone read, but it shows their sensitivity. Why are they sensitive? Well, it is blindingly obvious. Let us go back to the core issue: one of their members disgraced himself. As I said in yesterday’s motion, I quoted the bit from the Northern Territory News where the NT News went around trying to hear from politicians. Usually these people like to throw themselves in the front of the media at every opportunity. No-one returned the call. Why did they not return the call? Because they were embarrassed and ashamed.
Then you heard the Chief Minister fluffing about in the way that she did …
Mr Warren interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. … fluffing about today saying the crimes are bizarre. She did not even know that it already exists. She seemed to take exception to the fact that politicians could be gaoled. She did not even know it already exists. For the Leader of Government Business to strut his stuff with his one shot in the locker, his one shot in the locker and he even got that wrong. Had it not been for the member for Greatorex who said: ‘You are looking at the wrong one’, he would have kept batting on. I was watching it in the lobby and I thought: ‘I wonder if he is joking’. I thought the Leader of Government Business was having a lend of us. But no, he was serious notwithstanding that an amended code of conduct was provided to him, that I said it was an amended code of conduct. We even made it look different so you might even notice, but no. That seemed to escape the collective attention of members opposite.
So we have had the Chief Minister fluffing about, clearly not having any idea about the legislation that exists in the Northern Territory. We have had the Leader of Government Business doing his one shot in the locker and that failed because he was not even talking about the right document.
We come in here day after day when we sit and motions are changed, bills are changed and in fact, legislation is changed. There were several changes in the bill. I think one of the names of the committee was changed as well. In any event, government did not notice those changes and I think there was a reference by someone – I cannot remember who – that this was a hastily cobbled together document. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in conjunction with Parliamentary Counsel, we have been working on this for some time. Of course, the motion although for the sake of the Notice Paper is read in isolation from the bill which I had introduced previously, the fact is the code of conduct needs legislative enforcement and it is the legislation which is the most important aspect of this.
I defy members opposite to come up with any reasons why the legislation is deficient in any way. It was very interesting and very telling that the Leader of Government Business in his 30 minute tirade and diatribe did not come up with one good reason as to why he would not follow through with a Labor Party election promise for a code of conduct with legislative strength as outlined by him in this Chamber before and indeed articulated by the member for Arafura.
Is it our problem that they read the wrong one? I do not think so. Is it our fault that the Chief Minister does not even know about various legislation and legislative provisions in the Northern Territory? I do not think so. Is it Territorians’ fault that the member for Sanderson still has his seat in parliament? I do not think so. Was it the woman’s fault at the cricket that the member for Sanderson spoke to her in the way that he did? I do not think so.
For the Chief Minister to describe the code, its contents and, more importantly, the legislation as ‘bizarre’ really does say it all in terms of this incredibly lazy, arrogant government. The practising Chief Minister, the member for Wanguri and Leader of Government Business, has not won any friends tonight because his colleagues must surely be wondering: ‘Gee, I wonder why he did not listen when the Opposition Leader got up and moved two motions.’ They did not even object, so I wonder whether his little friends - I know they are divided - are thinking: ‘Gee whiz. He might not have been right for the job but, then again, he might be a bit better than the Chief Minister because she should know all about the legislation in the Northern Territory, and she does not.’
It is too cute by half and really quite amusing to see the government flapping about as they all are, very excitable. They think: ‘Oh, yes, we have them now; we have them now.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. What speaks most tellingly of the pretty ordinary contribution by the Leader of Government Business is that at no point did he go back to the core issue, and that is: what is his objection to a code of conduct? What is his objection to it having legislative strength? Why didn’t members opposite follow through with this election promise? I suppose it is like all of the others. They think: ‘Well, we are in government now. We do not need to do it.’ That arrogance will get the better of you, government members. There is no doubt about that.
Electors are very sensible and I certainly imagine that the electors in the seat of Sanderson will be casting their votes very carefully. Word is out that people on the fifth floor are already looking around for someone to go against the member for Sanderson at his pre-selection. There is also, while I am onto it, another rumour going round, apparently well-sourced, it has come to me second or third hand, that the Leader of Government Business and the member for Karama have done a deal, and that is when they get the numbers for the Chief Minister, which could be any day now, as a matter of fact …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … not winning any friends, Madam Speaker. The deal is that the Leader of Government Business has done a deal with the member for Karama and she will be the deputy and the Leader of Government Business will be the leader.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, government members!
Ms CARNEY: What a rabble they are, Madam Speaker. They used to be people of substance. They used to be …
Mr Stirling: Extraordinarily brave or stupid; I think it is the latter.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I think I heard the word ‘stupid’. I ask that he withdraw that word.
Mr Stirling: Stupid or brave; take your pick.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, just withdraw, please.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw.
Ms CARNEY: We should have, I say somewhat lightly, Madam Speaker, included and perhaps as a parliament, we can include a special provision for the Deputy Chief Minister. I will not go into detail too much about the outrageous conduct in the parliament. He is a man who used to feel things passionately. He was a man, I thought, who used to be of the view that a code of conduct was required for members of parliament. He used to be of view that any such code of conduct, like it exists in other jurisdictions, should have some legislative strength.
The government’s one shot in the locker has failed in an incredibly embarrassing way. It has been a pretty shocking two months for the government. We have had the member for Millner’s memo. We have had the reported leaking of it by the member for Macdonnell. We have had the member for Sanderson. We have had the Chief Minister hammered all around the country for what is her appalling performance in the portfolio of Indigenous Affairs. We have the Leader of Government Business, even though he has trouble with reading and listening, breathing down her neck, padding down a deal with the member for Karama. Why anyone would do that is beyond me, but apparently he has. Most importantly of all, the Leader of Government Business did not even have the courage to say that we should not have a code of conduct, did not even have the courage to comment on the legislation.
Madam Speaker, it has been a particularly enjoyable couple of months for the opposition. We always enjoy what we do; the last couple of months have been especially enjoyable. I look forward to us all getting together to discuss the legislative provision that would give strength to a code of conduct in three months’ time. I await with great interest as to whether the Leader of Government Business actually bothers to read it and get advice. He obviously needs advice, because he is unable to come up with things all by himself. I look forward to the debate and it will remind us all of the appalling conduct demonstrated by the member for Sanderson. I look forward to the continuing debate.
With those comments, I am not sure that I can take it any further, but I conclude by saying that it is a salutary lesson for members of the Assembly to listen when someone introduces legislation or motions. It is a salutary reminder that, when you get amendments, as you do in the Chamber, we in opposition get amendments all the time - and you know the difference between us? We read them, we have a look. We have a look, and we get the old one and the new one, and then line them up and go through line by line, often flying by the seat of our pants and we think, gee, there is a different one there, and then we act accordingly. We are not wound up by the staff on the fifth floor, who just say a couple of days ago: ‘Here are your lines, off you go’, as the Leader of Government Business did. I just had to have a chuckle and I will continue to chuckle for the rest of the week.
Madam Speaker, nothing of substance, we only see a demonstration of arrogance. We see lethargy and certainly we see, and Territorians see, divisions in the Labor ranks. Bring on the next election, Madam Speaker, and we look forward to running a candidate in Sanderson, and no doubt the people of Sanderson will remember the antics of the member for Sanderson. They will also remember the inaction of the Chief Minister. Again, I refer to the member for Millner’s memo. I think the undercurrent of that was her inaction, not to mention her incompetence. We look forward to the next election when Territorians, amongst so many other things, will be thinking: ‘Wasn’t it Labor who promised a code of conduct, wasn’t it Labor who promised to introduce one and give it the legislative strength it needs?’
Why is the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party, in government, so scared of a code of conduct? I wonder why that is? I think it has something to do with all of the members. It certainly has a lot to do with the numbers and, no doubt, it is very difficult for the Chief Minister to control so many people. It is obviously difficult to control the member for Sanderson and the member for Millner and his indigenous colleagues on his side of the House. Well, bring it on.
This motion will be remembered as the motion where government members, despite all of their resources, all of their arrogance, did not even bother to read it. The Leader of Government Business, as he usually does, has continued to portray himself as an arrogant chap who does not want anything except the job of Chief Minister. I wish him well in those endeavours. I share with him his enthusiasm in his quest for that job but, obviously, things are going pretty badly for the Chief Minister, who I note has not contributed to the debate in any way, shape or form except to say, publicly, it is all bizarre.
Madam Speaker, in relation to fines that already exist, she said it was bizarre. Apparently she said it was bizarre for people to go to gaol. It already exists. Most importantly of all, no-one, the Leader of Government Business, the pretend Chief Minister, the real Chief Minister, or the Deputy Chief Minister, not one of them has made any significant argument as to why it is that the Australian Labor Party Northern Territory Branch has reneged on its promise. We ask: what are you scared of? We think we know and that should lead us fairly neatly, Madam Speaker, into the whistleblowers legislation.
Motion negatived.
WHISTLEBLOWERS BILL
(Serial 47)
(Serial 47)
Continued from 30 March 2006.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I was listening very carefully to the member for Braitling’s contribution to the previous debate. I intend to take her advice on the tone of the next debate to the degree that I can contribute to it.
This debate regards the Whistleblowers Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition on the last General Business Day. It calls attention to the fact that the government has been working on whistleblower legislation. Indeed, it was one of the promises we made to the electorate during the 2001 election. It is legislation that we hold as a very high priority and our intended legislation has gone through quite an exhaustive process of development. We expect it will be introduced before the end of this year.
To set the context of evaluating the opposition bill, I will reiterate the process that the government legislation has gone through to date. I intend, in assessing the contents of the opposition bill, to refer to the government legislation as it stands at the moment by way of comparison. The government legislation has gone through quite a series of steps to date. The Northern Territory Law Reform Commission was commissioned to provide a report on the issues that would be embodied in whistleblowers legislation. We then released a discussion paper for public comment and, under that discussion paper process, undertook extensive consultation with stakeholders through the community. The results of that consultation were then used to prepare a comprehensive draft bill, which was released for public comment.
The government is now in the process of finalising, not so much the bill because the legislation is actually settled now, the actual administrative arrangements to place the legislation within the government. It is simply a case of where is the best home for this legislation within the statutory bodies that we have a choice between – the Information Commissioner or the Ombudsman? We want it to be at arm’s length from government. We want it to be in a place within the government structure that does not place a government agency that is potentially employing the public servants who may be the subject of a whistleblower complaint, so that there would clearly be a conflict of interest if there is not an appropriate home identified for the legislation. We will certainly keep the House informed. In fact, we probably do not need to; we will just simply introduce the legislation at the point we settle these final issues.
As the Leader of Government Business quite rightly outlined, we do take General Business Day items seriously, and there is a very formal process within government to prepare for General Business Days - and this is no exception. We go to our appropriate agencies for advice; we bring that advice forward to Cabinet. Therefore, before a minister responds to a General Business Day item - whether it be a motion or legislation - it has been seriously assessed. I can point to times in the past where we have adopted either the general theme of a General Business Day item or specific suggestions that have come from the opposition or the Independents.
We have heard comments in the past in debates where you say: ‘Oh, yes, the government is re-badging our ideas’, and so on. There is nothing wrong with that. The parliament makes legislation and all 25 of us have a role to play in that. I am trying to assure the opposition and the Independents that this is a serious process. It is one where you do have a genuine opportunity to impact on both the timing and content of law that is made in this House. Whilst the government will always stand on its right to govern, and that is a right mandated by the electorate, we will certainly want to see and assess ideas coming from all 25 members of this House. I have always respected that principle in my work in here.
I would like to now go through, as advised by my agency, the features of the opposition bill. I will say at the outset that we will proceed with our legislation in the form that has been brought together but I would just like to demonstrate that there has been a serious analysis of the bill brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
There are significant deficiencies in the opposition bill, particularly when viewed against the report of the Law Reform Commission and the outcomes of the consultation with Northern Territory stakeholders. The government bill is based on the Victorian model which was recommended by the NTLRC and endorsed by Cabinet as the preferred model. The major deficiencies in the bill before us relate to who public interest disclosures can be made about; the bodies responsible for receiving and investigating disclosures; and the investigation of public interest disclosures. They are the three main themes of the deficiencies that have been identified.
Taking the first one, who public interest disclosures can be made about, under the opposition bill most classes of conduct that may be the subject of a public interest disclosure relate to public officials or agencies - I am referring to clause 5 and clause 7. The definition of a public official under the bill covers employees of agencies and prescribed body corporates. Agency is defined by reference to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act which defines agency as ‘a unit of government administration or office or statutory corporation nominated in an Administrative Arrangement Order as an agency for the purpose of this act’. The Administrative Arrangements Order excludes Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Northern Territory Tourist Commission; and the Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport, Territory Housing; and the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority from the operation of the PSEMA. So clearly, under the definition you have adopted in the bill, there are areas of the government structure that are simply not encompassed by the provisions in the bill.
Under the government bill, all classes of conduct that may be subject of a public interest disclosure relate to public officers and public bodies. I will not worry about the clauses; you will see them when it is introduced. The definition of public officer includes members, officers and employees of public bodies; members of the Legislative Assembly; council members; and statutory office-bearers appointed by the Administrator or a minister. Excluded from the definition are judges and the Master of the Supreme Court; magistrates; the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Auditor-General; the Ombudsman; the Electoral Commissioner; officers of the Assembly; and personal staff to judges, the Master of the Supreme Court or a magistrate.
Public bodies include all agencies under the Administrative Arrangements Order; local government councils; the Police Force; incorporated and unincorporated statutory bodies established for a public purpose; Charles Darwin University; public hospitals; and Territory-funded nursing homes.
The government bill has significantly broader reach than the opposition bill as evidenced by the detail I have just covered. This approach reflects the Victorian model and was supported during the public consultation.
It is noted that in her second reading speech, the Leader of the Opposition made specific reference to the high volume of disclosures that she has personally received from police officers. The opposition bill does not extend to disclosures in relation to police officers, nor does it cover members of the Legislative Assembly; Charles Darwin University; the Tourist Commission; or local government councils. This narrower approach would defeat the overriding objective of promoting open and accountable government.
To the second main theme, the bodies responsible for receiving and investigating disclosures, under the opposition bill any disclosure regarding a public official or agency may be made to the Chief Executive Officer of the agency; the Commissioner of Public Employment; or the Ombudsman, and I am referring to clause 12. The body receiving the disclosure must generally investigate the complaint itself unless it is unable to be impartial or where there is a conflict of interest, in which case the matter must be referred to the Ombudsman or to a Chief Executive Officer. Here I refer to clauses 18 and 19. The Ombudsman must be informed of all disclosures within two weeks of receipt and may take over the investigation on his or her own initiative; here I am referring to clause 20. The circumstances in which an Ombudsman may take over the investigation are not specified.
Under the government bill, the main responsibility for receiving and investigating the disclosure lies with the Ombudsman. At first instance, disclosures may be made to the Ombudsman or a public body if the disclosure is about a public officer of that public body. The only disclosures the Ombudsman is unable to receive are those relating to members of the Legislative Assembly, which must be made to the Speaker. Where a public body makes a decision that a public interest disclosure has been made, or they are unable to make a decision, the matter must be referred to the Ombudsman for review. Where the public body makes a decision that a disclosure is not a public interest disclosure, they must inform the applicant of the right to seek a review of the decision by the Ombudsman. Where the Ombudsman decides that a public interest disclosure has been made, they must conduct an investigation. There is provision for the Ombudsman to refer the disclosure to a public body for investigation where appropriate.
The Northern Territory Law Reform Committee review supports the approach of the government bill, stating that it is noteworthy that with the later acts, the responsibility for dealing with applications falls more frequently on the Ombudsman, for example particularly Tasmania and Victoria, the observable trend being to locate the responsibility for oversighting the operation of the statutory scheme with one independent statutory entity, that entity having the corresponding jurisdiction and expertise, particularly in the investigation process and capable of developing guidelines and procedures for agencies.
To summarise, the opposition bill is considered deficient in relation to bodies responsible for receiving and investigating disclosures because primary responsibility should lie with an independent statutory body, such as the Ombudsman, which has the necessary degree of expertise to develop guidelines and investigate claims. Second, assigning both the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Public Employment a broad-ranging duty to conduct investigations in respect of other bodies would result in duplication of resources in order to establish investigation capacity leading to increased costs and, third, confusion would be likely to result over the most appropriate body to investigate a disclosure and the circumstances in which the Ombudsman may take over an investigation.
Turning to the third main theme that was identified, the investigation of public interest disclosures, there are no provisions under the opposition bill setting down how investigations should be conducted. In contrast, the government bill contains comprehensive provisions in relation to investigations by the Ombudsman, which ensure that notice of investigations are provided to affected parties; the Ombudsman must comply with the rules of natural justice; investigations must be conducted in private; persons appearing at a hearing may have legal representation if the Ombudsman approves; those affected by an adverse report may comment or make submissions prior to the release of the Ombudsman’s report; the Ombudsman may require natural persons to attend hearings where written notice has been provided; the Ombudsman has the power to obtain relevant information by providing written notice and may enter and inspect the premises occupied by a public officer or body; and the Ombudsman may request the secondment of police officers or staff of a public body to assist investigations.
Where the Ombudsman has referred the matter to a public body, the public body must comply with the procedures established by that body under clause 68. Procedures must be formulated in compliance with the act and the Ombudsman’s guidelines.
To summarise, the opposition bill is considered deficient in relation to the conduct of investigations because it fails to set down a comprehensive process for conducting investigations; provide protections for persons against whom disclosures have been made, including the requirement for natural justice which requires the person to whom the matter relates receives notice of the disclosure, and a right of legal representation, and a right to be heard prior to the release of the adverse report; and afford the necessary powers to the proper authority investigating the matter, such as the power to require persons to attend hearings, to obtain information, and to enter and inspect premises.
Analysis of the bill also identified some other less critical areas that were also seen as being deficient. The further areas of concern are as follows: it is unclear whether recommendations following an investigation by the Ombudsman must be taken into account by the relevant body as the opposition bill only establishes a requirement to have regard to reports of the Commissioner for Public Employment. That refers to clause 24.
Penalties do not reflect the seriousness of offences, for example, the penalty for reprisals under the opposition bill is a maximum of 100 penalty points, or $11 000, or 12 months imprisonment for natural persons, or 500 penalty points; $55 000 for bodies corporate. Under the government bill, the maximum penalty is 400 penalty units, or $44 000, or two years imprisonment for natural persons; or 2000 penalty units or $220 000 for bodies corporate. Contrary to the government bill, there are no offences related to providing false or misleading statements or documents intended to refute disclosures, or obstructing officials during investigations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in summary, they are the deficiencies identified in the opposition bill in regard to whistleblower legislation. The Leader of the Opposition can take some compensation in this debate in that we will take this as a very firm reminder that we need to get the whistleblower legislation before this House. We certainly are expediting the process to that end as we speak. It is an election promise. It is one we certainly intend to keep. I can only say that, while it has been some nearly five years since that promise was made to the electorate, we have not been inactive in that period of time, as I outlined from the development process we have gone through.
We believe that the legislation that has now gone through Cabinet and been finalised, along with the care that we are taking in placing the operation of this legislation in an appropriate place within the overall government structure, will ensure that we not only deliver on the election promise, but we will have good legislation that will serve Territorians well, and will serve public servants and people in other bodies outside the core Northern Territory government agencies. It will provide the protection they need to help in maintaining integrity within the operation of these agencies.
We look forward to introducing our bill. We look forward to exposing it to the full scrutiny of parliament. We certainly expect to do that well before the end of the year. However, we will not be supporting the opposition bill for the reasons I have outlined. We certainly look forward to debating our bill with you in the near future.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for both the contents of his speech and the manner in which it was delivered. It is interesting that the legislation has been worked on for five years. Five years is a very long time, given the fanfare that accompanied this election promise. I suppose that in another five years we might see the code of conduct given legislative strength, because it has taken them five years to get to this; although the Chief Minister says - if she is to be believed but I certainly do not - that it is in the pipeline.
I wondered why the Attorney-General did not, in the context of the previous couple of debates, say that the code of conduct was as advanced as the whistleblowers legislation. I believe I know the answer to that; that is, someone has just got it out of the bottom drawer of their desk and thought: ‘Oh dear, the opposition think that we should have a code of conduct and we do not want them delivering our election promises, so can someone look at it please?’
When we introduced the whistleblowers legislation on 30 March this year, I said in conclusion:
- At very least, if this has prompted you, if it has sped things up a bit, then that is not a bad outcome. We look forward to debating your whistleblowers legislation before too long. If it takes the small numbers of the CLP to get you to hurry up, then I do not think we have done such a bad job. I commend the bill.
Whistleblowers, although straightforward on the one hand, can be technical. I did say, though, when I introduced the bill that there was no reason in my view why the government could not have introduced it years ago. These people have been running the Northern Territory for five years. Five years for whistleblowers legislation? Clearly, not a high priority. I hope the government’s bill is not going to be like the freedom of information legislation which is often referred to as the ‘freedom from information act’. We have had enormous difficulties with it, and it is a pale imitation of what Labor promised. Whilst I thank the Attorney-General for his comments, I cannot say that I am optimistic about the contents of the whistleblowers legislation when it is delivered. My hunch is that it will be like the freedom of information legislation – a shadow of what was promised or a pale imitation thereof.
In relation to the code of conduct - and they are all similar, I guess, in so many respects - if the motions and the legislation that we introduced today have a similar effect on the code of conduct as our bill in March this year has had on whistleblowers legislation, then that will not be such a bad outcome as well.
It is ironic, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have to assist the government - with all of its numbers, all of its resources - implement their election promises. Anyway, assist them we will. Thank you, Attorney-General, and I look forward to the bill.
Motion negatived.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 63)
(Serial 63)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The issue of alcohol abuse is one of the most critical matters facing the Territory government. Alcohol and substance abuse is at the core of all social disruption. Its financial and social cost is considerable. Government has focused significant resources and energy on overcoming alcohol abuse and turning around the social harm it causes. Since the election of June 2005, the government introduced a package of legislation to address antisocial behaviour. Those changes included establishment of an alcohol court and new provisions for dry premises in private areas within urban areas.
In addition, the government is working with local communities to implement local area management plans. We are successfully walking the fine line between addressing social harm and ensuring that people can still have a good night out. Legislation, which will be debated next week, is another tool in the hands of the community to address chronic drinking.
Prior to its introduction in the Assembly today, the legislation has been the subject of widespread community consultation. It has included the Darwin and Palmerston City Councils, Alice Springs Town Council, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory. My colleague, the member for Brennan, did an excellent job in informing his electorate through a public meeting, and staff of Racing, Gaming and Licensing have worked hard to ensure everyone who wanted to have a say has had the chance to do so.
The legislation will allow the Northern Territory Licensing Commission to make declarations prohibiting the consumption of liquor in specified public areas. The amendments contained in this bill will build on the existing legislative framework that gives the Licensing Commission the power to make restricted area declarations and restricted premises declarations. These amendments will allow the Licensing Commission to make a declaration with respect to public places. It extends the changes to the Liquor Act made as part of the government’s antisocial behaviour package which gave the Licensing Commission the power to make declarations with respect to private premises.
The proposed amendments will allow an application for a public restricted area application to be made by a local government council, the Commissioner of Police, or the Director of Licensing. A declaration under this new law would only prohibit the consumption of liquor in public and it should be understood that the declaration would not affect persons transporting or carrying liquor in an area that has been declared a public restricted area.
The Licensing Commission will be required to conduct an inquiry when it receives an application seeking declaration of a public restricted area. Individuals and bodies will be invited through newspaper advertisements to make submissions. When deciding whether to make a declaration, the Licensing Commission will be required to take into account information about the consumption of liquor in or near the relevant area; the incidence of crime in or near the relevant area; the views of those who live, work or have an address in the relevant area; and the views of local government councils, police and other relevant Territory government agencies.
The Licensing Commission may only make a public restricted area declaration if it is satisfied that it would be in the public interest as well as consistent with the objects of the Liquor Act which include harm minimisation. A declaration may be made for a specific period or indefinitely, and the Licensing Commission has the power to amend or revoke a declaration. Once the Licensing Commission makes a declaration it will arrange for notices to be placed in the Northern Territory government Gazette and a newspaper that circulates in the area regarding the declaration.
Before the declaration takes effect the Licensing Commission will be required to set up signs in the relevant area that provide information about the declaration, the offence of contravening the declaration, and the penalties that apply to the offence. The Licensing Commission will maintain those signs which will be erected in accord with local council signage by-laws.
The commission may also enter into an arrangement with a local government council that applies for a public restricted area declaration to also undertake publicity including signage regarding the declaration.
Public restricted areas will be different to existing restricted areas in Part 8 of the Liquor Act. The provisions regarding seizure of vehicles will not apply, and a permit may only be issued for a specific function within a public restricted area. A permit may be sought so that a public place that has been declared a public restricted area, for example, a public park, may be used for a special function such as a wedding or other time and date specific function where the consumption of liquor is sought. Under delegation from the Licensing Commission, the Chief Executive Officer of a local council, police officer of or above the rank of sergeant, or a police officer in charge of a police station, may issue a permit for a function within a public restricted area. A permit issued under delegation from the Licensing Commission will be able to be amended or revoked by the officer who issued the permit.
Where a person contravenes a declaration made for a public restricted area, police will have the power to seize any opened or unopened containers of liquor. Penalties for failure to comply with the public restricted area provisions are forfeiture of the liquor seized and a fine of up to $500. The offence may also be enforced by a contravention notice or infringement notice. The penalty and enforcement provisions are consistent with those in relation to a restricted premise declaration whereby a person may be charged and taken before a court, including an alcohol court. This option may be used for repeat offenders where it was apparent the person might benefit from the treatment available through the alcohol court process.
The public restricted areas amendment to the Liquor Act further illustrates the active approach being taken by this government to address issues of alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in our community. This amendment provides another mechanism through which our community will be made a safer and more pleasant place. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Deputy Speaker, last year the Martin government introduced a portable long service scheme for construction workers. Nhulunbuy constituent, Tim Dodding, a tradesman on the G3 project in Nhulunbuy, is a strong example of why this scheme is critical. If the Territory had a portable long service leave when he commenced working in Gove 20 years ago, he would have had 16 weeks long service leave up his sleeve. Instead, every time he accrued long service leave down south, he lost it when he moved back to the Territory. He has been a strong advocate for the establishment of the scheme and now is an advocate to his workmates about its virtues. I am pleased the government has been able to put in place a long-held policy benefiting the workers of my electorate and of the Territory.
Teacher, translator and academic Raymattja Marika was announced winner of the 2006 Territory Day Award. Raymattja is a very worthy recipient of this award, having grown up at Yirrkala and now a senior member of the Rirratjingu clan, she has worked tirelessly for her people, particularly in education and her representation on a number of national boards. Raymattja holds a Graduate Diploma in Adult Education and Training obtained from Melbourne University, and has an Advanced Diploma in Teaching from the Batchelor Institute.
Director of the Council for Reconciliation Australia, Raymattja has always believed in developing harmonious relationships between Yolngu and Napaki. Raymattja is now a Justice of the Peace, and interpreter for the courts and the hospital. She has worked closely with Alcan Gove, translating various documents into Yolngu Matha to improve cross-cultural understanding. Raymattja has worked hard to improve opportunities for Aboriginal people, especially in the areas of education and training. She has been a driving force behind the proposed Liquor Management Plan and the Women’s Community Patrol for the Gove Peninsula. I congratulate Raymattja. I thank her for the important contribution she makes to our community for both Yolngu and Napaki.
Dhimurru Director, Djawa Yunupingu, and Parks and Wildlife ranger, Phil Wise, recently returned from the 5th International Ranger Congress held in Stirling, Scotland. A total of 40 countries were represented at the congress, and many rangers gave presentations about their work situations. Most of the stories presented were extremely inspiring and showed hardships faced by rangers in protecting the world’s biodiversity and cultural integrity.
Dhimurru and Parks and Wildlife NT gave a presentation on the unique joint management arrangement that exists in the indigenous protected area. This received a lot of interest from many government agencies trying to engage with indigenous landowners in their own corner of the world. I was pleased to launch the Dhimurru Sea Country Plan at the Garma Festival, celebrating the release of a written plan articulating Yolngu vision for managing sea country and the progress made towards implementation. The plan searches for ways to promote productive, respectful working relationships and interactions with other users of the sea country, and promotes a whole-of-government community approach in managing the sea country.
My congratulations to Djawa Yunupingu and Steve Roeger for their very successful launch and their ongoing, firm partnerships with those they share the sea country with, and who have a major stake in its sustainable use and management.
The Garma Festival proved again to be an outstanding success with the key forum theme, Indigenous Training and Education, being coordinated by Charles Darwin University. The focus was on past and present education and training policy examining ways to build indigenous and non-indigenous capacities to learn together. I congratulate Yothu Yindi for another great event with various activities such as film, a youth forum, ceremonies, music and other cultural presentations to involve and entertain the visitors from different parts of the country and overseas. I also particularly appreciated the fact that the member for Arnhem was present for a good part of Garma and was involved in various presentations on her own behalf.
Congratulations to Sarah Bendyna on being the first student at Nhulunbuy High School to complete the school-based Australian apprenticeship. Four agencies helped Sarah successfully complete her Certificate in Business: Sodexho, NT Group Training, Darwin Skills Development Scheme and Nhulunbuy High School. Sarah completed her Northern Territory Certificate of Education in 2005 while, at the same time, undertaking her Certificate II in Business, and has been working with Sodexho since September last year. My thanks to Sodexho for their ongoing support – they are proving to be a valuable part of our community in the many things that they do.
Baluka Maymuru, an artist from Buku Larranggay Mulka, has again been awarded a prize in the prestigious Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award. Baluka was honoured with the Wandjuk Marika Award for Three Dimensional works with three hollow logs depicting the cycle of life and death.
It took Baluka 12 months to complete the three memorial poles and his work is done meticulously with great care for detail. Baluka has received many art awards over the years as far back as 1982. The poles have been purchased by the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. Buku Larranggay Mulka manager, Will Stubbs, says Baluka is a timeless man. He is an embodiment of indigenous values, gentle and persistent. My congratulations to Baluka and to the Buku Larranggay who ensure these important artists are well supported and showcased for their outstanding abilities in portraying their culture through art.
Mr Deputy Speaker, just a word in response to a couple of the points made about leadership by the Leader of the Opposition tonight. It is pretty thin ice on which she treads, when I am told by those senior, some quite senior, in the CLP, that she is regarded broadly as an embarrassment to her party. She has not enhanced her reputation over the past two days of these sittings. I refer to the Darwin Research Centre, ‘Murphy’s View’: ‘Welcome to Darwin Research Centre. Our aim is to promote good governance and policies conducive to economic development in our region’. It has a little column here.
- Darwin Research Centre Soapbox: Jodeen Carney keeps throwing off at what she calls the CLP of old. If she is the CLP of new, then I doubt Territorians can look forward to a CLP return of government on her watch. Len Kiely: Blah, blah, blah, blah! It is over, done and dusted. And I hope he gets the boot next time. Meanwhile, Jodeen, can you tell us out here what you are going to do for us?
Patricia Jobson, signs her own name. I do not know whether she is a CLP member or not, but, ‘have your say on current issues of importance’. Well, there is one that the Leader of the Opposition might take into account.
I appreciate the difficulties of a party with opposition membership of just four, where one of those current four members has, in fact, had a go, and at least he put his hand up. The member for Blain had a go. It did not work out for him, and he resigned or stepped down from the position. That leaves two of the four who may put their hand up. The Leader of the Opposition might feel a bit comfortable. She just might feel a bit comfortable that she is beyond threat or beyond reproach in that position no matter how abysmally she carries out her duties as leader.
However, there is probably another option. I refer to the member for Braitling, if she ever – and she probably would not ever entertain going back to the CLP – but she does present as a person of credibility. She does have great experience in this parliament. She has served in a ministerial capacity in this parliament. She does wear the former sign of office of the CLP with a great deal of pride. I would not like to embarrass her, and it probably is something she would never in her wildest dreams imagine. I would understand and appreciate some of the reasons why, if that was her view, that she would never entertain going back to the CLP. I could understand why, and she referred to an incident tonight that is still close to her. We shared her views of that incident on that occasion.
Notwithstanding those sorts of incidents of the past, and the pretty shameful way in which she was treated by the CLP when she was a member she, to my view, remains the best option for leadership of the conservative forces in this parliament. I do not think she ever would. It may pay, perhaps, the other members to remind the current leader that perhaps there may be another option and she better lift her game.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, sorry, I am chuckling after those remarks by the member for Nhulunbuy, surely said as a joke with his tongue in his cheek.
I wish to report on my recent overseas study trip. I intend to do it over two nights. Tonight, I want to concentrate on the visits I made to the parliaments of the United Kingdom, Scotland and Wales. I believe it is always particularly enlightening for us to visit these parliaments and see them at work. I urge other members who have never been to visit. I was privileged to be hosted by Lord Peter Snape for Question Time at the House of Lords - and later in the dining room might I add. Peter Snape has, in the past, been hosted by this parliament, and has remained a good friend of the parliament over some time.
The point of having our connection with the House of Lords is that we can actually jump the queue, as it were, because there is always a long waiting list to get into Question Time. However, when you are hosted by one of the peers you are able to go in. The House of Commons Question Time was over for this term, even though I did go there to see them debate. I was particularly pleased to go in to see the House of Lords.
This almost follows on from what I was saying earlier about regulating your own behaviour. The House of Lords is a self-regulatory House. Members do regulate their behaviour. Although there is a Speaker, the Speaker did not participated in Question Time whatsoever. Members tend to be very polite to each other. When one member stands to answer a question, the others concede and sit down and wait their turn. It goes backwards and forwards and to the cross-benches and they take it in turn to answer questions. If you go into the House of Commons at Question Time - and I have done that before – it is quite rowdy and noisy, probably similar to what it is in here. It is really quite refreshing to go into a parliament, the House of Lords, where they regulate their own behaviour. I guess you would expect that of a lord.
Saying that, it is not just a rubber stamp for the House of Commons. While I was there, the House of Lords voted against two bills that had come before them. Those bills had to go back to the House of Commons for reconsideration and, perhaps, amendment.
Interestingly, the members of the House of Lords are unpaid and unelected. As you are probably aware, they are either included by heritage, or they are appointed hereditary peers. While I was there there was a scandal of ‘peers for cash’. There was an insinuation that some of them had gained their peerage by paying large donations to certain political parties. No matter where you go, you sometimes get these innuendos.
There are about 700 members of the House of Lords and, obviously, not all of them could turn up at the one time. There are archbishops and bishops, hereditary peers, and the appointed peers. At the time I was there, the eldest lord appeared in the House. He was 96 - quite sparky, quite lively, and was there to participate in Question Time. Although they are unpaid, they get an attendance allowance. Although there are 700 - and you would never get 700 in at any one time - the ones who do turn up are paid. I think it was 300 a day for appearance money - I guess you could call it that.
It is a very interesting place because they are doing a lot of reconstruction on the old House of Lords which was bombed. To see this magnificent building really brings a bit of history back to you.
I just want to say to people in this House: if you get a chance, go. There are people in the House of Commons and the House of Lords who have been here to this parliament, and would welcome and host any visit by members here. I thank Lord Snape for his hospitality in the dining room and out on the terrace. They must have the most beautiful view in London overlooking the Thames on the terrace and also of the London Eye that goes around like the big Ferris wheel. That was great.
I have a lot of materials from these visits. I will not table them because I intend to give them to the Parliamentary Education Unit; if members wish to have a look at them, that is where they will be.
I also visited the National Assembly of Wales. That was interesting as they have not been a National Assembly for some time. Their Assembly is a little like a territory; it has limited powers. Its structure is extremely unusual in that it has an executive government and a parliamentary legislative arm as the corporate body. In most parliaments such as ours, the legislature and the executive are quite separate. They were given powers in 1999.
The House is really weird, I would say. If you could imagine this building being circular, and above us a see through circular ceiling with people peering down, because that is where the observers and the visitors to parliament are. So you have this round building with this see through ceiling and the public all the way around it. I am not sure if I would like to know there was someone above me looking down upon me. The people of Wales have adopted this devolution that they have now, with much enthusiasm, and the parliament was extremely busy while I was there.
I went to their parliamentary education section. They have a facility separate to the parliament. It is an old building that they have set up in that way. Unfortunately, we do not have the facilities here as they do. Many school children visit the parliamentary section. Members go in and talk to the children; members even go in for Question Time to the children. It is just a very good set up. They invite school councils in, which is something I had not thought about. We tend to think about bringing schools in, but they bring in the school council so they can understand how the parliament works. It is not a bad idea.
I brought back one of their booklets. As you can see it has English at the back and it is written in Welsh at the front. The Welsh language is incredibly difficult to read or – well, I could not understand it and when I look at the way it is written, and I am not a linguist of any sort, I found it very difficult.
I encourage our education section to do up all their materials in a pack such as this; we have good materials but we do not have it as well coordinated. These are for teachers. The teacher I spoke to in the parliamentary section was seconded from the Education Department. She said there are around eight teachers who work in that particular section, and they are aiming at primary school students as we do. This particular folder, which I am sure the member for Blain would be interested in, has a teacher’s guide and all the lesson plans and activities. There are a couple of examples of the Peerhead Post, ‘A record turnout as 10 year olds vote for the very first time’, so they give them fun activities.
This was an election poster. This guy is called Iva Lesson. ‘Vote for Iva Lesson for shorter school holidays; extra maths lessons for all’. It is done also in that fun way. I took over the Parliament of Birds that we foster here. They were impressed with that as it is a different concept because it is peculiar to Australia. I thought what they did was interesting, and we could learn from it.
I left some of our material behind, and although their facilities are specific for that, I still think our parliamentary section here does a very worthwhile job. I am quite sure if they look at this particular pack they will see how they could also develop such a folder. I am leaving behind a lot of materials so that the parliamentary education section can have a look.
The other parliament I visited was the Parliament of Scotland. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you were around 12 years ago when this building was built, and you may recall in the years leading up to it the hoo-ha about the CLP government building this at the time of the recession. It cost about $130m and there was a lot of ‘why should you be spending this money, what are you building this big monstrosity for, what a crazy idea’. In fact, it probably was one of the best things that the CLP government did, and they did it to keep tradesmen in Darwin, and in the Territory. It has turned out to be a magnificent building and it is one that will be here for a lifetime.
I could not but smile when I went to the Scottish parliament to find out that it went over budget and over time. What was the cost of the Scottish parliament? 400m. You can imagine how the Scottish people felt about that. What about the design? I think our design here is great. It complements the Top End of Australia. Their design was done by a Spanish architect and, in my view, it is completely out of touch with the rest of the surroundings. There are so many beautiful old buildings in Scotland, yet you have this architect whose work many people do not understand. For instance, it has some strange wooden features on the outside and when we asked what they represented, they represented curtains. It was beyond me.
The Scottish parliament has devolved powers the same as the Welsh parliament does and it is a new parliament. They still rely heavily upon the UK government to fund them, but they are not anywhere near as large, of course. Seating arrangements for members have built in computerised equipment which makes it very easy for them. The public gallery has 200-odd seats for people to view proceedings. So even though we can fit in quite a few here, you can imagine it is quite an extraordinary parliament and you will be able to get some idea from this document just what it looks like.
The Scottish parliament has 129 members and it is a form of proportional representation. Each voter has two votes: the first is for a constituent member of the Scottish parliament, for which they have a first past the post voting system; and the second vote is to elect a regional member. There are 73 constituent members and 56 regional members. It is interesting that they have started off the devolution in many of the areas that we as a parliament do also, education and health, and their devolved powers are growing as time goes by. The Scottish parliament has more powers at the moment than the National Assembly of Wales, but in time you can see this evolution will occur and they will take on the responsibility of providing services to their people far more than they have in the past.
It is a big step in the UK for these two parliaments to have these devolved powers, with the House of Commons and the House of Lords making the major laws for them. They are still young parliaments. We are a young parliament and that is why we can learn a lot from each other and we can transfer ideas.
Mr Deputy Speaker, next time I intend to speak about the areas of public housing that I looked at and the policies there. I also did environmental work in Ireland, which I found fascinating, and the fact that they have had for sometime a ‘no plastic bag’ type of policy, and a levy if you do ask for a plastic bag when you are buying things. I urge members who have not been to the House of Lords or the House of Commons to take the opportunity to visit.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, first let me thank the member for Braitling for her presentation tonight. I found it very interesting and I look forward to the second instalment. She has given a comprehensive report of her trip overseas. I found it fascinating, particularly the bit about 700 members of the House of Lords. I am not sure if they all decided to come at one time whether they would all fit in the door. Thank you, member for Braitling.
Tonight I would like to talk about my electorate of Johnston. On 4 July this year, Larry Baker of Moil in my electorate retired after 39 years service and valuable contribution to the public service. Larry commenced work as a junior trades assistant in the Electricity Supply Unit in the Commonwealth Department of Construction, Northern Territory Division in December 1966.
A few months later, he accepted a five year plumber apprenticeship with the Water Supply Unit, and after completing his training, worked as a qualified plumber, achieving leading hand status from 1972 to 1978. In July 1978, Larry transferred to the Department of Transport and Works in the Northern Territory public sector. At that time, he was acting foreman, and during the course of his NTPS employment, his career path progressed as a technical officer, predominately in the NT water supply industry. During the late 1980s, Larry’s job was transferred to the Northern Territory Water Authority, now the Power and Water Corporation.
In recent years, Larry has been working as a Sewer Rehabilitation Officer, managing sewer rehabilitation programs, asset upgrades and maintenance programs, and auditing the water supply and sewer systems. Larry was also heavily involved in review protection with respect to unauthorised access to the water supply system.
Over his time in government, the Northern Territory has undergone significant changes and Larry’s expertise in the water reticulation and sewer rehabilitation areas of the water and wastewater industry has been well recognised and will be greatly missed. It is people like Larry who do such important work to maintain the infrastructure that really keep our society and our town going.
I understand that Larry will remain in the Northern Territory in close proximity to his immediate family, relatives and friends. Thank you, Larry, for your enormous contribution to the Northern Territory. I am sure other members join me in congratulating Larry on 39 years of valuable contribution to the Northern Territory public service and the public of the Northern Territory.
As usual there are many things happening in the schools in my electorate. I was pleased to award my Quiet Achiever awards to Randy Ku and Damien Jongue of Moil Primary School; Vernon Francisco and Karlee Truscott of Wagaman Primary School; and Ben Rioli and Arnya Hoffman of Jingili Primary School for their fine efforts throughout the second school term. It is fantastic that these kids are recognised for getting on with their work and play in a consistent and quiet manner. I congratulate them for their worthy contribution and for the recognition they have received through the Quiet Achiever awards.
Other outstanding children I have heard about include Sunisa Scott of Moil Primary School who, along with her team from Waratahs Hockey Club, were the joint premiers in the Under 10s girls hockey. Sunisa is thrilled with the trophy and her medal.
Jedda Bennett-Kellam and Madison Campbell, also of Moil Primary School, were also big winners. Jedda was awarded a trophy from the Darwin Basketball Association Challenge Season 2006 Under 12 Boys Division 1, and Madison was awarded a trophy from the Australian Callisthenic Federation 18th National Graceful Solo Championships Darwin 2006 Closed Division for third in the juniors. Three fantastic achievements by Sunisa, Jedda and Madison.
At Jingili Primary School, the concern shown for their sister school at Lea Lau in Timor continues with the Student Representative Council organising a special project to encourage the students to donate exercise books to send to the school. Their aim is to get enough books to cover the entire floor of the assembly area. What a great initiative from the student council.
Ben Rioli of Jingili Primary School was recently selected to represent the Northern Territory in the Australian Football Exchange. The games were held in Darwin last week. Ben competed against students from around Australia. I am sure we will be hearing more of Ben’s football career as the years go by. Go Ben!
Wagaman Primary School won the Paul Henderson Perpetual trophy at the Regional Athletics Carnival earlier this month. What a fantastic achievement for a small school. The school fielded 47 athletes who produced some incredible results. I hear the kids were the epitome of model sportsmen and sportswomen during the carnival, and were there for their mates and friends, cheering them on in every race. Well done, Wagaman!
Another fantastic story of a Wagaman Primary School student is Oliver Markey’s results in the cooking division at the Royal Darwin Show. Oliver won a first for his decorated Milk Arrowroot biscuits, and a third for his pikelets. I saw the Markey family at the show, and they were a very proud family. I saw Oliver’s special Milk Arrowroot biscuits and the great decoration that he had on them. His mum and dad were certainly very proud of him. Move over, Jamie Oliver – the next Cook Oliver is coming! Keep up the good work, Oliver. I know he is busy thinking about what he is going to put on his Arrowroot biscuits for next year to win that coveted prize.
As the member for Johnson, I would like to congratulate a famous inventor in my electorate. Mr John Waldmann of Moil recently featured on the New Inventors program on the ABC. John’s Waldmann’s Multi Panels are receiving not only national but international attention, and will be a boon for the construction industry in Darwin and in similar places which can be affected by natural disasters such as cyclones and earthquakes. The panels are made of a lightweight low mass cement and fibre mix. I am led to understand that it is the vibration method in which the cement and fibre are combined that is really the innovation of this invention. John has recently visited Malaysia - I also met John and his wife at the show and he told me that they were going to Malaysia and that he would be briefing a minister there on his invention. I wish John all the best with the next stage of the New Inventors program and with marketing his panels.
As we are all aware, the last few months have been extremely busy ones with all the Dry Season activities. I had a fantastic time at the Greek Glenti Festival, and I am continually amazed at how far the Glenti has come since its inception in 1998. I heard that over 15 000 people attended this year, and the Greek food and Greek beer were extremely popular. I spent many enjoyable hours assisting serving on the refreshment stand. I was happy to spend many hours with Mr Tony Miaoudis, Mr John Nikolakos, Mr Jimmy Hatzi, Evan Papandonakis, Nick Halkitis and Costa Simeon. It was great working with those people for the community. I know many members here, including you, member for Brennan, were present at the Greek Glenti.
At the beginning of July was the great V8 Supercars, another major success for the Territory, bringing in hundreds of visitors to the Territory at a time where Australia is starting to experience a downturn in people holidaying in Australia. Together with the Darwin Cup Festival, the Territory can be proud it is able to attract the numbers to ensure that these two major events are so successful and so well patronised.
At the V8s, I spent many enjoyable hours talking to Mick O’Meara of Jingili, and Kerri and Brian Williams of Wagaman and Domino’s Pizza fame. I should add that I have heard recently that Kerri and Brian have sold their interest in Domino’s Pizzas. We know that Kerri and Brian have experienced some family sadness in recent years. They have always worked very hard in their business. I know that there are many young people, including my children, who have been given a helping hand by Kerri and Brian in that business, giving them a job in the pizza business, teaching them what work is all about, and teaching them what team work is all about. I know that my children certainly look upon Kerri and Brian as second parents. I know that there are many other young people around the Territory given a start by Kerri and Brian, gone on with their lives, but still look upon Kerri and Brian with a lot of affection, and almost as second parents. Kerri and Brian, well done. I am sure you will have a bit of a break, but you probably have other business plans. As always, through your hard work and commitment, I am sure you will be very successful.
Also at the races were Peter and Tita Jones of Jingili. Peter has just started a new business of a new way of treating swimming pool water - a new non-chemical treatment; I am sure it is going to be very successful. I wish Peter all the best with his new business. Mr Alex Tsopanaglou of Moil and Mr Ken James of Jingili were also at the races. All of them had a great time.
At a luncheon held on the Friday, I met up with Afif Whykes, Abbie Burke, Tristan Garces, Tiara Ladju, Jack Russell and their teacher, Donata Jonjic from Wagaman Primary School. The kids had a great day on the Friday at the V8 Supercars and it was just fantastic to host them.
It was my honour along with other people to attend the Darwin Cup races. I am not much of racing man but I do attend once a year. I had an abysmal day all day. I did not back a winner or a place until the last race. I took approximately $100 with me. I had $5 each way on each race. I was just losing. I had $25 left and I put that last $25 at 5-1 on Nozi which won the race. So, on the day, I won $25 which was enough for one pizza, I think, for the family that night. We had to buy another pizza as well! It was a great day out. I had a wonderful time and I know the people of Darwin also had a wonderful time.
There is no doubt the Territory is a great place to live. We have a fantastic lifestyle here. Just the friendliness of the people - I know everyone who visits the Territory just feels it and that is why people keep on coming back. That is why we have 2500 at our Darwin Cup Ball because it is so popular, it is so friendly. I would not live anywhere else. I certainly would not live anywhere else other than the electorate of Johnston. I am proud to be the member for Johnston and I am very glad to be living in the electorate of Johnston.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as I mentioned last night, I will continue my comments on issues related to engagement with our near neighbour. Firstly, some background that I did not provide last night. It would be useful to place this on the record for the information of members and anyone who reads Hansard.
East Nusa Tenggara is the province to our north. It is known as Nusa Tenggara Timur which translates to be the central islands in the south. It is a province of Indonesia and includes West Timor. The provincial capital is Kupang, located in West Timor. The province consists of about 550 islands dominated by three main islands, Flores, Sumba and West Timor – that is the western part of the island of Timor. The eastern part of Timor is the independent country of Timor-Leste. Other islands include Adonara, Alor, Ende, Komodo, Lembata, Menipo, Rincah, and Rote Island, the southernmost island in Indonesia. A few years ago when I had an exchange here of students from West Timor, we visited the East Arm port,. Their eyes fell upon the ships that were moored in the port and they knew exactly where they had come from, Rote Island. There are also the islands of Savu, Semau, and Solor.
The province is divided administratively into 14 different regencies, and one municipality which is the provincial capital of Kupang. The population of the province is estimated to be – this is in 2003 – over 4 million people. The religious mix of the province is not typical of Indonesia: 91% Christian (Catholic and Protestant); 8% Muslim and 0.6% Hindu or Buddhist; and 4% holding traditional beliefs. Nusa Tenggara Timur has become a refuge for Indonesian Christians fleeing from conflict in Maluku and Irian Jaya.
In the province, the secondary school enrolment rate is only 39%, dramatically below the Indonesian average of 62%. Clean drinking water, sanitation and lack of health facilities mean that child malnutrition, 32% and child mortality, 71 per 1000, are higher than the rest of Indonesia.
A little history about Kupang: it might surprise members that apart from Port Jackson, the first major port established on this continent, the next significant and established port was Kupang. It has received quite a prominent place in history. The first visitor was William Dampier in 1699. He called in to find that the Dutch were lodged there and they asked him to move aside. Then, when it looked like he proposed no threat, they invited him back. He wrote an account of his first visit to Kupang.
Captain Cook passed by, but turned away and moored at the nearby island of Savu. There was also Captain William Bligh in April 1789. After the mutiny, he and some crew managed what is regarded to be one of the greatest navigational feats of all time: to find his way to the port of Kupang.
There is also a story of some convicts who decided to escape from Port Jackson and they made a similar journey all the way to Kupang, to be arrested by, I think, the British and taken all the way back to the old country. Interestingly too, when Port Essington was established, the closest provisioning port was the port of Kupang. There are many other historical aspects about the port of Kupang and it is a fascinating place to visit. It is well worth learning a little more about the stories behind the story.
The reasons for visiting such a place are obvious. One, being our neighbour, we must learn how to engage and relate to our neighbour. What opportunities are there? One was the obligation to explore aspects of mutual benefit, but what opportunities are there for the Territory in the region? First, in the Republic of Indonesia, with a population of well over 200 million people, there are many opportunities for trade and projects of economic benefit jointly. If we are to engage in the immediate region more actively at a cultural and social level, we are then provided with the linkages into the rest of the republic. It is those personal connections, if anyone has worked in the region, that have the currency and then negotiations can occur once the relationships are established.
The immediate opportunities that lie in the region lie through understanding how to make better use of the AusAID dollar that flows into the region. For many quite obvious reasons, the focus of much of the AusAID dollar flowing into Indonesia, well over $300m a year, not to mention the $1bn that was provided just after the tsunami, which had many aspects - some of it does flow into the eastern provinces, which is Nusa Tenggara -but the focus, for the reasons I outlined at the beginning, of this project money goes into East Nusa Tenggara. There are opportunities for the Northern Territory, through engaging in that immediate region, to administer and to be the conduit and support for the programs that operate in our near region. If we are talking about, in any one year, nearly $100m being used to run programs within that region, the Territory could have a greater access to that revenue stream.
Currently we do not, and we are outside of that game. That is one issue I have been exploring for some time. It is health and education primarily where we are specially equipped by reasons of our close proximity. In previous times, there was a stronger focus in our education system on language and that has faded in recent times, and it must be brought back. That allows greater educational exchanges. The university has begun to focus more closely with the predominant university in the province, which is Nusa Cendana, and through that engagement there is the emergence of the opportunities for greater application for AusAID funding.
At the moment, it appears that the vast majority of the AusAID dollar which flows into the eastern provinces is administered outside of the Territory. Last time I looked, and I need to refresh these facts related to the education allocation, there are only a very few scholarships awarded in the region, and there are about 900 each year in our immediate region that are funded by the Australian government through the AusAID project, there was only a very small number and, if I recall correctly, a couple of years ago, it was only about three or four that found their place within the Territory. We could do, and should do, much better than that.
I do not know. It has been a funny day in parliament, but I just wonder whether there is a place for reasonable, sensible debate about such matters that could be explored. If government does not want to do it and wants to play their own game, I am happy to continue on this path as I am anyway. I have had meetings with the Deputy Director of AusAID to find better ways of accessing and engaging the region, and making sure that we could take advantage of our geographic advantage as well as our knowledge of the region.
One case in point is the issue of maternal mortality levels, which are extraordinary high levels. This is a project that has been worked on for a period of time with the Palmerston Kupang Sister City Committee. It has been a very difficult project. In fact, one of the reasons for going was to try to find a way forward in what had become a difficult impasse for the Sister City Committee and the regency of Kupang. The maternal mortality levels in the region are much higher than the national average of the Republic of Indonesia, which is an astonishingly high figure of over 1000 mothers who die in childbirth per 100 000 live births. How does that compare in Australia? In Australia, it is 13 per 100 000, compared to over 1000 per 100 000 in the eastern provinces, and for indigenous in Australia, it is 34.8 per 100 000. So, by far and away, there is a clear need.
That need has been recognised too by the Australian government and many other governments which release money into the region to run programs to help change those indicators. Currently, they are not moving in the right direction. In briefings that I have had with the West Timorese parliament, they are concerned. I have here a report from the NTT parliament which outlines that fundamental concern. The money is flowing from a number of agencies, and particularly from Australia, but the indicators are not improving. They pose some solutions that are a bit hard for me to grasp at the moment as my grasp of Indonesian is not at that level where I can quickly grab the report. I am getting that translated. However, the meetings were very good. I spoke to a man who works in the parliament specifically focused on this issue. He has worked in that area for 24 years and is an advisor to the Governor. It is that area and that project that I particularly want to advance.
The issue I raised last night with the emergence of a strengthened trilateral agreement between the three countries of Indonesia, through West Timor, Dili and the Northern Territory through Darwin, with the support of the Indonesian government, the Ambassador of Australia and the representative of the Timor-Leste government, provides an opportunity for the provision of a regional support centre within Kupang to administer in a different way the programs that are run within the regions. That is the project that I was looking at, aside from supporting the soccer trip; to assess whether this was the way to go. Currently, the bulk of the projects to improve the maternal and child mortality levels within the province are largely centred in Jakarta. Exploring the possibility of moving a regional centre back to Nusa Tenggara Timur, through Kupang, might be a better way of strengthening regional delivery. That was the matter that I spoke with AusAID about before going, and it appears to have been confirmed and particularly strengthened by this new trilateral agreement.
These matters are in their earliest stages. I only hope that the government will take the time to assess the value of this emerging relationship, and to see if we could build upon this new connection and find our place as a conduit for a greater acquitting of the AusAID dollar through the Territory. What is at stake there is a real difference could be made, we could strengthen our strategic focus within the region, and we could have a greater flow of real money - money that is new to the Territory - through the Territory, strengthening our health and education services.
They are the services that are needed within the region. We are at a place where we could strengthen ourselves, and at the same time, reach out to our near neighbour. I will continue tomorrow night.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to advise parliament of some of the many wonderful things that have occurred in the schools of my rural electorate of Goyder, to give you all a snapshot of what has been happening most recently.
Bees Creek Primary School has held two very successful fundraisers this term. Firstly, a hotly contested quiz night which raised $700, and secondly, a preschool fete which raised a fantastic $1800. The school has proudly announced that Stage 1 of the huge new sandpit, including a water feature and shaded area, has been completed for the early childhood students. It has clearly proven to be a hit with all the ages by the look of the photos in the school newsletters. Also, a much needed new special education unit is being built by Brustolin Builders to cater for students with special needs.
At Berry Springs Primary School, upgrading of many of the school facilities were either commenced or completed over the school holidays. Especially exciting is the new roof over the hard court area. Interestingly, the crane which has been lifting the roof beams in place has proven to be an eagerly watched event by students.
Girraween Primary School is one of the newer rural schools and is located in a rapidly developing rural area. The school council has been working hard at fundraising recently. Just a few of the activities held recently include a very successful big barbecue fundraiser at Bunnings Palmerston in August which raised $800. They are also doing the gate keeping duties at the Speedway on Saturday nights to earn money for the school. Furthermore, the school community is currently preparing for a major raffle, as well as organising for a school dance night in September. A vote of thanks must go to the council chair, Zoe Langridge, and the rest of the school council team for ‘rising to the challenge’, which is the Girraween school motto.
At Humpty Doo Primary School, I recently joined my esteemed colleague and Education minister, Hon Syd Stirling, for the opening of the chicken yard. This is a practical ‘learning for life’ example of the best of the middle schooling philosophy. The school is really getting involved in making their environment a better place, with a current grant proposal to incorporate water saving devices into the school facilities, and also by their desire to start a native plants garden in the new play area. The most exciting news in recent days is that the new shade cloth over the ‘big kids play equipment’ has now been completed. I know the school committee is very grateful to Mrs Jenny Eddy for writing the submission last year.
Litchfield Christian School is 10 years old this year and recently celebrated with the biggest and best ever bush dance. It was very well attended by past and present staff and students as well as the general public. Former principal, Mr Andrew Kernick, praised the school for keeping up the tradition of providing quality Christian education in the rural area and congratulated the Year 6/7 students for taking out first place in the 2006 ENGQuest competition for the design of playground equipment. Well done. Litchfield Christian School also won second prize in the lower primary section with an entry they called a ‘Sparkling Ding Ding’ which was a catapult that could toss a marshmallow more than one metre. Again, congratulations. I must point out that this national design construction competition was run by Engineers Australia, of which I am also still a proud member.
Middle Point is one of the smallest schools in my electorate but the students there have their eyes firmly on the future. With one computer to every five students they probably have more access to IT equipment than is the case for many larger schools. Many of the students used this technical know-how to contribute to a project called Snapshots of Remote Communities which was coordinated by the National Museum in Canberra in conjunction with our very own Territory Museum and Art Gallery. Disposable cameras were provided and 17 of Middle Point’s budding photographers were encouraged to show the whole world what is important in their community. I can personally recommend that you visit the community exhibitions page on the National Museum website at www.nma.gov.au and follow the links through to the Middle Point School slide show to see those wonderful photos for yourself. It surely has put Middle Point into the annals of history and I thank past principal, Grant Errington, and the recent acting principal, Michele Ralph, for facilitating this endeavour.
Palmerston Christian School is another wonderful school in my electorate. I recently attended a musical event put on by the junior school called ‘The King’. The production clearly showed that many hours of hard work went into learning the songs and creating the props. The action was non-stop and really very entertaining and in keeping with the school’s family oriented Christian values. Along with everyone who attended, I really did enjoy the night. I am also looking forward to talking to the Year 9 students about their research trip trekking along the Larapinta Trail in July. I have heard they experienced temperatures as low as minus five degrees and survived! I hope to share some survival tips with them before venturing on my own experience on the Larapinta Trail later in the year.
Taminmin High School is currently focusing on the implementation of middle schooling. The school will have the benefit of a $4.6m facelift with a new classroom block planned for the middle school. Senior students are currently preparing for a student expo to be held on 13 September which will showcase their very exceptional musical and dramatic talents to the local community. The school has recently played host to 26 students and staff from their sister school of Kamitonda High School in Japan. This has in the past, and continually proves to be a tremendous cultural experience for students of those schools. I was fortunate to meet them at a special welcome assembly just last week, and again to meet the Japanese students in their Taminmin High School friends during a Parliament House visit during the August sittings.
As you can see, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, our rural school communities are high up there with the best in the Territory. My congratulations go the principals, teaching staff and school councils at all our rural schools.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I make a few comments about some great functions and some great people in my electorate. I will particularly make reference to the Adelaide River Show which occurred last weekend on 19 and 20 August. The show was postponed from earlier in the year because of Cyclone Monica and obviously the damp ground. It was great to see that it happened and the show could never have happened without some very special people.
The show was headed up by Jane Ellem, the coordinator, and Deborah Koch. These ladies put a great deal of personal time into these events and certainly Jane was busy helping the show during the Darwin Show with her partner, Carl, trying to get exhibitors and the side show exhibits down to the Adelaide River Show.
This year was a trial for the show due to the cancellation arising from Cyclone Monica. The last couple of years have been a struggle, but this year it was revamped as the Back to the Bush Show. Gate takings were up on last year despite not having the Adelaide River Talent Quest, which occurred earlier on, but they also had the gymkhana and the polocrosse.
One of the special events that occurred along with the show was the camp draft and Jane Ellem was the coordinator of this. The upgrade of the campdraft cutting yards was very well received by the participants and certainly the crowds. Jane coordinated the campdraft in conjunction with Mr Rod Bremner. The judge was Paul Stone from Mt Sanford. He volunteered his time all weekend and it certainly was well judged over the weekend. The competitors came from as far afield as Flora Valley Station and all the Heytesbury stations, the AACO stations, Tipperary Group stations, and Ban Ban Springs were all very well represented. These events do not happen without a great deal of participation from these far flung stations.
The Tipperary Group boys volunteered their time to put up the yards and get them ready for the draft. I would like to say a special thanks to the managing owners of Tipperary Station who jumped in and provided a lot of the cattle and certainly a lot of their staff to help with the events. The winner of the Chief Minister’s Golden Bell Open was Gary Faulks from Moolooloo Station. The winner of the ASH’s Open was Mr Wayne Bean of Flora Valley Station. Kate Townsend, also of Moolooloo Station, won the Ladies Draft, and the Geoff Hill Memorial Junior Draft was won by Monica Tasker of Camfield Station. I was there for the open of the camp draft where Gary Faulks did an excellent time on a beautiful grey horse. It was good to see such a great ride.
The upgrade of equipment could not have happened without the support of the local businesses and local volunteers, especially Jane Ellem, Don MacLean, Carl Wilken, Tommy Fawcett, Colin Malin, and the Rixon family, and also the prison work crews - it was good to see those guys coming down and helping out – and, of course, the Tipperary boys.
The rodeo on the Saturday night was a great event. When I passed back through on the Sunday morning, there were still a few boys kicking on. I do not think they had seen their swags, but there was great coordination and organisation by Kelly Bergemeister. She again volunteered her time to organise the rodeo. Despite problems with the professional organisations that occurred, it all ran very well for a local rodeo. I received a lot of positive feedback about these guys having a chance to ride the cattle that had been provided. All sections were taken out, which provided great entertainment. A special thanks to Daniel Tapp who, as well as the Tipperary mob, stepped in at the last minute to solve some of the stock problems, and Rob Bremner who was the judge for the event, who again jumped in to call the rodeo.
These bush shows are real Territory old style shows where local people exhibit a whole range of produce and enter those traditional competitions. There was a range of competitions in the pavilion organised by Trina Railton, and I thank her for her effort. She asked me to be the judge and I certainly enjoyed most of it. One category included 21 chutneys so I was not feeling too good by the end of the judging! The cakes were wonderful.
The upgrade of the pavilion was well received. It is a Sydney Williams hut and it looked very smart. This year, the cooking and photographic sections were very hotly contested. Some of the photographs which were submitted by the kids from Adelaide River and Batchelor were absolutely fantastic. The photographic judge was Terry Knight, no relation I do not believe, and he was very impressed with the calibre of the photos. Donna Renshaw cleaned up in the Wildlife section, which was a great display. The cooking and home brewing areas came from Batchelor, Tipperary, Douglas Daly, Cosmo camp and the Adelaide River area.
Mr Geoff Sellems, a local councillor from the Coomalie Community Government Council, and I judged the cookery, together with Sandy MacLean. We had a lot of trouble in coming up with some of the winners, because it was so close between them. The best exhibit for the cookery area was taken out by Tipperary Station. It was a fantastic cake and I believe the people at Tipperary spent a great deal of time on it. It did not win the best cake within its category, but it certainly was the best displayed cake. Lexie stepped in at the last minute to judge the kids cooking section and, again, there was a great deal of competition there.
Jan Powick had the dubious honour of being a participant in the cane toad exhibit. We had cane toads the size of very large dogs with very long fingers and stick-on nails with red paint. They were very unusual cane toads, but a lot of work went into them. There were also very interesting exhibits such as the fishing rods; there were some old style fishing rods there.
The horticulture section was hotly contested again this year, with Lu Richardson of Tipperary cleaning up. Entrants from these areas came from right across the region and it is good to see they are using Adelaide River as their centre. I believe that will grow over time. The judge, Barry McDonald, brought a wealth of experience judging on experience and the nutritional value of those areas.
The kids art and craft section was judged by Elaine Stanton. She volunteers her time every year and was helped by Margaret Wardrope. The local Top End Group Schools were also well represented. These include Adelaide River, Tipperary, Douglas Daly and Batchelor Area School. All these kids got involved, which is great for the local community, to compete in those areas. They displayed community projects throughout the pavilion and it certainly showed that they put a great deal of thought into what was going on. There was a display of the Kakadu Seasons which won first prize in the upper primary classes exhibition. The Batchelor Preschool with a beautiful purple horse with pink hair took out that section. The plants were judged, again by Tina, who gives her time every year. This year, the exhibitions in the pavilion showcased the wider region and also sparked a great deal of interest, so no doubt there will be further interest next year. I may put in some photos and even cook something next year.
The overall winner of the two aggregate trophies, the cooking, craft and horticulture, was won by Patsy Fawcett, and the Ada Sargent Memorial Trophy for cooking and craft was also won by Patsy. Patsy had quite a lot of jams and chutneys and other exhibits entered. She spent a great deal of time on it. She also had a stall at the show selling her mango and watermelon drinks. I certainly was as refreshed as many other people who sampled here drinks. She said it had taken her 38 years of entering these competitions to win them. I presume she started at a very young age!
The upgrade of the pavilion could not have happened without Andy Smith. Andy has been the caretaker of the Adelaide River Show Society, or the ARSS Club. He gathers together the local grey brigade who stay at the park and they help out free of charge with organising and putting up stalls, and doing a whole range of things. I say to Andy and his partner who are heading back down south to Adelaide, I believe, and then across to Bundaberg: thanks very much. Their time this year at the ARSS Club has been certainly well received.
I would also like to give special thanks to Wayne Parsons who has again given his time helping out with the organisation and making the day happen. The Beaut Ute competition was organised by Donna Renshaw. She picked up the Beaut Ute at the last minute. The decision was a very difficult one. In one section, the winner decided by doing a bit of circle work - I think everybody understands what that means. I also thank the judges, Donna, Russell Neal and Phil D’Alessandro.
The entertainment for the day was helped out by Mick Renshaw who acted as the barman and the DJ at the same time. The Drumming Monkeys were certainly a great asset to the day.
Special thanks for the organisation of the sites to Chrissie Leavey, who also won one of the sections in the cake competition. It was an absolutely beautiful cake.
Special thanks also go to some of the exhibitors. Jaemie Page certainly did a great deal of work there, as well as the Bushfires Council and MRM, who had displays there.
It was a great event and I pay particular thanks to Karen and Colin Malin and Mick Loone for their long hours of work. This event has grown from last year and I look forward to a bigger and better show in 2007.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I had the honour of attending the Vietnam Veterans day and Long Tan service on 18 August, and to host a reception for Vietnam Veterans on behalf of the Chief Minister.
The events of 18 August 1966 should be etched into our national psyche. All Australians should be aware of what happened on 18 August 40 years ago. It was a day when young Australian and New Zealand soldiers - 108 of them in all - battled incredible odds and unimaginable hardships in hostile surroundings a world away from home.
It is another day to add to the record of the spirit of Anzac. It was a day when the men of D Company, 6 Royal Australian Regiment lost mates, and a day that changed the course of their lives forever. That they prevailed against more than 2500 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops is astounding. That 84 of them survived the battle borders on the miraculous. It is an event that all Australians should know about. However, for many different reasons, recognition has been painfully slow.
The commemoration on 18 August is all about recognising and raising awareness about the Battle of Long Tan and the place it has in our nation’s history. It is about recognising the achievements of Australian soldiers and the ultimate sacrifice many of them made for their country and for their mates. Importantly, it is a day about acknowledging the contributions of all our Vietnam Veterans, service men and women who are now being recognised for their courage and service of our country.
I thank Mr Peter Mansell from the Northern Territory Vietnam Veterans Association for giving me a copy of Lex McAuley’s book about the Battle of Long Tan. It is a very moving read and it really gives the reader an insight into this famous part of our history. I thanked Peter on the night for providing me this book to read and I thank him again. It is a very moving account of what occurred.
The motto of the Vietnam Veterans Association is: ‘Honour the Dead. Fight like hell for the Living’. We can all say that the Vietnam Veterans Association has done just that. I hope all the veterans felt the service and the reception appropriate. I spoke with a number of the veterans about their experiences on returning home. Many experienced rejection and open hostility from the people whose interests they thought they were fighting to protect. They left the politics to others. They just got on with doing their duty and they did it extremely well. 1 Australian Task Force was given one directive by the American General, General Westmoreland: take control of Phuc Toy Province. When Australians left Vietnam they had done exactly that.
This month, television, especially pay television, has run many documentaries on the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these have focused exclusively on the American experience. The American experience is not the Australian experience. There are many books that detail the Australian experience. I ask broadcasters and producers to consider investing in documentaries and films that recount the Australian experience of the Vietnam War. The stories of our veterans need to be made known.
Throughout today and earlier tonight more young men and women from 1st Brigade based at Robertson Barracks begin their journey to Afghanistan. I wish them a safe tour of duty. I am certain that they will acquit themselves admirably as those before have done. I look forward to welcoming them home once their tour of duty is complete.
This Saturday the NT Rugby Union minor semi-final is to be played and Craig ‘Squirter’ Leach will play his 300th A Grade game for the Palmerston Rugby Union Club. This is a fantastic achievement and will be celebrated enthusiastically by the club. Craig Leach started his rugby career at Brisbane’s Boys College where he was sent to boarding school as a 12-year-old. His parents, Mal and Wendy worked Mt Ringwood Station just south of Adelaide River and so both of their boys, Cameron and then Craig, had to leave home for their schooling. When Craig finished Year 12 he returned to work in the Territory and by then rugby had become his game of choice.
He joined Palmerston Rugby Union Club in 1985 and began playing in C Grade. Within no time he was called up into A Grade where he remained for most of the rest of his career. At Palmerston in those days, he can remember massive forward packs who fed on small, unsuspecting backs such as himself. He was given his nickname of ‘Squirter’ by just such a forward, Tony Morris, who coined it because of Craig’s skinny body.
Craig says it was when these large forwards who helped harness his skill of elusive running and fast release of the ball. The half-back in those days was his brother, Cameron, and the two soon formed a great partnership which lasted nearly 100 games. In Craig’s time at Palmerston he has won many awards: the A Grade Best and Fairest in 1996-97; and Best Back three times. He was awarded the club’s highest honour of Life Membership No 10 in 2003. Craig has played in all three of Palmerston’s winning A Grade grand finals. A big moment in Craig’s rugby career came in 1992 when he captained the NT representative side to an historic 17-16 win over Scotland at Rugby Park in Darwin.
In 1992, Craig moved south to try his hand at rugby in Sydney where he played for Eastern Suburbs. Returning to Darwin in 1994, Craig slotted back into the NT side and Palmerston. In 2000, when the Mosquitoes concept was born for the NT representative side, Craig was the first captain. He played 55 games for the NT between 1988 and 2001, including being captain during 1990-92 and 1995-2000.
He remembers well when he was moved from his favourite number 10 spot to inside centre against Queensland when Kris Shirley took the number 10 position. His opponent was Tim Horan, who many of us will recall went on to make the inside centre position his own with the Wallabies for many years. It was a long day at the office, trying to contain the running skills of Horan and I am sure it was a proud moment in Craig’s football career.
Craig has also played rugby in every state of Australia. He represented the NT Under 20s in Taiwan and captained the Mosquitoes in Sri Lanka. He has travelled far and wide with his first love, rugby, and has met some great friends and had great experiences. Craig, however, counts playing NT representative rugby with his brother, Cameron, as one of his great thrills. While not admitting to be ready to hang up the boots just yet, Craig is preparing for life off-field.
He recently married Mel and they have a lovely daughter, Jessie. Craig this year is coaching the NT Under 16 side which will see him travel to Sydney for the national championships. I know all members join with me wishing them every success. He is a Level 2 National Coach and is interested in pursing this side of the game.
On Saturday, when Craig runs onto the field for Palmerston for the 300th time in A Grade I understand his parents Mal and Wendy will be there, as they have for nearly all of the 300 games. They travelled from the station at Mt Ringwood for many years until they moved to Batchelor and then continued their weekend journey to support their son, a return journey of over 200 km.
Some of the other highlights in Craig’s career involved kicking the winning penalty in Palmerston’s first A Grade grand final win in 1990-91. He was captain of the Palmerston A Grade winning side in 1998-99 and NT Player of the Year in 1996. He has been top point scorer in the NT Rugby Union A Grade competition three times. He won the Australian Sports Medal in 2000. I would like to acknowledge Garry Russell for providing me with much of the information about Craig’s history. I look forward to witnessing Craig run on for his 300th game at the weekend.
Recently, FrogWatch, together with local MLAs in Palmerston and beyond, coordinated a series of toad busts around Palmerston in July and August. I was lucky to lead the first community toad bust in Palmerston at Sanctuary Lake Park in Gunn on 21 July this year, together with FrogWatch coordinators, Graeme Sawyer and Paul Cowdy, as well as a great many keen volunteers.
It was fantastic to see such strong support from the people of Palmerston, with many families and their children turning up on the night to assist FrogWatch. Graeme Sawyer from FrogWatch gave a brief discussion and provided everyone with a bag and a set of gloves. Volunteers split into groups to scour the park, hunting along the banks of the lakes and in nearby drains and culverts, capturing 14 adult males, five adult females and 82 sub-adults. The 101 toads were disposed of humanely. I would especially like to thank the residents of Gunn and surrounding areas on the night for all their efforts. I also thank Graeme and Paul for their knowledge, their leading and their organising of this event with me, as well as the other events that occurred. I know the member for Drysdale and the member for Goyder, as well as the member for Blain have been involved in FrogWatch toad busts.
The member for Drysdale, Chris Natt, and I were on hand to assist FrogWatch coordinators, Graeme Sawyer and Paul Cowdy, unload the new toad detention centre at the Palmerston tip gates. It is great for residents of Palmerston who can drop off live cane toads 24 hours a day. Residents can drop their live captures down the chute where they remain until collected. FrogWatch clear the detention centres on a regular basis. The first detention centre, as my colleague, the member for Goyder, well knows, was installed at Freds Pass Reserve in February earlier this year, and to date has seen more than 3000 live toads dropped off by local residents.
Detention centres are large insulated bins with solar-powered light, and water, where the toads can live comfortably until collection each week. All captives are then humanely euthanized with CO2 gas, frozen and stored before delivery to a fertiliser factory to be processed into liquid fertiliser, which I understand is called ‘Toad Jus’, where they do have a much better effect on the environment in that form than in their live hopping form.
FrogWatch recently conducted the Toad Audit Day and asked everyone in the community to check their back yards, with a good result by Top Enders with 121 toads being captured on the night. 18 August this year was, funnily enough, the anniversary of the first release of cane toads into the Australian environment in 1935. That is not something we wish to remember too much, disastrous as it has been for our flora and fauna.
They are just some of the great events happening in Palmerston and the surrounds. I am sure many more will happen and I will see people on Friday at the Palmerston markets.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, on Friday night, 11 August, the 2006 Katherine Deb Ball was held in the grounds of the Katherine Museum. This venue has become a favourite for large functions in Katherine for several reasons. The grounds, with magnificent mahogany trees, grass and the raised gazebo are beautifully maintained by the many volunteers of Katherine who give so willingly of their time. There is plenty of parking and the venue is quite private and secure. The concrete slab used for dancing on is the remains of a long gone building that was once part of the Katherine Airport. The dance floor was transformed with a huge central maypole installed from which there were hundreds of fairy lights extending out to poles around the edge of the dance floor. In addition to this, there were fairy lights and coloured lights scattered throughout the grounds which gave a wonderful fairytale atmosphere to the ball, as well as candlelit tables, and not to mention to the full moon.
What a fabulous night it was, not only for the 19 beautifully presented debs and their smartly dressed partners, but also for all the families and friends who were fortunate enough to be present.
This particular night was the last night of the Defence Force’s exercise run between Tindal and the base in Darwin. I am very happy to say that they decided to take off in the opposite direction, which meant that we were able to hear the music at all times, and hear the debs’ names. It was a very pleasant evening. So thanks very much to the Defence Force for taking off in the opposite direction for that particular night. It just made the debs and their partners very much appreciate it.
Jodie Locke, an alderman on Katherine Town Council, took on the challenge of organising the ball this year, and she is to be congratulated for the excellent outcome. No detail was overlooked in making this evening the success that it was. I had the pleasure of receiving these beautiful young people, sashing the girls with a silver and white sash, and giving the boys a scroll as a memento of their special evening. I was assisted at this special occasion by my husband, Mike.
Debutante balls are a very old English tradition of introducing young ladies into society, so to speak. I am glad to see that this tradition is still so willingly supported in Katherine. It gives the young people the opportunity to feel very special on a special night, to dress up formally, and to learn to dance the older style dances such as the waltz and barn dance. These young couples have been practising their dance routines for over two months under the guidance of Graham and Sue Newhouse who are very experienced ballroom dancers and a delight to watch. Graham and Sue were justifiably very proud of the debs and their partners’ dancing presentation.
The colour theme for the night was white with silver, with the maids of honour, Sinead Stubbs, Caitlyn Lowe and Sally Cook looking absolutely gorgeous in strapless black gowns with silver waistbands. The debutantes and their partners were Kate Barnes and Paul Jennings, Jo Clarke and Michael Paice, Ricci Colvin and Gary Jackson, Amy Cook and Philip Morrow, Jenna Gorman and Andrew Bannan, Lauren Hawkes and Alex Brindell, Madeline Ingrames and Warrick Newton, Courtney Jeffery and Mark Clifford, Brett Marie Johnston and Chris Berto, Tayla Johnston and Kevin Patterson, Sinead Linton and Patrick Tune, Danielle Liversey and Jed Henderson, Rachel Magraw and Michael Travers, Kirstie Sequitin and Nic Brindell, Sky Simlat and Darwin Flores, Jessica Skinner and Paul Mark, Rhianna Smith and Ty Hodgetts, Rhian Wardley and Tyle Guymer; and Abby Pond and Edward Hagger. The flower girls were Taylah and Asha Locke and Hayley Lyle, with page boy, Haydon Locke.
MC for the evening was in the very capable hands of John Jansen, with the lively music provided by local band, Fusion.
As with any large function that is organised in a regional town, the success of this function is only measured by the volunteers who helped to put everything together. Katherine’s 2006 Deb Ball was no exception. I sincerely hope that if I have inadvertently missed anyone from the following acknowledgements, they will forgive me.
A huge thank you to: Jodie Locke; Graham and Sue Newhouse; the Katherine Historical Society and the many volunteer members who assisted in the preparation and the cleaning up of the grounds; Macs Hire for tables, chair, crockery and cutlery; Brad and Tina Lowe from the museum; Pauline and Mark Gage; John Jansen and Teresa Cummings; Marcia Beaumont; Richard and Narelle Cook; the Power and Water guys - Steve Lamble and Garth Lambert - who transformed the venue into a night-time fairyland; Jackie Balmer who loaned many of her fairy lights; the bar staff who included Lorna and Barry Hart, Michael Whelan and Mickey Aloisi; Rhad Security who kindly volunteered their services; Caryn Chalk for baking and decorating the magnificent deb cake which was cut by the recently-married Graham and Sue Newhouse; Steve Laurie and his band of workers from Kumbidgee Lodge who provided a sumptuous three-course dinner. Not only was Steve busy catering for the ball, but he and his partner, Annette Duncan, became the proud parents of a baby son, Nicholas who decided to arrive four weeks early on that day. It was a pretty hectic day for Steve. Also thank you to Katherine Hospital laundry staff for the pristine white tablecloths; Katherine Country Music Muster; Doug Glasson and Greg Bird for allowing their vintage vehicles to be part of the decoration and backdrop for many photographs and my goodness, they were well used; and also to Don Walsh.
Last but not least, a big thank you to all the parents for supporting their young people to be able to participate in an evening that they will always remember with very fond memories. Well done, everyone. The reason I say it will be very fond memories is it is just a little while ago that I was debutante in South Australia in a country area. I can remember just how special that evening was and I always have very good, special memories of that. In fact, one of the debs that I was presented with called in to see me at my electorate office only this week. It has been a long time since we did the foxtrot, the barn dance and the quick step and all of those dances at our Deb Ball in Streaky Bay in South Australia.
The museum venue was again the gathering for many local people when last Sunday Katherine celebrated its first ever Teddy Bears Picnic. I am a bit of a softy for teddy bears and when I knew that they were going to have this teddy bears picnic I decided I would embarrass my husband and take all the teddy bears that I own to my office and had a display in the window. My office has looked very warm and cuddly for three weeks now and that encouraged other people to come in and volunteer to put their teddy bears in their as well.
That included the Casuarina Street School which has two teddy bears, Fuzzy and Aussie, which do a lot of travelling with the teachers and students wherever they go overseas. These two teddy bears took pride of place in my window. One had just come back from the UK so he is a well travelled teddy bear, but he could not tell me much about it, unfortunately. Casuarina School also loaned me their major school bear who is a lovely big, well used and well loved bear. So this was just something that was really nice and warm and cuddly and fuzzy for the Katherine area.
On the Sunday, while there were many young people with their favourite teddy bear under their arm, most people of all ages were quite happy to declare their softer side and have their favourite teddy bear with them which created a very happy and relaxed atmosphere. It was just lovely to see the number of grandparents who came along with their young grandchildren too and spent that special time with them at the museum grounds at the Teddy Bears Picnic.
The idea of the picnic was Jodie Locke’s - she has been a very busy lady this year and she must be congratulated for organising the event. The day was very well supported. All Teddy Bear Picnic helpers were dressed in purple t-shirts with of course a teddy bear on the front and were easily identifiable. MC for the day was Henry Higgins, also an alderman on Katherine Town Council. I also need to add that Henry has just become a grandfather. I think he is in practice and I know he thoroughly enjoyed himself. Henry dressed in the purple t-shirt with a waistcoat of Humphrey Bear prints over the top all in keeping with the spirit of the day and it was a job that I know Henry thoroughly enjoyed. Some of the events included three-legged races, egg and spoon races, foot racing, dress up races, face painting, bead making, thong throwing, colouring-in competitions, and cooking damper on sticks over hot coals. That was well supervised by adults.
Purple t-shirt helpers on the day included Jodie and Iain Locke - Iain was also Mr Vegie Man for a short time; Henry and Vicki Higgins; John McNamara; Ruth Murphy; Jean Fullgrabe; Kath Neil; Lisa Alexander; Lorna Hart; Caryn Chalk; Pauline Gage; Lorraine Reid; Deb Lambert; and John Forrest. There were many people who contributed one way or another to make Katherine’s first Teddy Bears Picnic the huge success it turned out to be. They included a Neighbourhood Watch stand with Keith Currie, school Constable Dani Ford, Sharon Hillen and Duana Job providing a free sausage sizzle and information about keeping our communities safe. Well done, Jodie, to you and all your helpers. I look forward to next years Teddy Bears Picnic as I am sure most of those children who were there and the parents and grandparents will as well.
I know that Jodie will probably be embarrassed with me doing this, but Jodie is a young mum of three small children. She is an alderman on Katherine Town Council. She is on the Katherine Show Society, she organised the Deb Ball and the Teddy Bear’s Picnic - an absolutely amazing job for a young mum. It just goes to show the commitment that she and her husband, Iain, show towards the Katherine community. What a wonderful place communities are with people like them who live and work and dedicate their time so freely to the community. Well done, Jodie, a great year, but – gosh! – there are a lot of expectations for next year!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016