2006-11-29
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 858 petitioners praying that the Braitling Primary School airconditioning upgrade be nominated as a matter of highest priority on the capital works rolling program. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I am able to present a response to this petition forthwith.
I was pleased to visit Braitling Primary School about a month ago to advise principal, Sue Crowe and the school council chairperson, Clive Rosewarne, of a $120 000 upgrade to the school’s airconditioning system. I can advise the House and petitioners that the tender for the supply and installation has been let. The Northern Territory company, Airducter, has won the contract. The equipment has been ordered and work is on schedule for completion by the first day of school in 2007. I will be writing to the 858 petitioners advising them of this fact.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 543 petitioners praying that closed circuit television monitoring be implemented in Todd Mall and adjacent areas. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Dr LIM (Greatorex)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 28 petitioners relating to power for Launceston Road, Dundee Beach residents. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms LAWRIE (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, today I express the Martin government’s opposition to moves by the Commonwealth to scrap the word ‘multiculturalism’ from its Multicultural policy. Federal Parliamentary Secretary, Andrew Robb, recently said he wants to scrap ‘multiculturalism’ because the word has a different meaning for different people.
The Territory is wonderfully multicultural and while the Howard government might see it as a dirty word, we consider the Territory proudly multicultural and we are going to keep it that way. Our multicultural society is part of our great Territory lifestyle. We love being able to head down to the Mindil Beach markets for the flavours and entertainment from around the world. We have plenty of cultural festivals held throughout the Territory throughout the year – Chinese New Year, the Greek Glenti, the Bali/India at Mindil, and Barrio Fiesta to name a few. I have written to Andrew Robb pointing out our concerns.
The Australian government has also proposed introducing a formal citizenship test. They claim that a formal citizenship test would demonstrate commitment to Australia’s way of life and values. Our multicultural community does not need to be tested. The contribution to our great lifestyle in the Territory does not need to be tested. Formal citizenship tests have been used in the United Kingdom and the United States. I have not been there lately, but I see absolutely no evidence that these countries have a more harmonious society than here in the Territory.
The Martin government fully supports the need for all Australians, including migrants, to participate to the best of their ability in an Australian society, and commit to Australia’s democratic institutions, and also supports assistance for migrants to improve their English language and general knowledge of Australia. However, we believe that Australian citizenship should be seen as an opportunity to promote and celebrate our social cohesion, not as a means to exclude certain categories of migrants. We are all aware of many first generation migrants in the Territory who have not achieved functional English, but who have still made a significant contribution to the Territory. We also know that children of these migrants are frequently represented in the highest levels of academic, professional and business achievements in the Territory. We can ask for no greater commitment.
The Northern Territory government’s commitment to our multicultural community continues with the latest round of our Ethnic Community Facilities Development Program. This year we have some terrific organisations being supported. Some of the grants include: Alice Springs Islamic Society, $50 000 for a driveway and car park; the Buddhist Society of the Territory, $81 479 to bring their premises up to code; the Chung Wah Society, $15 000 for repairs to the community hall roof; Filipino-Australian Association of the Territory, $45 000 for completion of floors, eaves and car parking space; the Hindu Society of the Territory, $31 479 as a top-up grant to complete their hall; the Kalymnian Brotherhood, $45 000 to upgrade their car park; the Katherine Filipino Association of the Territory, $41 685 for renovations to their community hall; and for the Multicultural Community Services of Central Australia, $2836 to convert a store room to a wardrobe.
All of these organisations, and plenty of others, do a wonderful job in contributing to the multicultural lifestyle of the Northern Territory. We are very proud to support them to achieve this. We call on the federal government to scrap its views around removing the word ‘multicultural’ from its Multicultural policy. We urge the CLP in opposition to join us in a bipartisan call to the federal government to remove their dogmatic approach and embrace the multiculturalism that is very much a part of the fabric of Australian society.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I would like to seriously support the minister’s report, except that the way she did it is dishonest. It was a dishonest way of praising and celebrating our very diverse community in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is unique when compared with the rest of Australia. We have the greatest mix of various ethnic groups celebrating together in this very special community that we have. I could hear violins when she was saying: ‘Oh, my heart bleeds’. Minister, do it honestly. I support the government in what you have continued doing since the days of the CLP when we supported every cultural group we could possibly support in the Northern Territory.
On the matter of the citizenship test that the minister mentioned, it was the disgraceful ALP government that introduced the language test that excluded every Chinese from this country. That was what it was all about, and this government says: ‘Don’t you dare do it’. It was the ALP that did it many, many years ago. It was the Chinese who suffered the consequences of those very racist actions of the ALP. Now this government says we must not do this.
The minister needs to explore this issue a lot more. Let us talk about citizenship and what citizenship means to us in Australia; the loyalty we have to this country, and what it means to be able to link into the wider community. That is what is important and this government has not done that.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, just 10 days ago I went to a multicultural night in Alice Springs. Alice Springs has a diverse range of different nationalities and it was interesting in that each table put on an act, depending on their nationality. On our table, I was a bit shocked to find that there was only me and one other fellow who knew this Australia ditty which went a little like this:
Okay, I can see none of you know it either. It was fun. We appreciated everything that people contributed on that night. It was one of those events where you knew the mixture of nationalities in Alice Springs were able to get together and have a good time. It is not a racist town as people sometimes claim. When we use the term ‘multicultural’ I think it is a bit hackneyed. I believe it is a 1960s word and it is time we started thinking about saying something else. It has connotations that have been tagged; it has baggage, particularly in this day and age.
Even though I do not agree with the Prime Minister when he talks about testing new people to come here, it is good to have a certain criteria. I believe the criteria we use now are quite adequate. I say to the minister, perhaps this is an old term. It is a 1960s term. Let us think of something that represents the Territory today: the modern, new Territory, with all these nationalities working together. I have been thinking about it. We all should be thinking about it and put forward a different term and not let the Prime Minister make up his own mind.
Ms LAWRIE (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, I find the response from the shadow minister absolutely disheartening, that he is prepared to support the Commonwealth in their citizenship test. It is disgraceful. I will be letting the communities know about your whinging words in here this morning, shadow minister, in support of Johnnie Howard and his mates in Canberra who stand opposed to our harmonious society.
I have to agree to disagree with the member for Braitling. I do not think multiculturalism has baggage. It has baggage in the minds of the Liberal, National and Country Liberal Parties, but for the rest of us in our society it does not have baggage. Let us embrace it, enjoy it and celebrate it.
I pay tribute to the work done in Alice Springs by the multicultural group, they are harmonious, they celebrate their multiculturalism and, at a debate recently, they all vehemently expressed their opposition to the Commonwealth’s agenda to scrap multiculturalism.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, last week, the Chief Minister and I had the pleasure of helping Richard Selwood and his team at Natural Fuels Australia Ltd officially open their new biodiesel facility at the Darwin Business Park.
This $48m renewable energy plant is one of the most technologically advanced biodiesel production plants in Australia, and one of the first of its kind in the world. From early next year, the plant will produce up to 140 million litres of biodiesel, and around 12 000 tonnes of pharmaceutical grade glycerine every year. I am pleased to inform the House that the company has already entered into an agreement for the sale of up to 140 million litres of biodiesel each year, or 82% of its capacity.
The opening of this world-class facility in Darwin is good for local business and jobs. There will be around 100 jobs created directly and indirectly, and the facility will generate millions of dollars for the local economy. This landmark industrial project is a great example of our ability to deliver on major resource development projects. It is further evidence that our strategic investment in the Darwin Business Park is starting to reap dividends.
Together with the Vopak Fuel Terminal, which the Chief Minister opened last year, we have the core of a clean fuel precinct established within the Darwin Business Park. We hope to see a condensate processing plant next door in the near future.
The clean fuels precinct is a perfect example of the vision we had for the Darwin Business Park when it was established in 2003. We always envisaged complementary industries grouping together, and working together, such as Vopak and Natural Fuels Australia, to reduce costs and increase efficiency.
This company should be applauded on their collaborative approach. It is a great example for other industrial developments in the business park. In addition to this strategic clustering, the business park is close to road, rail and port facilities, and our new modern bulk handling facilities will see Darwin become an even more attractive option for new industries such as Natural Fuels Australia.
The Darwin Business Park has also constructed more freight forwarding operations. Toll Holdings has just commenced Stage 2 of their $20m development, which will see another 5000 m2 facility being built alongside their existing facility. It should be operational by mid-2007.
I am also advised that Shaws Transport Darwin and John Bain’s Westrans are both set to commence construction of their new freight forwarding facilities in January. Negotiations with other companies are also well advanced, which is great news for the future of the Darwin Business Park.
This means even more jobs and business opportunities for Territorians. Natural Fuels Australia deserve our highest praise. I take the opportunity to congratulate their Chief Executive Officer, Richard Selwood, Chairman, Barry Murphy, and the Board of Directors of Natural Fuels Australia Ltd for their vision and professionalism. I also acknowledge and thank the Chief Operating Officer, Michael Allenby, and his operational team who worked so hard to get the plant to where it is today.
The opening of Natural Fuels Australia Darwin Biodiesel facility is good news for the Territory. It will create jobs for Territorians and provide a big boost to our local economy. Importantly, it has once again shown our capacity to attract and deliver on major industrial projects.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I speak on this on behalf of the opposition because I have taken a close interest in this development. It is interesting to hear the statement that this will have a big impact on the Northern Territory. We need to have that explored more carefully and thoughtfully by government because the real potential for the Territory is if it is developed down the line of understanding that the need is for oil seed production in the Northern Territory. That is the real capacity that will be unleashed in the Northern Territory.
It is a tremendous vote of confidence in the Northern Territory that Natural Fuels Australia has chosen the Northern Territory. It was chosen because of its close location to palm oil seed production within the region but, more importantly, because of the capacity of growing oil seeds within this part of the world. That unlocks the potential for the Northern Territory.
The government has done the necessary things to facilitate the establishment of the plant. That is just the beginning; the potential is now there for road blocks to be removed by this government, or problems that will impede the development of land in the Northern Territory to be focused upon by this government so that those road blocks can be cleared.
One is the land issues. There are many pastoralists who went to the field day trials in the Douglas Daly area who became enthusiastic because now there is a market and a plant that can use the production of oil within the Territory - a market. Therefore, the land issues need to be attended to, and the research to back up the capacity to produce oil seeds in the Territory. Finally, the most important issue that was raised during the field day was water rights. Those are the sort of things that this government can focus on to unleash the potential of a vote of confidence that has been shown in the Northern Territory by the establishment of this plant.
I applaud those who have taken the foresight to establish this. They need the support of government, not just quick briefings and to turn up at ribbon cuttings, but to actually be there and do the job.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. As I said before, whilst I support biodiesel, there are still questions about the economics behind the production of biodiesel.
I went to the Alternative Fuels Conference in Perth a few months ago where this was discussed. There were certainly issues about using land that is set aside for producing food crops being used for producing fuel. They are issues that we need to look at. It may not be such a matter in the Northern Territory because we have vast amounts of land. However, it would be good to know that the source of that oil is not from plantations that either affect the environment or are using land that could be used for food. It is a big issue, but it is an issue we still have to look at.
I agree with the member for Blain; there are big land issues that the government has to address. For many years, I have asked about the Ord River Stage 2. It appears our government has done very little about developing the Ord River Stage 2. Western Australia is miles ahead …
A member: No, they are not.
Mr WOOD: Western Australia is miles ahead in the opening up of the Ord River Stage 2. We need to advance on that, so that if we are going to produce crops for biodiesel, then we are in a situation where that can happen. We certainly have uncertainty about what is going to happen on the Daly River as well.
You mentioned clean fuels - distillate condensate. I presume one of those fuels that is being produced is hydrogen. I am still interested in the government looking at whether it can use hydrogen as a fuel for its fleet, or use biodiesel in its fleet. You have promoted both of these industries. If the government wants to give both of these industries a bit of a leg up and support, then it should be trying to use the fuels that are produced there in its own fleet as a sign of encouragement and support.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, it is refreshing to finally hear a member of the opposition supporting the government’s endeavour to attract this kind of industry. It is not doom and gloom. It is promoting the Territory and creating jobs for Territorians. I would like to advise the member for Blain that yes, the department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is actively involved in discussions with farmers about the possibility of growing these kind of seeds in the Territory. There was a trial on Tipperary Station growing soya beans that went very well.
As for the member for Nelson, I share his concerns about clearing especially tropical forest to grow palm oil. I would like something like that to happen here rather than importing from areas like in Indonesia which have suffered from uncontrolled clearing. I also share his concern about growing crops for food or growing them for fuel. The reality is a fuel-hungry society will need fuel. In the Territory we are in the best position to utilise our land to effectively produce renewable fuels like biodiesel.
Mr VATSKALIS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I inform members about the very successful Alice Springs Master Games held recently. This year’s Alice Springs Masters Games was the 11th games held and signifies the Games’ 20th year. A record 4457 competitors with an average age of 50, some competitors from as far as France, came to Alice Springs to participate in 34 sports.
I assisted with the opening of the Games and the town was buzzing. Both the opening and closing ceremonies were huge events attended by thousands of competitors, visitors and Alice Springs residents, including our former parliamentary colleague, Peter Toyne, sporting a newly shaved head.
More than 140 Masters Games records were broken with some Australian records falling. Kay Jorgensen, a 49-year-old swimming powerhouse, broke Dawn Fraser’s Masters Games record in both the 50 m and 100 m freestyle, records that had stood since the first games in 1986. Dawn was on hand to congratulate a very excited Kay on her great achievement. It was great to see Dawn Fraser, the patron of the Alice Springs Masters Games, once again competing in the Games, and also guest ambassador, Daryl Somers, for once again being everywhere and sharing his humour. I thank them both for their continued support of Alice Springs.
I would like to make a special mention of swimmer, Margo Bates, the oldest competitor of the Games at 96 years old. She only learnt to swim in her 80s.
It was not just competitive sports that made the 2006 Games a success. It was the community spirit. More than 120 people participated in the slower paced 5km walk for a very good cause. They donned pink outfits and walked to help support the fight against breast cancer, obviously a topic very close to your heart, Madam Speaker. It was great to see the Masters Games organisers embrace it.
Local businesses got involved with a competition to design a Masters Games themed shopfront. Feeling Peckish in the Todd Mall came away with the $1000 airport advertising package prize for their tribute to the Games. Congratulations to Renae Brown and Sandy Burnnard on their great effort.
More than 2600 interstate and overseas visitors came for our friendly Games this year. The Games are funded by this government to the tune of $1.5m. I am advised an estimated $18.5m is injected into the Alice Springs economy as a result of the Masters Games.
The Games could not be successful without the tireless work of the hundreds of volunteers and the Games ambassadors: for your efforts we are truly grateful. Nor could this event be a success without the monetary and in-kind support of the sponsors. Thanks must go to the Diamond Sponsors, Peter Kittle Motor Company, Imparja Television, Lasseters Hotel Casino, and the Alice Springs Town Council, for your generosity and commitment to this event. Thanks also for the support from the other valued sponsors, Carlton United Breweries, The Crowne Plaza, Coca Cola, Tattersalls, Centralian Advocate, Sporting Plus, 8HA, Alice Springs Airport, Telstra Country Wide, Colemans Printing, The Ghan, ROWO, the TAB, Alice Plaza, Power and Water, Thrifty, Centralian Records Management, the Dept of Correctional Services, TIO Insurance and Banking, Fujitsu, The Overlander Steakhouse, Redback Productions, Alice Springs Creative Gifts and Awards, and Neata Glass and Aluminium.
The lion’s share of the responsibility for the Games’ success is due to the dedication and commitment of the fabulous Masters Games staff, ably lead by Judith Dixon. I also pay tribute to Les Garraway who has overseen sponsorship management for the games since its inception 20 years ago. His corporate knowledge and his networks are invaluable to the Games. The Masters Games were a huge success and I do not think any of the competitors wanted it to end. I encourage each of my parliamentary colleagues to make it to the next one between 11 and 18 October 2008.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I speak both in my capacity as a member of parliament from Alice Springs and as a participant in the Masters Games - a bronze medal winning participant, having knocked a few a points off my golf handicap. I had a very enjoyable Masters Games. My colleague over here, Dr Lim, picked up a couple of silvers and a bronze medal. I am not sure how many Toyney ended up getting. I am also not sure how much the member for Macdonnell participated in the Games. I am not sure whether she won a medal.
It was an outstanding Masters Games. What a fabulous CLP initiative the Masters Games have been. What vision the former CLP administration showed for the development of Alice Springs and the Northern Territory generally in implementing the Masters Games - a vision that this government is sadly lacking.
Thousands of participants came from everywhere for the Masters. The town looked great. There was a fantastic feeling in the air. It is always an outstanding opportunity for the residents and businesses in Alice Springs to strut their stuff and all was going well. It was noticed that the usual ministers from Darwin flew in and flew out, but the Masters Games managed to proceed pretty much without them.
Madam Speaker, you would be aware, as would everyone else in this Chamber, of the outrageous cowardly assault that occurred on the Friday night after the Masters Games. That was an outrageous assault and one that really took the wind out of everyone’s sails. The gentleman involved is doing reasonably well in all of this and all of us, I think, have contributed to his fundraising efforts. That was a sad moment for the town of Alice Springs and that is partly why CCTV cameras and more police presence in Alice Springs are required. On that unhappy note, however, the Masters Games was a success and we look forward to participating in even more.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, as a non-participant but as someone who handed out many medals, and strung them on tall people and short people, it was a great event. I do want to pay compliment to a member for coming last. I am sure he spoiled his record actually; he came last in the 100 m, 200 m and the 400 m, but he ruined it by coming second last in the shot put: the member for Nelson.
Mr Wood: Thank you. The other bloke gave up.!
Mrs BRAHAM: It was a great night and the security guards told me that there were no problems at the opening and closing ceremonies, the rock and roll concert, or the concert at the convention centre. I walked down the mall and there was a good feel. As the member for Araluen said, the assault incident was unfortunate, but we should not dwell on the negatives. Accommodation is a problem. I know a number of participants were billeted by sporting clubs because it was difficult to get accommodation in the end.
I thought Dawn Fraser and Daryl Somers as ambassadors were tremendous. I joined them in presentations. They were so obliging to people. Daryl, I think, gave up awarding medals because people just wanted to have their photos taken with him and he did it freely and with such good grace. Dawn, who was often pestered, was also very calm and willing to stand there and be the model that people wanted to hug and have their photographs with. They are tremendous ambassadors and I hope we continue to have that type of publicity.
When I did a presentation with Daryl Somers, he told me that he had done 18 interviews interstate that day. You could imagine the huge publicity that was for the Masters Games in Alice Springs. We cannot buy that sort of publicity. We need someone like him. Minister, it was great. Well done, and I hope you continue to support it as you have done in the past.
Mr VATSKALIS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, it is great to see bipartisan support for the Alice Springs Masters Games. Yes, it was an initiative by the CLP, and our government will continue to support it and Alice Springs. As I said yesterday, in one year we put $12.75m into Alice Springs to support the development of sporting facilities. Yes, the spirit was fantastic; I really enjoyed it. I did not want to leave but I had to attend a conference in Brisbane. I enjoyed my time. I enjoyed playing golf with Dawn Fraser. She played really well; I played badly and I am not ashamed to say so. I am sorry that I missed the soccer competition. I had my boots and everything, but because I had to go away, I missed out.
I congratulate the people of Alice Springs in particular because they are the ones who make sure that the people who participate in the Master Games will come time after time because of how hospitable they are and how beautiful the town is.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I report to the Assembly on the Business Breakfast Program. This government believes in consultation and keeping in touch with business and the community. As Treasurer, for some time I have had a program of business breakfasts which allow me to keep in touch with the business community and the issues they face.
Recently, I held a breakfast with a number of local businesswomen and, last week, breakfast with a number of business people who also write for business publications.
We are a leader in the Territory with many of the things we do, but perhaps it is most evident in what I would describe in the business world as the having-a-go attitude. There is no doubt that the businesswomen I met with on 2 November are all shining examples of people willing to have a go at very different elements of business across our community. Present at that breakfast were women from communications companies, rehabilitation businesses, Darwin motor sales companies, jewellery businesses, and a major legal firm. The common issue raised by each of the businesswomen present was the issue of staff and the need for more staff to work in their businesses. Clearly, the labour shortage grip is continuing and it is a point made repeatedly by business in a number of forums and again at this breakfast.
As I reported to the House yesterday, year on year growth in employment was 5.9%. It is much higher than was predicted at the time of the budget, and clearly more jobs are available. It represents significant opportunities for employees and an opportunity for government to continue the strong program of supporting Territory training.
The breakfast last Wednesday was with businessmen and women who are also business writers. I was pleased to have a broad discussion with them on the general state of the Territory economy. The Northern Territory will remain a great place to live and do business while we have terrific business minds like those I met at the breakfast. The issue of labour shortage was again raised. We also dealt with land availability issues, the long-term prospects of the Northern Territory, and the nation’s economic outlook.
It is important for the Treasurer to meet with business people in this way to hear directly from those involved at the coalface just how things are really going. It is a much more valuable insight than the broad, high level data and statistics that I see as Treasurer on most days. With business so busy, I am grateful that they gave up some of their time to meet with me. I believe they view these breakfasts as an opportunity to let the government know directly their concerns and views. I look forward to continuing this program of business breakfasts across the Northern Territory next year.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the Treasurer prefaced his comments by saying this government believes in community consultation. To believe in something and not practice it is the issue, particularly when it relates to the effect of the decision to restrict the speed on open highways. That was not community consultation. There is consultation when it suits the purposes of government.
I am very interested to know whether the Treasurer, in his interest in going around and talking to people and hearing what they really think, has actually spoken to those who are most directly affected by the imposition of speed restrictions on the open roads, particularly the cattlemen and those who work in the regions and sustain their living and support the Territory in very difficult situations remote from urban centres. The urban centres are where the larger number of our problems on the roads do exist. I hope that the minister does extend his ear to listen very carefully, and openly and humbly, to the voice of those who are directly affected by the decisions that are made by his government. They may say they believe in community consultation but when it comes to things like education reform, they managed an exercise called community consultation which was, in fact, the management of a public relations exercise.
I also note that, from the point of view of opposition, it is becoming increasingly clear that this notion of consultation has a sinister edge to it. There are many who once were unencumbered and free to speak who feel constrained now. There is subtle pressure being applied to those who have spoken up in the past. You may be offended deeply by such claims, but it is, in fact, the case, and very difficult for anyone to substantiate it because they would be pressured.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
The overall time for ministerial reports has expired.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The question is that ministerial reports be noted.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, order! Honourable members! The question is that ministerial reports be noted.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The aim of the bill is to add serious sexual offences to the list of offences where bail is not presumed. The bill defines serious sexual offences as eight particular offences under the Criminal Code. These eight offences already fall within the category of ‘serious violence offence’ for which section 7A of the Bail Act does not presume bail, but only if the accused was on bail for a separate serious offence and had previously been found guilty of a further serious offence within the previous two to 10 years. Section 8 also does not presume bail for some specific sexual offences, but only if the offender had been found guilty of murder, bodily harm, common assault, or sex without consent within the last 10 years. I totally agree with these provisions except they do not apply to an accused who does not fall within these criteria.
Bail is the right to be at liberty instead of in custody based on the principle that the accused person is innocent until proven guilty. However, there are situations where it is considered that the accused should not be at liberty such as if there was a risk that they would not front up to court for their case, or they may re-offend, or they may be a risk to the victim or community. In these circumstances, a court can reject bail. At the same time, it is accepted that there are certain crimes for which bail should not be presumed. That is why many Australian jurisdictions do not presume bail for murder, as an example. In the Northern Territory, the Bail Act does not presume bail for murder, treason, and some drug offences.
Let me go into some of the details of the bill. First, the bill amends section 3, Interpretation, to include a definition of ‘serious sexual offence’ which will constitute eight offences from the Criminal Code. These are generally considered to be of a serious nature: section 127, sexual intercourse or gross indecency involving a child under 16 years; section 128, sexual intercourse or gross indecency involving a child over 16 years under special care; section 130, sexual intercourse or gross indecency by a provider of services to a mentally ill or handicapped person; section 131A, sexual relationship with a child; section 132, indecent dealing with a child under 16 years; section 134, incest; section 192, sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent; and section 192B, coerced sexual self-manipulation.
Second, the bill amends section 7A(1), Presumption against bail for certain offences. The amendment adds the offence of serious sexual offence to the list of other offences where bail is not presumed. This clause also amends section 7A(1)(e) which details circumstances where bail is not presumed for serious violent offences. The definition of these offences includes the sections relating to serious sexual offences. It is necessary to amend section 7A(1)(e) to ensure the circumstance where bail is not presumed for serious violent offences will not limit the new section 7(A)(1)(db), which includes serious sexual offences, being included in the list.
Third, the bill amends section 8, Presumption in favour of bail for certain offences. This section lists the offences and circumstances where bail may be presumed. It is regarded as a ‘neutral presumption’ in that there is no presumption that bail will be granted, nor is there an express presumption that bail not be granted. This is because an offence may fall under the categories of section 7A or section 8. Section 8(1)(aa) states that bail may not be presumed for some offences defined as serious violent offences under the Criminal Code. These offences are section 181, Grievous harm, and some parts of section 192, Sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent, if the accused has previously been found guilty of certain offences under the Criminal Code.
Amendment to this clause is necessary, therefore, to ensure that serious sexual offences do not fall into the neutral presumption area. This is done by removing the references to the Criminal Code section 192 offences in section 8(1)(aa) so as to avoid any potential confusion about the presumption of bail because these offences will be listed as serious sexual offences.
Fourth, the bill inserts a new section of transitional matters. The presumption against bail for serious sexual offences will apply retrospectively for an alleged serious sexual offence committed before the commencement of the new act. This will not apply to an accused person who is granted bail for such an offence prior to the commencement of the new act. However, it will apply if that person’s bail is up for review after the commencement date, as the new provisions will apply.
Section 24 of the Bail Act, Criteria to be considered in bail applications, is not removed or altered, but allows a court to consider each case and whether to grant bail on the probability of the accused appearing in court, the interests of the accused, and the protection and welfare of the community. I stress that section 24 will not be altered or removed.
Opponents will argue the courts are well aware of potential negative impact on granting bail and will not do so if there is any risk to the victim, their family or the community. However, a brief look at a number of cases shows the majority of accused are granted bail, even those accused of sexual assault against children. I could go into descriptions of cases but too often they are distressing and I am assuming as members you are in touch with your community and you know of them.
What has prompted me to introduce this amendment? The increasing reports of violent and sadistic sexual offences against children and adults. Statistics taken from the Office of Crime Prevention quarterly report show that for the last three years sexual assault offences constitute between 4.4% to 9.3% of all offences against a person. The average monthly number of sexual assaults for the same period is between 22 and 38; that is almost one every day. Of course we cannot measure the long-term effects on the victims. It affects their attitudes to relationships, and sometimes without closure and unrepaired damage there is often no closure at all.
Many of you may ask why I am bringing this amendment. It is not for political chest beating as one lawyer group has suggested. It is for the victims. It is a fact that I have worked with children for many years and I can tell many sad stories. As well as that, many people who consider the system has let them down have contacted me. What would you do if a Year 6 girl in the middle of development lesson asked you how many times you have to have sex to get pregnant, and when told as little as once, retreats into her shell and takes no part in that lesson. Yes, her stepfather was the offender.
How do you react to a six-year-old at show and tell when she said she slept over at a friend’s place but did not want to stay again as the games her friend’s father wanted to play, hurt her?
Do all cases go to court? No. What made an 11-year-old burst into tears when her mother said she was going out and her grandfather would look after her? Her mother would not report him to the police. Her excuse? He is my father. But what of the daughter?
There are cases where the accused is released on bail and these cause even greater concern to the victim and the family. Let me read you part of a letter I received when this amendment was circulated. Obviously, I will not reveal who it came from. The young person said:
The feedback I have had to the distribution of my amendment for discussion has produced a variety of responses. Some too ignorant to respond to, and some too set in their ways to see the victim’s side of the story such as some of the ridiculous remarks made by lawyers even before they saw the bill. On a positive note, I heard on the weekend at the White Ribbon Day event, a lawyer referring to domestic violence say: ‘We should not walk on by’. We should not stop being shocked. I do not intend to walk away from these hard topics.
I thank the groups which have taken time to give me constructive or objective feedback. Many use the argument of innocent until proven guilty, but one group of lawyers concedes that a reduction in the number of offences listed may be acceptable. One group submits that the definition of ‘serious sexual offence’ is too broad. As an alternative argument, they concede that the following would be appropriate to include within a proposed definition of ‘serious sexual offence’: a sexual relationship with a child, section 131A; sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent, section 192; coerced sexual self-manipulation, section 192B.
They say:
Other community groups offer thoughtful support. This was from a community club in Alice Springs:
I stress that, Madam Speaker. It is a very sound way of summing up what we did. Courts will still have the right to look at each case individually, but the presumption of bail has been removed for serious sexual offences.
Members, I am not asking you to support this for me. Support it so that all victims are not afraid to come forward. I am not denying the accused the right to defend the case and seek bail. Section 24 still gives the court that option. I am asking that it be weighted in favour of the victim, not the accused. I know you will vote on party lines, but if you know of cases such as those about which I have spoken, then you must acknowledge the rights of the child and the victim. Do not allow the victim to be violated again by someone walking out the door on bail.
I have heard the Leader of the Opposition many times criticise government for their inaction in this area. Let us all work together for a better system for victims. I urge you to support this. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
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 is a reasonably straightforward bill. It is about removing the possibility of people being charged with serious offences from walking out of the front door of a court house. Obviously, this is not the first time the issue of sentencing has been considered in this parliament and it certainly will not be the last. The community has high expectations in relation to the punishment of offenders. They have even higher expectations in relation to people convicted of particular types of crimes that are regarded as heinous and with a measure of abhorrence by most decent-thinking people in the Northern Territory and this country. Those types of crimes include rape; sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children; as well as aggravated assaults, that is, male on female violence, which is so prevalent, I am sad to say, in the Northern Territory.
In the past, there have been numerous examples of offenders receiving a sentence of imprisonment, however the courts, on occasion, suspend those sentences. In line with the community’s expectation, the Country Liberal Party is of the view that there is an imperative to respond to the outrage that results from such cases. In other words, people do not want to see those convicted of very serious offences walk out the front door of courts after their sentences have been fully or wholly suspended.
There are many cases which illustrate the point, but a recent one in Alice Springs is particularly germane. A father beat a five-year-old boy within an inch of his life - his injuries have received a deal of media attention. The father who beat this five-year-old child was given a three year gaol sentence. On the face of it, it sounds very reasonable. However, the twist is that his sentence was fully suspended. That, of course, led to understandable community outrage.
In modern politics, both parties, in the Northern Territory and in Australia, vie for the position of who is toughest on crime. At times we see in this country a competition between political parties about who can come up with the toughest law and order policy. Within those media releases and, on occasion, policy frameworks, we see and hear of politicians and governments talking about increasing the sentences. We have seen this government do it; in fact, they have excelled at it. We have seen the media releases which have said: ‘We have increased the sentences for this that and the other, therefore we are tough on crime’.
There is no point in having tough or long sentences on the statute books if various people are not actually going to go to gaol. As a practitioner, I saw, on occasion, the look of glee of offenders after they were, in a sense, given a serve by the magistrate, a dressing down – ‘You have been naughty, haven’t you? Your offence has been abhorrent. Do not do it again. I hereby sentence you to a period of whatever in gaol …’ – pause – ‘… but then I fully suspend your sentence on account of the material which your lawyer has put to me’. The courts should have a level of discretion. No one would argue with that. This proposal ensures that the courts continue to have discretion. It simply requires that wholly suspended sentences be abolished in relation to very specific crimes and, once again, that is in line with community expectation. The community does not want to see gleeful offenders and perpetrators leave the court.
As a lawyer, I well understand the seriousness of a suspended sentence; I know what it means. However, the public at large does not understand the seriousness of a suspended sentence when it means that the offender or perpetrator can walk straight out the front door after getting a dressing down from a judge or magistrate. The time has come, particularly in the Territory, given the type of heinous offences we see, particularly perpetrated against women and children, that we nail our colours to the mast, as it were, and say enough is enough.
The proposal ensures that the courts continue to have discretion in relation to less serious matters. There is also the discretion as to how long offenders will be in gaol. It is time that the notion of wholly suspended sentences for serious offences becomes a thing of the past.
The particular provisions in the bill seek to prevent courts from using suspended sentences in relation to certain specific crimes - they are Division 2 of the Sentencing Act, excluding section 138 and section 140; sections 188(2)(b), (c), (d) and (k); section 192; and section 192(b). They are offences that include certain offences against morality such as possession of child pornography and child sex offences; and certain types of aggravated assaults based on the disparity of power between the victim and offender; and rape. These are matters that we, as parliamentarians, have a duty to advocate for the wider community.
While this government is in its policy vacuum, it falls to the opposition to put forward significant proposals that represent the needs and wishes of the community. While this government is occupying its time squabbling among themselves, it falls to the opposition to come up with policy alternatives in order, as I said earlier, to respond to the needs and wishes of Territorians.
That is the bill in a nutshell; it is not a particularly complicated one. I note the somewhat arrogant comments of the Attorney-General; that they would not support this bill - that is without even looking at it. I am sure that represents to the average person the height of arrogance. This government cannot now say from this day on that they are tough on crime if they do not support this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill and look forward to the contribution from the Attorney-General in due course - light on though it will be.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
This bill is designed with the underlying philosophy that the law should punish the guilty and not the innocent. Unlike the government’s approach to road safety which sets out to throw a blanket over all drivers whether or not they are responsible and safe drivers, the CLP’s policy is to say to Territory drivers: if you are responsible and safe in what you do we will support you with reasonable freedom on the road. If, however, you are the sort of driver who likes to drive drunk and, in doing so, expose yourself and others to dangers, as well as regularly driving without paying the premium for personal injury protection, then the CLP is out to get you. The CLP has designed this legislation with such an approach in mind.
The legislation says that if you consistently demonstrate yourself to be the sort of person who cannot conduct him or herself sensibly and reasonably on the road, and conduct him or herself soberly on the road, then we will take away your vehicle. It is that simple.
I take members now through the bill. Clause 1 is the title of the bill. Clause 2 amends the Traffic Act. Clause 3 is definitional. Clause 4 provides for an amendment of section 19 of the act.
Clause 5 inserts new sections 19A, 19B and 19C. Section 19 provides the grounds for which a vehicle may be taken from a miscreant driver. This is the ‘second strike you are warned, and third strike you are out’ policy. In short, if you have driven drunk with a blood alcohol reading of 0.15 or higher three times in five years you will lose your car.
Proposed section 19(2) provides that the court must make an order and it will take away the offender’s car for a period of three months. If, astonishingly, the person gets into their car and goes for another spin, then proposed section 19(2)(d) will demand that the car be forfeited to the Northern Territory. The order to take a car away will be on top of and additional to any other penalty provided by law. Nevertheless, we are not ignorant of the fact that there may be other interested parties who have a right to a vehicle: the partner of a repeat drunk driver who relies heavily on the car; a rental car firm; or if the car was in someway being unlawfully used. Apart from the obvious, a public servant driving home drunk would be an example of that type of unlawful use. In all of those instances there is a capacity for the court to find grounds not to exercise this power.
The proposed section 19B(1) allows for interested parties to apply for the custody of the vehicle after the impounding period. The opposition is not ignorant of the fact that many vehicles on the road today are only partly owned by their drivers. Credit providers maintain an equitable interest in such property and it is not in the interests of the opposition or its desire to deprive people with an equitable claim of right to exert that right. Therefore, should a finance provider or any other person with an interest wish to exercise their interest in the impounded car, the legislation is designed to protect that interest as far as practicably possible.
Proposed subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) are procedural instruction. Proposed subsection (6) empowers a court to make or refuse an order. Proposed subsection (7) determines that it is in the purview of the court to determine that the vehicle be transferred to the applicant if the court deems that sufficient evidence exists. If the vehicle is being applied for by a finance company or the like, then I am sure that this House would expect that if the driver’s equitable interest was sufficiently large, then the property would be liquidated and the equity returned to the driver subsequent to the payment of all other costs such as impounding costs and the outstanding loan amount. Pursuit of this matter would be by way of civil debt and is of no interest to the criminal court or this parliament as to how those issues are accommodated.
The other approach available to the court is to liquidate the asset and to pay the finance company their interest. Should this occur the part of the forfeited amount could be offered to the financier of the loan and the rest of the proceeds folded into the Central Holding Authority.
Proposed section 19C is largely procedural. When no application is made in accordance with proposed section 19B, then this section deals with the method of disposal and which interested parties are to be compensated and in which order as well as any leftover money to be forwarded to the Central Holding Authority.
Clause 6 of the bill inserts new sections. Clause 7 of the bill introduces the proposed sections 33C, 33D and 33E.
For section 33C to make sense, attention has to first be given to section 33. That is the section that says that it is against the law to drive unregistered vehicles. The reason that this is important is because registration of vehicles means that they have to be inspected for safety, and secondly, a vehicle will not be registered unless the third party personal insurance fee is paid at the same time in case all safety checks fail to protect the people who are in the vehicle. To fail to maintain a safe vehicle and not insure against an accident in which any third party may be injured or killed is a monumental act of selfishness and stupidity, and laziness. The truth is that the majority of people in our community would do the right thing if there were no registration and insurance requirements, and if the tort of negligence was the only law dealing with vehicle safety and third party insurance most people would still take all reasonable steps to cover themselves. Many people do so with comprehensive insurance. Sadly, there are people who cannot be trusted, which is why there is a need for the present amendments before the House.
There is an even smaller minority who will continue to flout the law. In doing so, they pose a chronic risk to others, not only because their cars are unsafe, but because, as they drive about in their unsafe cars, they have no insurance when things go wrong. The question needs to be asked: should these people have the right to continue to use our roads when they so flagrantly continue to endanger themselves and others? The opposition says no. The proposed section 33 says that if a person drives an unregistered vehicle in a public place or on a public street, they will then be served with a notice. The notice will essentially demand that the person must within 60 days register their vehicle. If a person fails to register the vehicle in that 60 day period, the car will be forfeited.
So that our position is clearly understood, it is this: if you do not register your car and you use it on Territory roads, the CLP will take your car away from you. We will confiscate your vehicle.
Proposed section 33C(4) allows a person to apply to the Commissioner for Police for an extension of time. Proposed section 33C(5) provides for a discretion for the Commissioner to give a 30 day extension to get the vehicle registered. Proposed section 33C(6) says that the owner of the vehicle commits an offence in driving an unregistered if they fail to register the vehicle in question in the time permitted. Proposed section 33C(7) provides defences for the offence. Proposed section 33C(8) comes to the heart of the matter: if a person is found guilty of the offence, the court must order the vehicle be forfeited as well as impose a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units.
Proposed section 33D again provides for the rights of other interested parties in the property, and I will not repeat what I said earlier in relation to the protection of those rights. The terms of the bill are straightforward enough. Proposed section 33E provides for circumstances of the disposal of the vehicle.
I have gone through the clauses of the bill in some detail to hammer home a couple of points. One is that this government may well be keen to sit back and sanction the desires of those people who choose not to register their vehicles. The opposition does not sanction such an approach. This government may well sanction drunk drivers driving on our roads repeatedly. The opposition does not sanction that approach. This is, as our previous policy position has outlined, a position …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition cannot allege that this government sanctions drunk drivers on the road. That is an untruth and she should withdraw it.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. There is much said in this House which has been given a very wide berth by the Deputy Chief Minister. This is not something that is out of order. He knows it is not out of order and I ask that I be permitted to continue my remarks in the circumstances.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice. There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to be careful in your wording in relation to this bill. Deputy Chief Minister, if you wish to, you may approach me to make a personal explanation in relation to this matter. Please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. Madam Speaker, I ask how can it not be the case that this government is soft on drunk drivers and people who register their vehicles when they received the same letter I received from a Northern Territory solicitor many months ago who attached to the letter various research, both domestic and international, about the confiscation of vehicles for repeat drink drivers and those people who refuse to register their vehicles? How can the Chief Minister and her band of unhappy little friends contest the assertion that this government is not interested in tackling these problems when the minister wrote back to that solicitor and, in essence, said: ‘Cheers, thanks a lot for your letter, but we are not even going to look at it’.? How can the Deputy Chief Minister hold the view he apparently does when there is all of this hoo-hah about road safety, and the spin that this government puts on the reasons for the road safety report, and the outcome, that is, the imposition of speed limits on Territory roads, when this government has refused to tackle the very issues that are predominant factors in causing fatalities on Territory roads?
You think that by doubling the fine for repeat drink drivers from $100 to $200 is enough? I think not, nor does the average Territorian. You think that people who repeatedly drink and drive …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, the government members, divided and unhappy though they are, all collectively think that drinking and driving is just fine and dandy because they refuse to do anything about it. They have been in five years and they have actually turned their attention to the issue, and what do they come up with: a brochure and an announcement there will be an imposition of 130 km/h on the open highways of the Northern Territory. What nonsense. It should not, and ought not be forgotten that, prior to the 2005 election, we know, and it received publicity, that the government, and the Chief Minister in particular, received some advice about imposing a speed limit. Did we hear anything then from the government members? No, we did not. Why? Because they did not have the courage of their convictions. Now they think they can sneak in this speed limit. They were hoping no one would notice, but I think they have been beaten on that one, and …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … and you do not even tell the truth!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition well knows she should be directing her speech through you, instead of trying to incite members opposite. Let her keep on with her dribble, but let her direct it towards you.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to direct her comments through the Chair. Leader of the Opposition, banging on the desk is not very parliamentary as well.
Ms CARNEY: I think I may have …
Madam SPEAKER: Been very active in your speech, yes.
Ms CARNEY: It is an issue of great interest to Territorians. Many of them are somewhat perplexed by it, that is, that the government’s answer to all of the problems is to impose a speed limit on the Stuart Highway. That does not even address the very figures and facts that the government’s own task force received. What are the main causes of fatalities in the Northern Territory? Grog, drink driving and failure to wear seat belts. What are some other factors? Unregistered vehicles. I know that members opposite have the utmost contempt for the people of Alice Springs, which is regrettable, and that they remain very angry about that. Go to Alice Springs and you will see the sort of cars I am talking about - people who consistently fail to register their vehicles. They do so because the sanctions are so irrelevant; they just keep doing it because they cannot be bothered. They take the view: why should they register their vehicles?
Under the CLP’s proposal, if you refuse to register your vehicle, and many of them are notoriously unsafe, the CLP will take away that vehicle. I am staggered beyond description that members opposite have difficulty with such a proposition. Similarly, in relation to drink driving, and I know it irks the Deputy Chief Minister, this government takes the view that doubling the fine from $100 to $200 for drinking and driving will fix the problem. Well, it will not.
This government is so busy fighting amongst themselves about who is going to be leader, it falls to the opposition to cut through and provide some answers. The answers really are straightforward. Yet, this is an arrogant, lazy government, the hallmark of which is its own infighting and egocentric behaviour by the members for Fannie Bay and Wanguri – they have not even stopped to have – yes, I cannot say that. They have not even stopped to look at the policies put forward by the CLP.
If I am wrong in that regard, if they have actually read the documents – and, of course, we saw the biggest bill in the Northern Territory’s history come before the parliament yesterday, and it did not appear to anyone that the Attorney-General actually read that bill. However, if it is the case that government members have read the material we have put out and which has been out for some months, then the question has to be asked: why will these people not do the right thing and actually do what they say they do, that is, be tough on crime? Why do they not actually follow through with the sentiments of the Chief Minister – wanting to save lives, wanting to get good outcomes for our fellow Territorians? If she was fair dinkum about this matter, she would instruct her little comrades on the other side to agree to this and other bills and packages put forward by the CLP. Perhaps she will not do so because she is so distracted by the leadership turmoil and infighting which is plaguing her government.
I will digress, if I may, briefly. There has, of course, been a great deal of media attention on this government and they deserve every bit of it because they are a divided and fractured government. Everybody knows that such a government will self-destruct. They dropped the ball on the way through and they are not doing their core function, which is looking after and protecting the needs and aspirations of their fellow Territorians.
Much has been said and written so far about the leak. I heard an interesting story the other day. I heard that it was the member for Casuarina or his office - so I was informed. A tipster said that there was some media material on the member for Wanguri; there was a suggestion that he leaked it. There was a suggestion, I think, that the member for Millner leaked it, he having had form when it came to his now famous memo. However, the betting money is on the member for Casuarina or his staff. I am not sure. I know that the Chief Minister was very angry and, presumably, she did what ever anyone would do. She probably called everyone into her office and said: ‘Was it you?’ ‘No, Chief Minister’. ‘Was it you?’ ‘No, Chief Minister’. It was someone on the other side and the best money is on the member for Casuarina …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition is fond of reminding everyone that she is a lawyer and we are not, and how much she knows about the law. She might take into account that the second reading of a bill into parliament actually plays a quite important role in the interpretation of the bill in the courts at a future time. If there is a question around clarity or ambiguity of a certain clause, the courts may, in fact, go back to the second reading to try to determine the intent of parliament from the second reading.
It would be impossible for any court to dive into this mess – this absolute tirade of nonsense - from the Leader of the Opposition to try to determine what, in fact, the bill is about. If she wants to do her bill any justice in this place, she should drop the arrogance and the condescension of all those around her. The contempt she holds, not only for her own colleagues, but for …
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, is this a point or order? Or is this a speech? You can have an opportunity at a later time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: … all Territorians. Then get back to the substance of the bill which, if it was ever law, the courts might want to rely on the second reading.
Madam SPEAKER: While there is no point of order, Leader of the Opposition, I say to you while there is a level of latitude in all speeches, you do need to speak more closely to the bill.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will undertake to do so. I am surprised that the Deputy Chief Minister is like his Chief Minister - has his eye off the ball and invited me by implication to go on for as long as I did.
The comments I make are, nevertheless, specific and germane in this respect. It shows - and I will be brief – that the government has taken its eye off the ball because they are divided, which is why they refuse to look at sensible policy alternatives. They are operating in a policy vacuum because of their division. The division is, not that I understand Labor politics, that there is the left and the right, the centre, the centre left, the middle right, I do not get it. However, they are so divided that they cannot even collectively as a group sit down and say: ‘Is this a good policy, is this a good idea, would this assist our fellow Territorians? We have a job to do, let us do it’.
I urge this unhappy and divided government to do the decent thing with this legislation. I know what the outcome will be: they refuse to accept any proposal from anyone because of their sheer and indescribably high arrogance; they refuse to accept a proposal from anyone unless it is one of their team although they increasingly do not even trust each other. I do not expect much legislation to come on to the floor of the parliament in the next two years, because I am not even sure they will be able to agree between themselves.
In any event, I commend this fabulous bill to members opposite because Territorians will know they have a point of difference, they will have thousands of points of difference at the next election.
In relation to road safety, and I know I have another bill to talk about shortly, the CLP will overturn the speed limits on Territory highways. The Labor party will not. Further there is a concern that the speed limit will be reduced over time. That is outrageous.
The CLP takes the view that if you drink and drive repeatedly, your car should be taken away from you. The CLP has the view that if you are a selfish, ignorant fool and you refuse to register your vehicle, we will have the strength, the intestinal fortitude, to take that car away from you.
These are just some of the array of differences that Territorians will see at the next election. We have two or so years until the next election and the government has plenty of time to change its view, take our policy. We have seen it on a range of issues. We saw it in the last term. The CLP would come in here, propose some bills, you would all talk us down and say no, no, no that is stupid, and then somewhat miraculously in a matter of months we would see a very similar bill come back before the parliament. We would look at it and we would say: ‘That was our bill’, but your spin doctors upstairs, your $8m to $10m spin doctors in salaries alone on the fifth floor of Parliament House, they earn every cent of it because they ensure that this government’s spin is pretty much swallowed and is a bit more convincing than its substance of which there is very little.
Madam Speaker, I could keep talking all day about this but there is much more work to do. Given that the government is in crisis, paralysis, because they are not getting on well it will fall to the opposition to set the agenda, legislative and otherwise. I commend the bill to the House for obvious reasons.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
This bill is also a part of the alternative government’s policies dealing with road safety in the Northern Territory. This bill is remarkably straightforward because it will achieve what is required and which this government so foolishly in our view and others simply refuses to do.
The government should know, but they appear not to, that there is a range of things that cause fatalities in the Northern Territory. First is alcohol, and we have just talked about that. That is why we proposed in the preceding bill to confiscate people’s cars if they habitually drink and drive. Fast or slow, driving alone kills. Speeding or not speeding, you could still be killed in a motor vehicle. Seat belts and failure to wear them are a significant factor in road fatalities and injuries in the Northern Territory. For anyone who doubts that, I invite them to look at the government’s own report which was widely published and circulated throughout the Northern Territory.
What enraged the opposition and other Territorians was that in the political spin and huff and puff which typically represented the Chief Minister’s announcement on this issue, she failed to satisfactorily address the issue of failure to wear seat belts. Once again, it falls to the opposition to do so. The CLP is prepared to legislate that people who breach the law consistently should lose their licences. That is a quantum difference between the two parties. It is not an imposition of any sort to demand that Territorians wear their seat belts. It takes less than a second to put on, and even less to take off. We have, for the most part, modern cars - some of them not maintained as well as they should be - but all vehicles in the Territory do, and if they do not they most certainly should, they may have been ripped out, but they do have seat belts. People who choose not to wear seat belts are, logically, much more susceptible to greater injury and death. Therefore, those people, through their own foolishness and irresponsibility, represent a burden on us all when they are in the hospitals of the Northern Territory.
This bill intends to drive the message home even more strongly than it has ever been driven home before, and its essence is blindingly simple: if you do not wear your seat belt consistently, we will take away your licence. ‘Consistently’ means three times in 12 months. If you are found guilty of that offence, then your licence will be suspended for three months. Territorians should not bear the costs - physical, emotional, financial or otherwise - of other people’s laziness and stupidity. Some time ago, we issued yet another policy. Unlike the government, we issued a policy called Seat Belts Save Lives. It is part of our comprehensive plan to improve road safety in the Territory and reduce road fatalities. As I have said, if a driver is caught three times in 12 months for a seat belt infringement, they will receive a mandatory - there is that word – three-month suspension of their licence.
The policy is broader than the bill. We want to see seat belts in school buses. We want to see education; that is important in any road safety initiative. We are not afraid to take the plunge where this government refuses to do so. If you do not wear your seat belt three times in 12 months, your licence will be suspended. I will be surprised if the government supports this bill because they have said, somewhat arrogantly, that they have all the answers to road safety. This is a simple and straightforward policy. It is a good one.
If you do not, government members, through you, Madam Speaker, support this, then one will wonder why, and all Territorians will say that this government just does not get it. Its own figures are such that failure to wear seat belts is a significant factor in fatalities and injuries, and yet this government fails to act. They have done a bit about seat belts in their big policy, but there is not much there.
This is a fair dinkum, cut through, easy to understand, how-can-it-fail policy. One has to consider a carrot and stick approach. This is definitely the stick. If you do not put your seat belt on in the Northern Territory you are going to lose your licence. I am not sure how on earth anyone could have difficulty with that. It is for that reason that I commend this sensational bill to government members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill represents an effort to bring equity to a system of property acquisition that has occurred in the Northern Territory in spite of what the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act says. The process leading to the establishment of sacred sites operating in the Northern Territory does not have the desired effect when it comes to outcomes for the owners of other property interests that are affected by the discovery of sacred sites in a particular area. The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act attempts to skirt around property issues in section 44 by saying that the proprietary interests of land affected by sacred sites is preserved. This is because both the Australian Constitution and the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act determines that, if property is acquired, then it must be compensated on just terms. This requirement is subsequently acknowledged by the Legislative Assembly, because the act has been amended at section 48A, which demands that, where property is acquired that such property be settled upon just terms.
The investigation into the nature of property will leave one to recognise that the concept of property is not a straightforward one, as one would immediately think. I am not going to enter into a dissertation on the nature of property, but suffice to say that the absolute ownership of property is not possible. Property is, in fact, held by degrees. If I own freehold, I am still bound by the laws of the land, including planning and other laws, which limit my capacity to dispose of or use property in the ways that I might choose. A licence is, in many forms, a form of property, as it entitles the holder of a licence to exert rights that are beyond the capacity of a person who does not hold such a licence.
As I said before, property is, in fact, held by degrees. This means that when sacred sites are discovered over certain areas, the holder of a commercial fishing licence, for example, may be diminished in his or her capacity to exert the rights that such a licence grants. That is the point of this bill: to recognise the impact upon other holders of rights.
I pause briefly to quote Justice Rich in a famous property acquisition case, Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel 1944 68 CLR 261. In that case, during World War II, the owner of a car park was deprived of his income because the Army had acquired the land by simply moving onto the land using the powers that it had under the wartime legislation. The Army argued that they had not acquired the land because they had not assumed title and were intending to leave as soon as the war was over. Mr Dalziel was deprived of his capacity to earn an income. Justice Rich, before ruling in favour of Mr Dalziel, captured his thinking very succinctly, saying: ‘You take my house when you do take the prop that does sustain my house. You take my life when you do take the means whereby I live’.
It is my understanding of the law that limiting the capacity of a licence by taking away a part of that capacity of a licence to earn in a particular way does not equate to the acquisition of a property right. Nevertheless, the fact is that government will put pressure on other fishing grounds, for example, and on competing fishermen, if the licence that they rely upon to provide an income is removed. Either they pay through lost revenue, the environment itself pays because of the increased pressure on fishing grounds elsewhere, or the government pays because the decision made by surrounding sacred sites are decisions made under the government’s administration; hence the bill.
The proposed section 48AB has the effect of extending the impact of section 48A. The bill creates a mechanism to deal with exactly the circumstances outlined above, but may also extend to people such as tourism operators or pastoralists. Proposed section 48AB(2) of the proposed bill basically says that this amendment will not operate if the prohibition or restriction caused by the declaration of a sacred site amounts to an acquisition of property rights because the existing section 48A will apply.
Proposed section 48AB(3) of the bill refers to just compensation being available. This means that the applicant still has to demonstrate that there is a compensatory loss to the balance of probabilities. Proposed section 48AB(4) gives the court the power to set an appropriate amount and, of course, courts will use reasonableness to test the measurable loss. Proposed section 48AB(5) provides those definitions.
Within the philosophy of mutual obligation, there needs to be give and take. If sacred sites have the effect of limiting other rights, then it should be a matter that people affected are given some form of recourse as well.
Madam Speaker, this is a sensible bill. If the government chooses not to support it because it feels that it will lead to excessive expense, then the government will be engaging in an argument that is contrary to the implied assertion in the act; that rights and values are unaltered by the existence of a sacred site. I urge honourable members to support the bill.
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 follows on from the preceding bills and represents the Country Liberal Party’s alternative to road safety that we and others are so desperate to have this government pick up. We want this government to pick up these initiatives because they are good initiatives. They are good initiatives and worth a run and it is a mystery why the government has been so dismissive thus far. We know that, in recent times, this divided and arrogant government has spent a lot of money selling its road rules package to the public. Obviously, it continues to do so despite the public irritation in some quarters, and anger in others.
This amendment seeks to do something different to government. It seeks to provide a solution to the dilemma that we have with young drivers in the Territory, most of whom drive sensibly and responsibly. Sadly, some do not. The package is part of targeted and detailed reforms that the CLP has brought to this House with the aim and desire of directly attacking a particular group who are over-represented in road deaths and injuries in the Northern Territory. It is the young who are so often the cause of carnage in our streets. Tragically, many of the accidents we see on our streets are caused by young people - mostly young men – who, in some cases, do not contain their desire for recklessness.
It should be no surprise to anyone in this House that the impetuousness of youth is real. Nevertheless, at the very time that this trend manifests itself in a real way, in mid-teens, we, as parliamentarians, say that young people can have a licence and we put them in charge of great chunks of metal that, in many instances, they drive very fast and recklessly. All too often from news reports we see that many young men attempt to set land speed records, not on the Stuart Highway, but in Stuart Park, in other suburbs around Darwin, Alice Springs and elsewhere. It is those people who are over-represented in our statistics. Even if they were not, then is it not incumbent on us as parliamentarians and legislators to deal with those people in an overall package designed to improve road safety?
This bill deals directly with young people and I will go through some of the details. First, a provisional licence is issued for a period of three years if a person is under 25 years of age. If a person is 25 years or older, then the provisional status of the licence, when issued, remains at one year. I pause briefly to point out that I am aware that the effect of this is that if a person gets a licence at the age of 24, they will have to wait until they are 27 before they come off their P plates.
After section 10A(2), the proposed amendment introduces a demand for a more rigorous training system. The effect of this is that a log will have to be kept by the learner that will expect 120 hours of driving must be completed before a learner can be given their provisional licence. Who would argue with such an eminently sensible suggestion? That is, rigorous training and you have to do, for the time you are on your L plates, a minimum of 120 hours. What we see, not just in the Territory, but around the country, is young people getting their L plates and just going through the motions, satisfying the criteria of the number of times they need to fulfil statutory obligations, but not actually getting a great deal of experience. The Country Liberal Party thinks that, as a minimum, 120 hours should be set. The time frame is reasonable. It is quite a long time, so it is not as though you have to jam it in the space of a couple of months. We think 120 hours is a reasonable period of time for a learner driver to have under his or her belt before they are unleashed, as it were, onto the roads of the Northern Territory.
Clauses 6 and 7 provide that a person cannot drive a car as a provisional or learner licence holder that is towing another vehicle and, most importantly, a provisional licence holder cannot drive with more than one person in the car between 10 pm and 5 am. Not surprisingly, these are traditionally the hours where young drivers do so much harm to themselves and others. The proposal in the bill and in our policy to ensure that provisional licence holders or learner licence holders cannot have a passenger with them between 10 pm and 5 am has been particularly relevant probably all year and indeed prior to that. Some of us, I am sure, have been distressed beyond belief at what we see on our news bulletins this year in this country, not necessarily in the Territory. There have been so many young people who have died in the middle of the night; groups of kids from small communities around the country, five kids here, four kids there, seven kids somewhere else. There was one in Sydney on the weekend where four or five young people died.
It is not necessarily the case that they had extra people in their car; that is for coronial inquests and others to determine. However, I understand that the father of one of the young people who was killed on the weekend in Sydney met with a minister in the New South Wales government yesterday and asked that the government consider - and I am fairly sure I have this right, apparently it was on Lateline last night, I did not see it - that grieving father asked the relevant transport minister to consider proposals such as these. You can understand why. Of course, parents of kids who die in motor vehicle accidents would want, like any sensible person, any government to respond in an appropriate way.
I do not want to see the sorts of things we have seen in regional Victoria, regional New South Wales, regional Queensland, and in the heart of Sydney. I do not want to see that sort of stuff happen in the Northern Territory before a politician stands in this Chamber and says: ‘I think we should do this’. I have a very deep and genuine interest in this matter, and this is an eminently sensible suggestion.
Part of our proposal in relation to young people is the carrot and stick approach: a bit of stick, but a lot of carrot. Members will know that part of our policy dealt with providing free registration, stamp duty and third party insurance for two years for young drivers who purchase vehicles generating no greater than a 95kW capacity such as, for instance, Fiestas, Corollas, Barinas and so on. Once again, I would have thought that is an eminently sensible suggestion. I do not know whether the father who met with the politician or the minister yesterday supports that. I would be surprised if he did not.
This is not about having a go at young people; it is about being responsible and, most importantly, doing our jobs to anticipate difficulties that may occur in the future, to respond to them and of course to deal with the difficulties that exist now. Young people are traditionally over represented and we, unlike this government, want to do something about it. I would be tickled pink if the government pinched this policy. I invite them to do so because my very strong and fervent view is that there may well be lives to save. How can anyone argue with that?
Madam Speaker, for those reasons and many others, I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of traditional owners from Mt Everard, Harts Range, Muckaty, Arrernte Nation and Fisher’s Ridge, as well as people from the Australian Conservation Foundation, Arid Lands Environment Centre, the Darwin No Waste Alliances, and the Central Land Council. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Members, I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of visitors as part of the Parliament House education program. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the Chief Minister for the rest of the day owing to the fact that she has a bad dose of the ‘flu and has lost her voice. I advise that all questions that were to go to the Chief Minister be directed to the Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Nhulunbuy.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this House:
1. express its anger at the actions by the Chief Minister and her Labor government for removing the open speed limit on the Stuart Highway.
Madam Speaker, this motion does not come as a surprise, given the policies, unlike the government, the CLP has released in relation to road safety. I meant what I said this morning: I am happy for government to have these policies, they should. What they have done, however, is simply dismiss them in the past, and all of a sudden, late today in Question Time, we had the minister responsible suggesting that her department has actually been working on all of this. It is the first time such a suggestion has been made.
I also indicated this morning that we would expect the government to take our policies, (1) because they are good, and (2) because they have done it before. What we have seen by the admission of the minister in her answer to the final question this afternoon, is ‘Oh yes, we have been working on it’. We ask: be honest. Yes, it is a good policy; everyone knows it is a good policy. Do not suggest that you have been working on it. If that was the case, you would have announced it in your big road safety package a few weeks ago ...
Ms Lawrie: We did.
Ms CARNEY: You would have announced things like - under the CLP - drivers between the age of 16 to 23 who purchase a car less than seven years old with an engine capable of generating no greater than a 95 kW capacity, such as a Fiesta, Corolla, Barina, etcetera, will be entitled to claim no stamp duty, no cost of registration for two years and no cost for third party insurance for three years. The minister and the Chief Minister would have announced that, in relation to young drivers, this government would introduce a system whereby a provisional driver in their first year of a provisional licence - and learner drivers as well - between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am would only be able to have one passenger. The minister would have announced a loss of licence for three months upon a second breach of these restrictions. The minister would have announced the minimum 120 hours driving experience to be log booked for supervised driving for a learner driver. The minister and Chief Minister would have announced another measure such as no towing for learners and provisional drivers.
This is where it is, after all of the glossy brochures, all of the publicity that even went nationwide. The Chief Minister said: ‘We have all of the answers. What we are going to do is impose speed restrictions on the Stuart Highway. In terms of drink drivers, we are going to double the fine from $100 to $200. This and a few other things represent our extensive package’.
Be honest, I say to the government members, through you, Madam Speaker. They should be honest because they had their opportunity to come up with an extensive, comprehensive package. Territorians wanted them to do it. What they did do was fall short. There is the document; we have all read it from cover to cover. They had one opportunity to get this right and they fell short of the mark. I do not doubt the minister’s sincerity in the same way that I am sure she would not doubt mine. I am not sure that …
Ms Lawrie: I doubt your sincerity.
Ms CARNEY: Pardon?
Ms Lawrie: I doubt your sincerity.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: The minister has sunk to new depths of being both impolite and nasty. Of course, we expect that from her.
Any human being who is not affected by deaths, generally, and in particular deaths of young people in motor vehicle accidents is – well, I have not met one. That transcends politics, gender, race, etcetera. Like the minister, I have some personal experience in this area as well.
In any event, Territorians expect much better of this minister to doubt the sincerity of anyone who stands up and expresses discomfort and upset about the death of young Territorians. That is why the CLP proposed this policy. There was an opportunity; it was an opportunity lost. That is why we introduced legislation today. We welcome the government pinching it - they should because it is good - but when they do so, if they would be so kind as to not wrap it up and say it was all their idea.
This motion comes on for very good reason. The Chief Minister, as I have said, has missed an opportunity. She has adopted a reactionary approach in her imposition of speed limits; it has more to do with social control than it has to do with traffic control. However, that is the nature of the Chief Minister. She likes to control things and that is why her colleagues remain so agitated with her. Her hand is, at least for the moment, firmly on the throat of her colleagues and, with the assistance of her spin machine upstairs, she is able, for now, to spin her way through. Territorians expect and deserve much better.
As I said when introducing the bills this morning, alcohol is a significant factor in fatalities and injuries in the Northern Territory, yet the Chief Minister missed an opportunity: she did not deal with it or did not deal with it adequately.
Seat belts, and in particular the failure to wear them, are a problem. The correlation between seat belts and deaths and injury is well established. The government did not grasp the mettle, as it were, and come up with a comprehensive plan.
The case has not been made out as to why there must be a speed restriction on the Stuart Highway. What we have seen is a blaze of publicity and that is about all. There was an opportunity to deal with significant matters and the Chief Minister, no doubt for her own reasons, chose not to embrace that opportunity.
The imposition of a speed limit is arbitrary and there exists in the Territory good reasons why some people may want to travel faster when conditions allow. The first and most obvious is for those people who regularly drive between Darwin and Alice Springs and in between. Currently, it is possible to do the trip in daylight hours in one day. People will continue to want to do the trip in one day into the future. If a person drives from Darwin to Alice Springs, leaves after the sun goes up and travels at a speed over 130 km/h, they will be in Alice Springs before the sun goes down. Allowing for rest breaks and fuel stops, 130 km/h will not make this possible. I ask members what is more dangerous: travelling at 130 km/h at dawn and dusk or travelling at 150 km/h during daylight hours? Anyone who has driven in the Territory for more than a few months knows the answer to that very important question. For many people it is now no longer going to be an option to overnight along the way and they will continue to do the trip in a single day.
The other issue is that if the average speed of a person on that trip is 150 km/h they will take about 10 hours to do the drive; 130 km/h means that there will be a couple of extra hours added to the trip. That is extra time behind the wheel and, of course, all of us in this country are being reminded about the dangers of fatigue, yet this government pursues a law that promotes it.
This government has been telling Territorians that the situation on our roads is getting worse. A closer look at the statistics indicates that that is not necessarily the case. In fact, it can be argued that the situation in the Territory is getting better, and has done so for a number of years.
The number of overall crashes has fluctuated since 1998-99, but over that time has fallen from 2315 to 2043 last year. That was the lowest level recorded in the Police annual report. The number of fatal accidents has fluctuated because of the small numbers represented. Even from that small number, a general view of the numbers suggests a contraction over the past seven years from the mid to high 50s to the mid to high 40s in that time. That is also reflected in the Road Safety report.
The number of injuries has substantially decreased from 1376 seven years ago to 890 last year. What really stands out is the better yardsticks of casualties per 10 000 population, casualties per 10 000 licensed drivers and casualties per 10 000 registered drivers. In the case of the casualties per 10 000 head of population, the number has fallen from 75 casualties per 10 000 head of population to 46 in the past seven years. The measure for licensed drivers shows that in 1998-99 there were 136 casualties per 10 000 population and that has fallen to 78. The same applies to the numbers of casualties per 10 000 vehicles – in 1998-99, 123 casualties were reported in that category. That fell nearly by half to 68 last year.
The trends began before Labor took office and they have continued. The reasons for this are many and much of it has to do with the better design and safety features of cars and how they respond in accidents. The trends in the Territory are not unique or particular to the Territory.
There should be debate, discussion and initiative from government about making roads safe, and that is a reasonable expectation. I note that the test of reasonableness implied by the report is to be found in its graph on page 5. In that graph it lists the best in the world to the worst. The Territory is the worst and the ACT is the best. The USA is at the top end and Germany is towards the bottom end. It is worth pausing to note that Germany has an open speed limit on its Autobahn system and it is one of the safest places to drive. It is also the largest country in Europe. By using an OECD global average then, the implication is by the people who wrote this road safety report that that may be the reasonable benchmark as to what is an acceptable level of carnage on our roads, if indeed anything is acceptable. It is worth pointing out that the best performer still has people being killed and injured on their roads.
If we accept, for argument’s sake, that the OECD average is an acceptable benchmark, then let us look at the government report with fresh eyes. A look at the two graphs on page 7 immediately reveals one stunning and irrefutable fact: the biggest contributor to death and injury on our roads is alcohol. Alcohol is the biggest killer on our roads. When it comes to fatal accidents, grog is the number one killer, but in the area of drink driving, the report has various weaknesses, as indeed does the Chief Minister and her Transport minister.
The number one killer on our roads gets the weakest response. The response is to double the minor fine of exceed 0.05 to 0.08 from $100 to $200. The rest of the recommendations are: do research; run a communications strategy; and increase the power to collect certain types of evidence. Where, we ask, is the recommendation that says take their cars away? It is for this reason that the CLP has introduced a bill to take cars away from habitual drunk drivers who excessively exceed the limit and repeatedly do so. Take their cars away; that is a recommendation for the biggest killer on our roads.
What is the second biggest killer according to the graphs? Seat belts and failure to wear them. If people consistently do not wear their seat belts, we say take their licenses away. This government should say so, too. Get caught not wearing a seat belt and you can expect not to have a licence if you do it too often. It is that simple; three times in 12 months. What we get is the recommendation for increased fines and education programs and demerit points across a raft of offences which lists seat belts as a middle level offence.
Curiously, the graphs on page 7 reveal that speeding contributes less than failing to wearing seat belts to death on our roads, but speeding earns more demerit points. The nub of the argument is simple: the government has decided to attack speed the most aggressively of all, yet there is, by and large, an ignoring of the major contributors, which are failure to wear seat belts and alcohol.
In relation to the findings of the report and government action thereafter, it is worth looking at the report carefully. We can, if we join the dots in the report, so to speak, see that the majority of fatal accidents occur in built-up areas, that is, in restricted speed zones. If we accept the logic of such an observation in isolation, it would be easy to assert that speed limits are dangerous. Of course that is nonsense, but that is what happens when you rely so obviously on certain types of statistics, particularly when you add a bit of spin. The trick is to get the right number to give the clearest picture.
It is this which frustrates my colleagues and me, and other Territorians to whom I have spoken. I have spoken to many with a very long-standing and genuine interest in road safety. People have sought me out from quarters that I did not think imaginable, and they are also frustrated about the numbers in the report and the government’s use of them.
The number I would like to see is missing. We have two excellent measures in fatality rates per 100 000 population compared with the other states and countries, but what is missing is another important yardstick, and that is the number of fatalities per one million kilometres travelled. We have a tiny population spread over a vast area. We travel vast distances compared with people who live in the Australian Capital Territory, for example. I wonder if there is such a figure. I am curious to see what the graphs look like if we take that as a measure.
I suggest that Territorians spend more time behind the wheel than anyone else in this country. Some would say that Western Australia might be competing with us, but the vast majority of their population, as we know, is tucked away in a corner of the state.
The CLP is offering options, and the government has dismissed them until the tiny indication given by the minister in Question Time that all of a sudden the department, or her office, has been doing work on this. The response of the Chief Minister and her Transport minister, and let us see what side she is on, I think, judging from the Crikey article, let us see, I believe she is pretty much in the middle. No, it has her down as a supporter of the Chief Minister. I suppose that is not surprising.
I have seen some comments somewhere that she was sort of hedging her bets a bit. Here we go. According to the article in Crikey, everyone knows the one I am talking about, Tuesday, 21 November, and I quote: ‘Both Elliot McAdam and Delia Lawrie are soft Martin supporters, both have a commitment to their own ministerial careers, but would be likely to switch camps if they are convinced the leadership is about to change’. Well, nothing like backing the right horse, minister. Nothing like conviction and nothing like loyalty. You will straddle both sides and see who wins.
Mr Henderson: Nothing like sincerity about the road toll. You cheapen it with contempt.
Ms CARNEY: Judging from the sudden illness that overtook the Chief Minister, notwithstanding a media conference she had around lunchtime, notwithstanding that she hosted a function in the Elsey Room - mysterious, mystery illness. She did not come into Question Time today. In fact …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition has been here long enough to know that you cannot refer to the absence of a member …
Ms Carney: Yes, I am sorry.
Mr HENDERSON: … unless she wants to do it by way of substantive motion.
There is a second point to the point of order, Madam Speaker. We are on general business day. The motion before us is about road safety and the appalling road toll in the Northern Territory. I would urge the Leader of the Opposition to get back to the point if she is sincere about addressing this issue, or does she just want to play politics, in the same way she did during Question Time, she is carrying on here today.
There are two points: reference to the absence of the Chief Minister and relevance in regards to the question currently before the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I will ask you to withdraw the comments regarding the Chief Minister.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, and I do apologise, it was not deliberate.
Madam SPEAKER: I have actually asked you previously not to refer to the presence or absence of a member.
Ms CARNEY: Yes. I am sorry.
Madam SPEAKER: We are debating your motion. If you could stay as close as you can to the actual motion that you presented.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I accept your ruling unconditionally. It is interesting that, in Question Time today, we saw ministers go on and on, and not even answer the question. Under the rules of our parliament, points of order were made, and the ministers can pretty much do what they like. They have very extensive latitude, yet, when the opposition has a motion there are limitations on us.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I must say that I believe you are reflecting on the Speaker.
Ms CARNEY: I am sorry. I have no intention of so doing.
Madam SPEAKER: I am actually saying to you that there is a level of latitude in all speeches in this place, which I have made clear on many occasions. You are debating something which you have presented yourself. Whilst you can deviate and talk about various matters, you should speak as closely as possible to the motion that you have presented.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The government sensitivity on these issues is understandable. Now, it is naturally relevant, through you, Madam Speaker, about where the minister stands in relation to the infighting that is engulfing this government. It explains why she was so happy and proud to stand next to the current Chief Minister when the road safety measures were announced.
She was happy to do it because she is backing that particular person at the moment. One wonders, and I am sure Territorians are terribly interested in this, whether, in the event that there is a leadership change, and of course we are expecting that to be the case, the minister might then seek to distance herself from her comments and her actions in relation to the Territory’s road safety package. However, for present purposes she is backing the Chief Minister and they have been at one, and it was terrific to see some unity. We have not seen much from the government for a while. Mistaken though they were when it came to the substantial issues, it was refreshing I am sure, not only for members of Labor Caucus, but for other Territorians and Labor Party supporters, to see a level of unity.
The fact is that this government is working in a policy vacuum. I referred to it today, and the facts speak for themselves in that regard. The CLP came up with an innovative package to encourage young drivers to use lower powered motor vehicles. Under the CLP, drivers aged between 16 and 23 who purchase a car less than seven years old, with an engine capable of generating no greater than 95 kW capacity, such as a Fiesta, Corolla, Barina, will be entitled to claim no stamp duty, no cost of registration for two years, and no cost of third part insurance for two years. We also suggested that for young provisional drivers they not have a passenger with them between 10 pm and 5 am, something that I understand, as of yesterday as a result of the accidents in New South Wales, that the Labor minister is at least considering a number of recommendations for young drivers. We have not seen any policy from the government on this - have not seen anything. All we have seen is the glossy brochure and the unity demonstrated by the Chief Minister and her, for now supporter, the minister.
We have a policy on seat belts and we talked about that when I introduced the bill today. We have a policy on seizing cars from drunk drivers and, in certain circumstances, confiscating them. We have a policy, unlike the government, where, if you are a recalcitrant human being and you are hell-bent on not registering your vehicle - those dangerous vehicles that we see around the place – if you do not want to register your vehicles, the government members might be happy to avoid that. We, on the other hand, have stepped into the breach because of a policy vacuum and division that is engulfing in this government. We have some suggestions and I have invited the minister - and the aspirational Chief Minister over there - to pick up these ideas because we all know that you know that they are very good ideas.
The fact is that the government does not have evidence, even on its own figures, to impose the speed restriction on the open roads. People would have come to Labor members – although I am not sure that they are as popular as they used to be so maybe constituents do not come in as often as they used to. Surely someone on the Labor side would have had a constituent saying: ‘If I have to do a job …’, talking about someone in the private sector or, indeed, a public servant: ‘… and if I have to go down to Katherine for the day, if I have a long meeting and I do not like driving at night, I have to stay there overnight’. The minister for Business would surely be interested in this. People in Alice Springs who can do Tennant Creek in a day are now saying: ‘This is an imposition on our business and we are going to have to pass the costs on’.
If the figures supported the imposition of speed limits on open roads you would say: ‘That is okay, that is reasonable’. When the government’s figures show that failure to wear seat belts and alcohol are critical and key factors, and the government chooses merely to bump up the fines from $100 to $200, then you have to ask yourself how committed the Chief Minister and her, for now, supporter, the minister for Transport, are in these areas.
I have been happy and proud to announce the policies of the opposition in the last few months. This motion calls on the government to reverse its decision to impose speed restrictions on the open roads. It calls on the government to introduce tougher and specific penalties in relation to drink driving, including mandatory breath testing by police when pulling drivers over for any other reason; for the government to adopt the policy of seizure and disposal of cars from repeat high range drink drivers, and for those who consistently fail to register their cars. Why on earth would a government have any problem with that? Similarly, why on earth would any government - regardless of what side of the political fence it is on – have a difficulty about adopting a policy implementing a three strikes in 12 months and loss of licence for people who fail to wear seat belts when your own figures show it is a problem? It is a no-brainer.
Specific education and training measures for younger drivers was part of our initiative. There is some veiled reference to it somewhere by the Labor Party, but that is about it. Specific incentives for younger drivers to purchase lower powered motor vehicles. I do not know whether the mums and dads are ringing up government members these days, but our phones have been ringing hot. You know why? Because the parents have been more than interested. They have been excited about our package for younger drivers. Indeed it is so often the case that the parents are the ones putting their hands in their own pockets to pay for the stamp duty, the registration and insurance. Parents are happy for a number of reasons: it is going to save them money at the end of the day for their young children who just get their licences and cars and so on. Also, they see the policy as being a profoundly responsible and effective one. So for young drivers who have for the most part been missed by the Labor Party, we the CLP opposition, has said do not worry, there is a policy vacuum because they are all fighting, we will give you some ideas.
We have also announced incentives for good drivers to include such things as a licence renewal without cost for drivers who have not had a speeding infringement between renewals. Now that is incentive and you always have to get the balance right, carrot/stick, carrot/stick. For young drivers there is a range of incentives; for good drivers there is a range of incentives; for people who drink and drive, there is a hell of a big stick and rightly so. For people who refuse to register their vehicles, there is a hell of a big stick, and rightly so. For older drivers, there is a skills update program which would, if completed, provide older drivers with an insurance and/or registration discount.
Madam Speaker, I am just at a loss to know why this increasingly arrogant government has not warmly embraced those things. Would it not have been nice for the Opposition Leader to have received a call from someone in the Labor Party to say: ‘We have heard you have this terrific policy, do you want to work together?’ When the minister talks about bipartisanship, well it cuts both ways.
Road safety ought not be a political issue, but this government has made it a political issue. They have gone out of their way to politicise it in whatever way they can. That is why we saw the extraordinary performance of a minister of the Crown in the last answer in Question Time accusing us, putting words in our mouth, about having difficulty with her sincerity and so on. That is just nonsense. No such suggestion was made, nor would it be. It is an outrageous and offensive suggestion but that is what we have learned to expect from the minister for Transport, the member for Karama. I suppose her colleagues have come to expect that, which is why she finds comfort straddling both sides of the current leadership battle.
I said earlier today that given the paralysis and crisis and policy vacuum that has engulfed this government, the opposition is prepared to step up to the plate and is prepared to come up with ideas. I said at the outset, when I got this job, that we would oppose legislation and policies of government where it was appropriate to do so. I also said that we would agree to them where it was also appropriate. Further, I said that part of our responsibility as an opposition was not just to knock ideas but to formulate new ones, to put our ideas into the policy mix, to tell Territorians what we would do if we were government, to invite this paralysed government to pick up good ideas where they exist.
Madam Speaker, this is an exceptionally good motion, one that I know has the support of Territorians. I look forward to it being passed.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support the Leader of the Opposition’s motion expressing anger at the actions of the Labor government for removing the open speed limit on the Stuart Highway. For something that is such a serious issue, I am sick and tired of listening to all the politics about it. It is an issue that needs to be addressed and I sincerely get annoyed when I look at the expressions on people’s faces when suggestions which I believe need to be taken seriously are shunned because they come from the opposition. Right now I see the minister is yawning she is so bored. I become very annoyed when a joke is made of such a serious issue and it is twisted and turned. It is absolutely pathetic.
First, any fatality on our roads is an absolute tragedy. It will not matter what we do in here, there will be more tragedies on our road. It deeply saddens me that that is so. If this government is serious about addressing road safety issues, there are several things that can be put in place that would have far more impact than this knee-jerk reaction of putting speed restrictions on our highways and introducing a demerit system.
Despite the hot air, and there has been plenty of it coming from the government side of this Assembly, that speed limits and the demerit system have been introduced to save lives on Territory roads, let me say right here and now that speed limits on open highways and a demerit system are nothing more than a revenue raising exercise for this government. There is no evidence that suggests that these two strategies have saved lives interstate and, in fact, have been an amazing revenue raiser for your respective Labor governments. I am sure the Treasurer is rubbing his hands in glee looking at the additional revenue that your government is going to have by ripping off Territorians with a demerit system and speed limits on highways.
I find it laughable when you say that putting restrictions on the highways is the answer. How many of you sitting opposite travel extensively? Yes, there are some who travel extensively on the open highways. How many of you travel within the speed limit around Darwin, Palmerston and the rural areas where there are speed restrictions in place? Be really honest with yourselves because my experience when travelling in the already identified restricted areas is that I am usually on my lonesome. I am driving on the limit or just under it. I am regularly tail-gated and passed by the majority of motorists. All this happens in areas that already have speed restrictions and have had them in place for many years.
If the road rules are not adequately resourced and policed in the already restricted areas, how is government going to deal with resourcing the highways with these new rules and regulations? I can assure you that to impose these restrictions there will have to be dozens of additional traffic police to enforce the regulations to add to the Treasury coffers, not just the three traffic units that you are proposing.
I can say without reservation that this government’s decision to adopt restricted speed limits on the Stuart Highway has angered Territorians like nothing else I have seen before. There were thousands of very angry people when TIO was threatened with closure last year and they took serious steps to ensure that government heard them loudly and clearly. Government was very wise to take Territorians seriously and reverse their decision to sell TIO.
The government’s decision to adopt restricted speed limits on the Territory open highways, such as the Stuart Highway at 130 km/h and other Territory arterial highways at 110 km/h, has angered Territorians more than you are prepared to accept. I have received more telephone calls, more personal visits, more e-mails and more mail, and have been stopped by more people in the street over this issue than any other. There is real anger out there, and I mean fair dinkum anger. I am one of those people who is angry; I was when the announcement was first made and I still am.
I could not believe that government was blaming speed for the number of road fatalities on Territory roads and using that as a reason to reduce the speed limit on our Territory highways. Where are the statistics for alcohol-related fatalities and fatalities where seat belts were not worn? I have written to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport seeking a break down of the cause of road fatalities in the Territory for the past five years. I am looking forward to receiving those statistics. It will make very interesting reading. I pre-empt, minister, that it will reinforce my argument that the main causes of road fatalities are not wearing seat belts and the effects of alcohol.
One of the bones of contention in the community, and it is a very valid one, is that there was no community consultation at all before government decided to announce that there would be speed restrictions implemented on 1 January 2007, followed by a roll-out of other changes as 2007 progresses. Knowing such a decision was going to have a huge impact on Territorians, especially regional and remote Territorians, why on earth did you not go out and talk to them? Why did you not provide them with the hard evidence to support what you wanted to do? Most importantly of all, why did you not listen to what Territorians have to say? Or is this just another sign of arrogance by government towards Territorians?
I am one of those Territorians who has to travel long distances from Katherine as part of my role as an elected member of this Assembly. I can assure you I am not at all impressed with having speed restrictions put on the open highway that will keep me out there for even greater lengths of time than I already am. It is fine for you who live above the Berrimah line. As usual, regional Territorians are being disadvantaged even further. There are no regular or consistent airline or passenger bus services which give regional people the alternative opportunity of travel. Therefore, to get anywhere, it is by vehicle on the highway. Remote Territorians, such as pastoralists who live long distances from their supply centres, have to travel on these highways regularly. These people drive to suit the conditions of the highway. They are not reckless lunatics. If the road conditions allow for 140 km/h, that is the speed they travel. If the road allows for 90 km/h, that is the speed they travel.
What the Chief Minister and government have done and said to these pastoralists, effectively, is that they are irresponsible, do not know how to drive on the open roads, and that they need to be controlled. You have also very effectively told them you do not give a rip about regional development, because you do not. Your government’s implementation of speed restrictions on our highways has said that loudly and clearly. Many of the regional and remote drivers will be likely to lose their licence in the first 12 months, because it is highly likely they will continue to get on about their business as they have been doing for years. In addition to doing that, they will also receive huge fines, and that could be in the vicinity of $500. These people who lose their licences will also be restricted with their work practices. There are already enough challenges which face regional and remote residents purely through distance from service. The speed restrictions will ensure some drivers will be adding hours to their trip to access services, not just minutes like you people who live above the Berrimah line. You will have an additional few minutes, but those people who live in regional and remote areas have a considerable length of time added to their journey.
Not only will the pastoralists and people who live in communities in remote areas be disadvantaged, but business in regional towns such as Tennant Creek and Katherine are also very concerned. Several contractors in Katherine have told me that the speed restrictions will change the way they operate their business. I will give you an example of that. Many business people travel long distances from Katherine, firstly giving quotes for jobs, and then carrying out the job if their quote is successful. At the present time, with unlimited speed on the highways and travelling within their speed capability, they are able to do the return trip in a day. With speed restrictions, several have advised me that they will have to stay overnight, which will increase the cost of the job, plus keep tradesmen away from Katherine for longer periods of time. You may not think that is a very serious problem, however, we already have a shortage of tradespeople in regional areas and this is going to add to their challenges.
These comments have been expressed by several businesses in Katherine, so it goes without saying that there will be many others throughout regional Northern Territory who will be affected and feel the same way. So much for this government being interested in regional development!
There is anger from some residents who feel that the last of their Territory unique lifestyle has been eroded to the point that they are adamant that this is the final straw and they will be leaving. Their argument was more than reasonable: they came to the Territory many years ago to enjoy the different lifestyle that Territorians have always had the privilege of living. Now, we have become no different to any other jurisdiction in Australia. We have lost our uniqueness and our identity. We do not have to have regulations like the rest of Australia. I am not a redneck, and I am very much in favour of safety, but let us get some commonsense into the discussion.
The most common causes of road fatalities on Territory roads are associated with alcohol and the non-wearing of seat belts. Let us deal with these two factors, and deal with them seriously. It does not matter what regulations and restrictions that you and your government put in place, minister, you will never stop the 20-year-old inexperienced driver from getting into a high-powered car, roaring off down the road at breakneck speed and, unfortunately, sometimes ending up in a tragic accident. You will never stop that from happening, no matter what restrictions you put in place. How about getting back to the basics of road safety? That begins with the serious education and training of young people. The recent Road Safety Taskforce showed that road crashes are the biggest killer of people aged between 18 and 25 years of age, which clearly indicates that young people need to be seriously targeted with significantly increased education and training.
We have stated very clearly that we would, in government, incorporate road safety topics into the school curricula, and school-based education will be formed in conjunction with the police. We would have police visiting all Territory schools throughout the year, and would have appropriate age-specific road safety resources in preschools, primary and high schools, to ensure every step has been taken for students to gain knowledge and understanding of the road traffic environment. Students would learn from a very young age about being responsible for their own safety and the safety of other people in vehicles. The most effective way for the training of younger people to work is to have a partnership between parents, schools, police, and the government. That is how we would focus on road safety. I certainly hope, minister, following Question Time today and your response to one of those questions about young driver safety, that that is exactly what you and your department would be doing.
The CLP also has a policy for young road users, and our leader has talked about that today. That policy will give young road users an incentive to purchase a smaller engined vehicle. We would encourage people aged 16 to 23 years to purchase a car that is less than seven years old, with an engine capable of generating no greater than 95 kW capacity. Should they choose to purchase a smaller engined vehicle in preference to a high speed one, they would be entitled to claim no stamp duty, no cost of registration for two years, and no cost of third party insurance for two years. We believe with incentives such as these, young people would be encouraged to purchase a vehicle that is in line with their driving experience.
The CLP would also have additional provisions and restrictions to keep our younger drivers safer on our Territory roads including: no towing for learners and provisional drivers; 120 hours of driving experience to be log booked for learner drivers on supervised driving; move the provisional period from the proposed two years to three years; allow only one passenger of a provisional driver in their first year of a provisional licence between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am; and the loss of licence for three months upon a second breach of these restrictions. All of these are aimed at having safer young road users.
I believe that what the CLP has proposed for young drivers is sensible and responsible, and that is where government needs to start with their road safety. We also believe that all new drivers should undertake an advanced driving program to assist their driving skills to ensure they have a better understanding of how to handle a vehicle in various road conditions.
Had I had that advanced driving course when I was much younger, maybe I would not have ended up in the predicament that I did earlier this year. An advanced driving course would have taught me not to brake before you hit the water or get near water, because you move the load of the vehicle from the back to front and that put me into a spin. I am very much in favour of advanced driving courses.
I would even suggest that people who have had driving experience for quite some time need to have an advanced driving course. I have been on the road and driving vehicles since I was 11 years old - not on the road I might add, Mr Deputy Speaker, but on my parents’ farm. I have been driving since I was 11 years old and this was one thing that I did not have experience with. I believe if I had, I would not be having these aches and pains as I get older. The successful completion of an advanced driving program for everybody, and especially for young people, would qualify that young person for a full open licence immediately.
Another incentive the CLP would offer for the young driver would be if they complete their P plate period incident free, and also complete the first three years of their probation incident free, they would be entitled to free licence renewal. An incentive such as a monetary benefit to them is usually appealing and I would suggest it would appeal to the majority of the younger people.
Another serious problem identified is the number of road fatalities where occupants of a vehicle were not wearing seat belts. Over the past two years, 30 people who were not wearing seat belts have died on Territory roads. That is clearly unacceptable and should not have happened. There is legislation already in place that makes it illegal to travel in a vehicle without a seat belt on, but clearly with the 30 people who have unfortunately lost their lives, that legislation meant diddly squat. Surely that should spell it out very clearly that tougher action needs to be taken. The Country Liberal Party has taken that on board with significantly increased fines. We make no bones about being tough with our stance on seat belts. We have a policy that clearly states the penalty if you are caught three times in 12 months not wearing a seat belt: it is the mandatory loss of licence for three months. This will directly target those who fail to understand the importance of wearing a seat belt.
All Territory school kids will be given seat belt education at least once each term from school-based constables. We feel it is important that people learn from a very young age the acceptance and the responsibility of wearing seat belts. We have also clearly stated that we would have seat belts on all school buses fitted over a period of 12 months to Australian standards. We have also clearly stated that we would triple the traffic police presence to ensure the laws are enforced. There is absolutely no point in having laws in place if there is not the number of police to enforce them.
The evidence suggests that due to the lack of resources, people are not complying with the laws. This has to be changed otherwise all the rules and regulations in the world are not worth a grain of salt. The CLP believes that the position that we have on seat belts and the extensive driver education we propose for young people is a positive step in the right direction for significantly reducing the road toll in the Territory. We do not consider that the demerit system and the reduced speed limits on the open road are the answer at all. We believe it is education for young drivers.
I fully support the motion put forward today by the Leader of the Opposition. I ask government, if they are sincere about a bipartisan effort between us to address road safety on roads in the Territory, to look at these suggestions because we all know the concerns of road users in the Northern Territory, and we take them seriously.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion deals with a broader range of issues than I intend to raise in my motion. There are some matters on which I wish to comment. I support the motion. It is a proactive motion and has some good concepts. There are a few issues that the government needs to look at.
Just looking at the key findings document, which the government released, and which deals with drug driving. One of the recommendations is to amend the Traffic Act to provide the necessary power to collect samples of blood to test for drugs from people involved in motor vehicles crashes and in cases of dangerous or unexplained driver behaviour. That does not go far enough. We know that drugs affect driving just as alcohol does. We know that we have random alcohol breath tests on the highway. We should have random drug testing as well. Otherwise, this recommendation is saying people will be tested for drugs after the event.
The member for Katherine has been getting some flak over her remarks about breath testing people in boats. The minister, in reply to a question yesterday, said there are sufficient laws to cover that because if someone is driving a boat recklessly, they can be charged with not being in control of that boat. The problem with that is it is after the event. When you crash into the port in Darwin, as some people did not so long ago, the action has already occurred. The reason we have random breath testing is to get people off the road before they have an accident. I would like the government to look at that when developing these policies and recommendations. Victoria has random drug testing. I am told it is reasonably expensive and it has taken a while for it to be sorted through. There were some issues when it first started about the practicality of what was involved. I gather now that you pull up and they give you an icy-pole stick which you put in your mouth. They then put it into a machine which can sense whether you have been using any drugs. I have concerns if that is the only testing that will be done, that is after the event.
Demerit points have not had much debate in this parliament. I know many people who do not want demerit points. You might say they do not want demerit points because they do not want to lose their licence, and that might be fair enough. If the government is going to introduce a system of demerit points, it has to be sensible about it. In the back of the report there is a national guide for demerit points. I would hate to see a system of demerit points which got you up to one point below the maximum where you would lose your licence and you found your tail light was not working or something, a minor offence, which then tipped you over to losing your licence. There needs to be a system that reflects that if you are doing an act that is dangerous to other drivers and yourself, you could lose your licence through the demerit point system. For the more minor offences, I would prefer no system of demerit points and people were fined. If you think the fines are not big enough, we can look at that. That is another area that should have been debated more in the community. I will speak more on that when my motion comes up.
I realise that the opposition is looking at legislation for the forfeiture of vehicles for certain offences. Already we have a Traffic Amendment Bill that was passed in this parliament; it was amended from what I originally put forward to this parliament. It was called, colloquially, the ‘Hoon Bill’, and it was designed originally under the Queensland legislation, where a first offence for people doing burn-outs and donuts and such dangerous activities like drag stripping or dragging up a main road, would have lost their vehicle for 48 hours. On a second offence, you would have lost it for three months, and on the third offence in Queensland I think your car is confiscated and can be sold off.
The government watered that down a bit: now, you get a yellow ticket for a first offence and a magistrate has to decide whether you lose your car for a weekend. Unfortunately, that is too convoluted and too nice a little tap on the wrist. I know the minister for Police at that time, earlier this year when I asked him a question about how many people have been apprehended or given a ticket in relation to this legislation, he said he believed it was in the 60s, but what he did not say is, I do not think anyone has lost their vehicle. It is successful in Queensland because young people do not like to lose their vehicles. They found that if you lost it for a weekend and you know that next time you are going to lose it for three months, you are not really out there doing too much hooning.
Hooning is dangerous, and yet it does not appear to be a part of the recommendations in here even though we already have legislation. That legislation needs upgrading and tightening. In the key findings in this document, groups at higher risk of death or injury are the young or new driver. We have legislation that can deal with some of these issues. There is no doubt that hooning does cause injury and death. Some may remember the young people who were dragging outside BP Palms one night. One of them turned their lights off and they crashed. I am not sure whether it was one or two people killed; one was burnt; and some were very seriously injured. It was only luck that some were saved when people pulled them out of the vehicle.
There is legislation there already. The problem is, we are not enforcing it and I believe it is not strict enough. I will give you an example. There is a little community in the rural area called Howard River Park. It was always marketed as an upbeat place, with white fences and good quality housing, and people paid the extra money to live at Howard River Park. Over the last year or so, we have had quite a number of young people in there burning up the roads at all hours of the day and night. In fact, there is so much rubber on the road one could start to call it Howard Rubber Park. It is causing problems with people in the community, not only from the safety perspective, but they feel the value of their properties is going down. When you drive into that area and you see rubber everywhere on the road it does not put out a welcome mat to people who want to purchase a home there.
I believe there is a public meeting coming up this Thursday to get the police to do something about it. They do try, but the reality is they cannot arrest people because they simply cannot be there when the hooning takes place. So, except for a warning or a presence, not much changes. What we need is some sort of mobile surveillance equipment. The government is putting through all these changes to legislation which will include a $1.5m highway patrol. To me, it is putting money in the wrong place. How many people are we looking for on our main highways with a highway patrol? How many vehicles travel up and down our highways? Compared to other states, we are pretty mild. Go through the Wet Season and there is hardly anyone. I guarantee if you go to Kununurra in November, December, January, or February, you will not get run over by a fleet of cars, yet, we are going to put $1.5m into a highway patrol. Is that the best use of our police resources and money?
If we cannot get control over some of these people who are causing disruption in our own communities because we do not have the money to police and prosecute them, then people are going to say: ‘Why spend money out in the bush for a few people driving a bit faster than the speed limit when the real problems, the problems that are driving people mad, are right here in our urban or rural communities?’
We need to look at whether having a highway patrol is a good use of resources. Is it just going to make lot of people aggro? If I am driving to Kununurra and am 100 km out of the Victoria River Roadhouse in November, and I am doing 140 km/h, and a policeman jumps out from behind a Brahman bull and says: ‘You’re done’, he might be within the law, but I tell you I will not be pleased. I will say: ‘Haven’t you something better to do?’ That is the question which should be asked: is it a good use of resources?
Believe it or not, it does not make the police very popular if you are getting pinged when you are driving down the road and no one is around, and you are breaking the speed limit. Are we making people law breakers when we do not need to do that? You might say yes, but the point is: how many of us go down the highway and pass a road train at 140 km/h? In theory, you can get picked up. It was not a problem before, but now it will be. I will get on to that in my motion. I will give you some reasons why I believe it is a bad decision.
Ms Lawrie: Road trains do 100 km/h.
Mr WOOD: That is right. However, when you are passing, you try to pass them as quickly as possible. When there is another car coming, if you have misjudged then you really have to put your foot down.
Mr Knight: Not a problem with that as long as you go back to 130 km/h.
Mr WOOD: That is right - maybe, maybe not. We forget the practical application of what you are trying to do - and, basically, in the middle of nowhere in some cases. I know we are dropping the speed limit to 110 km/h on the other open speed limit roads. For some roads that might be perfectly okay. In reality, is someone going to be sitting on the Buchanan Highway? Not likely! Is someone going to be sitting on Port Keats Road with a radar? Not likely! What I am asking is: does the change mean anything? I would not drive over 100 km/h down the Daly River road. Some people might. I certainly would not drive to Port Keats at very high speed. If it is an open speed limit road, you have to ask: was that a problem?
I will cover some more specific issues. I do not see anything particularly wrong with what the opposition is putting forward. They have put forward some positive incentives. Some of these are in this document. The step-by-step approach to gaining your licence is important. I also believe that positive incentives are the way to go. If you keep wielding a big stick, people get a bit jack of that and say: ‘We are getting picked on’. I would take the suggestion regarding incentives in another direction. For instance, if a person has been driving for over five years and has had no traffic infringements, would the government be prepared to reduce their registration fees by 10%? It is something that says we are rewarding you for being a good driver. It is not all about looking at how to fine you; it is also about how to reward you for doing the right thing.
In summary, there are some good suggestions put forward by the opposition. Naturally, I can understand that the government is not going to agree with part 1 of the motion. Part 2 has some positive programs and I would support those.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave the rest of my comments until I move my motion later today.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak now rather than after the minister. I am sure she has a prepared response to this motion. There were other points that were raised by the three previous contributors which I hope the minister will respond to specifically. I would like to put some points to the minister for her to also consider.
The government has come up with a mantra ‘speed kills’. If a pedestrian was hit by a car that travelled at 35 km/h it would cause serious damage. A person inside a vehicle who is not restrained, travelling at 60 km/h, coming to a sudden stop would suffer serious damage, if not be killed inside the car or thrown through the windshield. The two Japanese drivers at the Cannonball Run were killed travelling at 80 km/h. That is the speed they were travelling when they impacted the other vehicle and were killed. So at 80 km/h you could kill. It is not simply saying that speed kills. Any speed can kill. The human body is not designed to travel at more than what you can run. Faster than that, you hit something hard and come to a sudden stop, you will hurt yourself.
It is about reckless driving; that is what it is about. It is reckless driving that causes the problems. What is reckless driving? Driving an unroadworthy vehicle; driving when you are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs; driving without seat belt restraint, and driving when you are fatigued. That is what reckless driving is and reckless driving can kill. You can be recklessly driving at 80 km/h and kill yourself or kill somebody else. You can be driving fast with due care in a roadworthy vehicle on a good highway and you will not be driving recklessly.
This government ignored all that and said we are going to have a cap because you are all crazy drivers, driving at speeds that will kill you. Well, we should then have speed limits across the Territory at less than 80 km/h because at 80 km/h you can kill yourself and others.
I listened very carefully to the responses of the Chief Minister yesterday during Question Time and she was referring mostly to traffic between Humpty Doo and Darwin. She was talking about running red traffic lights. She was not talking about the open Stuart Highway, yet this speed limit issue is about the open Stuart Highway and that goes to the very core of Territory lifestyle.
We need to think about why your committee recommended 110 km/h. You saw some political benefit in increasing it to 130 km/h. You have to accept that most people in Darwin tend not to drive south of Humpty Doo. People living in the regional centres do drive long distances say between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek or vice versa, Katherine to Darwin and vice versa, and all points in between. To cover 1550 km between Darwin and Alice Springs at 110 km/h or even 130 km/h would take in the order of 16 hours or so. Add fuel stops and calls of nature and it is going to take more than three quarters of a day if you did it in all in the one drive. It means that people would have to stop overnight and that will increase the cost.
Businesses from Alice Springs which have to service a regional centre such as Tennant Creek will now have to spend more money an hour to ensure that the staff who travel to Tennant Creek have the means to stay overnight because they are not able to get back to Alice Springs in the one day. Where will the cost be borne? By the consumer.
When you talk about driving at 110 km/h or 130 km/h along the highway, the result is fatigue and it is fatigue that causes the problem. Someone driving fast along the highway would not necessarily go off the shoulder of the road because the person is fully alert. It is the person who drives slowly, hour after hour after hour, who becomes fatigued. It is fatigue which causes the person to drive off the road. It is fatigue which triggers the whole process that causes the car to roll. A tired driver drives off the road, has one or two wheels on the gravel, overcorrects, flips the car, and away you go. If the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs and the car was unroadworthy, if the driver was not wearing a seat belt, if the passengers were not wearing seat belts, if there were more passengers than seat belts - some cars have eight people in the car when there is a maximum of five seat belts fitted so at least three to five passengers are not wearing seat belts - those people would be thrown out of the vehicle. Those vehicles could be only going at 80 km/h but fatigue and the subsequent roll over of the car with passengers or a driver who is not restrained, with the driver under the influence of alcohol, that is what kills.
It is not speed that kills per se. It is the fatigue caused by being in a car for long periods of time. I am sure the expert committee would have looked at that, but this government decided that it would do something different.
The government needs to address the seat belt issue and enforce it so that no one gets into a vehicle without putting on a seat belt, that each vehicle does not have more passengers than the number of seat belts fitted. That is law, but I do not see it enforced. I see many cars driving in Alice Springs and on the outskirts with more passengers than the number of seat belts fitted.
Motor vehicles that are unroadworthy seem to be able to drive around Central Australia without any restriction. We do not see any enforcement to pull them off the roads. I say to government that if you do not seriously consider that reckless driving is the cause of road deaths rather than just speed, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Let us go to demerit points. Demerit points work on people who hold a driver’s licence. You have a driver’s licence and if you break the law and are pulled up by the police, you will probably get a TINE as well having points deducted. What if you do not have a driver’s licence? Does it matter? If you do not have a driver’s licence, demerit points do not make a difference; the person is prepared to drive whether they have a driver’s licence or not.
Demerit points will only impact on law abiding citizens who have a driver’s licence. The majority of Territorians are law abiding people. They drive the car to work each morning and each afternoon they drive the car home. Taxi or private hire car drivers who are trying to make a living will be driving their cars all day. These are the law abiding citizens who are out there every day trying to make a dollar to feed their families. They are the ones who will be penalised. These are the ones who are going to be inconvenienced. The other ones can be pulled up and told that they have broken the speed limit so they will lose demerit points. When they lose all of their demerit points, what happens? They forgo the right to drive.
Would not it be better if the government enforced the rules, made sure people abide by the rules and prevented reckless driving? That is what it is about. Make sure the people who drive between Humpty Doo and Darwin drive safely as many of fatalities also come from that group of people.
The government has not been able to provide any evidence to demonstrate that there are many fatalities from very high speed drivers on the open highways. I was surprised to hear the minister, the member for Wanguri, in the media yesterday saying that, in fact, only 50% of the people driving on the Stuart Highway go above 130 km/h. So it really is not the cause of the problem, is it, when you have only a small number of people who drive along the highway at such speeds?
These are the ones who are on the highway trying to earn a living, trying to go about their business without interference from this government. Instead, this government is going to take away what is uniquely Territorian. Show us the evidence that this high speed driving is the cause of the high number of fatalities that the Northern Territory suffers from, especially last year. Show us the evidence. It is not there. I have read the report from your expert committee and it is does not show that. That is why I am so perturbed as to why this government has done this. All I can say is that it has obviously been politically motivated for them to drive this policy. This policy is not even going to come into this Chamber. This policy is going to be brought about by regulation. That is what this government is going to do: do it by regulation so that it is not even out in the public arena for debate.
Had the opposition not brought this on as a motion, it would not have been debated. It would have just gone through behind closed doors as regulatory changes and then become law on 1 January next year. That is what it is going to be. Allan Moffat drove up the highway and stated quite clearly that the highway is in perfectly good condition for another Cannonball Run, no doubt about that at all. If that is the case it says that the highway is not the problem. The problem is in our built-up areas. You can say it over and over again: it is the built-up areas which cause the problem. The government does not like hearing criticism of their policy. I do not know where they got this advice from, trying to make us a nanny state is what this is all about and taking, again, another aspect of the unique Territory lifestyle.
For five years now we have faced this whittling away by this government of the unique lifestyle that we have in the Territory. I lament the day when this law comes into action. I believe it will be such a great pity. The government will have to wear the wrath of Territorians and eventually they will speak in the polls, I am sure.
I will not go into the rest of the points I raised in the motion, they are fairly self-explanatory. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken at length about the value of the government following the opposition in these. It will give young drivers and new drivers good instruction and incentives. It is a carrot and stick-type initiative which will ensure better quality drivers and drivers who will obey the law and not be reckless drivers. That is what it is about, it is about reckless driving. I ask the government not to recklessly ruin the Territory lifestyle.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will begin by pointing out that I believe it is a bit of a travesty that we get to discuss this motion from the Leader of the Opposition before the member for Nelson’s very similar motion. The member for Nelson put out a media release earlier this week outlining his intention to put forward such a motion. The CLP is so out of touch and so lazy that they simply decided that if it is good enough for the member for Nelson, then it is good enough for them. In stark contrast - not reactionary, as members of the opposition labelled this government in terms of road safety reforms – the Territory government sought expert advice on how to tackle the Territory’s unacceptable road toll.
Dr Lim: Dr Scruby, an expert in traffic, is he? What is an expert?
Ms LAWRIE: Expert advice - a range of experts; all experts who individually have more than 20 years experience in the Territory. I note the member for Greatorex is denigrating the Road Safety Taskforce experts and that is a shame. I stand alongside the Chief Minister in congratulating the experts who put in a great deal of research, and created an evidence-based report relying on more than 61 studies, which was presented to government for consideration. It was identified to address safer road use.
The NT Road Safety Taskforce report came up with a range of 21 recommendations. I am delighted to say that the Territory government took them seriously, considered them at length, heard a great deal about what the public had to say about the more contentious recommendations contained therein - that is, to impose restricted speed limits on our open roads and to introduce for the first time a demerit point system. I am proud to be part of a government which takes road safety more seriously than populist politics, which has been the extent of the debate I have heard from the opposition.
Why do we take it seriously? Fundamentally, our current road safety record is the worst in Australia with our road toll three times the national average. One person dies and nine are seriously injured on Territory roads each week. The chances of Territorian families losing their loved ones on the roads is simply too high. That is why the government has taken the tough decisions to reduce the carnage and it has accepted the recommendations from the Road Safety Taskforce. The recommendations form a comprehensive package - a package of measures designed to cut the trauma on our roads.
Mr Deputy Speaker, make no mistake, the motion from the CLP is nothing but a rejection of the task force recommendations. Tragically, these recommendations, as I have said, have come from Territorians with a great deal of expertise. However, the CLP prefers to play politics with the road toll and ignore the recommendations.
Arising from the recommendations, there will be a much greater emphasis on road safety education in our schools. Government will double the fines for drink driving, and those who do not learn the lesson and drink drive again will have their licence immediately suspended – an action that the Leader of the Opposition continually fails to mention when she talks about the government’s response to drink driving. Penalties for speeding, for not wearing seat belts, and for running red and orange lights will also be increased. We are introducing a speed limit of 130 km/h on the Stuart, Arnhem, Barkly, and Victoria Highways. This decision took into account the views of Territorians, the long distances travelled in the Territory, and the condition of these roads.
I want to pick up on some of the myths that are being floated by the opposition during the debate today on the motion. We heard the members opposite talk about the vast distances that are travelled on the highway and how it will impact on businesses in Katherine and in Alice Springs because of the many extra hours it will take to travel these distances. Let us just look at a calculation done on the difference in the amount of time it would take in a vehicle travelling at 130 km/h instead of travelling at – let us choose a speed of 160 km/h, which they could have done on an unrestricted road. Say Katherine to Mataranka: the difference between travelling at 130 km/h and 160 km/h would add eight minutes.
Mrs Miller: I told you do not look at those short distances. Look at the long distances.
Mr Henderson: It is coming.
Ms LAWRIE: Not hours. Eight minutes. Katherine to Timber Creek is a distance of 285 km. The difference between travelling at 130 km/h and 160 km/h is 25 minutes. Not hours as claimed – 25 minutes. The difference between travelling from Katherine to Pine Creek, again eight minutes difference when travelling at 130 km/h and 160 km/h - not hours as prophesised opposite. Darwin to Katherine is some 270 km. This is taking it from the point where you move out of the restricted zone, so if you like Acacia Hills …
Dr Lim: This is ridiculous mathematics.
Mr Henderson: This is the truth.
Dr Lim: This is not the truth. Then explain the mathematics. This is not the truth.
Ms LAWRIE: It is interesting. The opposition really does not like it when the facts are presented.
Dr Lim: That is not the truth.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr Lim: You drive 110 km/h, your average is about 90.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex.
Ms LAWRIE: When we move off myth and start to look at the facts.
Dr Lim: That is what it is.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Dr Lim: You drive at 110km/h. Maximum. The average is about 80km/h.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, the minister is trying to speak.
Dr Lim: I am telling the minister to be truthful.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: I am being factual.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat. Member for Greatorex, other members were fairly respectful when you were speaking. I feel that you should return that courtesy to the minister. Minister, please resume.
Ms LAWRIE: The difference in travelling between Darwin and Katherine - noting that we are looking at really from Acacia Hills because we are not including the restricted zone - so between the restricted zones the difference in travelling 130 km/h and 160 km/h adds 23 minutes. Twenty three minutes. Not hours. Not the difference between being able to do it in a day trip or stay overnight. Twenty three minutes.
Alice Springs to Tennant Creek is a distance of some 500 km. The difference between 130 km/h and 160 km/h adds 42 minutes. Forty two minutes. Again, not hours. Not hours. Not the difference between having to book accommodation and stay overnight. We are not talking hours and hours here. We are talking 42 minutes. The distance between Tennant Creek and Katherine is some 660 km – travelling 130 km/h and 160 km/h the difference there in time is 57 minutes. I have to say to the CLP when you want to have your arguments on the economic impact of reforms to save people’s lives, put some facts behind them. Just put some facts. A few simple mathematical calculations would not go astray. Put a few facts in there.
A default speed limit of 110 km/h, which was the recommendation very clearly by the experts, was accepted for the Territory’s other open roads. In its decision, the government recognised that we have good quality road conditions on the Stuart, Arnhem, Barkly and Victoria Highways which we believed would accommodate the speed of 130 km/h.
There has been some discussion in the last couple of days around the issue of 130 km/h and how the government arrived at it. The government has consistently said we arrived at it because we understand the Territory’s distances, we understand the road conditions of those major highways, and we listened to the community. Significantly, people were saying we will cop 130 km/h, do not bring it down below that, we drive these distances all the time. We have many members of parliament who have bush electorates and are often travelling on the open roads.
In addition to that, the government was also provided with what are called speed histograms. Histograms are not empirical data. They are a snapshot of speed over a certain distance registered on a particular day. They are not something you contain in a weighty report such as the task force report. I will table these for members opposite to have a look at them. They show sections of the Stuart Highway, for example, a section 19 km north of the Carpentaria Highway, a section 30 km north of Barrow Creek, a section 100 km south of Alice Springs, another one west of Timber Creek on the Victoria Highway which is east bound, west bound on the Victoria Highway, and on the Barkly Highway.
By and large, you will see that the bulk of travel is between 100 km/h and 130 km/h. Most motorists are travelling at that speed. The histograms are simply that: they are a snapshot of a particular section of highway on a particular day and time. They are not empirical data at all; they just show you a snapshot of what speed drivers are doing on the road. I table the histograms for members opposite because they seem very interested in the speeds at which Territorians travel. These histograms show you that some 85% of people travel at or around 130 km/h as a maximum speed on our good, open highways.
A member: Yes, but the evidence is 110km/h.
Ms LAWRIE: The experts recommend 110km/h. Categorically the experts recommend 110 …
A member: Well, it differs from 130km/h.
Ms LAWRIE: … and I encourage all members opposite to have a discussion with Professor Ian Johnston, an expert on the impact of speed on the road toll. He is a very knowledgeable man who has dedicated years to research to this subject. I squirmed in my seat every time I heard the opposition say that speed was not a factor. It is a factor. You said it is a fact that people are not wearing seat belts, and it is drink driving.
I refer members to the Road Safety Report where it talks about the key factors, and they are drink driving, speeding and fatigue, and there are compounding factors. A compounding factor is not wearing your seat belt. A causal factor is not wearing your seat belt. You do not have an accident because you are not wearing your seat belt. Not wearing a seat belt does not cause an accident; it is not a causal factor. I am not down-playing the importance of the effort the government will take to impose a regime of seat belt wearing, and enforcement is the key to that. Having the police traffic branch resurrected and out there enforcing the seat belt rule is the most effective tool based on the advice of the experts to whom I have spoken.
I take on board the fixation the opposition has on the issue of seat belts and that somehow is going to be the panacea to the cause of accidents. Seat belt wearing is a compounding effect on the seriousness of injury or fatality; it is not a cause of an accident. I do not think we are enormously far apart in all of us in this Chamber wanting to ensure that something as basic as someone putting their seat belt on does happen. We want to see that.
It absolutely astounded members of government to discover that we are the only jurisdiction in Australia that does not mandate restraint of children under 12 months. Restraint of children under 12 months was previously not mandated. This government will make it mandatory.
The opposition is opposed to speed limits because they say that speed does not kill. They say there is no evidence that speed kills. What I say is that they clearly have not read the Road Safety Taskforce Report. Let us just look at the Lasseter Highway where a speed limit was introduced in 2001. The task force outlines the results since then.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: There were some inane interjections from the opposition where they said there are no Territorians driving on it any more. Let us have a look at the Lasseter Highway. Since we introduced a speed limit in 2001, deaths have been cut by 37%; serious injuries have been cut by 44%; and the total of all injuries are down by 33%. These are lives being saved because of a reduction in speed, and yet we still have the CLP saying there is no evidence.
Twenty-one percent of all fatalities in the Northern Territory occur on the open speed limit sections of the Stuart Highway ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I will repeat that because there are a few interjections: 21% of all fatalities in the Northern Territory occur on the open speed limit sections of the Stuart Highway. I want to take you through the Stuart Highway issues, seeing as both motions, the CLP’s motion and the member for Nelson’s motion, really do go to that core issue of should we apply a speed limit to our open highways, and the Stuart Highway being the iconic highway of those highways. Data from 2000 to 2005 – on the Stuart Highway, it shows that in that period, there were 62 fatalities, 292 serious injuries, a total of 354. Yet, you sit there and you say that you will stand by and justify no speed limit on the Stuart Highway. Absolutely extraordinary.
Mrs Braham: Speed was not the only cause of the accidents.
Ms LAWRIE: But speed is causal in all accidents.
Mr Wood: Not according to your own figures.
Ms LAWRIE: No, speed is a causal component to all accidents. Go and talk to the experts, because if the car is stationary, you are not having an accident. So, whether it is 5 km/h or 10 km/h, 60 km/h or 100 km/h, speed is a causal component to all accidents.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Obviously, the faster you go, the more dangerous it is. The experts will tell you that. They have a whole lot of research to show you. Talk to Professor Ian Johnston and avail yourself of his expert information. Please go and find it out.
From 2000 to 2005, we have had 62 deaths; 62 people killed on the open speed limit sections of the Stuart Highway.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I do not have that information and I am wondering if the minister would please table it?
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to table it. The Barkly and the Victoria Highways, from 2000 to 2005 …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time to allow for the minister to conclude her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank my parliamentary colleagues for the courtesy.
On the Barkly Highway, from 2000 to 2005, there were nine fatalities and 39 serious injuries. On the Victoria Highway there were 11 fatalities and 32 serious injuries. I table this information for the members opposite.
Most Territorians do not travel at more than 130 km/h on the Stuart Highway, and I have tabled that evidence of the histograms. However, the number of people who do travel at above that speed, the Territory government believes is far too high, and we want to reduce the speed to make the roads safer for all Territorians.
The issue of drink driving is a significant problem in the Territory. When a Territory family is on the road they are eight times more likely to share it with a driver who is over the legal alcohol limit than if you were, say, driving in Victoria. At least 48% of fatal crashes in the Territory are alcohol-related. There are five specific recommendations in the task force report to address drink driving and the CLP has decided to reject them.
Currently, a driver can be apprehended for driving with up to 0.08 blood alcohol concentration an unlimited number of times and not lose their licence. The task force made a recommendation that the driver’s licence should be immediately suspended for three months for a second 0.05 BAC offence, and six months for any subsequent offence within three years. The government is adopting this recommendation. Again, the CLP chooses to reject it.
The CLP’s plan for drink driving is to seize repeat drink drivers’ vehicles. There are a couple of problems with this. First, this will have an impact on the whole family. Some Territory families have only one car and the whole family relies on that car. If one member of the family is stupid enough to drink and drive, then getting the kids to childcare or school becomes a real problem for the families who have had their car confiscated. For a drink driver with more than one available car, then you have achieved nothing. Rather than punish the whole family, we would rather punish the drink driver.
A much better approach to consider would be the use of an alcohol interlock system. An alcohol interlock is an electronic breath testing device wired to the ignition system of a vehicle. Interlocks can be fitted to motorcycles, cars and trucks. A vehicle fitted with an interlock will not start unless the driver passes a breath test. Additionally, the interlock will randomly request the driver to pull over to perform a breath test. That is what other states are introducing and the evidence is showing it is working. In America, they are already looking at alcohol interlocks being standard in some vehicles. The CLP simply refuses to consider these options and goes to the lowest common denominator, a knee-jerk reaction of confiscation.
Young drivers, we all agree, are particularly at risk on our roads. Young drivers are three times more likely to die than others in the Territory. This is an important issue for Territory families, the core of the recommendations that the CLP has rejected making roads safer for young people. The task force recommended that we implement a graduated driver licensing system in two phases. The Territory government has agreed to that. Phase 1 would include what we are introducing: a minimum of a six-month learner period for all drivers and motorcycle riders under 25; no mobile phone use during learner and provisional periods; and double the penalty for driving with L or P plates. Phase 2 is the graduated driver licensing scheme in its entirety which goes to the minimum supervised driving hours during the learner phase, limits on night driving, and the number of young passengers.
We are developing a road safety education curriculum for young people. The task force recommended a graduated driver licensing system which will ensure the young drivers get the experience and skills they need to drive on our roads. Every parent should be aware of the importance of helping their teenagers get experience on the roads. Experts say that driver training systems off-road do not get you there. For the safety of our young drivers, it is the hours spent driving on the roads through a range of road and driving conditions that improves their chances of not being the subject of traffic accidents.
The task force outlined the high incidence in the Territory of not wearing seat belts, and how this leads to a high number of fatalities. People not wearing a seat belt is a compounding factor, not a causal factor, in fatalities. This was a compounding factor in some 50% of fatal crashes in the Territory since 2000. The report recommended a package of education and media campaigns which we have already implemented, complemented by increased penalty and enforcement efforts. There should be also a higher profile enforcement campaign at the time the new penalty begins - the all-important aspect of enforcement, which is the resurrection of the traffic branch which was disbanded by a previous CLP government.
The CLP motion does not talk about tourists or indigenous Territorians and they completely ignored the task force recommendations in this area. They have also overlooked recommendations in relation to running red lights and amber lights and the penalties. The CLP says that recommendations are revenue raising. We are trying to stop people driving through red lights and the CLP cries ‘revenue raising’ - unbelievable. We are bringing back the police traffic unit that the CLP abolished and we will have highway and remote patrols to help enforcement. All the rules and all the regulations in the world do not change the driving culture and will not reduce the carnage on our roads. Enforcement is critical to reducing the carnage on our roads.
We are a government that understands we need to make our roads safer. That is why our roads budget this year is more than $130m. We are putting an extra $50m into roads which is above what the CLP ever did to make our roads safer. We will continue to invest in our roads. The opposition claims that there was no consultation on road safety reform and has suggested the government has not let the public have a say on our road safety debate. You have to wonder where the CLP have been. Have they been under a rock, hiding? We know they are out of touch but this really takes the cake. I cannot think of too many issues in the Territory that have sparked greater debate than the recent road safety debate. As I said in the last sittings, we welcome this debate. It is worth having a vigorous debate. The number of stakeholders that put forward their position on the debate was terrific. I will name just a few: TIO, AANT, the AMA, surgeons and doctors, police, ambulance officers, the Chamber of Commerce and alcohol rehabilitation organisations.
It was not just the stakeholders on this issue. The public certainly had their say. The NT News was swamped with articles, letters and text messages. ABC radio dedicated hours to talk back on the issue. There was a great variety of opinion from those advocating ‘no need to change’ through to ‘something must be done immediately’. We have victims of road trauma speaking out and we have relatives of Territorians who are no longer with us contributing to the debate. It was a very active debate; a debate that somehow the CLP missed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we reject this motion from the CLP. As a government we are committed to implementing the recommendations of the experts who provided us with the road safety report. We will do everything we can, everything we should, to stop the trauma on our roads.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, frankly, I do not think the minister’s response really warrants much more of the taxpayers’ dollars. It was predictably dreadful, predictably vitriolic and predictively aggressive. There is, though, a matter that should be raised and it demonstrates the untruths that the minister has told in her contribution which again is predictable. The minister said that the opposition had said that - I cannot remember her exact words – we have bagged everything in the Road Safety Taskforce report. That is not correct. She did lie to this parliament. She lied because …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition well knows she cannot accuse any member of this House of lying unless she does so by way of a substantive motion. I ask you to request her to withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you either withdraw the statement, or you move a substantive motion.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘lie’. I understand that we are still able to use the word ‘untruth’ in this parliament.
The minister, predictably - well, she told a number of untruths but one where she can be clearly caught out and she should know better, and she sailed dangerously close to the wind in the Question Time today. We look forward to further exploring that one. She is on dangerous ground, straddling both sides of the leadership contest, and she still does not know which way is up or down when it comes to a number of matters in her portfolio.
The minister, surely, would have remembered receiving a letter from my colleague, the member for Katherine and shadow minister for transport, dated 31 October 2006. Let us read it.
The letter goes on:
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I can keep yelling; I think you are the one with the sore throat. Are you right?
My colleague goes on in the letter to say:
So, it was untruthful, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, on both sides of the House!
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was untruthful and a misrepresentation in its most vulgar form to suggest that the opposition did not agree with some of the recommendations of the task force.
The minister’s answers in Question Time today in relation to the Ombudsman’s report raised a number of serious matters. The bottom line is that she is not in touch with her department. She is not availing herself of the wonderful work and assistance no doubt people in the department are prepared to offer her. She is obviously not bothering to read the correspondence that comes across her desk. If she was serious about getting better outcomes for Territorians as she has professed, she could at least read correspondence to her written by Territorians, including my colleague, the member for Katherine. It is a nonsense to say that we did not agree with it, but it is typical of the somewhat disingenuous and duplicitous manner in which this minister works.
The motion is a straightforward one. I thank the member for Nelson for his support. You cannot deny what is undeniable, that is, that the CLP has put forward some very good proposals. Why on earth shouldn’t the government pick up on them? When we chuckled in Question Time today, given the minister’s lateness, and were given the revelation that her department has been working on some of these sorts of things, the smiling was because the minister, having demonstrated her form when it comes to misrepresenting things, did it again.
We know that she knows that some of these policies will be taken up by the government. Why on earth should they not be? What she has done is sought to manufacture something from thin air and say that the department and her office has been working on it. I doubt that very much. When we had the press conference the minister sidled up to her present friend, the Chief Minister, trying as she does to get into the camera shot - and people comment on it - there was an opportunity for those two ministers to say: ‘But wait, there is more!’. Just like the steak knives ad. They could have said: ‘Here is the report, but wait there is more! Another 20 knives, or another 20 recommendations, or another 50 ways to address the Territory’s road safety problems’. No, there was not that claim; it was nothing like the steak knives commercials.
The minister had an opportunity to tell Territorians that she had much more work to do and was going to undertake it. She did not. It is blindingly obvious that the government has been caught out. We know the vile politics they play. We are used to that. There is something quite liberating about being a very small opposition. On occasion you are bullet proof because there is nothing you can say or do to hurt us. Nothing you can say or do. Then we have the member for Barkly today in Question Time saying: ‘You are an arrogant opposition’. Well, that must be an Australian parliamentary first to say ‘you are an arrogant opposition’, wow! Who would have thought that it was even remotely possible? You have 19 people over there, half of them bovver boys, and how dare you say that we are an …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Dr Lim: Look at the bovver boys – they are objecting to being called bovver boys!
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson, do you have a point of order?
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am calling a point of order regarding the offensive language of ‘bovver boy’ by the Leader of the Opposition. Quite clearly, the member for Greatorex, I will also pull him up and ask him to retract that statement as well.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear the statement.
Mr KIELY: He used the same words.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I caution members about their language. I will reserve my judgment on …
Mr KIELY: I will state that again, Mr Deputy Speaker. We were accused of being bovver boys. I was personally called a bovver boy by the member for Greatorex. I ask for him to retract that statement under Standing Order 62, offensive or unbecoming words.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, you are speaking to the point of order?
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder where we are going sometimes with offensive language. A bit of colourful debate is not going to hurt this place. Are we getting so sanitised with our language we cannot even say anything that is slightly offensive? For crying out loud, let us live and let live. We know it is offensive and we know it is semi-humorous. Leave some of our colloquialisms. We got rid of buggerlugs. Let us be reasonable with our language.
Mr Mills: Of all people, worried about language.
Mr Kiely: I would not pontificate if I were you, Terry.
Mr Mills: Oh really! Oh, you have heard me use a rude word like buggerlugs or something.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I do not feel that ‘bovver boy’ is offensive, but there was another word that was also used, was there?
Mr KIELY: There were probably many.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I caution members about their language. Things are getting a little heated. Use a lot of caution with your language. Please continue, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your ruling. I am keeping a list here in my file of words I cannot mention. It is quite straightforward really, but I think buggerlugs is the most interesting. I am sorry for even using the word ‘slippery’. Thank you for your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We have here, in tabulated format, the recommendations of the Road Safety Taskforce that we agreed to. I repeat and direct the minister’s attention to the letter written by my colleague, Mrs Miller, on 31 October 2006, clearly indicating that there were recommendations that we agreed with. This is a sensible motion. I do not propose to get into the petty politics of this issue. Members opposite are obviously touchy. We understand why they would be so because of the division and hatred going on in the back rooms between them. There are 19 of them. Obviously there is not much room for egos and agendas.
Mr Stirling: You cannot even talk with your deputy leader. You cannot even bring yourself to hold a discourse with him.
Ms CARNEY: We look forward to your retirement, member for Nhulunbuy. When are you going to retire? We would win a by-election in your electorate …
Mr Stirling: You can’t even be in the same room. Talk about division!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … because we will get stuck into that. The word is that the member for Casuarina leaked the stuff to the media because he was trying to position himself as deputy because they are all talking about when you are going to go. I believe the latest bet is April next year, but only time will tell. In any event, you are a bunch of divided and highly agitated people. That is why you are so twitchy when it comes to a fair dinkum motion like this.
Under my leadership, we will question you where it is appropriate to do so, and we will get stuck into you where it is appropriate to do so. We will also come forward with exciting, innovative, and intellectually sound policies because I take that obligation very seriously. I am not surprised, and I am sure many other people will be appalled, that the government does not see fit to even support any part of the motion. However, I guess that is what we have come to expect from an arrogant and lazy government.
I do not think there is anything else I can add, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask that members support the motion.
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is similar to a bill I introduced in 2004 and 2005. The bill aims to introduce vendor disclosure in the sale of residential land and property in the Northern Territory. This enhances consumer protection for buyers and sellers, and reduces the risk of gazumping. When I first introduced this bill, it was not supported by the government in 2004 because the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General argued ‘more consultation was necessary’. In his response in October 2004 the minister said:
That was a long time ago, during which no discussion paper surfaced. In the meantime, people can still be gazumped in land or property purchases. With no obvious moves by the government to do what they said they would do, I again consulted with the industry to revise my bill and re-introduce it. That was last year. Funnily enough, the government did put out a discussion paper for the property and commercial law task force, amazingly, just as I announced I was re-introducing my bill for the second time. Then, the government announced it was releasing a general discussion paper in March 2006 to obtain the views of key stakeholders and the general community. The government opposed my bill.
In August this year, Dr Toyne, the then Attorney-General, gave an update on the status of the discussion paper saying ‘the final report will be made shortly’. The definition of ‘shortly’ is different depending on whether you are talking about the melting of the ice caps or the introduction of government urgent legislation. Instead of waiting for the ‘shortly’ to happen, I have, therefore, introduced the bill again.
This bill is largely modelled on the ACT Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act which, in turn, was an amalgamation of the best features of the Queensland, South Australian and New South Wales’ conveyancing systems. However, this bill also varies in some small, but important, ways from the ACT legislation to reflect different conditions in the Northern Territory.
Gazumping occurs when a seller or real estate agent accepts a verbal offer from a buyer which might be through a verbal agreement or handshake but, later, the vendor accepts another offer - usually higher - from another buyer. It usually occurs when the market is booming, demand is high, and there is limited supply of residential properties or land. Sellers can also be gazumped, usually in a depressed market when the buyer finds a property at a better price and pulls out after making an offer. Gazumping can cause distress, frustration, disappointment, annoyance, tears, or a breakdown in trust and financial loss.
Potential buyers can feel cheated and deceived but the buyer has no rights to a property simply because he or she has made an acceptable offer or even paid a holding deposit. The real estate agent is acting on behalf of the vendor and wants to get the highest sale price. In fact, the agent has an obligation to pass on all offers to the vendor until the contracts are exchanged. Therefore, when gazumping does occur, the agent is usually doing what he or she should be doing. All relevant literature says there is no legal binding sale until the contract of sale has been signed by the buyer and seller and exchanged. A verbal promise or the acceptance of an offer does not constitute the contract of sale.
Gazumping is an unpleasant fact of life in private treaty real estate transactions. This apparently arises because of the history of the sale of land. Compared with other goods and services, the sale of which can be agreed on a hand shake, agreements to sell and buy land are governed by the statute of fraud, a centuries’ old document which requires the contract for land to be in writing for it to be binding. All of the relevant literature also says ‘buyer beware’. The Northern Territory Law Handbook says that in the Territory there is limited legal protection for people who buy property, and the legal maxim caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware, applies.
In the standard contract of sale the seller is not required to disclose any matters that may affect the saleability or value of the property, nor to give any warranties. Some states have introduced legislation to restrict the window of opportunity for gazumping. That is what I am doing with this bill. No jurisdiction has tried to outlaw gazumping or to create an offence of gazumping. Gazumping occurs because of the time gap between verbal acceptance of an offer and the exchange of contracts. Anti-gazumping measures are generally aimed at reducing this window of opportunity. Briefly this is what the bill proposes and I will outline each section in more detail later.
The seller of a residential property will need to have a draft contract for sale prepared before listing the property on the market. Attached to this contract will be due diligence documents and reports which will provide the buyer with all the information necessary to help determine whether they want to buy the property. These documents includes the title search, the results of the building inspection, the pest report, the bore status report if the land is a rural block, a septic tank status report if that applies, and a flood prone report if that is applicable to the land being sold.
The ACT government claimed that because the New South Wales anti-gazumping legislation did not require such inspection reports to be attached to the sale contract, it had not worked. The window of opportunity for gazumping still existed. The seller will recoup the cost of these reports from the buyer. The buyer and seller will be able to enter into a binding written contract as soon as an offer is accepted. The conveyancer or lawyer will still be needed by the vendor to get the documents and certificates, and by the purchaser to check the documents attached to the contract. There will be a shorter time frame for doing these checks. The sale can still go through without a conveyancer or lawyer as can happen now, although it is not usually recommended because of the possible legal pitfalls.
The real estate agent will not be drafting the contract but will able to fill in certain prescribed details such as the name and address of the parties, the sale price, and date of contract. The seller can be fined if the report or certificates misrepresent the situation, or if the person who prepares the report is a relative or a business partner. Having these documents for a buyer to inspect from the time the property is first advertised for sale closes the window of opportunity for gazumping. Buyer and seller would enter into a binding contract as soon as the offer is accepted.
The new bill inserts a provision in the Law of Property Act. The division starts with a range of definitions including one for residential property which basically means any land on which a residence has been built or can be built no matter the size of the land. Clause 78C of the bill spells out the documents that are required to be prepared and attached to the contract of sale before the property is listed for sale. I have outlined those already. It will be an offence if the seller gets a relative, his agent, his lawyer, or anyone who has a direct or indirect interest in the seller’s business to prepare these reports or certificates. I have added several extra reports: the title search, the bore status report, and the septic tanks status report which are important for rural residents, and the flood prone report which is important for consumer protection. This is the one area where legislation differs from that in the ACT.
Clause 78E requires all the documents to be available for inspection once the property has been listed for sale. Clause 78F spells out the details of the cooling-off period where it applies; when it does not apply; and how long it is. The purchaser can shorten, lengthen or waive a cooling-off period only when he or she has sought advice from the lawyer. The lawyer must sign a certificate and a copy of that certificate must go to the vendor.
My original bill of 2004 included a penalty should a contract be rescinded during the cooling-off period. I have removed that penalty following consultation with the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory. While many jurisdictions do not have such a penalty clause, I accept REINT’s view that this is an unnecessary financial punishment. The bill does, however, require refund of a deposit in times of rescission. Despite not having a penalty, the bill contains consumer protection provisions through vendor disclosure. Clause 78L requires the buyer to reimburse the seller for any costs involved in getting their reports attached to the contract of sale. This would be part of the normal process of settlement where certain payments such as council rates are adjusted and levied.
It will be an offence under clause 78M for a person to give misleading information in any of their reports. A person who prepares a report or certificate containing misleading information will be liable to compensate the purchaser for the loss or expense. This will give the consumer, in the case of the buyer, extra protection and ensure that building and pest inspections are carried out with due diligence.
Buying a house, it is well known, is probably the biggest expense many people will ever have and is even more so with the ever increasing cost of land and housing. It is important therefore that buyers have the utmost confidence in consumer protection, which they do not have under the buyer beware philosophy. My bill will afford this protection.
I advise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there have been some very minor changes to the 2006 version of this bill, none of which change the original intent. I commend the bill, which includes explanatory documents, to the parliament.
Debate adjourned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that:
1. The environmental assessment and administrative procedures currently do not require the minister to seek a proponent’s comments on a report, or advice or recommendations that were sought elsewhere by the minister on a proposal which is the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement or a Public Environmental Report;
Mr Deputy Speaker, before I comment on the proposal there is a typing error on the copy of the motion circulated to members. I think it is a cut and paste error. The first amendment under part (3) said:
It should have actually read: ‘after report add and’
That section is actually referring to the Public Environmental Report. It does not make any difference to what I am putting forward. It is just a typographical error. I went looking for the word ‘statement’ and I could not find it because it was meant to say ‘report’. I apologise for that.
Parts 1 and 2 of this motion clearly explain the intention of the changes. Basically, under the existing procedures, the government can seek a report or advice or recommendations on a proposal from another source in assessing an Environmental Impact Statement or Public Environmental Report. There is presently no requirement for the government to provide that report, advice or recommendations to the proponent of the development subject to an EIS or PER. The changes as shown in the motion, if the government agrees, will allow that to happen.
This motion has come out of the environmental impact statement process for the expansion of the McArthur River Mine. I am not trying to start the McArthur River debate, but it is out of that development that a problem arose which if fixed could perhaps mean avoiding unnecessary delays in the EIS or PER process.
The case of MRM, then Mt Isa Mining, started off matters with a notice of intent in 2003. The guidelines for the EIS were put out by the government for public comment. A draft EIS process started and then took 10 weeks under the new company, Xstrata. The draft EIS was completed in August 2005, and a further 10 weeks were allowed for public comment. After the public comment, a supplement was produced which dealt with issues raised by the public and other interested groups. That was completed on 14 December 2005. The government, or dare I say it, or the so-called EPA, then considered the supplement. In late December early January, the so-called EPA then asked Professor Wayne Erskine from the University of Newcastle to report on the draft EIS but not the supplement.
The EPA also asked Xstrata more questions dealing with water management and ground water and waste management, which it answered through the company, URS. Professor Erskine finished his report in early February. The environmental assessment report was made public at the end of February, and more or less on the same day the government released the document, Professor Erskine recommended improvements in design of the McArthur River and Barney Creek diversion channels for the McArthur River Mine open cut project. Xstrata had not seen that document. The government had based its environmental assessment report on a number of matters Professor Erskine had raised. However, Professor Erskine had based his comments on the draft EIS, some of which had been answered by Xstrata in the supplement.
Of course, if Xstrata had seen Professor Erskine’s report, they could have addressed the issues raised and their comments could have been taken into account when the environmental assessment report was written.
Ms Scrymgour: You have a misunderstanding of the assessment process.
Mr WOOD: If the government had allowed – did I hear a whisper?
If the government had allowed a little flexibility in the process …
Mr Stirling: You said we did not have an EPA, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I have mentioned it as the ‘so-called EPA’.
Mr Stirling: You said we did not have one.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: It is your words, the so-called EPA.
I will take up that interjection. Minister, you will remember the environmental assessment report had a big stamp on it: ‘EPA’. The next environmental report came out with ‘interim EPA’. I will not dwell on that.
Ms Scrymgour: It did not, Gerry, now you are misleading parliament.
Mr WOOD: You can tell the parliament why I am misleading parliament.
Ms Scrymgour: Well, tell the truth.
Mr WOOD: I am doing my best. You can raise an urgency debate and censure me.
Ms Scrymgour: I will respond, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Okay. Of course, if Xstrata had seen Professor Erskine’s report, they could have addressed the issues raised and their comments could have been taken into account when the environmental assessment report was written. If the government had allowed a little flexibility in the process so that the company and Professor Erskine could have got together to sort out issues, and if Professor Erskine had been given a copy of the supplement and the draft EIS, the process may have been considerably shorter.
This motion simply allows for reports, such as the one given to the government by Professor Erskine, to be given to the proponents to assist in streamlining the process to ensure that it is better for all concerned.
That is simply what it is about. The minister may argue that my chronology is not correct – well, we will debate that. The basis of what I am saying is that, if the government is going to use reports in its environmental assessment report that the company or the proponent had not been able to see or comment on, I believe that that is a downside to the process.
Surely, in this sort of process which takes a long time - as you can see, it started off in 2003 and was only completed in the latter half of this year - but if we can still come up with good processes and conclusions, and do it a little more efficiently, surely that is something the government would support.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Deputy Speaker, I give the government’s response to the member for Nelson’ motion. I suppose it would be of no surprise to the member for Nelson that this government does not support the motion ...
Mr Wood: It would not be a surprise.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I would really like the member for Nelson to listen very closely to what I have to say in relation to the assessment process because it is clear that he sometimes gets a bit confused about some of these procedures.
The environmental assessment administrative procedures allow the minister to engage a suitably qualified person or an organisation to provide information in respect of a Public Environmental Report, a PER, or an Environmental Impact Statement, an EIS, or to make comments, suggestions or recommendations in respect of the PER or EIS.
On rare occasions when government does not have the required specialist knowledge in-house, external advice is sought to ensure all aspects of a proposal are properly assessed and considered. I am not going to go into detail or respond to what the member for Nelson talked about regarding McArthur River. I believe the EPA’s assessments and Reports 51 and 54 were very well done and due process was carried out.
The administrative procedures enable this advice to be sought late in the assessment process to assist me, as Environment minister, in providing advice to the approving minister. If a consultant is engaged to provide this advice on a proposal, the advice is absorbed into the assessment report done by the EPA and is then presented as part of the minister’s findings because the assessment is being done on behalf of the minister.
The suggestion to alter the administrative procedures to ensure that any consultancy report prepared as part of this process is to be provided to the proponent for comment is, in effect, a suggestion that I, as minister, provide a copy of my findings on a development proposal to the proponent for their comment before I release my report to the approving minister and the public.
Logically, it is hard to see why there would be a difference in the minister receiving external advice compared to receiving internal advice which does not seem to be questioned. Such a step would mean that the proponent is given a further opportunity to negotiate and to influence the findings of the environmental impact assessment process and the government’s decision-making when it has already had the opportunity to present its intentions through the Environmental Impact Statement or PER and the supplementary process.
The member for Nelson’s motion implies a lack of understanding of what the whole environmental assessment of development proposals is about. It implies that the environmental assessment process is a continual negotiation process in order to facilitate the approval of a development, rather than an independent assessment to ensure the receiving environment is protected from unacceptable impact and to enable government to weigh the risks and benefits of a project. I repeat: it is an assessment of the proponent’s proposal; it is not a negotiated facilitation of the proponent’s proposal.
Such a step also does not recognise that there are other stakeholders in the EIA process besides the proponent. Accordingly, if this information was to be provided to the proponent, it should also be released to the public and NGOs, etcetera, to provide them with the opportunity to comment. This means that there would be further time taken to assess a proposal, and it is hard to see when the iterations would stop.
This is not a process, member for Nelson, that would achieve an independent, rigorous environmental assessment of development within the Northern Territory and should not assume that what a proponent puts in an EIS, or a PER, or a supplement is the end of the story. It is quite common for the minister to use the powers under the Administrative Procedures to ask for additional information from the proponent to assist in the assessment of the EIS or PER. In these circumstances, proponents have the opportunity to explain their additional information and to work with government until what is provided is considered sufficient to meet the minister’s request. This information is provided to the government assessing agency and is only made public with permission of the proponent. Adopting your suggestion, member for Nelson, would mean that this information should be provided for public scrutiny which in turn would add more time and complexity to the assessment process.
I am not saying that the current Environmental Assessment Act and Administrative Procedures are perfect. They were instituted by the previous government and are now quite old. I believe we have all acknowledged that and we have had a look at, and yes, through various development proposals there are some things that need to change. I have undertaken to have the legislation reviewed; that was part of the undertaking and commitment that we gave with the development and the establishment of the EPA. We have given a commitment to ensuring that we have the best legislation, updating and bringing our laws up with the 21st century best practice. I have already met with the interim board of the EPA with their draft report, after all their consultations. What you have brought up in that context is part of that broader legislative review.
Madam Speaker, until then, the government does not support this motion. As I said, I will take some of the member for Nelson’s significant comments into consideration when we are looking at that legislative review.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. I am grateful that she has taken them on board and that there will be a review of the procedures. I need to make a couple of comments to clarify where I am coming from.
In the case of McArthur River - this is where it does not make sense to me. You may think I do not make sense. You probably think that often. In the case of McArthur River, there was a draft EIS. Then there was a public time to comment on the draft EIS …
Mr Stirling: Better off to say we have an EPA, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: … and the response - wash your mouth, minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: No, it is all right. He mentioned the EPA and I told him to wash his mouth.
Madam SPEAKER: Please continue, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker, he has put me off again. There was a draft EIS which is the normal procedure that McArthur River Mine had to put forward. The public and other bodies were allowed to comment. In response to that, there was a supplement brought out by McArthur River Mine.
Ms Scrymgour: They put the draft in.
Mr WOOD: Draft at the beginning and then it has a supplement and that gives you the EIS. Now …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, no, that is the draft. That is it. That is the bit that is going to go to government. In the meantime, the government asked Professor Erskine to comment on the draft. Now …
Ms Scrymgour: It was an EIS. It was not a draft.
Mr WOOD: All right. Officially, I think it is called a draft EIS in the statement. Anyhow, we will call it the EIS. The government asked Professor Erskine to comment on the EIS, not the supplement. The problem I had with that was that when you read Professor Erskine’s report he did not deal with issues that the company had dealt with in their supplement after listening to the public. He dealt with the EIS that had not been commented on. That was the initial government’s proposal. They then listened to the people and various environment groups and came up with a supplement.
Ms Scrymgour: And what were his comments after that?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I will give you a classic example. If you read the supplement, for instance McArthur River Mine said, when it came to revegetation of the new river course, that it would be employing local people to collect seed. Because Professor Erskine had not read that supplement, he said that the company should go out and get local people to provide seed for the plants. Obviously, he had not seen the supplement.
When the government released its environment assessment report, it based it on what Professor Erskine had said. When you look at the recommendations …
Ms Scrymgour: Who told you this, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: I read the environmental assessment report and much of that was based on doubts that the government had believed that Professor Erskine had raised about the viability of re-routing the river. That is what a fair bit of what was in that report was based on…
Ms Scrymgour: When you read the supplement, what did he say? Did he change his opinion? No!
Mr WOOD: That’s right. He did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: The thing is that Professor Erskine, when I rang him, was not asked by the government to respond to the supplement. I rang him. He was asked by the government to talk about the original EIS …
Ms Scrymgour: The EIS, that is right.
Mr WOOD: That is right, but not the supplement. The supplement is just as important because you as a government will look at both the EIS and the supplement before you make your comment. The process broke down in the sense that if Xstrata had been allowed to look at Professor Erskine’s response …
Ms Scrymgour: I don’t think so.
Mr WOOD: Well, perhaps if Professor Erskine had looked at the supplement, he may have had a different outcome.
Regardless, minister, this process went on further. How did it go on further? The government said they will consider this if the mine did such-and-such. Xstrata went back to see Professor Erskine and spent quite a considerable amount of time discussing how a realignment of the river would occur. They came up with an agreement on how to do it. That meant we still went on and on. The process still continued.
All I am saying is that if that had happened in the original …
Ms Scrymgour: No, because the proponents have to prove it.
Mr WOOD: I know that, but I am looking at ways of streamlining it. I understand you are going to look at reviewing it. This motion came out of that problem. If the government had allowed Xstrata to look at the document and sit down with Professor Erskine, which they did later on …
Ms Scrymgour: No, they did not. Xstrata did not, you know.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, please direct your comments through the chair.
Mr WOOD: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I did not even mention the EPA. That has mucked me up; I nearly said the wrong word and then put something in the swear box then, Madam Speaker.
All I was saying is that had there been some flexibility in the process, it may have shortened the way that the McArthur River Mine project had gone ahead.
I will not go on any more. I thank the minister at least for taking on board my comments. I will be happy to see what comes out of a review of the Environmental Assessment Administrative Procedures. I hope that a public document is released so that people can comment. I am sure there are plenty of people - not only environment people but the mining industry and other people who undertake major projects in the Territory –who are interested to see what happens. I support the EIS and PER; we need to make sure that what we do is environmentally sustainable. No project is going to result in no damage to the environment. That is an impossibility. We have to find a balance between sensible development and the environment. If we can come up with procedures that can help with development of the Northern Territory but at the same time look after our environment, I will give that support.
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that –
Madam Speaker, I know we have covered some of this. There has been quite a bit of discussion here today and people might ask: ‘What is the member for Nelson on about?’ Does he not know speed kills? All signs on the roadsides say that, and also the ads on television. What is he doing saying that the speed limit on the Stuart, Barkly, Arnhem and Victoria highways should stay open? Well, it is like this. Presently, the speed limits on all Northern Territory roads outside the municipalities are open and they are signposted. The four main highways have an open speed limit. But the government now says no more. The right of Territorians to travel at an open speed will finish. As from next year, these four highways will have a top speed of 130 km/h, although it should be noted that the government went against their own task force which recommended 110 km/h.
How was that determined? In January this year, the government set up a task force to examine strategies to reduce fatalities and serious injuries in the Northern Territory. That is a proper thing for government to do and should be supported. This task force then wrote a report that was completed in 2006. I have a copy here. However, it was not made available to the public. For the next few months, there was a lot of speculation in the newspapers about what changes the government was going to introduce. This created copious letter writing and text messages in the Northern Territory News, which obviously helped sales. We heard about the speed limit going from 110 km/h, to 100 km/h and then to 130 km/h. We heard about there being no demerit points and then there was. I would like to show members: ‘demerit points, backdown’. ‘Government going cold on the penalty system’. Oh, 130 km/h or bust. Well, 110 km/h on open roads speed limit already ruled out. Hang on, these have not been announced by the government. How did these leaks get out? Not sure what is happening here. No belts, booze, our road killers, that is fair enough. And then there was a big 130 km/h – look at that, the day the Territory changed forever.
I know the minister said community consultation, but let us get real. This is not community consultation. This is just letter writing to reports that were somehow leaked. Do not forget, the road safety report had not been released. Yet, amazingly, all these leaks come out. Even the parliamentarians said: ‘We did not know about it’. So can one really believe that that is public consultation? That is about selling papers. Consultation is something different. While all that was going on, the public still did not have access to this document.
In the last sittings of parliament, four months after the report was completed, the Chief Minister, in an answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, said the following, referring to this report:
I actually gave a little cheer, thinking the public was actually going to have a say. But, alas, this did not happen. The next week, a pile of booklets turns up. This book turns up about a week after we sat in parliament. It is sort of an executive summary. Before a week was up, by the way, the government announced its response to the recommendations in the full report.
The community had roughly one week to look at these findings before the Chief Minister announced that she was going to make a decision on this report. This report was not asking for public comment. There was no address or e-mail to send comments to, nor a closing date for submissions. This document was a fait accompli. Again, I refer to the answer the Chief Minister gave to the Leader of the Opposition: that she was going to put out a report to the community. Most people would think that was good; the community is going to be able to have a look at this report and respond. That certainly was not the case. That is the report.
After listening to the Chief Minister’s answer in parliament, and believing that an evidence-based document was going to be put before the public for comment, one could be forgiven for thinking there was going to be public input and public consultation. The facts are that the government had absolutely no intention of allowing the public to have any input into the task force report; it was all decided beforehand. Just look how quickly the road safety advertising hit the airwaves after the Chief Minister made her announcement. Television ads are not put together overnight. The evidence-based report released to the community was nothing but an expensive sales pitch; it had nothing to do with asking for comments from the people.
I was caught out myself, thinking that the key finding document would be around for a while for public comment. I downloaded the full report and rang the 1800 number to ask for a definition of unlimited speed roads. I was told that this was all roads outside municipalities. I then asked how I could find out on which unlimited speed roads the 19 fatalities had occurred from 2000 to 2005 - page 85, Table 9 of the report. I should make a comment that the minister gave us this: Stuart Highway nil speed limit fatalities. I was under the impression from what the minister said that the total of 354 people who were either killed or injured on our roads was in relation to speed. Yet, if you look at the only figures that were released until today - these figures here - you certainly get a different impression. Table 9 says: ‘On unlimited speed roads 19 people total killed, injuries 113’, over those six years. I wanted to know where the fatalities occurred to see if the speed-related fatalities had been on the four major highways. The response was that they - that is, the Road Safety people, I presume, behind this document - were trying to get a map on the web page to show where the fatalities happened but were having some difficulties doing it. Here I am, trying to go through the evidence through the document, as I should, but before the map was eventually posted on the web, the Chief Minister made her decision.
One of those decisions was that the speed limit was to be 130 km/h on the four major highways, not 110 km/h as recommended by the task force. I have been wasting my time going through the report as the government had already made up its mind - and no correspondence would be entered into. Isn’t it strange that we have now heard that the evidence-based decision of 110 km/h upper speed limit was replaced by the 130 km/h speed limit, based on traffic road measurement on our highways? Where was that in the report? It was not. Was the government looking for its own evidence to stop the voter backlash? Fine to use this report. If you are to use the logic behind that, let us, say, stick it on Bagot Road and then say: ‘The average speed there is 85 km/h to 90 km/h. People never bother about the 80 km/h, we will make it that’. That is not the evidence base we are talking about in this document.
Another interesting feature of the process is that to get a copy of the full report you had to go to the website shown on the inside front cover of the key finding booklet. The full report could only be downloaded if you had Adobe, which not everyone has. The report was only available from www.saferroaduse.nt.gov.au. It was not available from the standard government home page or road safety site. If you did not know the web address, you certainly had trouble finding it by other means. The maps were not part of the full report; they were attached later. The maps do not give you much information either. There is the map that came off the web page. It gives you lots of dots, but it certainly does not allow a person to have proper analysis of deaths and fatalities.
I need to comment on the evidence-based argument the Chief Minister has used as her reason for changing the speed limit on our major highways. The reason for the reduction is that according to the statistics 19 people were killed by speed over six years on our open speed limit roads. As I said before, the statistics do not show where the fatalities occurred. Were the fatalities on the Daly River Road, the Buchanan Highway, the Plenty Highway, or the Tablelands Highway? We do not know from the report.
We do not have a definition of speed. From page 8 of the report it states police investigators had difficulties working out whether an accident was speed-related. Was the speed that caused the accident related to the open speed limit, or was it related to driving too fast according to the conditions? For example, was it raining on a very dark night, fog, driving into the sun, a sharp bend in the road? The speed under those conditions may have been simply inappropriate speed for the conditions and nothing to do with the open speed limit.
Again the evidence is difficult or impossible to prove one way or the other from the report. The government has said that based on the evidence the open speed limit will go. The government uses generalised evidence based on the dangers of high speed and it mentions other roads where speed limits have been reduced. I have no objection to that. But it does not show accurate figures or deaths and fatalities on our main open speed roads. Some people may say I am wrong, but I cannot find the evidence in the report. So how do you expect the public to do that?
If the evidence is there why did the government not accept it and bump the speed up to 130 km/h? The government has shot itself in the foot. When the Chief Minister says she has to make hard evidence-backed decisions and then bumps up the speed from 110 km/h to 130 km/h not based on the evidence, as in the task force report, but on road speed counters on our highway, then who is the populist in this debate?
The government has tried to be popular by not sticking with the evidence-based recommendations in the report but is happy to accuse others of populism when they challenge the government on this issue. The government certainly has not listened or talked to the people. This can be clearly seen from a survey I recently put out in various locations in the rural area, the 11 Mile, and at one place in Berrimah. I will read out the results of this survey; this was only out for two weeks and it was at 13 sites: the total number of surveys signed was 2979 - close enough to 3000 people. I have to tell you that these were left on counters or on tables in various places throughout the rural and 11 Mile area. People were asked to tick a box. They were not asked to just say yes or no. There was no one stuffing this down their throat. They could tick 110 km/h, 130 km/h, or an open speed limit for the Stuart, Barkly, Arnhem and Victoria Highway. With the Stuart Highway, 2979 people ticked off; 2782 people said they wanted the open speed limit to stay; 145 wanted the 130 km/h; and 46 wanted the 110 km/h. In the case of the Barkly, 2730 wanted the speed limit left open; 190 for 130 km/h; and 50 at the 110 km/h. In the case of the Arnhem, 2562 wanted it open; 320 wanted 130 km/h; and 85 wanted 110 km/h. In the case of Victoria Highway, 2670 people wanted it to be open; 247 people wanted 130 km/h; and 49 people wanted it at 110 km/h.
That in percentage terms for the open speed limit means that 93.4% of those people surveyed wanted the Stuart Highway to stay open; 91.6% wanted it to stay open on the Barkly Highway; 86% wanted the Arnhem Highway left open; and 89.6% wanted the Victoria Highway left as open.
Madam Speaker, I ask to table these surveys.
Madam SPEAKER: Seek leave to table, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table these surveys.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, if the government believes they are on the right track in changing the open speed limit, and that is what they are arguing to date, they certainly have not brought the people along with them. If they believe Territorians need to have a change of culture when it comes to speeding then they have done a lousy job trying to convince them. That is the truth. They have an argument that is based on evidence. If they believe the community should drive at a lower speed, they have not convinced the public. The Chief Minister said, in this glossy brochure:
I will deviate from my written speech and say that on two accounts, this is not right. If ‘after listening to Territorians’ means ‘I have removed the open speed limit and brought it down to 130 km/h’, that survey shows the government has not. If the Chief Minister says after listening to Territorians she is happy to raise it from 110 km/h to 130 km/h and that is due to community input, I say: ‘Bunkum’.
The ‘community input’ were these surveys done after the report was finished. These reports are marked 6 July 2006. This document is dated June 2006, the month before. This is not part of the evidence. If the evidence, as the government says, is that speed kills, the slower you go the safer it is, and as the task force is agreeing with you and came up with a figure of 110 km/h on the main highways, surely you cannot bump up the speed to 130 km/h, but you have. You have found out that 85% of the people travel at around about that speed. Why have you changed it? Not because of the evidence because otherwise you are refuting your own task force evidence, but you know there will be public backlash. You have gone with the popular move.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you have. You have gone to the popular move. This document is not part of the task force. This is not part of the evidence base that I have to look at to come here and debate. This document has only been released in parliament today. I only found out when the member for Wanguri mentioned it in a television interview. It was not part of this report.
Minister, these figures you gave us for the Stuart Highway speed limit were not part of the report. I am expected to debate on this document and you pull out other documents. How do you expect the community to come along with you when you treat their local members this way?
Dr Burns: Where do you stand on the recommendations?
Mr WOOD: I will get to that. The reality is that except for the members of the task force and whoever on the fifth floor put this brochure together, and looking at this survey, I am not sure which Territorians you were listening to. What this shows is that the government has imposed those changes on the community without public input and public ownership of the report. You were a bit worried about public backlash so you bumped the speed limit up to 130 km/h. Many people see the report as being like Big Brother: no chance to have a say on the report, no one offering the opportunity to be listened to. The changes will happen, and that is it.
There is no doubt that one of the differences in the Territory from the rest of Australia has been the open speed limits. They have been around for a long time and are a bit of a Territory icon. People naturally get a bit upset when something that has been around a long time is changed without consultation or discussion. That is why there is large opposition to the change.
Have you noticed that the government did not even bring this report to parliament so that we as parliamentarians could debate the report? If the government wanted to bring both sides of parliament along with them, or allow a little healthy debate and analysis in this Chamber, it should have brought the report before parliament, but nothing was done except by the Independents and the opposition.
I do not believe the government has listened to Territorians and it has not consulted Territorians. The minister said they talked to the Chamber of Commerce and various groups. You have not taken it out to the public. Most members of the public are motorists. That is the public. They are the ones who signed that survey. The motorists, the cyclists, have signed it and it is obvious by the response, which is a huge response; nearly a full electorate of people, nearly 3000 people have signed this survey. If you have 90% voting for you, you would say that you are a very popular person. You have 90% of the people saying that this decision is wrong. If this government really believes that this decision is right, then go out and tell the people and prove it. It has not done that.
We will now need a highway patrol, I mentioned this before, at $1.5m per year. Why? I know I will be asking some questions about the waste of police resources if I get picked up for doing 140 km/h on the Victoria Highway, 100 km east of the Victoria River Roadhouse, in November by a lonely police officer from the highway patrol sitting behind a herd of grazing cattle waiting for an unsuspecting motorist. I will be asking, politely, of course, ‘Don’t you have anything better to do?’ People in the rural area who are continually having problems with hooning will, I am sure, like to see more effort put into controlling this antisocial behaviour than pouring money into a highway patrol.
I believe the government has shown few brains and little commonsense in this matter. Most people would agree on many of the recommendations in this report. So do I - and I make that clear. However, the government surely must have known that the change to the open speed limit was going to be opposed by many. Even though I might support most of what is in here, why did this not go out to the public? Surely that would not be too much. It is easy to say that these people will forget about the issue before the next election. I doubt it, especially when every time they go past 130 km/h sign, the only ones in Australia by the way, they will think of the Chief Minister. The 130 km/h signs will be a reminder wherever they are installed along the highway.
Some people I have spoken to said they never drive over 130 km/h, either because their car is too old or at that speed the car burns too much fuel, or they do not like driving any faster, but they still would like to be able to pass a road train a bit quicker, or put the foot down a bit where the road is straight from time to time. To have the ability to do that without getting pulled over by a policeman in the middle of nowhere is why so many people like living in the Northern Territory. I know there are also many motorcyclists who say that the Northern Territory is the only place you can let the bike out and are very much opposed to the changes to the open speed limit.
I can understand the Chief Minister’s concern about reducing the death and injury toll, but one feels that the evidence for the speed change has not been definitively shown. The lack of public involvement in the making of this report has been practically non-existent. If the government had thought this through a bit better, perhaps it could have said that it would implement all the recommendations of the report except changes to the four major highways. It could then have announced that the open speed limit would be reviewed in five years, giving time to see if the other recommendations put in place had created the desired drop in fatalities and injuries. This would have allowed time to look at other things if the evidence showed that to be appropriate. That is where the task force could still have a role.
As you might have heard, the Cattlemen’s Association is not pleased with some of the other roads coming off the open speed limit. With consultation, maybe some sort of compromises could have been brought into place. This is just an imposition. Bang! Something that has been part of the Territory for a long time – bang! This is what is going to happen. The government should delay the recommendations for three or four months. After all, it has taken since January to put it together, it came out in June, and about another four months later it was eventually announced that it was going to happen.
The government should delay the recommendations for three to four months while the task force heads off with the report, travels around the Northern Territory and listens to what people are saying, as well as giving the task force reasoning behind the recommendations. If you believe in this report, sell it, not through the television, not through ads. Go and sell it, because you have pushed it as an evidence-based report, and allow people to put forward their points of view. It seems it is okay for the government to consult with the public on such things as cane toads, or gamba grass, or substance abuse, but when it comes to road safety, father knows best – or mother knows best - and community involvement is non-existent.
This report has many good things in it that I would support. Other things need more debate, and there are some which are not needed, at least for the moment. If the government wants to change the culture of poor driving, wielding a big stick is not the only way. Has the government looked at rewarding good drivers, for example, five years without a traffic infringement means a 10% reduction in registration fees? A big stick should be matched with a bit of carrot.
The government has not come up to standard on this issue. It has failed the inclusive test and made people very angry, and that anger will be reinforced for many years to come as motorists see the signs just south of Noonamah. I am sure at the next election they will become cheap election placards for the opposition. It is all a great pity. This report has many good things in it, but the sales people on the fifth floor have lost touch and the government has lost the hearts and minds of many people.
I will show you that survey. No one has gone out and told people to tick it off and sign it. That is a pretty instantaneous feeling for many people. The Chief Minister says in her brochure that she has listened to Territorians. I do not know any people who had a say, so she must have good hearing or believes listening to the rubber speed counters on the roads is listening to the people. The community will not accept speed monitoring devices as another pseudonym for consultation. They will see it for what it is: this government speaks with forked tongue. It says that it supports all the recommendations of the report based on the evidence. The report says the upper speed limit should be 110 km/h for all Territory roads. The government says that 130 km/h will be the top speed limit. In other words, it is not supporting the evidence given by its own task force. The government criticises those who support the retention of the open speed limit as populist and not looking at the evidence. The government, by moving the speed limit up to 130 km/h, is doing exactly what it accuses people like me of doing - being populist and not looking at the evidence.
I note that the minister said if you go up to 160 km/h, you only gain this much in time travelled. Fair argument. You were taking up the argument from the opposition, that you do not gain much by going from 130 km/h to 160 km/h in time travelled. However, if I was playing the devil’s advocate here and you were being criticised for bringing the speed up from 110 km/h to 130 km/h, I might say: ‘Minister, you know the time taken to go from A to B, if you travel at a 110 km/h compared to 130 km/h, is only 10 minutes’. Why have we not left the speed at 110 km/h using the same argument you have put the opposition down for. You have not listened to this evidence.
The government has not convinced the community. They have not attempted to bring the community along with this decision, and that will be to their detriment in the future. That is the real key to my argument. I do not drive fast; 130 km/h is quite all right for me. I might go up to 140 km/h. I do not go racing down the highway like a maniac. As you can see from that document you have, most people do not. What you have not proved - why don’t you leave it as it was?
I know that speed kills, but I also know that the Chief Minister said it was evidence-based. I have not seen the evidence and you have not convinced me there is the evidence on those particular roads. If you really believe in this document and everything you have in here is worthy of public support, you should defer the process three or four months, establish a task force committee, travel around the Territory to tell people what is in the report, and listen to what people have to say. Then, the government should make a decision.
I just have to put a quote at the end. Here is a media release from 27 September 2004:
Dr Burns: That was before the report.
Mr WOOD: Ah ha. On Wednesday, 2 April 2003, TopFM, Mr Daryl Manzie asked the Chief Minister: ‘Should we have speed limits on all Territory highways?’ The answer was: ‘No’.
I understand that government can change its mind, but why were people saying such things then? I understand that times change, but if you are to convince people that times change and, therefore, regulations should change and we should lose our open speed limit, then you have to go out and sell it. It is not my job to go out and sell it; it is your job. You said this. You said on the evidence the speed limit needs to be put down to a 110 km/h, and then you have obtained so-called evidence, that is not in the report, and said it should go up to 130 km/h. Explain that to the people. There is an inconsistency that is a real weak spot in your argument. If it is okay to take all these recommendations and to agree with them that it should be 110 km/h, why did you change it to 130 km/h? It is simply because you realised there would be a public backlash.
I say there will be a bigger public backlash unless you go out and sell this. There are people out there who say: ‘No, no, no, we would like our speed limit left as it is’.
Madam Speaker, I put it to the government to delay the implementation of at least that part of the report. There would be no harm, I believe, in giving it time to see if you put your recommendations out for the next five years, and put the majority of these recommendations into place …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mrs BRAHAM: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I believe there is a good reason for leaving those speed limits as they are for say the next five years. Put all your other recommendations into place and review whether the majority of your recommendations as you have in here have been effected, and see if we need to revisit whether the speed limit should not be open anymore. That is a sensible suggestion.
There are two reasons why people have said no to what the government is doing: (1) they believe this is being imposed on them without consultation; and (2) they believe they are losing a bit of what they call the Territory’s freedom. It is just another little piece of the Territory’s flavour disappearing. I do not want people killed on the road, and I do not want injuries on the road. If I thought that the evidence was really pushing that this was the case on the Victoria, Stuart, Barkly and Arnhem Highways, I would be asking some questions myself.
There is room to move for some other compromises. A reasonable number of people are saying that we should be careful with the Arnhem Highway because there are many minibuses; some parts of that highway are not particularly great, other parts are quite good. Maybe there is a difference in speed limits there. There is a lot of traffic between Darwin and Katherine and maybe people would accept the speed limit there. But I think …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That’s right, that’s right. What I am saying is that there has not been any of this debate. No one has been allowed to talk about this.
Ms Lawrie: What a load of rot.
Mrs Miller: Well, we haven’t.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Sorry, sorry. It says here ‘Nigel Adlam’ and the last time I saw him he was a newspaper journalist. That is not consultation about this report. This is the report, minister. This report should have gone out to the public. What do have here? That is the classic – demerit points. The great backdown. The government’s going to backdown on demerit points. What came out in the review: we are going to have demerit points. What was the point in arguing the case? That was a waste of time. What people need to see is the final document, a task force committee to travel around the Territory, allow people to have a look at it and have their say, and allow the task force to put its arguments out there.
Be inclusive and you might have had a chance with the community. If you do not want to be inclusive then it will be on your head. I tell you that many people will oppose this. They do not want to lose that open speed limit. You have to convince them otherwise; I cannot help you.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Nelson and the points he has raised. During the Leader of the Opposition’s motion earlier we discussed some issues about the road safety task force recommendations. The minister has said quite often that she wants the opposition to come onboard and work in a bipartisan manner with government and support them. Yes, that is fine, except that it is just words on her behalf.
I wrote to the minister on 31 October to advise that I had looked closely at the recommendations and report issued by the Road Safety Taskforce, and that there were some areas we agreed with and some we did not. I wanted to set up a meeting with her to discuss these issues as we were also concerned with fatalities on the road. I have not been given the opportunity to talk to her.
Seeing she was not going to meet with me and has already handed down the recommendations, I thought I would put on public record what we stand for, what recommendations we support, and what we do not. Of all the recommendations, we agreed in principle with seven of them. We agreed with the intention of 10 others but believed they did not go far enough. We reserved our view on two and we opposed two. So that the minister is aware, seeing we are not going to meet and have this conversation, I will put on the Parliamentary Record what the recommendations are and what we agree with.
Recommendation 1 was to approve increases in drive with alcohol infringement penalties. The government has suggested increasing the current penalty of $100 with a proposed $200. Our response to that is in principle agreement with the additions that the opposition would extend the period to five years instead of three and opposition would add mandatory blood alcohol testing when a motor vehicle is pulled over by a police officer for any offence or suspicion of an offence.
I will not read out all the recommendations because it would take too long.
Recommendation 2: the opposition’s response is that we agree in principle. Recommendation 3: we agree in principle. Recommendation 4: our response is that we have in principle agreement but also note our addition to recommendation 1, which is doubling the fines.
Recommendation 6: we strongly disagree. This recommendation is the introduction of a default speed limit on open roads of 110km/h and to approve additional funding to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in 2006-07 of $100 000 for an education and media campaign. We strongly disagree with recommendation 6(a), the introduction of the default speed limit. We do not believe this is the right approach and we have emphatically put that to you today. We believe it will have a negative effect on fatigue, and efforts need to focus on drink drivers, seat belts and rest areas. The CLP opposition advocates and supports the establishment of rest areas along the Stuart Highway.
Recommendation 7 from the task force was to approve increases in current traffic infringement penalties for speeding, and introduce an infringement penalty for exceeding speed limits by over 45km/h. The government has suggested that penalties would be increased by 100%. The opposition’s response to that is in principle agreement with increasing fine arrangements. However, those caught travelling over 45km/h over the posted speed limit, will suffer an automatic 12 month suspension of licence in addition to the fine stipulated. In other words, the government does not recommend anything for exceeding the speed limit by more than 45km/h. We say $1000 fine and a 12 month suspension.
Recommendation 8: (a) is to enhance education and media campaigns aimed at increasing seat belt use supported by strategically placed signage and other visual reminders, and; (b) to approve increases in seat belt infringement penalties. Our response to that is: in principle, we agree with recommendation 8(a) to enhance education campaigns. In respect to recommendation 8(b), the opposition will support the fine increase but would put in place an automatic three month loss of licence for people who are caught three times within 12 months for a seat belt offence. We would use school-based constables to teach all years of school children at least once per term about seat belts. We would also mandate all school buses to have seat belts within 12 years with two years of incentives.
We support recommendation 9 in principle, however, we note that the Traffic Regulations already provide for recommendation 9(b), which is to approve an amendment to the Traffic Regulations to require children under 12 months of age to be appropriately restrained.
Recommendation 10: we agree in principle, however, we believe the pilot should be for six years and not four. Recommendation 11: we agree in principle.
Recommendation 12: we agree in principle, however, we do not believe it goes far enough and we have additional items to recommendation 12 that we would support. We would add to your recommendations: no towing for learners and provisional drivers; 120 hours of supervised driving to be log booked for learner drivers. We would move the provisional period from the proposed two years to three years. We would allow only one passenger in a car driven by a provisional driver in their first year of provisional licensing, between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am. We would put in place a new, lower powered vehicle incentive scheme for the young drivers; and, loss of licence for three months upon the second breach of any of these restrictions.
We strongly oppose recommendation 13 which is the development and implementation of the demerit point system.
Recommendation 14: we agree in principle with the additional loss of licence for three breaches in 12 months. Recommendation 15: we agree in principle, however, we would have it resourced with five cars; one in Katherine and three in Alice Springs. Recommendation 16: our response is the same as to recommendation 15. Recommendation 17: exactly the same as recommendation 15; we are talking about road traffic patrols. Recommendation 18: we agree in principle. Recommendation 19: we agree in principle. Recommendation 20: we reserve our view. We also reserve our view on recommendation 21.
It is not as if we are trying to oppose everything that has been put forward. We have some very strong opinions about everything that is put forward, because we do agree with you on many of these task force recommendations. However, there are two fundamental ones that we do not agree with: the introduction of the speed restrictions and the demerit system. I am disappointed that the minister keeps implying that there is not support for the Road Safety Taskforce recommendations, because there is, but there are two very distinct differences between the recommendations they have put forward in relation to those two that we strongly oppose.
I support the member for Nelson regarding the lack of information and consultation in the community. If you sincerely want to convince Territorians that they need to change, dramatically, some conditions for the highways, especially the main highways, you needed to be out there long ago convincing them of the evidence and the reasons why they should be altering the speed limits and listening to what government wanted to do on those open highways. You did not do that so now you have this huge challenge ahead of you. I do not know how the heck you are going to convince them because, as I said before, there is a lot of anger out in the community about the way this has been handled and forced onto people within the Northern Territory. They do not like it. I will be very interested to hear how you are going to continue handling this particular issue.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I might be the odd one out on this side. I agree with the member for Nelson and his call for further consultation as I do not believe there was enough consultation. That is where the shock has come about. People have not been able to accept what government wants to do because they have been hit with it so suddenly. There has been no gradual chance to give their point of view, no community forums; it was just – whack: ‘This is what we are going to do’.
The publicity surrounding it did not help either. When we saw ads like ‘Your risk of being killed in a road crash in the Territory’, or ‘Your risk of being killed compared with the rest of Australia’ or even ‘Your risk of being compared with the rest of the world’, it was sensationalist, and completely unnecessary. That is what got people’s backs up because the ads almost said: ‘You drive on this road, you are going to die, as simple as that’. That is the ridiculous part about it; this has been handled really badly.
It could have been a positive for the government. There is no doubt we should all be concerned about the fatalities on our road. On the website, for instance, there is this map. The red dots show all the fatal crashes from 2000 to 2005. It is bad; as simple as that. However, what it does not tell us, and which the government has been saying to us, is whether these were caused by speed. How many of these were actually caused by speed? That is what we want to know. Which ones along this highway were caused by speed? This is the fatal crashes in Alice Springs. You are not trying to tell me in the municipality that these - there must be 10 - were caused by speed in the town? They were not. The ones that we had in Darwin were not caused by speed. This is where the government has lost the plot; they just have not sold it well. They are, basically, saying to us: ‘This is the only reason we are having all these fatal crashes; it is because you are all going too fast’. We know jolly well that is not true. The report says quite clearly 50% of all road crashes involved indigenous people and 75% of indigenous people live in remote communities, and most of them drive on unsealed roads in unregistered, unroadworthy vehicles and, often, many of them are unlicensed.
What government should be doing if they really want to sell this product properly is start telling us how we can fix it. We are not going to fix it by just saying: ‘Okay we are going to fine you more; we are going to use the camera approach’. What they should be concentrating on, in my opinion, is doing the things to make it better. Driver education would have to be one of the most important things our schools do. Driver education in remote communities - and I have a letter from, I think it was the minister for DEET about 18 months ago, highlighting which communities are doing this - there is not enough of it.
Too often, people on remote communities get their licence, they do not have a lot of supervision, they come into town and are confronted with all sorts of traffic conditions that they may not see out in their communities. Quite often, they are the ones who have accidents. Aboriginal people do not drive fast. It is as simple as that; 50% of them are killed in road crashes, but they are not the ones driving fast. It is not speed that kills the Aboriginal people; it is usually all those other things like alcohol, unroadworthy vehicles, seat belts - you name it.
The government has not sold what they want people to accept very well at all. People are coming in to my office to complain about the speed limit and they are the ones who have been in the Territory for a long time. They are people who are used to driving at fast speeds along the highways north and south. They are the people who complain that when you get past Kulgera into South Australia you have to slow down to 110 km/h. How many of us have been caught around Mala? Put your hand up all those who have been speeding through Marla at more than 110 km/h. Of course, we get caught because we are used to going at that speed along the Territory highway. To be quite honest, 130 km/h is fine for me. I do about 120 km/h when I come to Darwin. I am not one who goes faster, but I understand there is a group of people in the community who have been driving at this speed for many years, and who have confidence in their own driving ability. They are the people, most of all, who are saying: ‘We do not like this’. You have not won them over one bit. All you have done is get their backs up.
Minister, perhaps you could tell me something. We talked about the car testing industry which is big in Alice Springs. We have been competing with Kununurra and Broken Hill for many years. I do not know whether you have seen them, in the summer in particular. They drive around the town with everything all covered up and spend big dollars. They bring engineers, many of whom stay in the high class motels. They use the local maintenance workshops. They spend a lot of money there. I am asking if you will you give them a permit to test their cars at speeds greater than 130 km/h? They drive 24 hours a day testing their vehicles and they do it at different speeds. They might vary - drive at slow speeds, medium speeds, and then very fast for long periods of time. We should think about this from an industry point of view. I suggest that the minister for Business talk to the people involved in this industry and perhaps you can give them a permit to conduct their testing.
I say that because did I not hear you say that you would give people who drive in the Finke Desert Race a permit to drive at over 130 km/h? Isn’t that what is going to happen when we have the Finke Desert Race?
Ms Lawrie: It is a road closure.
Mrs BRAHAM: A road closure and they can drive as fast as they like?
Ms Lawrie: That is what happens with the Finke.
Mrs BRAHAM: Okay. So what is different to saying that the car industries can come along and drive faster? What is the difference? You are saying people in the Finke Desert Race can now have this closure and drive as fast as they like down the Finke, and they do go fast. You will give permission to do that but you will not look at another business industry that brings in millions of dollars into Alice Springs and into the Territory to do much the same thing. I suggest you think about that. If you have not spoken to the people involved in this industry, please do so.
I wonder how many people you have actually talked to who are involved in this. It would be worthwhile finding out exactly what sort of dollars and cents we are talking about, and there are not many cents attached to it. If we can do it for the Finke Desert Race then we should be able to do it for that other industry which would like a permit to be able to drive at fast speeds. They are not the people who cause the accidents. I cannot recall, and stand to be corrected, at any time any of those testing cars being involved in an accident around Alice Springs. We now know that these cars are possibly going to Broken Hill. Good luck to Broken Hill. It is a bit like the film industry, they have gone to Broken Hill. They are making a film in Broken Hill featuring our Northern Territory kids because they are getting a subsidy there. They are getting help there. This is where the Territory government should be helping these industries to stay where they are.
Think about it, minister. Do not just wipe it off and say: ‘No, I am not going to do anything about it’. Talk to the people who care. This is what we keep coming back to – consult. It does not take much to talk to people to find out the facts. Let people know how many of the red dots we see on this map were caused by speed. I do not believe that speed is the only indicator or the only thing that causes deaths, and you made it a huge problem for people to accept. You are overlooking all those other issues which are important.
I was pleased to see the advertisement running on Imparja, I might stand corrected, showing the Aboriginal guy talking to his people about ‘do not sleep on the road, put on your seat belt, if you are walking in the dark at night make sure you wear bright clothes’. Great! It is an Aboriginal person doing it. I was told by someone who was organising some of the other photographic advertising campaigns that there was not to be an Aboriginal person featured. That was a bit stupid in my opinion. We need to include everyone. It is not just the white fella that drives fast, it is everyone. That particular advertisement is good but I do not think you are reaching the hearts and minds of the people out there.
You talk about the reduction of accidents on Lasseters Highway. As a local who has driven that road many times there are many reasons for the accidents on that road, and it is not altogether to do with speed. Even you must admit that. Too often tourists tend to hire those high top, short wheel base vehicles. The road is narrow. They have to pass someone. They go too far to one side and roll over. It has happened over and over and over again.
When I got into my hire vehicle on Sunday I was pleased to find a pamphlet about road safety in the Territory. That sort of approach, selling the message, is a far better approach and you will get people taking a lot more notice than the approach you have already used. We do not have to over-sensationalise, we do not have to make statements that are fairly irrelevant to people in the Territory. We have to be mindful that if we want to sell something, change is always difficult to accept. Change management is the key about how you go about it.
I agree with the member for Nelson saying that we have to make sure the consultation is right. I agree with him that you did not do that very well. You have not sold your story very well, either. That is the hard part and that is why you keep facing these criticisms. If you asked people now how many of them disagree with a speed limit of 130 km/h on the open road, you might find there is more support than you think. By not having consulted, you might find that is the story you are getting.
This is the parliament. This is the place where things like this should be debated. If it was not for General Business Day, perhaps this would not have occurred. Government should remember that when they are making such a major change to our lifestyle, this is the place we should be hearing about it first; this where we should be able to contribute and pass on our thoughts. As it is at the moment, quite rightly, the member for Nelson feels as though he had to conduct a survey because government did not.
In conclusion, minister, think about the car testing industry and giving them permission to go at the speeds. Remember they are not going to want to do 200 km/h for 24 hours; that is not the way they operate. They operate on short times. If you are going close a road for the Finke Desert Race, there is obviously room to move for these people as well. Look at your advertisements. Get rid of some of the sensationalism, which is quite irrelevant. If you really want people to believe you, be honest. Provide the information that will give them a clear picture of what is happening on our highways. Do not try to smooth it over and say all these fatal crashes were caused by speed because we know they are not. We would like to know how many of these crashes occurred on the open highway. Give us a list of those that were caused by speed.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the member for Nelson for this motion. Sadly, the bulk of the motion has been debated previously because of its similarity with the CLP motion, so I will not be seeking to go over old ground in my contribution.
We will have to agree to disagree on the issue of the speed limit on the open road. I know that you do not see the need for the introduction of 130 km/h. The government believes that the introduction is necessary. I tabled the statistics of fatalities and serious injuries on the Stuart Highway from 2000 to 2005 inclusive, and that really shows that we have grave concerns about our open roads and the road toll on those open roads. There is a desire to see that reduced.
Government deliberated for a very long time on the recommendation of 110 km/h. We are the only jurisdiction that is as high as 130 km/h as of 1 January when we introduce that speed limit. Member for Braitling, picking up on your issue of the car testing and how we compete with Kununurra and Broken Hill, I will point out that they have lesser speed limits in those jurisdictions and we are still above them. So we are still, if you like, more attractive to the car testing regimes and manufacturers in the sense that they can get upwards to 130 km/h in the Territory where they are capped at 110 km/h elsewhere. I do not take lightly the concerns of the Alice Springs community about any economic impact of this decision. I am sure the government will continue to discuss any concerns of the car manufacturers.
The Finke does involve closure of a road. We could not have a situation where people testing cars at a variety of excessive speeds are sharing the roads with other motorists. That would be incredibly dangerous, so I would not be looking at a permit system per se. If the manufacturers want to come to government with a road closure at a particular time of the year, on a particular stretch of road that is not a major highway, it is for them to come forward to put those considerations before us. The car manufacturers have not brought any proposals like that to me as minister for Transport. If they did, I would naturally consider them. We certainly would not canvass any scenario where excessive speeds were sharing the roads with our normal road users. That would be a recipe for disaster that we would not countenance. I would be ruling that out straight away.
We can argue forever on the issue of whether speed is a major factor in road deaths. I urge members opposite who have lingering concerns around this issue to talk to the experts, to talk to someone like Professor Ian Johnston. I do not presume to be an expert on speed. I have not dedicated my life to the testing of speed and the impact of speed on road accidents and the results of that. However, I took the time and effort to seek out experts who have the experience and the knowledge and who could provide appropriate advice. The information and the evidence they showed me was outstanding. It really does change one’s perspective. I say that having been born and raised in the Northern Territory, having driven on our open roads ever since I got my licence at 16 years old. Like most people in this Chamber, I probably fit quite comfortably within 130 km/h. The fastest I have ever driven is 140 km/h on roads I know well.
I will say that I know the government has made a very bold decision. It is not a political winner. We are not out there selling a political package. We have made a decision based on the desire to reduce our road carnage. Many of the comments in the debate on the member for Nelson’s motion were about being able to sell our decision. I have to say that we are actually not looking at it from that perspective. It is not about selling the decision. It is about, as a government, being bold enough to make what we consider to be the proper decision to reduce our road toll and save Territorians’ lives.
I will hark back to an example that we do have, that has been made while Labor has been in government. A speed limit was introduced in 2001 for the Lasseter Highway. The only tool we used was the introduction of a speed limit. We did not use other road safety tools that are contained within this current comprehensive package. There was just one tool we used: we put speed limits on that highway. Deaths have been cut by 37%, serious injuries have been cut by 44%; and the total of all injuries are down by 33%.
Mrs Braham: Use real numbers, not percentages.
Ms LAWRIE: Well, it is pretty striking, when you have a look at those significant reductions, it is pretty striking. It was used by the experts to indicate to government and to stress their message that road safety reforms need to include matters that address the speed at which people travel. I have said it before and I am happy to say it again in debate today: these roads safety reforms do not all come into effect in 2006 and the government then walks away from its road safety responsibility. Contained within the task force recommendations, and recommendations accepted by government, is a road safety reference group. There will be a body within government working towards ongoing road safety reforms in addition to the reforms that we have already signed up to introduce as the result of the task force and its recommendations.
One of the first tasks the road safety reference group will need to look at is how we can reduce the road toll in the regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory. Questioning the Road Safety Taskforce experts on that issue, they said that there was no study or empirical evidence and data that clearly pinpointed specific things that could be done that tackled issues that we confront in our regional and remote Northern Territory. They know there is more work to do. They know they have to undertake a greater body of work to come forward with further recommendations to government that we will need to consider regarding the road toll in the bush.
As Transport minister, I have put my hand up and said our responsibility as government lies in doing everything we can to improve our road conditions. You cannot look at road accidents and ignore the actual road conditions. The number of single vehicle rollovers indicates that road conditions very much play a role in our road injuries and fatalities. Therefore, the task force and the recommendations are a significant body of reforms. Reforms will continue to evolve as further information comes forward. As further work is done by the road safety reference group, there will be further consideration required of government and I look forward to that ongoing body of work.
Member for Braitling, I share your views regarding public awareness. A big part of what the government needs to ensure happens is that we change the culture of our road users. An important way of doing that is public awareness. Significant funding is going to road safety messages in our schools and improving overall public awareness. We will be putting signs in communities, signs on our roadside, a whole raft of advertising, appropriate material for the appropriate messages. Whether it is a seat belt message, or a speed message, or a drink and drive message, there is a whole range of materials that will be produced and tailored to meet the needs, whether it is an urban, high density centre or bush area. You have to tailor your information to the audience so that it is applicable. I am glad you picked up on the Imparja advertisement as being an appropriate advertisement for that particular medium. We are focusing on what is the best way to get the message out, the range of messages that need to be delivered, and the consistency of those messages.
It will not be an advertising blitz and then it all disappears. There has to be a consistent message of public awareness of the issues that contribute.
Mrs Braham: Come back in 12 months time and give us a summary of the statistics.
Ms LAWRIE: Of course, everyone will be watching the road safety statistics, as you say, member for Braitling. This is a bold move by government to introduce the recommendations, so we will be watching closely. I am sure members of the opposition will be watching closely. I am sure the media will be watching closely. I am sure members of the public will watch closely. I am sure the member for Nelson will continue to be in touch with his constituents, as you will, and continue to feed back advice and information to government. It is not a static debate; it will continue.
Member for Nelson, the government had every intention of having a full and proper debate in this Chamber. We are bringing forward legislation to support the recommendations. Quite appropriately, legislation will be introduced. It will sit on the books and then be debated. We did not enter into this process believing, at any stage, that there would not be a debate in parliament. We knew that there would be a debate in parliament. I am pleased that there is concern about this issue, that we are able to start the debate today, and I have no doubt we will continue that debate when you see the details of the legislation that we introduce next year.
Whilst I cannot support your motion, and I cannot support your particular view on the speed limits and wanting to keep the open unlimited speed limit on the open roads, I thank you for your concern on this issue.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I had a chance to look through some of the tabled papers from the previous debate. The tabled papers were speed histograms of readings taken along certain highways through the middle of this year. Another paper related to the number of fatalities and serious injuries along the Stuart Highway where there was no speed limit. I hope the government does not pretend that it is a cause and effect between the two papers. One page mentioned cars driving at certain speeds in the areas and the other is a list of fatalities and serious injuries in the various regions.
The government needs to understand that there are many people who drive the Stuart Highway frequently and you must consider these people as professional or semi-professional drivers. They drive the highway for a living. That is not the same as the young hoons and irresponsible reckless drivers who drive at high speeds in the built-up areas of our communities between Humpty Doo and Howard Springs and Darwin, or near the environs of Alice Springs where there are more people and more vehicles. We are talking about the open highway where there are fewer cars and greater distances between cars. When you drive along the Stuart Highway you could quite often drive for more than 15 minutes without seeing another vehicle. If you are doing that as a professional and you are driving for a living you would know the highway well, and you are in a vehicle that is capable of higher speeds, so it should not be an issue.
As regards to the car testing industry in Central Australia, they bring the vehicles to Alice Springs to heat test the vehicles because of the extreme heat we get in Central Australia especially around this time of the year. The cars are put out in the sun in high temperatures and the manufacturers then test the cars to see how well they tolerate the heat. They test the airconditioning, and the tyres in terms of the heat that comes off the road. When the cars are driven on the highway at high speed they are driven by professional people who are being monitored in every aspect of the journey they undertake at whatever speeds.
These are not the day-to-day mum and dad drivers who may be coming from Melbourne and Sydney with their caravan purchased for the once-in-a-lifetime retire trip, who have never been outside of the built-up areas in the southern cities. This is about Territorians driving between regional centres for a specific purpose. These are the people who drive thousands upon thousands of kilometres every year. They are good at it, they know the roads, they have good vehicles, and they drive safely.
If the government is intent on saving the many indigenous people who are involved in these accidents then it needs to bring in a different policy. We have to ensure, apart from being taught to drive well, that they are not driving while under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, that they wear seat belts regularly, and that they only carry the number of passengers who can be secured with a seat belt in the vehicle.
We pump out the message that every responsible parent should have a baby in a capsule attached to a seat belt in a vehicle, that every child who travels should be in a booster seat and restrained with a seat belt, that every passenger you carry should have a seat belt. That message must be driven home to every Territorian who gets in a car. You need to ensure that you do not have motor vehicles carrying more passengers than the number of seat belts fixed in the vehicle, and that the vehicles are roadworthy. The government has not undertaken a program to remove unroadworthy vehicles. The government has not enforced the exclusion of people driving without a driver’s licence. The first time someone drives without a driver’s licence, the car should be impounded. That will prevent them from committing the serious errors that result in road fatalities.
Most accidents we hear about are in the built-up areas. The government has to deal with the culprits who commit this road carnage through reckless driving in high density areas where there is very little room for error, no room for error at all. Do not bring in an unreasonable speed limit which will prolong trips between both ends of the Territory because all you are doing is promoting fatigue in the drivers. It is fatigue which leads drivers into making errors. It is fatigue, not the speed. When the minister earlier said every fatality involves speed, what does that mean? If it is in the built-up areas, what speed are we talking about? Are we talking about 60 km/h or 80 km/h? I challenge the Deputy Chief Minister to run straight into the wall and see whether he survives.
Mr Stirling: And he would!
Dr LIM: Run fast – and he would. Oh, yes, he would! I have seen people do that and hurt themselves grievously, knocking themselves out. I have seen people taken to Intensive Care because they ran into a wall. That is just running, physically with your own two feet, and no more. It is not about speed. It is about the reckless driving, the reckless behaviour on roads, especially roads with high density motor vehicle traffic. You cannot afford to drive more than the posted speed limit because it is a known fact that if you do that, you encounter many difficulties and cause accidents for other people who are driving within the law.
I support the member for Nelson’s motion. It goes towards getting the government to seriously address this issue and not a knee-jerk reaction. It is just as well these motions have been brought into this Chamber today otherwise it would have gone through by default, by regulation, after the lull over Christmas and New Year. We will wake up on New Year’s Day and it is there in your face, and you cannot do a thing about it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I comment on the minister’s reply to my original motion, I want to say something about demerit points. I have had a few rural people see me about demerit points. They have said: ‘If the government is going to enforce it, are they going to increase the amount of public transport in the rural area?’ They would probably laugh at that, but the point is that we do not have a lot of public transport and if people do lose their licences they are going to have a lot of walking to do. People have said to me that it is all very well to lose your licence in the city, but if you lose it in the rural area - and you could probably say you should not lose your licence - there are some difficulties in getting to work. I mentioned that because I believe our rural public transport is still well below par.
I listened to the comments of the minister, and I know statistics – there are lies and damn lies and then there is statistics, and for me to try to analyse all these statistics would be a waste of time, I believe. Obviously, there are people who are experts in this area and could do a better job of this than me. The minister says that this is not about selling something. Well, I am not sure why not. You are selling it by putting advertisements on television. You can also sell it by going out to the community and putting your point of view so that people have an understanding of where you are coming from.
If you are saying that speed reduces the number of fatalities and injuries on the road, which is a known fact, you could actually keep reducing the speed, as has been done in many cities, down to 50 km/h and 40 km/h. We know that as you reduce speed, normally speaking, the number of fatalities and accidents decrease. The question is then, what is the upper limit? One of the problems when you read statistics - for instance, the statistics on the Lasseter Highway - I have the numbers to show that as the speed limit has been reduced to 110 km/h, the number of fatalities has decreased from 16 to 10. The number of people admitted to hospital with injuries has been reduced from 50 to 28. The number of people who have overturned their vehicles has decreased from 45 to 28. The number of people who have run off the road has decreased from 22 to 16. So you can say there is a reduction in those accidents since the introduction of the 110 km/h speed limit. The problem is that you do not know at what speed these people were travelling when they had an accident. I am not saying that those figures do not make it look like there is a reduction in fatalities and injuries, but I am not sure at what speed some of these incidents occurred.
If you accept it as it is, that 110 km/h has reduced the speed limit on the Lasseter Highway, why has the government allowed 130 km/h on the Stuart Highway? If you argue passionately that this has caused a reduction in the number of people killed on the Lasseter Highway, and your evidence-based recommendation from your own task force has said it should be 110 km/h on all the roads, including the Stuart, Barkly, Arnhem and Victoria, why have you gone up to 130 km/h?
A member: It is political.
Mr WOOD: That can be the only thing. You know that people will not accept it, even though your report says that if you do it you will reduce the number of fatalities. The table the minister gave us today is very interesting. There has been talk that it says that 85% of people travel basically under 135 km/h on some of these documents, 129 km/h, and obviously the government has said: ‘Looking at these particular figures, roughly 85% of the people travel from 130 km/h down to low speeds, therefore we will pick that speed as the speed we will put on the Stuart Highway, the Barkly Highway, the Arnhem Highway and the Victoria Highway’. You could also say that only 15% of people travel above that speed. Is that the 15% who cause the problem? We do not know. You can have a crash at 130 km/h and you will do an awful lot of damage. That is the speed limit you picked. In this case, are the 15% of people who travel over the 130 km/h speed limit the cause of the problem? Are they the ones who are dying? I do not know; I cannot tell from here. You have arbitrarily picked a spot on these speed histograms and said 85% of the people travel at 135 km/h or less, therefore, we will pick 130 km/h.
I am not sure what the science is there, but it certainly does not give me a lot of comfort that the government has done this on evidence. It is saying, if you take the Lasseter Highway example, they have promoted the idea that you will reduce fatalities and injuries by bringing the speed limit down to 110 km/h - and their own task force said bring it down to 110 km/h. Why have they put it up to 130 km/h? If you are going to have it at 130 km/h, why don’t you leave it open, because only 15% of people travel over that speed. That is what is confusing. You have set the parameters and told us the principles on which you are developing the recommendations of the task force and, then, when it comes to our major highways, you appear to have changed your mind. That, from my point of view, appears to be a political decision.
Be that as it may, I will reiterate that the government should sell what it believes in. If it needs to take one of the experts who is good at analysing statistics or knows a lot about the cause of death, that person should go out as part of that committee. It should be sold if you really believe in it. If you do not believe in it and just rely on advertisements on television, that will not change that survey; it will continue as it is.
I personally do not have a problem with driving at 130 km/h. I go up to 140 km/h and vary my speed according to the conditions. That has been one of the advantages of having the open speed limit. I do not race along like a maniac. If you have a look at these statistics, it clearly states that there are a few people who might drive up to 190 km/h, but not many. We are talking about maybe one or two. The majority of people on an unlimited speed road travel at a reasonable speed …
Mr Kiely: Is 190 km/h safe, is it?
Mr WOOD: No, I did not say that. I am saying the majority of people …
Mr Henderson: Should it be legal?
Mr WOOD: The majority of people …
Mr Kiely: Is 180 km/h safe?
Mr WOOD: You have …
Mr Henderson: Should 180 km/h be legal?
Mr WOOD: Well, 130 km/h is safe according to your government, 110 km/h …
Mr Kiely: You pick a speed limit then. You pick a speed. You tell us what is safe.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: 110 km/h is what was recommended; you made an arbitrary decision to put it to 130 km/h. It could have been 140 km/h, it could have been 150 km/h. What I am saying is …
Mr Kiely: What would you do?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Member for Sanderson, I am trying to explain so, if you put a sock in it, I will tell you what I would do. I am saying that this graph is as it is under an open speed limit. Was there a problem with that, because you have now picked 85% of that graph and said: ‘We will make it 130 km/h’? For the extra 15%, was there a real problem? Was there a real problem? That is all I am asking.
If you were sticking to your guns about speed limits being reduced to reduce fatalities, this would be 110 km/h. You have made an arbitrary decision for 130 km/h. Why not leave it as it is then? If 130 km/h is going to kill people, you are not going to stop them from doing 140 km/h. I just believe that there are inconsistencies in how you have come to that. That is the problem I have. That is why it is going to be more difficult to sell this. You do need to sell it. Some of the people who filled in that form could say they did not know what the argument against an open speed limit was and, possibly, they did not. They are ordinary people reflecting their thoughts about what they believed was a right they had to occasionally travel at a higher speed.
I know there are people who say that is dangerous. Many things we do are dangerous in this world. We have to draw lines about what is allowable in danger. How much does the government wrap us in cotton balls when it comes to risk? We have to make that balance. Of course, governments do have to make decisions about the safety of ourselves and other people. In this case, they have not convinced many people. They should go out and sell this. They should bring in most of those recommendations, and also look at some of the recommendations the opposition has put forward. I do not have a problem with people’s cars being confiscated if, for instance, they have been drink driving a number of times, or they have been driving without a licence a number of times. That is pretty reasonable: you are taking people off the road who are a danger to the community.
Put in those recommendations and then come back in five years’ time and analyse the effect of those recommendations. There is a real need to look at the major factors that are mentioned in here: youth, Aboriginal people, and tourists. They are the ones mentioned in this document that are major target of fatalities and injuries. Then come back and say: ‘These things have not changed. Now we want to have look at the speed’, and talk to people about it. Until you bring people along in the decision-making process, especially about something that I think people - it might be a corny word – love. They feel it is one good reason for living in the Territory; they can occasionally let the car go a bit. If you are going to change people’s culture, if you are going to change people’s feelings about why they are in the Territory, you are going to have do a lot better.
I recommend that you have meetings. It is not for me to have meetings on behalf of the government. I occasionally have meetings in my area, but on this issue it is up to you people as a government to show why you have made these changes. You can include the whole report, have a meeting on the whole report; it should not just be sticking with the speed limit. There are quite good items in here for discussion.
I feel that you have missed the boat. Before you announced these changes you should have had the public meetings. You have now announced the changes and it is going to be very hard for you to step back and say you have changed your mind. The public sees that, and they are very disappointed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Katherine, Greatorex and Braitling for their support. This could have been done a lot better. I hope the government has taken up some of the points I have raised. I have a feeling that there are some members of government who do not agree with this. Perhaps that is something that the government members are going to have to discuss because I believe it will not go away. It is one of these issues that will stick. It will be a bit like TIO. If the government ever tried to sell TIO, that famous TIO which just produced record profits in banking and insurance, because of community support. You will have the same depth of feeling when it comes to this. If you had done it right, you might have had a chance. This way, there is no hope. I will leave it up to the government to sort out how it gets out of this mess.
Motion negatived.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move - That the Labor government’s decision to close down the after hours bulkbilling service at the Farrar Medical Centre is a cynical, cost cutting exercise that will impact mostly heavily on young families, the elderly and the chronically ill in Palmerston; and call on the government to immediately reinstate funding to provide after hours bulkbilling at the Farrar Health Centre, funding which is understood to cost the Territory government less than $300 000 last financial year.
This is an important issue and a delicate matter to be discussed for the people of Palmerston and the rural area. I urge government to seriously attend to the arguments that are contained within this motion. On behalf of Palmerston families, I will endeavour to set out a task whereby government can come to a reasonable and fair position whilst the business that is of concern to government can be conducted. I say that quite seriously because this is not a political issue as much as an issue of very direct and real concern to many families, particularly young families.
As a long-term resident with my children growing up in Palmerston, there was always a place to go, but as the town grew and became a city, so grew a need for a more substantial service within that community for those who had those concerns, particularly after hours: a secure place to go. For any young family, a dad or mum who has a youngster under 18 months who develops a temperature, is unable to hold down anything and passes anything they have within them, it is a most troubling time. I clearly remember having to comfort my wife and, as a dad, being very concerned for my daughter and, at another time, my son, thinking we were going to have to take that long drive to Accident and Emergency.
It is principally that need which resonates in the community that must be addressed. Out of that need was the establishment of a 24-hour health clinic in Palmerston. I looked through some photographs and saw the photograph of the sign that was put up heralding the soon to be established 24-hour health care service in Palmerston. Palmerston felt like it had grown up, that we would soon have a place where we could go immediately, that being the key issue.
If these emergencies arise after hours, the last thing you want is uncertainty as to where you need to go. It costs time thinking ‘surely there must be some place open in a city like this’. You then make inquiries and discover there is not. We now face the long drive into Royal Darwin Hospital. Times of decision-making are costly. It is those matters that give substance to the need for the after hours facility.
It was established based on that need. It was established as a 24-hour service. There was a change of government and there was one of the quickest reviews conducted by this government, which has conducted numerous reviews of different natures. This lightening fast review, soon after coming to office, frankly surprised me in its result, which was to reduce the time that this clinic was open based on arguments such as ‘not many people used it’, and ‘when we count the cost of the clinic and divide it by the number of people who have used it, it is unsustainable’.
In growing and developing a community, it really had not had time to establish. I have lived and worked in that community and I knew that at those early stages, people were still becoming accustomed to the existence of the place. It was within a very short time that this review was conducted and the decision made by government.
From that moment on, people began to express their concern to government. They did so by way of petitions. Those petitions numbered in excess of 13 000 signatures and they have been presented in this Chamber to government. They were collected in the rural area because it affects families in the rural areas. They felt they had been betrayed. Many thought it was astonishing that government would make such a decision. Many people are cynical, as we well know, and It was assumed in those days that it was because there are non-Labor members in Palmerston so the government can treat folk with contempt. That was a view expressed by people in the region.
There were petitions collected by the member for Nelson, the former member for Goyder, by me, and there may have been one other local member involved. I can assure members opposite that those petitions did not arise out of some scare campaign or some sort of glitzy little trick to try to get people into signing this thing and drumming up support for something they were a bit ambivalent about. It was an ongoing thing. Petition after petition would be presented and people asked: ‘What can we do now?’ ‘Well, sign more petitions’. And it just kept on going, and it goes on today. It is still going on. People want to know what they can do. People wonder whether there is any point in signing petitions, and then they think if they do not, definitely nothing will happen so they keep on going. That is a sign of the feeling that is out there.
The 13 000-plus signatures I referred to go back before the time that this government made the next astonishing decision to actually close the centre. I will get to that in a moment, because I honestly have trouble understanding why government made that decision, particularly considering the young families who have had a long-standing need for a facility like this, in a growing population, increasingly urbanised, which is almost the size of Alice Springs, and not counting the rural area which is also increasingly populated with young families.
We move on now to the decision that was made to close it. Before going down that path, the clich ‘community consultations’ has, sadly, become a dirty word under this government, as it will be a clich used to suit a particular objective or agenda. When government was able to spend taxpayers’ money on a campaign to demonstrate concern about a nuclear waste facility, they used the show circuit involving public servants, and direct mail and glossy brochures that went into letterboxes and littered the place, right across the Northern Territory urging people to sign. There were as many petition forms - and as an opposition member, I know how much paper costs - glossy paper, coloured paper, double-sided. How much did it cost? Well, I paid for it in one way or another, and so did every other Territorian. To have just over 4000 signatures resulting from that campaign - at a cost of?
Dr Lim: Seventy dollars each signature.
Mr MILLS: … $70 a signature, beggars belief that government could embark upon such a campaign. It was like deftly trying to prime this pump and to whip the community into a particular state of mind that would result in political capital, ah, there was a federal election campaign in the wind, there was indeed. And that was the strength of this campaign. No wonder we see cynicism when we have that kind of approach to managing public campaigns with public money. Shame on those who made that decision. I would much prefer to say ‘those’ who made that decision than ‘government’, because there are those in government and working for government who made that cold and calculating decision to attempt to achieve a political objective at our expense.
Meanwhile, on the other side of town, using photocopiers, volunteers and a card table purchased from Target that was slightly buckled, and an old chair that had been on many camping trips, sitting at the markets …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Just sitting at the markets, and at Howard Springs …
Mr Wood: I did not sit next to it …
Mr MILLS: They had a real flash table and a clipboard with a shiny bulldog clip on it, I bet you.
… and volunteers, pensioners, wanting to know what they can do - running around the place and asking if people could sign the petition. It did not cost anybody anything, and 13 000 were registered as a result of that grassroots campaign ...
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I believe that the honourable member is either deliberately or inadvertently misleading the House. There were not 13 000 signatures on a single petition; there were 13 000 - and I believe even that figure is inflated - cumulatively over a number of different petitions which may or may not have been repeated. It is not a single petition; it is several petitions. The honourable member ought not mislead this House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition, could you clarify?
Mr MILLS: It is a good point. He is quite correct. There were in total 13 000 out of the number of petitions that were presented to this Chamber. A fine point but, nonetheless, let us choose to meet in the middle: there is a lot of community support …
Dr Lim: Thirteen thousand signatures on various petitions seeking the same thing.
Mr Burke: Repeated signatures, not separate ones, member for Greatorex.
Mrs Miller: Excuse me! He did not like the truth.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please continue, member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: Anyway, I think you understand where I am coming from. I am not going to fight in the trenches over that kind of issue. As I said, as a matter of technicality the honourable member is correct but, nonetheless, it was in excess, I understand, of 13 000. That is not counting the ones of a different nature which are calling upon this government to re-open the whole show. I have not counted those. I will provide you with those details. Perhaps you would like to count them all, just to double check - that would keep you busy for a while - and make sure that there are not any double-ups.
Back to the substance of this issue which is the concerns of families in Palmerston. We now come up to the point: that this government was able to present a petition, that it had used public funds to generate, to place before the federal parliament and then expect that the federal government would change its mind. I do not think they really did; I thought they were actually just after scoring a political point, hoping it would capitalise in the election of some fellow I have forgotten. The government had lodged before it a number of petitions that total in excess of 13 000 signatures, and ignored them. That stands as an issue that speaks for itself.
Having established that, we now move to the next point. Quite astonishingly, the government made the decision to close the clinic. It was not spoken about directly, but indirectly. It was masked, like when kids have to take medicine that is bitter or sour you embed it in jam or honey. You give them a spoonful of it and they have taken their worm tablet which they would not have taken ...
Dr Lim: Makes the medicine go down better.
Mr MILLS: It does.
The families of Palmerston heard this great announcement; glossy flyers went everywhere, advertisements in papers. My goodness, we received all these wonderful things! $500 000 has just been spent on Palmerston. People felt good. I thought it was good too. I have quite a few responsibilities and, sometimes, I do not immediately catch what government is up to. After a while I realised that they had sugar-coated something and, in the heart of it, was something being removed; that is, the after-hours medical facility - the bulkbilling facility that families in the rural area and Palmerston had been expressing strong support for. Incredible! That decision was made. Once again, it beggared belief. Families could not understand why government did that. Then there was another campaign that seemed to arise out of nowhere, cleverly constructed I would have to say. You are in the political game of trying to hoodwink people and confuse them, and out comes a petition which is aimed directly at the federal government, and whilst there is some merit in it, it was deliberately timed to muddy the waters.
Now, look at timing. Why did this occur just then? Why is it happening now? Why remove a service now? Well, it so happens that there is a federal election in the wind. We have had evidence of that today in the announcements that have been made by way of using Question Time to run federal issues in this very parliament. I bet you tomorrow it will be the same again. It will be IR tomorrow. I bet I know what is on your list and you will have folk up here and you will endeavour to use this parliament to run a political agenda to suit the federal election campaign, running to the beat of your federal masters, and hoping to score some brownie points with whoever is in charge of the Labor Party tomorrow or at the end of the week.
I bet that is what is going to happen tomorrow and that is the reason that this decision was made by government at this point. That is all I can conclude. You have made that decision. People in government have calculated coldly, and in a calculated manner worked out that this would be the best time to do this because you could maximise your political capital by directing people’s concern and anger as far as you possibly can to the federal government and blame them, and people get confused.
All they want in a time of need is a place to go after hours with their kid who is crook. Not to mention those in my own electorate who do not have good incomes. Many of them simply need a bulkbilling facility. They simply need it and they have been hurt by this. In the midst of this to have this furore, with glossy brochures once again flying all around the place, in people’s letterboxes, advertisements in the paper and they are starting to think, my goodness it is the federal government. You have the local members explaining the Labor government’s policy. Rather than representing the needs of people, as far as I can see, they are representing the dictates of those cold and calculating people, those political masters who have made this calculated decision, to make this decision at this time to score a political point between the Territory and the Commonwealth, to advance whoever is going to be preselected in the seat of Solomon.
Meanwhile, back in the heart of Moulden or in Bakewell, you have families of an evening wondering where they should go. They cannot believe that government has closed the clinic notwithstanding there is a sign there saying ‘another Territory government initiative’. Notwithstanding that it has been funded by the Territory government for five whole years, all of a sudden it is now a federal responsibility. How calculating is this? One, it suits a political agenda with the federal campaign. Two, you have just hedged your bets. You know that you are a fair way from a Territory election so you can burn a bit of political capital, hopefully you can save a little money. More importantly, you might swing a bit of extra support for whoever is going to be preselected for the Australian Labor Party to represent you mob. I hope not, not on that sort of basis. Not on that sort of game that you are playing with families who simply are not interested in blame games. They are interested in finding a solution to a problem they have right here and now.
The objective to extract as much political capital as possible with a federal election in the wind is galling. The other one is that no matter which way you go, you are probably going to win something. You are hoping that if the Coalition stays on, one way or another you will have the feds come and bail you out. So you have saved yourself $270 000, and at the same time you have gained a bit of political capital.
I do not know whether you have worked it out, but I reckon that is the sort of thinking that has gone on at some stage. It does not appear to me that the 19 members are all involved in this stuff. It appears to me that there are a couple of characters, a small group, who work out these things and then they are established. Basically, you have your little Caucus meeting, but there are some fairly weighty strategic issues that descend from some very high place, are embedded and the rest toe the line.
My compliments to a couple of members on the other side who have at least murmured some dissent. Body language at times and looks across the Chamber seem to indicate that people are starting to find their own moral independence. I hope that continues because the good people of the Territory will appreciate it. A little tip to the local members who represent the Australian Labor Party in Palmerston: there would be much political mileage gained if you created the impression of being less representative of the Labor government in your community then being a representative of the people who have elected you irrespective of whether you are CLP or ALP. Those who sit here, although only small in number - and it gives you great fun and you giggle away in your lobby about how you have beaten up the four in the corner, the fact that the four in the corner are still here is because there is that element of doing the best you can to represent your community to government rather than the other way around. If you keep that up you will not last very long. The community is fed up with politics and they want to see some kind of result, particularly young families who have this need. They need support.
That is why I said at the beginning there is a way out of this if we have reason and fairness in government. I know you are enjoying your game. I know you are enjoying the fun, and I know that there are some deep and bitter agendas to be delivered because you have this terrible memory of 27 years of something terrible happening. I cannot understand the depth of bitterness in some members. I know that that gets your rocks off for some, but let us be fair about families. There is a way out of this.
You can play your game of politics and, at the same time, show some support for the families who most need it. There is a way of doing it. I will offer some advice: you could reinstate the funding, which I understand is around $300 000. Heaven knows, some of these campaigns with glossy brochures that you have run in recent times would probably total that. You could reinstate the funding and allow it to continue whilst you conduct your negotiations with the federal government. Play your game over the top because, as I said, and if you listened carefully, there is some merit in the campaign that is run with regards to the Commonwealth. There is some merit in that. I am not so jaundiced in my political view that I cannot see that there are different ways of solving this and the federal government has a part to play. In the meantime, we need to continue and extend the faith to those people in Palmerston and keep that clinic going. It is only going to cost you a small amount. They are not interested in the blame game; it is putting them off.
Extend the service, conduct your negotiations and, once those negotiations have concluded, then whoever has won that argument, you can continue on. You would have my support in that as that is a fair thing to do. It is not a huge amount of money. Let us pursue that then. I ask you, quite honestly - I do not know, I know a letter has been written - what negotiations have taken place with the federal government? A letter, anything more? Are there constructive negotiations taking place at this moment? What has occurred? Where are we at with those negotiations? If you are a fair dinkum about providing a service that you have provided for five years, where are you at with your negotiations, if all of a sudden, on the eve of a federal election campaign, you have discovered an opportunity to transfer attention to the federal government? Where are your negotiations? Is there anything more than a letter?
You have put effort into petitions, direct mail, glossy brochures and advertisements to drive your political agenda. What effort has been put into the negotiations to try to solve this problem? I need to know it is more than a letter. I need to know there has been more cost to government on behalf of those good families in Palmerston than your petitions. I see people walking around shopping centres confused, wondering what on earth this petition is, the direct mail, the advertisements in the paper. I hope there has been more expense spent than that kind of stuff.
I am sure what will come up in the minister’s reply is why did not the previous clinic, the Farrar clinic which operated after hours, make an application to the Commonwealth? Well, there is something you may not know, because you will not get people telling you this. There are people who may have a view that is critical of government, and they may say it, and they will say it to opposition, but I ask if they would please say that publicly, or perhaps support a media release and they hang back in increasing numbers. Now, throw stones at me because you may think that I am just making that up. I am not. I am not making that up. This is one matter related to that issue that I am sure will be used as a line of argument in this: how come they did not put in an application to the federal government?
I put to you, the reason for that is they never thought they were in a position to have to do so because they had an understanding with the Territory government. They had that for five years. They did not apply because they did not think they needed to. And you want to check that out for yourself, you will find that that is verified. All sorts of arguments have been run around the community, designed primarily to confuse people. I will say this to you: $270 000 is what I believe it cost; that will be a shot in the arm for families of Palmerston but it will also be a shot in the arm for the respect of this government in Palmerston. Palmerston residents feel that they have been short changed.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, anyone would support this motion. It is staggering that Labor members will not do so. It is staggering that the two members in particular from Palmerston will not and do not have the courage to publicly, on the floor of the Chamber, exercise any independent thought. As local members, they are the ones being sacrificed by the Chief Minister, as my colleague, the member for Blain, has said. These people have been sacrificed as local members to the ALP candidate for Solomon. I understand preselection will be occurring relatively shortly. The local members may well, and should, think to themselves: ‘Hang on, we are the ones left in an awkward spot here. We appreciate the political strategy at work. It is going to be an election year. Let us blame the federal government for everything’. In the meantime, much damage to both the members for Brennan and Drysdale will be done.
I have been to Palmerston; I know people are talking about this. The member for Blain, unlike the two other members from Palmerston, is a passionate and strong advocate for the people of Palmerston, as he should be. That is why he keeps getting re-elected. That is the standard which the members for Drysdale and Brennan should aspire to, not some weak and appalling political strategy at work coming out of the Labor Party branch office on the fifth floor of parliament.
I say to the member for Wanguri who is, like me, an aspiring Chief Minister, that I find it disgraceful that any Chief Minister would sit back and let this happen to her fellow Territorians under her watch. How on earth can a Chief Minister and her colleagues sit by and cut off the funding - it has been happening for five years, about $300 000 or thereabouts - and create a situation where the good people of Palmerston need to come in to Darwin. That is a disgraceful situation. Any Chief Minister worth his or her salt would move heaven and earth to ensure that this does not happen. Any local member in the area would be advocating very strongly for the people they represent. That is our job; that is our core function.
It is to their eternal shame that the members for Drysdale and Brennan will not be supporting this. It is to their eternal shame that they have not, apparently, appreciated that they are political pawns being sacrificed in the interests of the forthcoming Labor candidate for Solomon. It is to their eternal shame that they manage to keep a straight face when talking to people at Palmerston, trying to spin this Australian Labor Party Northern Territory Branch line that all of this has something to do with the Commonwealth …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition is misleading the House. Bulkbilling GP services have always been a federal government responsibility. To suggest otherwise is misleading. The only ones engaged in spin here are the opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Talking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is no point of order, and the member should well know that if he takes offence at such a thing he can bring on a substantive motion.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not actually hear the statement. I will seek clarification.
Members, I am advised that there is no point of order. The member for Brennan will have an opportunity to make his statement, as the Leader of the Opposition is making hers. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is interesting, but not surprising, that the member for Brennan is twitchy on this subject. He should be twitchy because, according to the authoritative report - and there were many; we have them all here: all of the reports about the division in the Australian Labor Party and the caucus of this Labor government. The Crikey one has the names listed. The member for Brennan is a supporter of the political aspirant, the Chief Ministerial aspirant, the member for Wanguri. So that is the camp he is in.
What a dilemma he must face if he has a Chief Minister whom he does not support, doing something that amounts to shafting his constituents, having the role of going around keeping a straight face and saying ‘but it has to be like this’, obviously not appreciating that he is being sacrificed for the new Labor candidate soon to be announced for Solomon. What a dilemma it must be. One wonders whether he is working behind the scenes to support the member for Wanguri. Well bring it on, bring on the challenge. We know there is a lot of it about in the Australian Labor Party. Because, member for Brennan, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, you might be able to achieve a result whereby you can look after the interests of your constituents and see your man get the top job. Would that not be a great solution to this dilemma?
Surely the members based in Palmerston cannot possibly think that closing the Farrar Medical Centre is anything other than a cynical, cost cutting exercise that will impact most heavily on young families, the elderly and the chronically ill in Palmerston. Surely, in their deepest and most private thoughts, they would be wanting to call on the current Chief Minister to immediately reinstate funding to provide after hours bulkbilling at the Farrar Health Centre, the funding of which is understood to cost the Northern Territory government less than $300 000 last financial year.
I know that the member for Blain, like me, wishes the member for Wanguri well in his endeavours to take the Chief Minister’s job. I am now very firmly of the view that even in his most private thoughts the member for Brennan would be sharing that view too. I know that there must be other reasons for why he supports the member for Wanguri but they are not relevant to the Farrar Medical Centre.
As I have said, the member for Blain is a passionate, strong, fair dinkum supporter and advocate for the people in his electorate unlike the shameful, insipid, weak performances of the members for Brennan and Drysdale. They should support this motion. I know they must be dangerously tempted to do it. Well, do the decent thing for your constituents but if you are happy being the sacrificial lambs, then so be it. We wish you well in your backroom manoeuvres.
I should say that the member for Drysdale is on the third list of the Crikey article; he is in the unsure one. He is a little like the member for Karama, having a bob each way. This Chief Minister promoted him so he is probably a bit keen for her to stay there but the member for Brennan missed out. Ambitious fellow, I would say, and there is nothing wrong with that. He would be thinking: ‘How come my neighbour, the member for Drysdale, got a ministerial gig and I did not?’
It is understandable where they sit, why they sit, and why they fail to do the decent thing in two respects. One is represent, in the fine and outstanding way that the member for Blain does, his constituents. Secondly, why they do not get on with the job and get rid of the current Chief Minister. You never know, the member for Wanguri might just have a very good look at this and say: ‘No, I am not prepared to sit by and watch this happen. It is disgraceful. It should never have happened in the first place and no political strategy is worth ruining the lives and generally making things very difficult for the good people of Palmerston’. I urge members to support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion of the member for Blain. I am confused to some extent as to how we have reached where we have because the government for the last five years has funded this bulkbilling facility. In a de facto way, it is our job to fund it but all of a sudden, mid this year the government said it is not its job to fund the Farrar Medical Centre; it is the role of the Commonwealth. The CLP says that is not right, it is your role to fund it. We get into an argument between parties. The bit that annoys me is that people who rely on that bulkbilling facility are the meat in the sandwich. They are the sacrificial offering for political expedience.
The government might have a point. I do not know as I have not gone into depth to determine whether this is a Commonwealth matter of funding bulkbilling clinics. The CLP might also have a good point. They say we give you enough money to do it. You have had enough funding, government, for the last five years. To me that says it was okay. Whatever the system was, they are obviously getting money from the Commonwealth somewhere and you were funding it. Why, all of a sudden, stop funding it this year? What is the big change from five years ago to now? I do not know.
What is wrong is that to get what you think you should get, you will close it down and those people in Farrar will not have that facility. That is bad. That is not the way to go about achieving what is, to some extent, a political end. You are trying to achieve a beneficial end for the community, but to use the community as a lever for that political gain is not appropriate.
This is something you could achieve by sitting down with the Commonwealth, by asking the opposition if they would also push for more funding for the bulkbilling facility if that is the problem. This should not have gone as far as it has gone. I support what the member for Blain has said. If there are issues that the government thinks are legitimate in relation to funding this, keep funding the bulkbilling facility as you have done for the last five or six years. Keep doing it.
In the meantime, negotiate more funding if you think the present circumstances are not adequate or you think you are getting done. But whatever you think, if you do not think it is right do not use the people of rural area and Palmerston as a political pawn. Sit down with your opponents, sit down with the federal government and I am sure we could achieve what you want and what we want without the people in the middle being bound in a political sandwich. With that, I support the member for Blain’s motion.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will ask the indulgence of the opposition for a moment because at the moment, my daughter, Lisa, is attending her Year 12 graduation ceremony. I would like to just place on the record my apologies to her for not being able to be there tonight on this important occasion for all of us as a family. I hope she understands that my presence was required here and that had to take precedence on this occasion.
Health services are an extremely important matter. That is why this Northern Territory ALP government increased health spending by 64%, the largest injection of funds to the health system - the Treasurer or minister might correct me on that figure, but I think a 64% increase to health funding by this government is accurate.
Let us get some facts on the table to back up my statement. It is not me, or the member for Drysdale, or the Minister for Health, or any of this side of the House who is guilty of the politics in this. It is you guys, the opposition, the CLP. Let us get fact one out of the way. Fact one: GP bulkbilling services are and always have been the province of the federal government. Inarguable, no dissent possible, always has been.
As I said, this government increased the spending for the services for which it has responsibility by 64%, something not matched by previous CLP governments. Oh, you can say GST windfall and that sort of thing, but I remember the time when this Territory was awash with federal government funds soon after Cyclone Tracy but they did not manage the spending then. They did not manage to spend all that much on the remote communities of the Northern Territory either. In 27 years, how many Aboriginal graduates were there from high schools in the communities? Nil.
Mrs Miller: Get back to health and the Farrar clinic.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, member for Katherine, for reminding me.
Let us mention another fact, a fact which I am told, and I confess I have never heard, but I am told, a fact that the member for Blain fails to tell people: that the Northern Territory government has increased funding to health services in Palmerston. Yes, the Northern Territory government removed funds that were being used to subsidise Farrar Health Clinic. Yes, that is a fact too. It took that money and reinvested it in the health services that this government has a responsibility to provide. As one gentleman said to me: ‘Well, if they are so happy for governments which do not have the responsibility to fund it, why does not the Palmerston Council fund the health centre?’ Because it is does not have the responsibility, it has other responsibilities. Governments never have all the money they possibly want to provide all the services they want, and health is a prime example. So why take on a responsibility that is not a responsibility of the Northern Territory? Why not expect the federal government to put its money where its mouth is and spend it appropriately? It managed to give $300 000-odd for a grant for services in Farrar in New South Wales, I understand. I believe if you look it up you will find it is a Liberal seat.
Mr Stirling: Is that right, James?
Mr BURKE: Indeed, so I am told by one of my constituents with whom I talk on regular occasions.
Let us look at the demographics of Palmerston. Fact, people can disagree, but I believe that the figure being referred to is that 30% of the Palmerston population is 15 or under. I am sure the local members from Palmerston will agree. When you look around the shopping centres, there are many young mums and young kids - that is a fact. So where did the money go that was taken out of the Farrar Medical Centre? Where did the additional money go that the Northern Territory government poured into services in Palmerston? Better child and maternal health services; more obstetric and gynaecology visits; and expansion of post-natal home visits and home birthing services. Just the sort of services that are needed. The introduction of yearly breast screening services in Palmerston. We paint the building pink to remind the population of the importance of breast cancer, and when this government does something to ensure that there is local breast screening services, we get criticised for it. One wonders. They are not all the additional services, but that is what I will keep myself to naming at this point.
Let us go back in history. We had some history touched on. Fact – in the year 2000 - correct me if I am wrong – the 24-hour health clinic opened. A fact also not regularly told to the people of Palmerston by non-government members was there was always a six-months trial, to be reviewed. And it was reviewed. On the basis that no one was using it between the hours of 10 pm to 6 am or 8 am, that part of the service was cut because it was costing a fortune. Why was it implemented? I do not know; it was a different government at the time. However, I do know something - the Chief Minister of the time had his seat in Palmerston, one of his senior colleagues had his seat in Palmerston, and the current member for Blain had his seat in Palmerston.
Let me paint a different picture to the picture that has been presented. Let us say we knew that there was an NT election coming up. Let us say CLP polling showed that they were not travelling too well in Palmerston because they have not travelled too well in Palmerston in the federal election before. They got over the line, but there was drop in their Palmerston polls from what I recall, that showed it. They never said anything about: ‘Yes, we are opening this 24-hour clinic but only for a six-month trial’. Surprise, surprise, the six-month trial ended after the election when they were guaranteeing themselves almost that they would get back in government - they might lose a few more seats, but they certainly were not expecting to lose government - by which time they would get the same advice this government got from the Departmental of Health - that it was not sustainable. They would have canned it and there would not have been a murmur out of any of the CLP members if that happened. There is a word for that: pork barrelling! You feed up your own electorate to make people think that there is a big boost in services, and then you whip it away afterwards.
Fact: this government continued to subsidise the Farrar Medical Centre for an after-hours GP services from 6 pm to 10 pm. They did not subsidise anyone else in Palmerston. It is true that there is not another after-hours service exactly like that one, but there are other after-hours services. There is one at Oasis. Yes, it is not bulkbilling, I accept that ...
Mr Warren: It is for seniors.
Mr BURKE: It is for seniors. I tell you why it is for seniors, because the federal government currently funds clinics to provide that service. That funding is not guaranteed after the next election, mind you, so we will see whether it continues.
Another fact: Farrar after-hours service was never an emergency service. I have had constituents come to me who have used the service who had an emergency. The ambulance was called and they were taken to Royal Darwin Hospital. It was never an emergency service - never fulfilled that role, never pretended to. Again, I have received reports and I honestly do not know whether they are true or not. I have received comments from people who claim they are being told otherwise. I am being fair to you, member for Blain. If that is not so, put it on the public record that you have not said it, and I will tell people that they are misunderstanding you; that Farrar Medical Centre was providing some sort of emergency service.
Fact: this government received advice about how it was providing services to the Palmerston region. It took that advice and got recommendations on the basis of that advice. That advice was to cease funding after-hours bulkbilling GP services which are a federal government responsibility and transfer that money into providing services which are a Northern Territory government responsibility. That is what this government did. The result is the Palmerston Regional Health Plan and the additional services that are set out in that plan is where the extra resources have gone.
Now this may be a fine point, I accept that; government did not close Farrar Medical Centre. Government ceased providing a subsidy to do so. Other services provide an after-hours service. Farrar made a commercial decision not to, to simply cease it. I want to make it clear: I am not criticising them for that decision. I do not know their commercial-in-confidence information, but they made that decision.
Mr Mills: Have you spoken to them?
Mr BURKE: I have not because I know that there have been other discussions in place. I have not contacted them directly, no.
So the federal government’s responsibility – I will go back a step. What was one of the things that was shown about the use of the Farrar after hours service? Primarily the reason people were accessing it is because it was a bulkbilling service. Why did this government fund a subsidy for as long as it did? Because it recognised that there was a need to keep that bulkbilling service because there were no other after hours services operating. Why was that? Because since 1996 bulkbilling rates in the Darwin/Palmerston region have fallen from 67.7% in 1996 to 55.9% in 2005. From 2004 to 2005, the fall was from 57% to 55.9%. Why is that? Because whilst this government, the Territory government, was increasing its commitment to health and provision of health services for which it had responsibility the conservative federal government was ripping money out of the Medicare system because it did not believe in it. All you have to do is read some of the books on Howard before he was Prime Minister and when he was Treasurer. He never believed in the Medicare system, and he has been ripping money out of it ever since.
I noticed during the member for Blain’s speech, not once did he say what he had been doing about this important issue he claims not to be politicking on. I know one of the things he has done. He has been involved in one of the petitions. He did not tell me about it. He did not write me inviting my involvement. I found out because when I was in the shop I saw it there. I said: ‘Oh, what’s that?’ Oh, that is a petition. A bit like the one I dropped of before, hmm’. I tell you something else, when Trish Crossin, the member for Drysdale and I launched our petition I faxed a copy to the shadow minister for Health, the member for Greatorex, and to the member for Blain, and the Mayor of Palmerston.
A member: How many responses did you get?
Mr BURKE: Well, I will come to that because the member for Blain earlier was talking about how he had written some letters and had not received a single response. That was the exact response I got to my letter to you by fax on that date: no response.
The member for Blain has a petition out, I had a petition out. What have I been saying to people who approach me? I have been trying to outline the facts as honestly as I can and I have been saying to people: ‘Sure, if you disagree with me, let us talk about that but let us talk about it on the facts. If you want to sign both petitions, go ahead, I do not care. I would prefer you to sign both of them if that is what you feel. I am happy to disagree, but do so on the facts in terms of whether the Northern Territory government should have redirected and increased the money and other services or not’.
That is not what the member for Blain and others have been saying. No, they have been saying to people: ‘No, the local ALP members are confusing you. It has nothing to do with the federal government’. Bulkbilling has always been the province of the federal government.
We hear the member for Blain and the Leader of the Opposition say: ‘Let us not make this political. Let us work together. Let us be reasonable and fair’. I am happy to be reasonable and fair. I have been trying to be. I have been facing the political campaign after people have been misinforming Palmerston residents. I do not know, but the feedback I have received is that I am not doing too bad a job. I tell you what, though, at least I have the guts to put my name on my own publications. We had a flier come around Palmerston recently purporting to be a community flier. Do you know what I have discovered? The CLP …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Brennan pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: I thank honourable members. This flier purports to be a community-based flier and features three families; one I know, two I have never met before. I tell you what I have found out: the three families did not know each other before this. They were put together.
Perhaps you had better say something about that, member for Blain, and make it clear what involvement you have had in the Palmerston Focus because your name is not anywhere on here, and the CLP’s moniker is not on here, but it is your work. I can tell.
Mr Kiely: Is it?
Mr BURKE: Well, there are not too many people who will come out and quote that the Territory government received $237m from GST. Not too many people with that at their fingertips. This reads like every line out of the CLP running sheet. Some of it, as I said, is wrong: ‘NT government is reducing money to services in Palmerston’. No, it is not; it has increased funding. So make it clear. Deny you had anything whatsoever to do with this in your response, member for Blain. I will accept it. It is on the record.
At the end of my comments, I will table that, but I will be satisfied with a full denial that the member for Blain had anything to do with this because it is out there and I am telling them out there that he did.
I am not going to table this one. That is mine. You can tell it is mine; it has my name on it. So, yes, I am happy to get rid of the politics; happy to do it. I will continue giving the facts. I suggest that the CLP and those supporting the CLP do the same. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to add to this debate. As I said in the last sittings of parliament, and as the member for Brennan has said, GP services, including after hours services and bulkbilling, are the responsibility of the Commonwealth government. It is true, as the member for Blain has alluded, that this government has funded these services for the Farrar medical service for a period of approximately five years. The rationale for getting the funding there was that there was a scarcity of GP services in Palmerston and the Palmerston region. Over time, that has changed. The member for Brennan has alluded to that and he has named a number of those services in the Palmerston region. It is important to note that the member for Brennan has given the history, the initial trial, the report and what has happened subsequently with these services in the Palmerston area.
It is interesting to hear the member for Blain. He seems to have shifted his position a little, to acknowledge the fact that the Commonwealth does have responsibility for GP services, after hours and bulkbilling through Medicare. It is fair to say that the federal Health minister, Tony Abbott, also acknowledges that. The round-the-clock Medicare funding grant scheme is evidence of that and the fact that it has been offered all around Australia. I do not have the media releases with me - I tabled them in the last sittings of parliament - which showed that there were approximately 63 grants throughout Australia, one of them in the Northern Territory in Stuart Park but not in Palmerston.
Everyone acknowledges there is a need in Palmerston. In the latest visit of minister Abbott to the Northern Territory, he was asked questions about Palmerston. He acknowledged that he knew there were a couple of applications currently before the Commonwealth in relation to this, although naturally, as a minister, he could not foreshadow the results of those. However, he acknowledged the fact that it is a Commonwealth responsibility. A report on the ABC news of 9 November said something like this: the federal Health minister says a number of medical practices in Palmerston have applied for funding which would allow them to run an after-hours service with bulkbilling available. Tony Abbott says the grants are available and will be awarded by the end of the year’. Then Abbott said: ‘I cannot guarantee that is going to happen because in the end it is up to the doctors to decide how they are going to bill their patients, but there is money there to make it more worth their while to open after hours and to bulkbill patients who come’.
It is interesting to compare that response from the federal Health minister to that of David Tollner, member for Solomon, when he was speaking to Daryl Manzie on Top FM on 20 September 2006. Mr Tollner was asked about responsibility for the provision of GP services. His response was, typical Dave: ‘Well, you know, you got me beat there, Daryl’. He kicked off by saying it was all a Territory government responsibility, but even David Tollner has come to the realisation that GP services, bulkbilling and after-hours services are a responsibility of the federal government. I hope he has finally woken up that he should be advocating to Tony Abbott and to the Commonwealth Health Department to actually give another grant in the Northern Territory in Palmerston.
The member for Araluen, the Opposition Leader, tried to assert that the local ALP members in Palmerston and the member for Goyder were somehow remiss, that they were not representing their electorate. If there is anyone who has not represented their electorate in all of this it is David Tollner, MP for Solomon. That is clear.
Another measure you can use is the fact that the federal government has arrested the decline in bulkbilling nationally to some degree, but in the Territory it keeps on falling. David Tollner has to start taking responsibility for all of this. It is not good enough for the member for Araluen to come in here and put all her political spin - everything for the past week here in this place from the member for Araluen, the Opposition Leader, has been full of this incredible spin. She could almost get a place in the Australian test team, but the Poms probably need her more. She has bowled some real googlies, she has that much spin. Everything she says she is trying to attribute to leadership challenges. She is reading from crikey.com
If we are talking about rumours, I have heard a couple of rumours from very reliable sources in relation to the CLP. One relates that there is probably going to be a retirement soon on that side of the House - maybe even two, I am told. I suppose it is a bit hard with four of them, but I am not going to say which one. Obviously, it is not yet the member for Araluen, but it could be one or two of the others. There is a plan from the Central Council of the CLP, from old-time CLP people - they want to parachute people into those seats. That must be causing the member for Araluen quite a lot of spin in her own head because I know there is a lot of dissatisfaction with her in the CLP ...
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is wandering all over the place. We have a motion about bulkbilling services at Farrar Medical Centre …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, please, honourable members!
Dr LIM: The motion is about bulkbilling services at the Farrar Medical Centre. It is not about CLP pre-selection, or the Leader of the Opposition. It has nothing to do with that. This guy is just raving.
Madam SPEAKER: There is a fair bit of latitude in speeches such as this. There has been a lot of latitude today in many speeches. Minister, I ask you to get to the point fairly soon.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is interesting that the member for Greatorex – it is a bit of a tell, as they say in poker that he has got to his feet so quickly. Just previously in this very debate, it was the member for Araluen who was talking about leadership challenges and crikey.com. She went on for most of her speech about this. I will return to my speech, to the issue at hand. It is interesting that the word ‘twitchy’ has been used a few times here. It is obvious the CLP are very twitchy about what I mentioned then.
Lack of representation from the CLP: it was the member for Araluen – no, I think it was the member for Blain who talked about representing the dictates of political masters. I do not think any of our local members in the Palmerston region are doing that. I believe David Tollner is doing that, if you are talking about nuclear waste and other issues like that. I do not think the finger should be pointed to us in relation to that.
In answer to the member for Blain’s question, I have tried to meet with the federal Health minister; it was not convenient. I am not blaming him. I would like to speak to him on this issue. I am hoping that he will come through. We put quite a lot of pressure on him in relation to the correspondence and some of the media that we have done in relation to this, to ensure that there are after-hours services in Palmerston as part of his round-the-clock Medicare.
I know the member for Brennan wrote to the shadow minister. I have also contacted the shadow minister, and she put out a media release along with Trish Crossin which says a Beazley Labor government will deliver a bulkbilling after-hours service for Palmerston. It is important to remember Tony Abbott may well, in the next month or so, decide that he is going to fund another after-hours service in Palmerston. The question I ask is whether it is going to be a bulkbilling service. That is guaranteed, should there be a federal Labor government elected. Basically, they will ensure that there is not only an after-hours service, but it is also a bulkbilling service. I reiterate what I have said before that the percentage of bulkbilling in the Northern Territory through GPs has been plummeting in contrast to the rest of Australia, and David Tollner has done little to arrest that.
As the member for Brennan pointed out, this government has looked at our responsibilities in the Palmerston region and the demographic of people in Palmerston. We have realigned our services. We have almost doubled the funding into Palmerston for those community-style services that we believe are strategic and are in the best health interest of people in the Palmerston area. I will just name a few:
better child and maternal health services. A new child and maternal health service will begin before the end of the year for the region, and obstetric and gynaecology visits will increase;
occupational therapists and home discharge service will be expanded. RDH patients will be assisted by the occupational therapists prior to discharge with home visits to assess safety. The service is being expanded beyond Palmerston to include Humpty Doo, Acacia, and Darwin River. Occupational therapists continue to provide outpatient clinics three times per week for eligible RDH patients;
the member for Brennan mentioned breast screening services for Palmerston;
improved mental health services in the Palmerston region;
new and improved support for disabled young adults. Post-school options in Palmerston to provide care for young adults with high disability support needs;
new and improved child development services with occupational therapists and speech therapists;
improved home and community care. Expansion of home and community care service provided by Lovell Home Care service to Palmerston, Litchfield, Coomalie, and Cox and Finniss Shires;
new support for senior Territorians. Government funding of Australian Red Cross’ Telecross Services which monitors via telephone registered frail older people and people with a disability on a regular basis.
So there you have it, Madam Speaker, all in all a total of $500 000 of expanded services; services that the Northern Territory government should be providing. If we funded everything that the Commonwealth should be funding the Northern Territory we would soon go broke.
In answering some of the comments by the member for Blain, if the Northern Territory did not step back from the Palmerston service there is no way that the Commonwealth would come in and shoulder its responsibility. That is the fact of the matter.
There is another matter of equity: should the Northern Territory government be funding after hours bulkbilling services in the northern suburbs of Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, you name it? It comes down to a matter of equity. We do not have the resources to provide that sort of equity throughout the Territory for services that should be provided by the Commonwealth government. I hope that there are practices in Katherine, Tennant Creek, and other places that apply for round-the-clock Medicare or whatever it is, or if it is a Labor government in terms of after hours and bulkbilling services because there is a need out there and it needs to be fulfilled. The Commonwealth needs to step up to the plate and accept its responsibility.
Madam Speaker, I have covered most of the elements that I wanted to cover. The member for Brennan and I have clearly put the government’s position. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next month or so with the pressure that has been brought onto the Commonwealth to bear their responsibility, to shoulder their rightful responsibility for GP and bulkbilling services in the Palmerston region. I hope they do step up to the plate. I welcome the change in position by the member for Blain in his recognition that it is a Commonwealth responsibility and that is a big step. The CLP should be, through its federal member, David Tollner, strongly petitioning the Health minister, Tony Abbott, on this particular matter.
Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting the motion put forward by the member for Blain.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I cannot help myself. I have to respond to some of the wild ravings of the minister and the member for Brennan. The member for the Brennan really has to get his history right before he starts talking about any other issue here. Cyclone Tracy was in 1974, if I recall, four years before self-government. Whatever money poured into Darwin was in the hands of the Commonwealth government. It had nothing to do with the Northern Territory government. He obviously does not understand that.
The minister says that after-hours general practice is the responsibility of the federal government and therefore the federal government should provide an after-hours general practice and bulkbilling practice in Palmerston. The federal government provides, through the Commonwealth-State Health Agreement, funding for each jurisdiction to ensure that those jurisdictions, including the Northern Territory, can provide universal health care for all the people in those jurisdictions. The Northern Territory government receives very large sums of money from the Commonwealth government to provide health services across the board for all Territorians. They provide health care, in terms of hospital care, community health care, community dental care, oncology services, community nursing services, the lot. That is what the Commonwealth government provides funding for in state and territory jurisdictions.
It is the Northern Territory government’s responsibility to provide adequate health services to all Territorians wherever they live. That is their primary responsibility. In Darwin, you have the public facility called the Royal Darwin Hospital. In Alice Springs, we have the Alice Springs Hospital, the public facility. In Tennant Creek, likewise we have a hospital, in Katherine, Nhulunbuy and so on.
Palmerston and the region has some 44 000 people. They do not have a public facility. The Palmerston region, which extends as far as Adelaide River, I assume, has no public facility but the Royal Darwin Hospital. Is it equitable? Ask yourself. Is it equitable that people living between Palmerston and Adelaide River have to go to a private general practitioner who is prepared to open an after-hours service and, on top of it all, provide a bulkbilling practice at his economic peril? Is that equitable for the people of Palmerston and extending to the Adelaide River region? Is it equitable for the general practitioner to do that? The answer is no. It is not equitable. What is equitable is that the government must provide an accessible service at no cost to the people living in Palmerston and as far as Adelaide River.
People in the northern suburbs can access Royal Darwin Hospital at no cost. That is what I call equity. This Labor government says: ‘We are all for the battler; we are all about socialist policies and we want it to be equal for everyone’. Well, they are not being equal to everyone. People in Palmerston, and down to Adelaide River, deserve to have a publicly funded health facility. That is the reason the Country Liberal Party decided to embark on that. Maybe it was a Rolls Royce version of what ought to be provided, but it was provided and we made budgetary allowance to ensure that it was there to provide free and equitable services to the people of Palmerston and environs.
The moment this government got into power it reduced the hours to between 6 pm and 10 pm, four hours; from an all night service to a four-hour service. Maybe it was not used fully in the wee hours of the morning because most patients are at home in bed, sick or otherwise. By cutting it back, it forced people living in Palmerston down as far as Adelaide River, which takes over an hour drive, to the Royal Darwin Hospital emergency department. That is a long time. The same thing is happening with the closure of Farrar Medical Centre. Everyone is forced to go in there. From the time the practices are closed, if you cannot afford to pay an after-hours general practitioner the appropriate fee, you cannot go and see them, you have to track your way to the Royal Darwin Hospital emergency department. The government needs to understand that.
How many more people are now rolling up at the doors of the Emergency Department? What are the queues like because of the added population that is now accessing the Emergency Department? And when you think about the numbers of people lining up trying to get to the ED, it means that the time that a person has to wait to receive medical, or even nursing attention, increases because the queues get longer. Then you have to ask what are the adverse health outcomes arising out of long queues? The queues are longer. It takes you one hour, two hours, three hours, or five hours to see somebody. Your health’s deterioration has to be a lot worse five hours later than if you were to see somebody within the first half hour. That is going to cost the government a lot more money.
One patient in ED would cost you between $200 and $500. A general practice consultation, even subsidised by government, would be a fraction of that, and we are talking about $270 000 a year. Divide that by $500 and you see how many patients it takes to recoup that. This government is doing something that makes no economic or health sense, none at all. You are making people travel greater distances, taking longer before they get to medical attention, making people sicker before they get seen, and spending more money to get them better, all for the sake of $270 000. I do not believe that is a good economic rationale. I am sure, no matter how bad the health bureaucrats are, they could not be making those decisions based on this sort of information. It just does not add up. I would like to believe that our health bureaucrats are smarter than that.
This decision has to be political. I cannot see any other reason. That the government is prepared to allow the members for Drysdale and Brennan to cop the wrath of the people in Palmerston tells me that maybe your Cabinet colleagues and government believe that you two are dispensable. Lose all the seats south of Palmerston, including Barkly and Daly, and you lose nine seats. It does not really matter. The government will still be in power because of the northern suburbs. Look after the Royal Darwin Hospital and make sure the northern suburbs people are looked after, but it does not matter if Palmerston gets thrown to the wolves, the government is not going to lose its majority. So these people are dispensable, and they need to ask their Cabinet colleagues, why are they making that decision? For political gain? Short-term gain? To put the pressure on the member for Solomon, perhaps? Is that what government is about? Put short-term pressure on the member for Solomon, put his seat in jeopardy? Or is it about caring for Territorians? Caring for people who live in Palmerston? We all know many of them are on the lower socioeconomic ladder, who cannot afford an after-hours practice, which can cost anything from $70 to $130 per consultation, and when you add a prescription on top of that, it is going cost you $150 to $200 for a consult.
It is just not reasonable to ask somebody on low income to then pay for an after-hours service, not reasonable at all. The Royal Darwin Hospital can service the northern suburbs. You need to have some sort of facility in Palmerston, or even south of Palmerston, to provide a similar service. Maybe not as extensive as the Royal Darwin Hospital because that would be more than a Rolls Royce provision of health services after hours, but a basic service. An experienced general practitioner could provide that and, in an emergency where the general practitioner could not perform the services adequately, would then refer to the Royal Darwin Hospital after having instituted some resuscitative and remedial processes before the patient gets transferred to the Royal Darwin Hospital.
That is what it is about. It is no good saying: ‘Oh well, when the Palmerston clinic was open all night there was hardly anybody there. When the Palmerston clinic is not used what is the point in putting all that money in?’ Isn’t that what it is about? That this government provides comfort and security to people living in Palmerston. So, when they went to bed that night, if they woke up in the middle of the night unwell, they have a doctor they could go to. That is what it is about: looking after Territorians, their lifestyle, and their daily needs.
For the government to undertake this cynical exercise so that it can get some political mileage is just ludicrous. I have not been in full-time active practice for a few years, but I remember the days when I was in medical practice when I provided an after-hours, 24-hour service. I was available to my patients, they rang me up at any time day or night, and I provided after-hours house calls to ensure that their health was maintained. Over recent years, the Commonwealth government has recognised that there is insufficient support for the doctors who are prepared to provided after-hours services so it has entered into joint or collaborative exercises with Divisions of General Practice, with local community hospitals, and consumer groups, to develop an after-hours practice serviced by the resident general practitioners of the community, assisted by the local community hospital to provide a bulkbilling and after-hours practice.
The Alice Springs community has a practice, not entirely bulkbilling, that is partly funded by the federal government, assisted by the Northern Territory government, supported by the Division of General Practice, and manned by general practitioners who are in private practice in Alice Springs - and it works. This government should be encouraging that in Palmerston. The subsidy that was provided to the Farrar Medical Centre was, in a way, doing that. If the government were of a mind to withdraw that $270 000, before it withdrew the money, it should get into discussions with doctors who are interested in providing after-hours care. Talk to the Division of General Practice in Darwin to try to establish such an after-hours practice. It can be done. But no, the government did not do that. All it did was unilaterally announce that it was going to remove this money - and damn the consequences.
The consequences are that people in Palmerston and the environs suffer. I have had phone calls, e-mails, and letters asking: ‘What are we going to do? We live so far away. My Mum has asthma and she needs to be able to get help and have medical care or medical assistance quickly if she gets an attack, and the Royal Darwin Hospital is so far away’.
The government has to come back a little and come to its senses and get its bureaucrats to work out what it costs for the extended queues of people waiting at the Royal Darwin Hospital Emergency Department looking for treatment. People coming from Adelaide River or Palmerston or wherever are adding to the queue. The cost per patient that it generates for them to have their services provided at the Emergency Department - I can bet you anything you like that the cost at ED has now gone well past what it would cost to keep the Farrar after-hours medical clinic going. I can guarantee you that it will have gone well past that by now in just one month since its closure. The number of people who have gone there would be significant, the adverse outcomes while waiting for treatment, and the cost to treat those patients once they get through the doors of ED would have been significant - not to mention how many might have entered into the hospital ward system because they became so ill they had to be admitted, whether it be for a night or five nights or whatever.
The cost is being borne by the Northern Territory government and the taxpayer. We are burying it now because of this decision that you have made. We have not saved a single cent. Putting the $500 000 into other allied health care is commendable. I take my hat off to the government for lateral thinking and providing speech therapists and occupational therapists and the like, that is important. But having access to a doctor in an after hours situation is also very important.
As a mother, Madam Speaker, I am sure you would know that many a time when your child is sick through the day, you deal with it, you cope with it without much worry. When it gets dark something switches in your head and you start to worry: ‘What if my child gets sicker tonight?’ If a child gets sicker through the day you can go to the hospital, you can see a doctor somewhere, but once it gets dark, you worry. You worry what you are going to do if your child gets sicker, where you are going to get help, you do those things. Palmerston people deserve better than what this government is giving them. You can worry, you do not care, if you get really crook go to the Royal Darwin Hospital. What if you do not have a car, how are you going to get yourself there? Catch a cab? Even if you get a cab in Palmerston to go to the Royal Darwin Hospital, that is not the right thing for this government to do.
The government should in this first instance re-fund the Farrar Medical Centre as an interim measure. At the same time, instead of posturing and carrying on about the member for Solomon, the minister should be speaking with the member for Solomon and both Senators for the Northern Territory to ask them to jointly approach the federal Health minister to seek some out-of-turn funding to bring back an after-hours medical service which will be provided free of out-of-pocket expenses for the people living in Palmerston and environs. It is not too hard to do, you can do it. While you are negotiating, in the interim re-fund the after-hours service so that Palmerston and those areas have some form of security and some form of comfort that they can go to a doctor after hours if they need to.
That is what it is about. There is no point talking about all of the various things that the Northern Territory government has done in terms of health. This is about basic health care of people living in Palmerston and environs, people who have low incomes who need some form of government support to obtain what is known everywhere as normal health care. We have 44 000 people. The government must provide it on the basis of 80 000 in the northern suburbs, and 50 000 in Central Australia.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments that have been made on this important matter. I trust that the considerations have focused predominantly on the needs of those who avail of them of such services rather than the more defensive approach which is driven by political self-interest. I quite sincerely welcome the introduction of the member for Brennan to this debate. It is heartening to see members of the backbench participating in debates. That must have been some particular concession provided to allow a member, who is not a minister, on a General Business Day to participate in this debate. It is encouraging to see some loosening up. Perhaps we will see greater vitality in the operation of democracy in the Northern Territory. It is healthy.
Both the Health minister and the member for Brennan made an effort to distance themselves from any charge of being politically motivated in their decision. It was telling to stand back from the words and note the claims, and to note that the name of the current member for Solomon was used so many times. I did not count it, but the number of times the Health minister used the name of the member for Solomon, by his complete title, was telling. It revealed that the focus is not on families, their needs and finding solutions or some way of getting us through this impasse, but it is in fact a political one, and the federal campaign is ringing loud and clear.
The directions have been issued from headquarters of what you must run in this parliament and the way you must approach these issues. It is primarily political in nature. There is a solution, and that is the purpose of this debate: to find a way through this. If we think about the families who need this service – and, believe me, they do - there has been an expectation raised and supported for half a decade, five years. It has grown in use and is depended upon by a number of families. The local members and the Health minister have had the opportunity for people to tell their stories.
Some of those people are hard-working folk who do not have the time to get in the ear of a government politician. They are not too interested in the games that are played to shift blame from one place to the other. They just want what they have grown accustomed to remaining there. You can play your big boy games between the Territory and the Commonwealth. Play your game but leave us be to raise our families. There is a way through it, and I outlined that. I hope it registers at least with the sensibilities of those on the other side who have the capacity – not government, but people – and have a responsibility at a particular time to make a decision.
This motion, which you will quickly cast as a political game that does not involve people but points on the score board, involves people. I only wish that I had eye contact with the member for Brennan at this point. I cannot see him but I am sure he can hear. This is the problem: yes, I acknowledge that there are dollars available from the federal government. You acknowledged that. Those dollars might be able to assist the families in Palmerston I endeavour to represent. The problem is, which the minister did not allude to in his reading of the letter from Mr Abbot, the federal Health minister, was that this clinic did not apply. Why? The reason this clinic did not apply is that it did not believe it needed to because it thought it had an arrangement with the Territory government. If they were caring and sensitive enough to the primary focus of all this, which is the families that need the care, they would have gone ahead at the time and said: ‘Listen, we are going to break our arrangement with you and I urge you in an appropriate time to now shift your request to the federal government’. But they did not have that opportunity. They were dropped and they were left uncertain. They were not looked after. They who had the tender for a number of years were not looked after and enabled to shift their attention to another source, an alternative source of income. That is very telling. That shows the nature of the care that has not been provided in all of this. That once again reveals that the motivation is primarily political.
The families, not too interested in the blame shifting, are clearly used as pawns, that being the game and, as the member for Nelson very succinctly put it, being used as leverage in a bigger game. Those who are being used as levers in this bigger game are being crushed and bruised in their concerns.
As the member for Greatorex said, and I welcome his contribution too, the cost is going to be shifted to other pockets, largely those who can ill afford it, who will make a longer trip into Royal Darwin Hospital. That is the cost of fuel, the cost of time and, at a greater risk to those who are most vulnerable, particularly those young ones who are being cared for by concerned parents, and that is another cost that is going to shift to the Health minister and then across to the Treasurer. There are some really funny games and it just does not stack up. It has already been referred to that there is a way through this. I am convinced that there has not been appropriate care and consideration given to the families in the enactment of this decision. It is no coincidence that the federal campaign is just around the corner - this is a part of it. You are using the same language that has been used with other issues that you are running at this particular time. I have been here long enough to hear it, I am used to it now – disappointed, I must say.
Anyway, you have been given an opportunity to solve the problem. I would be delighted if you did take that offer up. For the member for Brennan, just so that you can have your confidence restored in the quality of the people who operate in this field, it is not always driven by politics. There have been some fairly genuine efforts to try to find a solution. You can slam us in the corner here and ask: ‘After wrecking the Territory for 27 years, why don’t you do something?’ Well, I am not going to report to you and tell you what I have done. I have done the darndest that I can from my position to try to find a solution to this. It is quite plain to me that there has not been sufficient care to drive a proactive solution in this regard, as it is being driven, quite clearly in my view, by political considerations rather than any considerations for the families affected by this decision.
There is a way through this. You could have taken greater care, but we are left now with a problem that I believe is causing some political pain for the member for Brennan. The member for Drysdale will wear it, but I guess they sort of weigh it up and think: ‘We can shake it off or work out a clever strategy and we will be able to get through it’.
As I said before, I welcome the comments from the member for Brennan; it is good to hear those. Thank you to the Health minister for his comments in this. The member for Araluen too, weighed into this very important issue. The member for Greatorex and the member for Nelson, I sincerely appreciate your contributions. I urge honourable members to support the motion and reinstate the funding to this important clinic whilst the big boys play their political game.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 23 August 2006.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, this bill, now proposed three times by the Country Liberal Party, would amend the Sentencing Act. It would prohibit courts considering customary law to which an offender may be subject as a community member, or a cultural practice of a community of which an offender is a member, in determining sentencing.
She openly admits in her second reading speech receiving the assistance of the Commonwealth government. I believe it demonstrates, yet again, just how far the CLP pales these days to just pale shadows of their federal masters instead of the CLP that once ran the Northern Territory. At least then it had some free thinking amongst its members in providing as is necessary Territory solutions to uniquely Territory issues. It is a long way from the glory days of the CLP when they are told what to do by their federal masters. In fact, this bill is simply no more than doing the federal government’s bidding following Commonwealth government amendments along similar lines. She would have been better off going back over the Parliamentary Record and reading the previous Northern Territory Attorney-General’s responses to her earlier bills which clearly set out the government’s objections to support of these amendments.
This government believes courts must be free to take into account every relevant consideration in sentencing in order to deliver an appropriate sentence. Otherwise sentencing simply becomes a mechanical, thoughtless exercise along the lines of the mandatory sentencing that the CLP is so fond of, so that it administers exactly the same sentence on everyone convicted of the same crime regardless of how the individual’s personal circumstances or beliefs were affected in the committing of the crime. The community recognises, for example, that specific forms of abuse or taunting behaviour toward a deeply religious person, for example, could lead to an offence that would not have occurred if the same abuse had been directed at a non-religious person. It is, therefore, a pretty fundamental principle of fairness that a person’s religious or cultural beliefs ought be taken into account in such situations - not to justify or excuse the crime, but as a factor in sentencing.
In the Territory, if an individual judge errs and hands down a manifestly inadequate sentence as a result of their consideration of any offender’s cultural practice or belief in customary law, it has invariably been corrected on appeal. One example is the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the Yarralin case. Members will recall a sentence in the original case was appealed as being manifestly inadequate. The Court of Criminal Appeal on that occasion sent a very clear message in deciding on this case and I quote:
It was a very clear message about the weight to be placed on cultural belief. It is a clear message about the duty of the court to protect weak and vulnerable members of the community when crimes have been committed against them. In the Yarralin case, the Court of Appeal made a significant statement on how this complex area is to work.
The Country Liberal Party shows this House that by continuing to press into place legislation about process, they have forgotten that the real emphasis has to be on changing the circumstances that breeds violence in the first place, and capturing and bringing to justice quickly those who commit violence. This government has taken a wide range of legislative action to address violence in the Territory community. We have undertaken a community-wide program highlighting the unacceptability of domestic violence. We have undertaken a program of putting 200 additional police onto the streets. Police undertake specific violence crackdown programs, particularly in relation to domestic violence. We have changed the sexual assault laws. The Domestic Violence Act is currently under review as is the Evidence Act. These initiatives are balanced and appropriate responses. We have introduced widespread and effective programs attacking alcohol abuse and the antisocial behaviour that flows from it, particularly violence.
No member should be in any doubt that substance abuse, particularly alcohol, is at the base of much of the violence in the Northern Territory. In Groote Eylandt, a community that has had more than its share of violence over the years, the implementation of a strong alcohol plan along with the permits supported by the broader community has resulted in a significant reduction of violence, other crime, absenteeism from work, and many other problems. I expect alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs to continue to have a positive effect, as is happening on the Tiwi Islands. I am confident they will in my home community of East Arnhem when they are introduced on 1 March 2007.
We introduced, under a barrage of criticism from the Country Liberal Party during the last election, a comprehensive approach to antisocial behaviour. As well as offering a stronger health response, this government also said that antisocial behaviour and disruption to people’s lives would be punished with a strong police and legal response. The Leader of the Opposition is very fond of quoting The Australian. On 28 June 2005 in The Australian, the Opposition Leader had a quote herself. She said:
That is a view that does not sit very easily with the political minders who run this Leader of the Opposition, former Country Liberal Party members of parliament, and of course the Liberal Party in Canberra. Now she is told that she has to act tough, be strong. That is the real motive behind this legislation that she has introduced. It is what she has been instructed to do, not what in her own heart she really believes.
The Martin government believes in tackling crime, violence and the underlying causes of both. We have introduced a range of legislative and legal weapons to do so. We have significantly increased our ability to respond in a health context as well. That is the Territory’s approach, that is the approach endorsed by Territorians, and that is why we will not play at the edge of these issues with the sort of legislation raised today.
The Territory complies with the COAG communiqu. There is nothing in our law that excuses, justifies, authorises, requires or lessens the seriousness of violence or sexual abuse. For these reasons the government does not support the bill.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is difficult to thank the Attorney-General for his comments. I do not know who wrote that speech, but they should not be part of the team worth the $8m to $10m you are spending on wages on the fifth floor. That was a shocker. That was arguably the worse contribution I have heard on such a serious matter since I have been in parliament.
Firstly, let’s get a few things right dealing with the atrocious contribution of the Territory’s first law officer. Your reference to me doing this bill after the Commonwealth did theirs is wrong. The Commonwealth passed legislation probably seven or ten days ago, couple of weeks thereabouts. Indeed, on the plane on the way up this time or last time I read the entire parliamentary debate. So, wrong, Attorney-General. Just like your colleague, the Transport minister, you sought to either misrepresent the truth or you just do not have your head across the issue.
Last time your predecessor said that the government’s opposition to changes to the Sentencing Act in relation to customary law could not possibly be made because if the changes were made they would offend the provisions of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. On the strength of that, I met with and wrote to the federal Attorney-General about that matter. The federal Attorney-General then indicated that the act would be changed. It is wrong to suggest that we are following the lead of the Commonwealth, but I was delighted when the Commonwealth passed its legislation.
The next issue the Attorney-General raised was that I am motivated, apparently, by my staff wanting to be tough and a few other things. How dare you tell me what my motivations are. My motivations are clear for all to see from about 2003 in this parliament at least. The audacity and the arrogance to assume that my staff have somehow wound me up to bring in this bill is amusing. The Attorney-General cannot be taken seriously in any event. I stand on my track record any day of the week. The sooner the member for Nhulunbuy retires, the better it will be for all of us.
In his ramblings he got off to gaoling drunks. Not quite sure why he went down that path. Whoever wrote the speech, I am not quite sure why you went down that path. I note that the Attorney-General has said that alcohol is the basis for violence; contrast that with the Chief Minister who, only a few months ago, seemed to hold the extraordinary view that it was overcrowding and housing that caused sexual violence against children. You apparently, according to all and sundry, are on the same team as the Chief Minister. You may wish to talk to her about it so at least you can get your lines right.
It was interesting that for the third time, not one indigenous member of this parliament has sought to be involved in the debate. You come in here, you proudly assert your indigenous credentials when it suits you, and yet on the tough issues you are nowhere to be seen and nowhere to be heard. How do you sleep at night?
The Attorney-General was wrong when he said that in the Yarralin case it was corrected on appeal. It should not have to have been corrected on appeal. It boils down to something even the Attorney-General should be able to understand: either the law needs to be changed or it does not. You cannot just say: ‘Oh well, it was fixed up on appeal so therefore the law is okay’. You have said nothing about whether the law in its present form needs to be amended because you say it is all fixed up. Have a view.
In a media release issued by the Chief Minister not long after the decision was made to appeal the Yarralin case, she said, that subject to the appeal: ‘We will look at this and we will see what to do’. So the door was open a bit. The former member for Stuart indicated in answer to a question I asked that the door had just started to open. Maybe that is why he left; because someone on that side closed it and they have shut it down again. In any event, the Chief Minister is on the record and from memory she was quoted in The Australian and elsewhere as saying we will look at the Yarralin case on appeal and if the law needs to be changed we will do it.
How disingenuous it was that when the appeal succeeded, as it should have, the Chief Minister in her usual fashion was nowhere to be seen, she stumbled her way through and was not asked by a journalist in the Northern Territory: ‘Do you have a view on whether the law should be changed?’
The Chief Minister has been silent on this issue and that is partly why she is under the pump. It is all about her atrocious performance in indigenous affairs. That is why the member for Millner wrote his famous memo talking about hatred that existed in the Aboriginal community against the Chief Minister. No wonder, because women and children expect and deserve to be protected. They expect to see some leadership. Bring it on; we hope to see some from the member for Wanguri in due course.
I did not expect the Attorney-General’s contribution to be up to much, but I did not expect it to be that bad. Going back to why it is that the law needs to be changed, I will rely on my third second reading speech. I have already touched upon the reasons the Racial Discrimination Act changes left this government with nowhere to go on that. Now they are inventing other reasons why the law cannot be changed to benefit the victims of sexual violence. Sexual violence, for those who are unaware and I assume everyone is, is the term now adopted by the United Nations in a report issued in August. I commend that report to you. I have it upstairs if anybody is interested, but of course no one on the other side of the Chamber is.
Customary law: let us go through it again. There is nothing culturally appropriate about violence. Customary law in all of its guises should be precluded from the courts’ deliberations when sentencing. 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. There is a failure on the part of this Attorney-General and, by inference, every single member of the government, to recognise the insidious way customary law is used to benefit violent Aboriginal men. It is clear to me that members opposite choose to ignore the insidious ways in which it works, or perhaps they simply do not understand why that is the case. As I said in my second reading speech on 23 August 2006, there seems to be an hysterical rejection of any consideration of the removal of customary law for sentencing purposes by some in the legal profession. That is the case. It also amounts to an hysterical rejection of it by the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party and they should hang their heads in shame.
As some members would know, Nanette Rogers was recently nominated as the Australian of the Year in the Northern Territory category. Despite the efforts of the Chief Minister on occasion to undermine Dr Rogers’ credibility, I do not believe that anyone else in the government has seriously sought to undermine her or attack her credibility. It is against that light that I refer members again to what she said in the Lateline interview on 15 May 2006 when she was talking about her research for her doctoral thesis. She said that she was:
Customary law, in all its guises, is used frequently in Territory courts. It is used in an attempt to reduce or excuse an offender’s criminality. I am quoting here from my second reading speech:
I have never known the member for Wanguri’s view on this because he, like all of his colleagues, has never contributed, from my recollection, to the debate. However, I do wish him well in his endeavours to move the current Chief Minister out of her seat because I hope that he can bring a fresh approach. I hope that under his leadership he will look at this with fresh eyes and say: ‘It is the right thing to do, is it not?’ I hope the indigenous members of the Labor Caucus can speak with him in a more direct and open way than they can speak to the current Chief Minister.
I remain eternally optimistic and look forward to having this debate again and again until this government sees the errors of its ways and, under a new leader they decide to do the decent thing.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 23 August 2006.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition several times today in trying to prosecute a point, or win support either for a motion or a bill before the Chamber, has this great need to reflect on what may or may not be happening within the Labor Party, particularly around leadership and this fabrication of a leadership challenge by the member for Wanguri. She leads a party of four, of which one member, the member for Greatorex, her fellow colleague in Alice Springs, cannot even speak to her. They do not even speak to each other. They can barely be in the same room together.
The federal member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, cannot bear her - cannot bear the thought of her and cannot even speak with her. He tells it pretty loudly around the traps!
A division of four - you cannot divide four very far before you finish up with individual cells. There is only one in each one. Here we have two members from Alice Springs. I do not how they go on the plane. I wonder if Qantas ever think two members from the CLP are on the plane tonight, so they sit them together. I bet they do not! I bet the Qantas staff in Alice Springs are a bit wised up to that. They say to the members for Araluen and Greatorex: ‘You are in 1A; you are in 2B. That is the other side of the aircraft and one seat back, so you do not have to talk to each other on the way up’.
Do not carry on in here about division on this side when you cannot even communicate with a caucus of four. One wonders how you get your position on bills because it is necessary to caucus on what position you will take on a particular bill. Obviously, the member for Greatorex must tell the member for Blain: ‘Please pass on my views because I will not be at the meeting because I cannot stand being in the same room as the leader’.
Returning to the bill before us, for four years …
Ms Carney: No wonder you lot are in such trouble.
Mr STIRLING: The other thing that you never admit in politics is that something that has got up your nose, but the patronising condescension and contemptuous attitude that the Leader of the Opposition has for anyone who is not a lawyer has been palpable today - just absolutely palpable. She resents, she hates, it burns her up inside, that the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory is not lawyer. As proud as I am …
Ms Carney: It burns me up inside that you are so stupid!
Mr STIRLING: Look at her, look at her, it is in her words.
Ms Carney: It burns me up inside that you are so stupid. You should not be the Attorney-General. There should be someone else - anyone else who can do that job.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: … I will tell you one thing. As proud as I am to be the Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, that pride pales into insignificance with the pride I carry in not being a lawyer.
For four years, the then Country Liberal Party government refused to recruit as much as one single new police officer position into the Territory. The consequences of those actions over those four years were so significant it has taken this government more than a decade to turn around the effect that that has had on the police force over the longer term. Those moves saw experienced police fleeing the Northern Territory interstate to the AFP, the Queensland police force, and the New South Wales police force, as their operational workplace needs were ignored again and again, and again, by the then CLP government headed at that time by Marshall Perron who, in many ways, was a consummate Chief Minister. However, he had a blind eye when it came to police, as did the Police Association of the time much to their discredit. One wonders what Commissioner Palmer was supposed to make of it with a government that refused to recruit any police to the police force. It took a change of government in 2001 in order to bring any change to that outcome.
The O’Sullivan Report commissioned by the member for Wanguri in his time as Police minister has seen an enormous and ongoing investment in the Northern Territory Police Force. It has seen us recruit 200 additional positions, and provide a better working environment for police, Aboriginal Community Police Officers and auxiliary police. We have improved the technology available to police and the equipment they use. We have set into place laws that allow them to get on with their job. The new anti-gang laws of last sittings which will come into effect in the very near future is one example.
We have responded to clear limits in the law. We have corrected archaic legal practices which were not operationally effective for police. This government strongly supported a good pay outcome in the last enterprise bargaining agreement to ensure we would continue to attract quality police officers to the job. We know it is a tough job and we hold our police force in the highest regard for the job they do in our community. We will not support this legislation because it does not add one single bit of safety to the police workplace, nor does it prevent assaults, nor does it stop police from having to deal with contentious and difficult situations.
It is legislation the Leader of the Opposition again has been told to introduce by her minders who worry when she writes things such as she did in The Australian in the middle of 2005. They worry out of a growing perception that she is soft. She has no personal commitment to improving the lives of our police officers in our police force. If she did she would not be putting this to the House but she would be seeking real ways of improving the workplace for our police.
This bill seeks to introduce mandatory minimum sentences to the Northern Territory and nothing more. It is the old standby for the CLP: when all else fails - mandatory sentencing. ‘That shows how tough on law and order we are’. It is nothing more than that. The government opposed this sort of mandatory sentencing when in opposition.
The very first bill passed by the Attorney-General in the new Martin Labor government in 2001 under Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, was the removal from the books of mandatory sentencing. We pledged that that would be the first legislation that we overturned. I was very proud to be in the Chamber when Peter Toyne introduced and subsequently passed that legislation. We opposed it then. We oppose it now.
The proposed changes under the private member’s bill do not increase the maximum penalties for the crimes that already exist. The opposition concedes that they are sufficient. The government knows and appreciates the tough and at times quite dangerous job that police do, and we support them in that work. We do what we can as a government and as an employer to protect them. A scheme such as this will not protect police. It has been shown in the past that similar schemes have no positive impact on crime rates whatsoever.
The courts consider offences against police to be of the utmost seriousness and again I say there is an adequate sentencing range available for these offences under the current provisions. Maximum sentences of five, seven and 16 years when found guilty on indictment are tough and sufficient. The courts exercise their discretion wisely. If their sentences in such cases are considered too lenient they can be appealed and that is the proper protection for our police. Assaults on police are considered violent offences under the Sentencing Act, full stop. That means if an offender is found guilty of assaulting police in any way, having previously been found guilty of another violent offence of any kind, they must serve a sentence of imprisonment. That is regardless of the seriousness of either offence. It is already tough sentencing and a more effective deterrent than that proposed by the opposition. Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill is opposed.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, what entertainment the outgoing member for Nhulunbuy has provided. We know that things will step up, in the lead-up to the next election, and bring it on, bring it on. The fantasy - what goes on in the member for Nhulunbuy’s mind is a mystery …
Mr Stirling: Do not presume to know what goes on in my mind! It just underlines your arrogance again.
Ms CARNEY: Well, you presumed to know what my motives were, sport, so if you cannot take it, do not dish it out. What goes on in the member for Nhulunbuy’s mind is a mystery no doubt to his friends, colleagues and certainly to those of us on this side of the parliament. Nice try in relation to the theme about division in the opposition. That is just extraordinary. Let us do a refresher course, will we? I have referred to the Crikey document a lot. Let us refer to …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: You even got an editorial in The Australian. Let me see. That was on 20 November. Was the CLP in the paper that day? I do not think so. I will tell you what was, though, and I will quote:
that is indigenous affairs:
The editorial, we were not in there, said. and I quote:
I do like reading The Australian. The journalists there write so well and so accurately. The next one is The Australian, 20 November, an article by Ashleigh Wilson. I know you went out to attack him and there you go, he was less than impressed, clearly. Heading:
We can go on. Let us talk about what the member for Barkly had to say on ABC radio on 20 November, and this is a hoot. Asked a question by the ABC reporter in Alice Springs, the member for Barkly said:
He fluffed his lines. Everyone else came out said: ‘No, no, no. We love her, we love her’. Not the member for Barkly. He fluffed it because he came out and said: ‘I do not know how this story got out; we are really upset that the story got out’.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, there has been a degree of latitude today, but it is getting quite wide at the moment. This is apparently about assault on police officers.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, you were in the Chair, I understand it, when the Attorney-General had quite a bit to say …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand, but this is your …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I do believe, if you gave a ruling, there should not be any digression.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Sanderson. Leader of the Opposition, this is your bill and I am drawing your attention to the fact that the latitude is getting extremely wide now and if you could come back to the content of your bill, please.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I note your request and similarly you have acknowledged the great liberty and latitude undertaken by the Attorney-General who spent two thirds of his time responding to the bill making up fantastic stories, fantasy being an important word, about the CLP. I have an obligation, as we all know, in reply to rebut any matter, stupid or otherwise, put in the course of the debate.
There has been much national attention on the failings of this government, much national attention on why it is the Chief Minister is currently under threat. What has been interesting is that not much has been written by the member for Nhulunbuy. His performance as Attorney-General has not yet been assessed by the people of the Northern Territory, nor the media. Although he has not had the portfolio long, I can make a fairly good assessment: he is really bad at it. The Territory’s biggest bill, the legal profession one the other day, he had not even read it. His contribution in the Sentencing Amendment Bill was appalling. I do not care if he is a lawyer or not; he might have a law degree, for all I know. All I know about him is that he used to be a teacher somewhere. Probably like other Labor members, he probably was a union apparatchik. I do not know if he has got a law degree. It matters not to me.
What matters to me is that the Northern Territory government, under the leadership of this Chief Minister, make good laws. What matters to me is that the Labor Party gets it right when it comes to protecting the interest of Territorians.
Equally, what the …
Mr Stirling: Your intellectual arrogance betrays you.
Ms CARNEY: Have you finished or what?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: I have 20 minutes. I can keep talking.
The Attorney-General, in his remarkably bad performance, got it wrong by suggesting that we just sort of got this idea and when in doubt chucked it in the pot. Nothing could be further from the truth. I note the reference to my minders - hello, minders, I am sure you are watching and hooting with laughter at the suggestion that I was told to do this. It really is astonishing.
I will tell you where the idea came from, Attorney-General. It came from the Northern Territory Police Association. The Northern Territory Police Association called on you to do this. The Northern Territory Police Association called on government to introduce legislation like this. The former Police minister, the now demoted minister, him representing a threat to the Chief Minister, was at the same Police Association Conference I was where, in my speech, I invited the police members to speak with the then Police minister with a view to ascertaining what the basis and level of his objections were to the proposal.
So don’t you come in here, through you Mr Deputy Speaker, Attorney-General, and say: ‘You just plucked it from you nowhere, or your minders made it up or whatever.’ It was the Police Association. I am glad that your contribution is coming to an end, not just in terms of the Notice Paper, but your parliamentary career generally, member for Nhulunbuy, because it is getting worse. You cannot be taken seriously; you will not be taken seriously. The facts speak for themselves. There is a Latin maxim about that, but since you do not like lawyers very much, I will not bore you with it.
In any event, this is a good bill, one that was requested by the Police Association. Be it on your head that you have so stupidly opposed it. We all know how hard police officers work. We take the view that this bill makes some simple amendments to the Criminal Code. Not even the member for Nhulunbuy should be able to say that he does not understand it. He should understand it, and why it is that he, like the former Police minister, refuses to enact this legislation or agree with it, I do not know.
What I suspect might happen with the legislation however is, as we roll up to the next Territory election, we will probably see this or a variation of it before this Chamber. I look forward to going through the debate tonight. By then, of course, the member for Nhulunbuy will have retired. He will be out fishing, wherever it is he likes to go fishing, and we can talk about him, both in fond and perhaps not so fond terms.
However, mark my words, you blokes will come back and you will come up with a variation of this for two reasons. One, you know it is the right thing to do, and two, because my understanding is that the Police Association will continue to ask you to do it. The bill clearly should be supported.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 23 August 2006.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am absolutely aghast that we are actually debating this bill this evening. I am quite astounded that we are debating the bill this evening. Honourable members will be aware of the fiasco that surrounded the introduction of the opposition’s dodgy code of conduct on the last General Business Day, and they also put on the Notice Paper this legislation to support a code of conduct that could never be enacted because it actually contravenes the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act.
At the time, in August of last year, as Leader of Government Business, I provided and tabled in this House advice from the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory on the validity of clause 2.2 of the Northern Territory Code of Conduct for Ministers and Members. This was formal advice from the Solicitor-General that has been tabled in this House. It has been in the Table Office, as it should be. There was a debate around this at the time. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who would purport to be a future Attorney-General would be seeking this evening in the parliament to advance legislation which, quite clearly, the Solicitor-General has said would be inconsistent with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and could not validly operate in this parliament, I find quite extraordinary.
The Leader of the Opposition should have accepted the Solicitor-General’s advice and withdrawn or deferred or sought to amend this bill. It is quite extraordinary that she is seeking to progress this bill this evening, in direct contradiction of the advice from the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory. I find it quite extraordinary. The Solicitor-General makes very clear in his advice that was tabled on the 25 August this year - and I will quote from it on page 3:
Back to the advice from the Solicitor-General:
Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition who, by her own professional standing as a lawyer, is seeking in the parliament of the Northern Territory to progress legislation which the Solicitor-General, in advice tabled in this House, says exceeds the powers and privileges of the House of Representatives and is beyond the legislative capacity of the Assembly. It is absolutely extraordinary. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to acknowledge that.
Obviously, the government cannot possibly support this bill, and attempt to put into law legislation that is beyond the legislative capacity of this Assembly on advice. Therefore, I would call on the Leader of the Opposition, in speaking in conclusion of this second reading debate, not to seek to progress the bill to the third reading, and to withdraw this legislation as per the advice of the Solicitor-General. We will not be supporting this bill.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Wanguri just does not get it. He just does not get it, which is unfortunate given his Chief Ministerial aspirations. I would have thought that even he would know that the federal government would take notice of requests from any Territory government to seek changes to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act if the Territory government wanted to do so.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: What does it all boil down to? Because that little grub over there …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr Henderson: You are a second-rate, suburban lawyer!
Mr Stirling: Oh, worse, a bottom feeder, a bottom dweller!
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, resume your seat.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I request that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw that remark that I am a grub.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I did not hear …
Mr KIELY: I heard it; it is on the record. I request that she withdraw it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, do you accept that you used the word ‘grub’ to the member for Sanderson?
Ms CARNEY: I did use the word ‘grub’. I am happy to withdraw it on the basis that they withdraw terms like ‘bottom feeder’ and a number of other offensive terms.
Mr Stirling: That is exactly what you are.
Ms CARNEY: They are very twitchy, very twitchy.
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind you that if she is going to challenge you it has to be in writing. I once again request that she withdraw …
Ms Carney: I did.
Mr KIELY: … the offensive language that she is using as per the relevant subsection.
Ms CARNEY: I withdrew, Mr Deputy Speaker, of course I did.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can withdraw unconditionally please, Leader of the Opposition. You put conditions on it.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I ask that …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed with your speech.
Ms CARNEY: ... I ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you request the member for Sanderson to withdraw the reference. I heard ‘bottom feeder’.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not …
Mr KIELY: Speaking to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not make such a remark.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, as I initially stated I did not hear the words used in the commotion.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, if the term ‘bottom feeder, bottom dweller’ - that refers to the pretty low life that scunges across the bottom of the ocean picking a little here, a little there, trying to stay out of everybody’s trouble. That was the analogy I was referring. But here is a person purportedly trained in the law, a degree in law …
Ms Carney: What is the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Mr STIRLING: … and has no less than the authority of advice from the Solicitor-General that she wants to defy it …
Ms Carney: Mr Deputy Speaker, what was the point of order?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is completing his point of order.
Mr STIRLING: … I cannot believe it. But I will withdraw the term …
Ms Carney: Thank you. It was not hard was it?
Mr STIRLING: … bottom feeder.
Ms Carney: Gee, I do wish you would …
Mr STIRLING: She is. She has proven it.
Ms Carney: … hurry up, hurry up and …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, Leader of the Opposition. I will just deal with this point of order. Member for Sanderson, I did not hear the remark. The Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn her remark to you. I will ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue her statement.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Australian Labor Party, or the Northern Territory branch of it, promised Territorians before the last election that there would be a code of conduct for politicians - and they did not provide one. The responsibility once again fell to the opposition although small in number, dynamic in intellectual rigour, creativity and all those other things that the members on the other side do not have and will never have.
It took the opposition to create a situation where now, how many years, five years after they were elected to get excited about a code of conduct. There is one floating around. One of my colleagues, Dr Lim, my friend from the electorate of Greatorex …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: … the code of conduct. We have been discussing the code of conduct and we do so with a smile on our face because it came about because this lazy and arrogant government …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair …
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: … and to speak to the bill.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I am talking exactly about …
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, that is good.
Ms CARNEY: … the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, the tone of this debate has been quite poor so far. Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair and to try not to incite unnecessary interjections.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, a point of clarification: do you mean physically? Do you want me to physically stand here and …
Madam SPEAKER: That is the process that is usually …
Ms CARNEY: … not look at the others.
Madam SPEAKER: … expected, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am very happy to do that because they are such an unattractive bunch.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In fact, I would be delighted to do so because some of them are just ugly beyond description. Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, it is really not necessary to make that sort of comment. Please just continue with your remarks.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, the Australian Labor Party said that they would promise a code of conduct and they did not deliver. There were a couple of speeches in parliament. The member for Arafura had a bit to say on 20 June 2002. She said and I quote:
I take the opportunity to direct the member for Sanderson to that speech. The member for Arafura went on to say, and I am quoting:
I can feel over my shoulder the glare coming from the member for Katherine directed at the member for Sanderson. Of course, I am not wishing to look at him. When the member for Arafura made that speech, we believed her. We believed, as Territorians believe, so much of what the Chief Minister had to say prior to her election and no doubt that is why there is such division in the Labor Party now because I think even some of them believed that the Chief Minister had to say then as well.
The government does not deliver on its election promise of a code of conduct. Times roll on. Then one of their members, in particular, the member for Sanderson, made a number of vulgar and lewd suggestions at a …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It was an allegation.
Ms Carney: What?
Mr KIELY: It was an allegation. Get your facts right.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition, if you could try to tone down any personal comments it would be appreciated.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, of course on a previous occasion you ruled that I could not repeat what was widely published in the Northern Territory News and other places.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, and that ruling remains.
Ms CARNEY: Of course, I have done that. That was, and we all know it and in fact even the Chief Minister knew that it was both vulgar and lewd. It is appropriate in all of the circumstances that anyone describes that behaviour as vulgar and lewd.
Madam Speaker, as a result of the member for Sanderson’s behaviour and the public outrage and uproar that resulted from it, and given the laziness and arrogance of this government, because they were not going to do anything because the member for Sanderson kept his job, it then fell to the Territory opposition, the alternative government, to get on with the job of introducing a code of conduct bill. That was introduced.
There was a bit of a hoo-ha because the Leader of Government Business, Chief Ministerial aspirant though he is, was not listening properly and got all huffy about an amendment to the code. In any event, methinks they doth protest too much. The bottom line is that this code has, to some extent, achieved the objective insofar as five years after the election, members of this government have finally realised that it is important to have a code of conduct when they have members in their ranks such as the member for Sanderson. So, objective achieved.
We know that this bill is not going to pass. Of course, we know the bill is not going to pass. We know that if this government was serious, and I do not think they are, and if they wanted to enact legislation with fair dinkum penalties like the one recommended by the opposition, and it offended the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act as per the advice from Tom Pauling QC, what would the government do? They would go to the feds and argue the case to seek changes to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. They are too lazy and too arrogant to do so.
The message has, in any event, been hammered home. The member for Sanderson is now extremely vulnerable in his seat and he should be. Members of the government are tarnished as a result of him keeping his job and the inaction in relation to a code of conduct. So, the member for Wanguri, or alternative Chief Minister in this term at least, can say what he likes. He can carry on as much as he likes, but the opposition and indeed other Territorians are mildly pleased that at least we are seeing some action by government. We look forward to the government’s version of the code of conduct coming before us.
Madam Speaker, I am not sure there is much I can add to the debate other than to say on behalf of my colleagues: a job well done. We have partly achieved the objective, which is implementing, or getting done, or speeding up what this mob said they were going to do.
Motion negatived.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight I express my thanks to the many people who work hard to keep both the electorate, the government and this parliament operating each day. I would like to thank all of my constituents for their ongoing support and wish each of them a safe and happy Christmas. Together, over the last 12 months, we have been working through many issues. Perhaps the most difficult is the one of substance abuse - alcohol, kava and drugs of other types. I am grateful for the efforts of community leaders, ably supported by police and the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Commission, for tackling these issues and bringing a great deal of hope to the situation. I am particularly thankful for the leadership of people like Senior Sergeant Tony Fuller and the very proactive stance on so many social issues in our region. Every community in the Northern Territory would love to have a Senior Sergeant Fuller on their staff, and we are ever so grateful to have him there in our electorate working on these issues.
This year, we saw major breakthroughs in childcare service delivery. I am grateful to all those involved in delivering improved childcare facilities to Nhulunbuy. In the new year, the opening of the new centre is to come, and I pay tribute to Charles Rue and Alcan for their enormous contribution, as I do the Northern Territory government for their contribution to that project.
Raymattja Marika, now nominated as the Territory’s representative in the Australian of the Year Award, also became a Justice of the Peace this year. Raymattja - great job. I wish her well in her quest as Australian of the Year.
It is worth remembering that, while we may deal with difficult issues, many of the leaders of our communities are faced with immense issues every moment of every day. For example, the people of Galiwinku are spending a considerable period of time in the spotlight over leasing issues, and these are issues that can tear into communities. I give my commitment to work with them to help resolve these matters. To Charles at Galiwinku, to Djuwalpi at Yirrkala, Alfred at Gapuwiyak, Galarrwuy at Gunyanara, the community leaders, I wish you and all of the members of those communities a safe Christmas.
In Nhulunbuy, after many years with Nabalco, Alcan remains a very important factor within the town’s make-up. I have maintained a good relationship with Alcan over the years, and I wish Dave Buick, the management and staff well for Christmas and the new year.
I thank my electorate staff for the terrific work they do keeping the electorate well served. It can be difficult with me spending a good deal of time and commitments here in Darwin. My thanks to Jenny Djerrkura and Jenny Laverty for looking after the electorate in my absence.
In Darwin, I would like to thank the agencies I work with. I attended the Treasury function last week and had the opportunity to thank them for all of the work that they do. I feel incredibly supported by both Treasury and the Department of Justice, and I thank Jennifer Prince and Peter Caldwell in Treasury, and Greg Shanahan and Terry Drier in the Department of Justice for their support. I extend that to Margaret Banks in the Department of Employment, Education and Training with whom I worked for most of this year prior to changing ministries. She has proven to be an absolutely outstanding selection as Chief Executive of our Department of Employment, Education and Training. They all are ably supported by a great team of public servants. I try to meet agency staff wherever they are and wherever they work. Community Cabinet often gives me the opportunity to catch up with remote-based staff. I thank each of the public servants in those agencies for the work they do and wish them well for Christmas.
I wish the staff of parliament well. The Clerk, Mr McNeill, Captain Horton, Graham Gadd, Helen Allmich, Sue and all of the Hansard team and all of those personnel who support committees - Pat Hancock, Terry Hanley, Michael Tatham in statehood - I wish you a great Christmas. To the security staff, I hope your Christmas is a good one. My thanks to the Parliamentary Library staff also. Thank you to Tony Hibberd, an institution in this place, Jan Bradley, Derek Stafford, Jan Sporn and each of the Parliament House team - good luck and have a great Christmas. I wish to thank the Parliament House cleaners who do a great job in great spirit, night after night
I thank my colleagues; it has been a good year. A lot of work was done but, as we said repeatedly during the last election, there is much more to do. I hope each of you have a safe and wonderful Christmas and new year.
I thank the Chief Minister, who remains an inspiration for this government, for her incredible work schedule, her dedication and absolute determination to improve the lifestyle and future of Territorians.
It is not within my heart to wish either the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader a merry Christmas. However, to the Independent members, the members for Blain and Katherine, I do hope you have a wonderful Christmas.
I wish you, Madam Speaker, a particularly good Christmas and new year. We know it has been a very tough year for you. You have been an inspiration to each of us in the way that you have handled the workloads and stresses upon you. I wish you and your family a much better outlook for 2007.
I thank Alf in my office, and my staff for all their work and support.
Over the last 12 months, I have met and worked with many good people in the private sector and I wish the business community well for the season.
I also wish the Territory union movement well. They have a tough year ahead with the onslaught of the Howard government’s determination to rip the heart out of workers’ rights.
To Gary, John, George, Thor, Wayne, and Hardy, the drivers who look after us so well; they do a wonderful job.
Madam Speaker, finally, I wish all Territorians a happy and safe Christmas. It is a great place we live in. I hope that everyone’s 2007 brings them what they wish, hope, and work for.
Mr Mills: I find it in my heart to wish you a merry Christmas.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, there are some comments I wish to make tonight. I note with great interest that the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory does not find it within his heart to wish me and my colleague, Terry Mills, a merry Christmas. It just goes to show how the Deputy Chief Minister remembers that caucus is losing the plot; they are losing their Christmas cheer and goodwill. We know why they are losing it, because they cannot be nice to themselves.
Members interjecting.
Mrs Braham: Be nice.
Ms CARNEY: They cannot be nice to themselves so, of course, I suppose it is not surprising now that they cannot be nice to anyone else.
Mrs Braham: Show Christmas cheer, Jodeen, and be nice to everyone.
Ms CARNEY: I note that – do you have something to say, member for Braitling?
Mrs Braham: Yes, I am saying be nice, have a bit of Christmas cheer.
Ms CARNEY: The member of Braitling is being her usual disruptive, interrupting self …
Mrs Braham: I am just asking her to be cheerful for Christmas, not a sour, little thing.
Ms CARNEY: In any event - Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, will you ask her to be quiet?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen …
Mr Bonson: You sour person.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, please …
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. I refer to standing orders in that regard, that even you, Matty the memo, the member for Millner …
Mr Bonson: Oh that hurts – you with no friends.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Millner!
Ms CARNEY: I have said all along when you are pressing the buttons of this mob, they are just so predictable. Of course, it is understandable that, since they are not getting along with each other, they cannot really get along with anyone else. I note that that the Deputy Chief Minister wished all Territorians a merry Christmas except you and me, Millsy. However, I do not propose to lose much sleep about that.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a contentious Alice Springs issue; that is, demountable accommodation and issues associated with the demountables. I can honestly say that the Alice Springs community is feeling ill at ease about the demountable accommodation, as there would appear to be a sense of confusion among those managing this constantly changing situation.
Quite clearly, it appears as though there is a lack of clarity and none of the parties involved - namely the Alice Springs Town Council, the Territory government and the federal government - know what they are individually responsible for and, furthermore, where their joint responsibilities lie. The Alice Springs Town Council says that the matter is in the hands of the Territory government; the Territory government says it is in the hands of the federal government; and the federal government says it is in the hands of the Territory Labor government. They are, at least, the public utterances.
If the parties involved in the process do not know who is doing what, then how can it be possible for the community to be fully aware of what is really going on with this issue that has become so contentious and so vitally important to the lifestyle of those living in Alice Springs?
I have concerns that this Martin - or for now at least, Martin - Labor government is playing a filthy political game and passing the responsibility to the federal government when, in fact, the bulk of the responsibility lies with this Territory government. After all, it is some of the most disadvantaged Territorians who will actually utilise and benefit from this facility, and it is this facility that has the potential to change the lives of many disadvantaged Territorians.
The federal Indigenous Affairs minister, Mal Brough, has set himself a level of expectation and commitment to this initiative and, in fairness to him, these expectations should be met. All the same, the expectation of this Martin - or for now Martin - Labor government also needs to be met, and neither group of expectations are mutually exclusive. I have concerns that there is a considerable amount of buck passing going on, and that there is distinct lack of interest on the part of this Territory government. After all, it is the Territory government that has primary responsibility for the demountables, and for the primary and intended purpose of the accommodation, the location of the accommodation, the role of the accommodation in the community, the structure of the accommodation, and for managing the whole demountable accommodation.
I note that, while the application for an exceptional development permit on both the Dalgety Road and the Len Kittle Drive - that is the Tyeweretye Club - sites have been prepared for Indigenous Business Australia, the application clearly states that it represents the joint commitment of the federal government and Territory government to address particular and unique needs in Alice Springs.
The most pressing concern is the location of the demountables. It has been the role of the Territory government to identify and recommend potential sites. I have always been of the opinion, and continue to be of the opinion, that a site further to the south and another further to the north would prove more suitable as a location for the demountable accommodation. Some time ago I suggested Owen Springs Station, and I continue to support Owen Springs as an option. So I ask the question: who is responsible for decisions about demountables and why is it that the purpose of the accommodation continually changes?
Initially the short-term emergency accommodation was for indigenous people at risk. Now, it appears as though it is to be a short-term managed accommodation for people visiting Alice Springs from surrounding communities. When the idea of the accommodation was initially suggested it was a ‘pay for use’ facilities. That means that those who utilise the facility will pay for the utilisation. I am hopeful that that will remain the case, but I am also cautious that the facility may not be utilised by its target market. It is clear that the project is being driven by a group of well-intended decision-makers, and it is clear that the betterment of the living conditions of many indigenous people in and around Alice Springs is the foundation of that decision-making. However, it is imperative that the two sites in the accompanying temporary demountable accommodation do not deteriorate into another disgraceful town camp.
The former member for Stuart, I think, represented the views of government some time ago when he talked at length about the state of town camps in Alice Springs. Already, we see across the Territory a considerable number of town camps that are very poorly managed. The discrepancy in the way town camps are managed and the very problematic nature of town camp management leads to major concerns about how a temporary short-term ‘pay for use’ accommodation facility that is put together from the scraps of another facility can possibly serve a meaningful purpose to the Alice Springs community.
The submission claims that the use of the demountable accommodation ensures that the facility can be brought online quickly to address an urgent need and is, clearly, a cost-effective option. I remain concerned that utilising demountables intended for another purpose is far from a good idea. Ultimately, it may not be cost-effective. The submission currently before the Development Consent Authority contains plans which details that both sites have been developed to accommodate up to 150 people at a time. The submission states that the facility has a defined life of between seven and 10 years which, in turn, will provide the opportunity to consider, develop and introduce longer-term accommodation options for Alice Springs.
The Territory government, as a collective, notwithstanding what I believe to be some sincerely held beliefs about the advantages and the desired outcomes of the site, has not done well to date, and it needs to do better. Consultation should have occurred before the list of proposed sites were short-listed and found its way into the local newspaper. Further consultation should have been done and, there is no doubt about it, prior to those things occurring. That is the responsibility of the Territory government. It is frustrating that the Housing Minister, the member for Barkly, has been very difficult to catch publicly on this issue. By ‘catch’ I mean from the media point of view. He has had, after stumbling in the early stages, very little to say and many people in Alice Springs remain upset and frustrated with him.
In any event, the process of community consultation such as it is has now begun with the application for an exceptional development permit for both the Dalgety Road and Len Kittle Drive, that is the Tyeweretye Club sites, currently with the Development Consent Authority. The exhibition period closes on 15 December this year, and I strongly urge all those with concerns to make their written submissions to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. By doing so, there is a record of the concerns that the community has and, if the Development Consent Authority processes work as intended, then those concerns will form a substantial part of the decision-making process.
I did refer to the member for Barkly. I do believe that he has a very genuine and personal commitment to improving the lives of indigenous Territorians everywhere in the Territory, including in the Centre. I urge you, minister, to do better in this area because, if we are all collectively going to get a better outcome, the process needs to be watched much more carefully. It needs to be communicated better to the people I represent - one of the sites, after all, is in my electorate - and it needs to be communicated much more effectively to the people of Alice Springs. Conduct to date has been less than impressive.
There are people who are well intentioned, and they are the decision-makers. It is not me. My job is to call government to book as and when I see fit and, most importantly of course, to represent my constituents and, in a more general sense, represent the people of Alice Springs. Confusion abounds; it should not. There needs to be some clarifying statements. I hope that early in the new year, the minister might even send some material to the people of Alice Springs to explain where things are up to and why.
In the meantime, as I said, I urge people to participate in the Development Consent Authority process. I know that there are a number of people who will be making written submissions but, in a sense, they should not have had to have done so; they should have been consulted much earlier.
Unlike the Deputy Chief Minister, I take this opportunity of wishing all of my 24 parliamentary colleagues a very happy and prosperous merry Christmas, because it is Christmas after all. Life in politics has its highs and lows; everyone knows that. We are very privileged to be standing here. I have said on numerous occasions that, notwithstanding all of the huff and puff and game playing that goes on and deeply held differences on a range of issues, it is my view that the 25 people who take their place in this Chamber are doing their best, and everyone is working as hard as they possibly can to serve the people of the Northern Territory. I would like think that we all got into this job to make a difference and, for the most part, that motivates everyone.
I wish all of my parliamentary colleagues a happy and prosperous Christmas, and take this opportunity of thanking the Legislative Assembly staff - too many to name. I wish them a happy Christmas as well, in particular, Madam Speaker. She has done a very good job as Speaker and I am on the public record in that regard. I know she has had a difficult year. We all wish her well. To the Clerk, thank you for your assistance. I hope that you and your family also have a great Christmas.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as the member for Araluen said, I also have concerns about the proposal along Dalgety Road. I have had many approaches from constituents who have rung me or come to me seeking advice on how they can put in an objection to this application.
Hopefully, tomorrow I will table a petition if it arrives in time. Over four days, there were a large number of people who have signed this petition to indicate to the minister that they have concerns. I understand that the application is for an exceptional development. That is because the zoning is industrial but the facility that is proposed is residential. I am sure the fact that it is such an exceptional development, there should be reason for people to be concerned that a residential facility will be put into an industrial area. It just does not seem to be the right place at all. I realised that when I went to visit the particular site. The hill we walked over was towards the Warlpiri Camp, not towards Dixon Road. In fact, there are houses within 300 m of that particular site. The federal minister had said that it would not be so close to other residences.
Unfortunately, the proposal says that it has a defined life, and the long-term status of this facility is not stated. However, history has shown in Alice Springs that, quite often, sites for temporary accommodation turn into permanent town camps. That is one of the reasons the people are concerned about what is going to happen.
Interestingly, an independent survey showed that 350 private accommodation units are solely used by indigenous clients. That means there are 350 units already in motels used by indigenous clients when they come to town. It is an indication that people, when they come to town, do like to have somewhere good to stay and are prepared to pay the cost. However, I would be worried about the people who actually use the commercial accommodation who would seek to use this facility if it was established. Of course, that then takes away the business from the private sector. I am not sure how you ever get people who normally just camp in the river or in public housing, or anywhere else like that, to go into a facility such as this.
It will be interesting to see what sort of process we go through with the Development Consent Authority. Already, they are saying they have had a large number of objections placed with them. I know, when we get around to meeting with the authority, it will be an interesting exercise on how they handle it. There are some questions I intend to ask the Minister for Planning and Lands tomorrow about this particular application. There are a lot of concerns about why it is being built in that particular spot. I believe that the dongas the federal minister is apparently offering the Northern Territory government may be better utilised on some of the town camps where there is a shortage of accommodation, or out on communities.
I place on the record the concerns of people in my electorate of having this facility placed where it is. I believe it would be far better to go ahead with the one at the Tyeweretye Club, wait and see how that goes and, then, if that is a success, perhaps we can look at another site. However, at the moment, I do not think that is an appropriate site.
I also want to talk very briefly about a community service that occurred with the cooperation of Telstra and Larapinta Primary School. At Larapinta, we only had one telephone box, and it was way down by the shops, so all the people living on the western side of the suburb did not have access to a private telephone box. Of course, many of them did not have mobiles or telephones at all. With a lot of persuading, Telstra did put a box there. As you know, Telstra is in the habit lately of taking boxes away. However, they put a telephone box in for us. Unfortunately, within a week it was vandalised. It was not just vandalised; the whole thing was taken apart. With a lot of good talking, we managed to get Telstra to repair it. They told us they would only do it one more time, because every time they do it costs them $3000-plus.
We approached the Larapinta Primary School to see if they would get the students involved in the painting of the box. The students thought this was a good idea and they brainstormed on how they could paint this box that would make it attractive for community use. They decided on the theme of the circus. The strong man was holding up the box, and on the box there were clowns and seals and lions - it was absolutely wonderful. They went to Telstra with their design, and Chippy Miller, who is well-known in Alice Springs and works for Telstra, took the design and it was approved. Then, on a roster system, the students came out in the morning and spent a couple of hours painting the telephone box. As they did so, cars would go past, people would toot, people would wave, wish them well, and come and take photos of them. It became quite a community event. The school was very lucky, as Susy Mengel, who is the school assistant, is particularly artistic and she was able to help the students with the design and the finishing touches to all the artwork.
We were a bit worried, because Halloween Night was coming up and we thought perhaps it would get vandalised on. I contacted Skimbo - or Walter Turnbull, which is his proper name – who is the manager of Shane Ride Security which does the security checks on public housing residences in that area. I asked if he would have his drivers watch out for the telephone box as they drove past. Lo and behold, the box survived Halloween Night. As far as I know, it has survived every night since. That security team, as they drive by, keep and eye on it. It looks fantastic.
Chippy Miller and I attended the assembly at Larapinta and presented the children with some books and certificates for the good work that they had done. In some of the classes we visited, they wrote little stories about the book. We passed those onto Chippy Miller at Telstra because they are going to do a story about it in their internal communication, because it is a lovely box which has become a community telephone box. As you drive past, you cannot help but notice. I know - well, we cross we fingers - that it is such a good thing that it should last and it should not be vandalised. I congratulate Larapinta Primary School students who did that. In particular, I want to thank Chippy Miller because, without his cooperation and the persuasion he did with Telstra, we certainly would not have got that done.
Finally, it is the end of the year for the Legislative Assembly. Along with the other members, I am also pleased to say that it is the time of the year when I will be glad to be go home and celebrate Christmas with the family; that will be great. I hope we lighten up a little tomorrow in this House. I have some great questions but, whether they fall flat again like the one I did last year, I do not know. However, I am sure we can all have some nice Christmassy questions in the House at Christmas time. Let us hope there is a little Christmas joy in the House.
To the Clerk and the staff of the Legislative Assembly, thank you again very much for all your assistance. I know being Independent we have our own little strange situations that occur, and we have to come with cap in hand and say: ‘Can you help us out this way?’. The Clerk and the staff are always obliging and manage to assist us whenever they can in things that other members of the House do not realise we have difficulties with.
I also say to the public servants out there and the ministerial staff upstairs: thank you for your assistance. The information might not always be as much as I would like to get from them, but they are always obliging and polite. Of course, I often get the response: ‘You will have to put it through the minister’s officer’, and I understand that. However, I always to say them: ‘You are going to have to do a ministerial anyway’. Thank you for that.
Thanks to my electorate officer, Robyn, who is up this week - she has not been up for some time. She is an amazingly energetic person, always polite, knows a heck of a lot, and knows Alice Springs so very well, and people use her. I want to thank her again for her assistance and hope that she has a good, happy Christmas with her mother. She is going to spend Christmas with her mother who is now 86 and not well, and she deserves time off to share with her mother.
My thanks to Kerry, my temporary electorate officer who comes in and helps us whenever I am in need of that help. I am very fortunate that these two ladies have such positive public relationship attitudes. Because of that, the office is always busy with lots of people coming in and out.
Of course, there is Caroline. I have half of Caroline; the member for Nelson has the other half. She is amazing in that she does such a great job for both of us. She is an extremely intelligent lady and is a very good research officer. We are so fortunate to have found her, because she saves us hours of time and, quite frankly, I do not know how we would be able to get all the information we need without her. She certainly takes care with a lot of the legislation that we do not have time to go through. Caroline, have a merry Christmas with your cats. I know she will have a good time at the LA Christmas party, because she is already designing the costume. I believe she won it last year with ‘Christmas Eve’. Eve, as you know, wears …
Dr Lim: A fig leaf.
Mr Mills: No clothes.
Mrs BRAHAM: Oh, well, there we go! It will be interesting to see what she comes up with this year.
Of course, there is the member for Nelson. We caucused tonight - I do not know if that is the right word - to see whether we should have a leadership spill, but we decided that we might just have the power of one twice. I am not quite sure what that means, but we do not seem to have a leader amongst us.
To the opposition and government colleagues in this House, I wish you well. I hope you have a really great Christmas. I hope you have a time to relax with your families and friends, and come back refreshed next year, because we do get very tired - well I do, I have to admit - towards the end of the year and tempers fray a little.
To Madam Speaker, who has been through so much and done it with such dignity. We can all be proud of her. I wish her well, particularly with the coming year. Let us hope she comes back healthy and well.
Thanks very much to my family also who have given me great support. I will be going to Adelaide to spend Christmas with my daughter and my granddaughter. My son is staying in Alice Springs with his family but we will have a Christmas before I head off. So, everything is great; everything is really fine. That is what is nice about Christmas time because family and your friends are the most important things to you.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish merry Christmas to everyone. Let us hope we will see each other in the new year and see what the new year brings.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to a dear old lady I have known for many years. She was formerly my patient who left my care when I came into politics.
Her name is Dorothy Audrey Lothian-Black, born the 29 February 1916, who passed away on 25 September 2006, at 90 years and almost 7 months. I first met this lady when she was well and truly retired – I cannot say from active life because she remained active until almost the weeks before she passed away. When I met her she was the matriarch of her family, her husband having passed away long before I got to know this woman. I have a couple of eulogies that I would like to read. These eulogies were given when she was buried at the Memorial Cemetery in Alice Springs. I am not sure who wrote it; I assume it is from the family:
This reminded me of the activities that Dorothy took part in particularly with The Old Ghan. She did so much work there that The Old Ghan paid tribute to her when she passed away too. They wrote:
There was a photograph of Dorothy, in her fitter days, standing on the steps of one of the carriages of The Old Ghan in company with her daughter-in-law, Diana. The caption on the photograph said: ‘Dorothy Lothian-Black pictured with daughter-in-law, Diana, on the steps of The Old Ghan on its first run in 1988’. Diana Lothian was Dorothy’s primary carer in her final years.
When the rolling stock finally arrived, Dorothy was one of the first out there cleaning and preparing the train and carriages for their first run. She did this every weekend for three years until the train started to operate in 1988. After that, Dorothy was on every trip to Ewaninga serving morning teas, lunch and afternoon teas every Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday until she had a stroke in 1993. Dorothy was in a wheelchair after that, but still came out to The Old Ghan whenever she could and, right up until the end, was always eager to assist or help out in any way she could.
I saw Dorothy off and on through the years that I have been in the Legislative Assembly. I used to see her at home because of her disability, and I would see her when she came out to the polling booth. She had never ever sought a postal vote or asked the presiding officer to come to the car to let her cast her vote. She would come in her wheelchair, right into the polling booth to vote. Her son or daughter-in-law would assist her in a wheelchair.
She was mentally very alert, right to just about three or four days before she passed away when I saw her at her home. She told me she had had enough, she was tired. I believe she was very well prepared to move on.
This lady had many children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I asked the family to provide me with a list of her offspring. She had six children of her own, three sons and three daughters. Out of those six children, she had two sons-in-law and two daughters-in-law. The son and daughter-in-law who had been her main carers were Tom and Di Lothian, who continue to live in Alice Springs in my electorate. The other son who lives in Alice Springs is Leo Lothian-Black, who lives out towards Ewaninga. I believe he is a returned Vietnam Veterans, and prefers to live out bush on his own, coming into town every so often just to get his supplies. Of the other children, there is one daughter, Alice Quigley, who lives in Western Australia, and a son, Frederick Ward, who lives in Queensland and Jan Becker, another daughter who also lives in Queensland.
From these six children, there are eight grandchildren, five grandsons, and three granddaughters and they are: Peter Lothian, Ann-Marie McCormack, who live in Alice Springs. Ann-Marie who works with Erwin Chlanda at the Alice Springs News. Other grandchildren include: Matthew Quigley, Matthew Lothian and Amanda Quigley who are in Western Australia; and Neil Decker, Steven Decker and Julie Martin living in Queensland. As for great-grandchildren there are nine of them - seven great-grandsons and two great-granddaughters. They are: Daniel McCormick; Megan McCormick; Bailey Quigley; Bruce David Lothian; Shelby Quigley; Brenton Martin; Quinn Martin; Shane Decker; and Scott Decker.
I would be remiss if I do not mention the in-laws. Diana Lothian is the daughter-in-law who lives in Alice Springs. There is a son-in-law, Barry Quigley, who lives in Western Australia; Lisa Ward, a daughter-in-law, who lives in Queensland, and William Decker, a son-in-law, who lives in Queensland.
I wish the family of the woman who had strong family ties, and a long list of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to carry on her memory, the greatest of condolences. She was a great friend to me and I share with them the sadness of their loss. I believe that Dorothy was suffering at the end and she was ready to move on to another life. To Tom, Diana and the rest of the family, and those in Queensland and Western Australia, my best wishes and I share with them the sadness that they must surely feel with the loss of a mother.
In the few minutes that I have remaining, I would like to continue with what I spoke about yesterday; the loss of Territory lifestyle in the Northern Territory over these last five years with the coming of this Labor government. Last night, I spoke about a letter that Mr David Collins wrote to the Northern Territory News on 22 November 2006. His conclusion is worthwhile putting on the record also. Mr David Collins said he was pretty sick and tired of the loss of the uniqueness of the Territory. In his closing paragraph, he laments:
I believe that is a reflection of how Territorians feel across the board. They have felt, over the last five years, a slow, gradual, insipid deterioration of the uniqueness of the Northern Territory, with more and more southern influences brought in - not through natural migration of interstate people who come to live in the Northern Territory, but by a government, with its southern advisors, force feeding a southern ethos into our community. It is no wonder people are objecting so vehemently to it. I listed quite a few things, such as the $90 car rego levy, pool fencing legislation, speed cameras for revenue raising, failure to release land, especially in Central Australia, the forsaking of ensuring that people have food and petrol prices maintained ...
Dr Burns: Interest rates.
Dr LIM: When the government was in opposition, it was always screaming out about the cost of food, petrol, electricity and housing. Now, when they are in government, they have done nothing about it.
I pick up the interjection from the member for Johnston, who mentioned interest rates. Interest rates are lower now than ever during the time under Hawke and Keating. It is ridiculous. I went through those hard times myself as a businessman, and I know what it is like …
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: Never you mind, working on a salary; you never worry about whether your shirt comes off your back or not. It was a hard time. It was because of the Labor government, and you guys continue to do that here today. You talk about the way you try to bring in speed limits and demerit points, and all you are doing is eroding away the uniqueness of Territory lifestyle we all so very much enjoy. That is why people want to come to the Northern Territory; it is a special place. There are hardships that we all recognise but, if the Territory lifestyle remains unique, then it is more than compensation for the harshness of this Territory. If that happens, then people will come and live and stay. If they do not, they will move away. Maybe that is what you want. Maybe you want to drive people away from the Territory. If that is the case, then you should get up and say so. Tell them to leave, and they are to leave without any hassles …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time is up, member for Greatorex.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as 2006 draws to a close, I take this opportunity to thank a whole lot of people in this House and, of course, within my electorate and right across the Northern Territory. Before I do that, I would like to make some comments in respect to the whole issue of supported managed accommodation in Alice Springs. Whilst I was not privy to hear the total comments by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Araluen, I believe it is important to put on record precisely this government’s position.
People should be aware that, essentially, it arose out of a task force which I and the Martin Labor government commissioned. In effect, we had to deal with the fact that there was a whole host of issues occurring in Alice Springs which we did not accept, nor did the indigenous people or the general community in Alice Springs. There was a whole range of antisocial behaviour-type issues, including unnecessary deaths and, most importantly, there was a perception that a lot of this was coming out of the town camps in and around Alice Springs.
I pay tribute to people like Willy Tilmouth and Geoff Shaw who, obviously, shared the concerns of myself and other members. As a result of that, they took the bold step of putting themselves under the spotlight, knowing that they had to do something about it and, whatever they were going to do, it was not only going to benefit them but also the community.
One of the big issues that arose out of the task force was the fact that there was excessive overcrowding in the town camps throughout Alice Springs which gave rise to high levels of antisocial behaviour. The quality of life of the people who were living in those town camps was suffering and that then translated across into the general Alice Springs community.
I want to place on the record this: there is absolutely no doubt about it; there is agreement - something which is shared by the Commonwealth government, by minister Brough - that there is an immediate need for managed short-term accommodation options in Alice Springs, as there are across the Northern Territory. That is something that I am not ashamed of to share with minister Brough. He and the task force have acknowledged it. It is incumbent upon us as governments - of whatever persuasion, Commonwealth or state – to do something about it.
Our proposal is to provide bricks and mortar in supported accommodation. To that extent, we have provided $1.2m to Yeperenye Hostel under the auspices of Aboriginal Hostels, where there will be six accommodation facilities built - effectively, 24 beds. Stuart Lodge will be opened in the future and will provide a further 33 beds.
The difference between ourselves and the Commonwealth is that our proposal is bricks and mortar and the Commonwealth’s is based around the demountables. Very clearly, they are committed to address the issue and, to that extent, they have now chosen two sites in Alice Springs - Tyeweretye Club and Dalgety Road, which both members opposite referred to previously. The applications were submitted by Indigenous Business Australia, which is a Commonwealth government department.
I want to place on the record that we have to do something about the overcrowding that occurs in Alice Springs. The two approaches taken by the Commonwealth and the Territory government are a little different but, nonetheless, they provide the same outcome in what is a very critical issue of overcrowding and the resulting antisocial behaviour and dysfunction from the grog that goes on. For that reason, I place on the record that I know I have been open and very transparent with the community of Alice Springs. I have gone on radio on numerous occasions to point out the differences of our positions. Nonetheless, the bottom line is, yes, we do need more supported accommodation.
It is up to the Alice Springs community to determine and decide precisely what they want to do in regard to that. I am absolutely confident that this government will give due consideration to whatever the views are expressed, for or against the proposed facilities at Dalgety and Tyeweretye Club. I just want that to go on the record because the Leader of the Opposition sometimes gets caught up in local insular politics confined to the Alice Springs region. Alice Springs community also has to grow up, be mature, and deal with the issues that they face. I believe they can do that if they are, in fact, supported by their leader in Alice Springs, the member for Araluen, who should show leadership in this particular issue as opposed to slamming and banging blackfellas and a whole host of other people in Alice Springs. That concludes my part there.
I also pay tribute to someone who is in the gallery today. Strachan, you are probably not expecting this. Strachan comes from Alice Springs. I have known Strachy for a long time and he is a fine, upstanding human being. Strachy would take great comfort in the fact that the Northern Territory government is tackling head-on some of the issues that are occurring in his community. It is people like Strachy who make Alice Springs a very good place to live. Merry Christmas, Strachy, and to all the family. Strachy, well done, thanks for the inspiration.
I thank members of the Legislative Assembly who have worked so hard throughout the course of the year - I cannot possibly thank them all - none more so than Mr Ian McNeill, the Hansard staff, Dave Horton and a whole host of others. The people over to my right here, thank you very much for your support throughout 2006. I wish each of you and your families a good, peaceful Christmas. Have a good break, drive safely and, hopefully, we will see you all back here in 2007.
I also thank people within my respective agencies. Mr Mike Burgess has recently been appointed. Mike, thank you for taking on the task. It is not an easy one. I look forward to a very professional relationship. To Mr Les Hodgson, the Acting Director of DCIS in Darwin. Special thanks to Trish Angus, Fiona Chamberlain, Sylvia Langford and Nick Scarvelis, who have been a tower of support to me over the last 12 months. I thank you very much and I wish you all the best for yourselves and your family.
I thank everyone in all the agencies - Housing, Local Government, Sport, DCIS, and the Office of Central Australia – because we could not do it without people like these dedicated public servants who put in the hard yards, and provide very good, professional advice. Thank you very much for your support throughout the course of 2006. Have a very good Christmas, look after yourselves, and we will see you all back in 2007.
The other person I want to thank is Mike Dillon, who served as the Executive CEO of Housing and Local Government, first with Jack Ah Kit and then with me. Mike is a very excellent administrator and a manager. I know that the department has missed him and that the Northern Territory has missed him. Mike, to you, your wife and your family, thank you for all you have done in the Territory. We wish you the very best.
To Richard Galton, the previous Director of DCIS who has now gone across to DBERD, thank you for your outstanding service to DCIS.
To the people in my office upstairs on the fifth floor, thank you for all your support throughout the course of 2006. I know sometimes it has been a bit tough. I have been known to get a bit grumpy but …
Mr Bonson: It is true.
Mr McADAM: Mattie says it is true so it must be true. If it came from the other side, you would have to doubt it.
To Kerry Gardiner, thank you. Shelly Priore, my personal – well, she is not my personal assistant, she is my boss. Peter Holt has joined the staff of John Martin, Joshua Martin, Nicole Manison, Dianne Stanford and Deanna Hampton - thank you very much. I also thank people who have left that office: ‘Zipitty Zip’ Chips Mackinolty, Jamie Gallacher, Jeanie Govan, Donna Black and Leigh Gregory. Other people who have provided great support throughout this year are Michael Tatham, the head of the Statehood Steering Committee, Sharon McAlear and Nora Kempster, and Pat Hancock. Thank you very much for your work.
Gayle Dougall, who was my electorate officer, has now moved to Mt Isa. To Gayle and Michael, thank you very much; I wish you all the very best. Kent Peak, my old mate, who worked in the electorate office and was my campaign manager who is now working with Julalikari - thank you, Kent. To Claire Dreaver, my new electorate officer, and to her brother, Alastair, thank you very much. Thanks, Claire, for the hard work, and we look forward to even more hard work next year.
I pay tribute to all the people in the communities right throughout the Barkly - people in Borroloola, Barrow Creek, Mangoorbada, Robinson, Ali Curung, Alpurrurulam, Elliott, Kurundi, Epenarra, and Canteen Creek. There are probably some others I have forgotten, but they know who they are. I thank them for all the work that they do. I hope that 2007 is a lot better for all people out there. It is a tough life out there and I do not think we truly appreciate the effort they put in just to get by on a yearly basis.
To some of the organisations in Tennant Creek to Julalikari Council and Pat Brahim; Anyinginyi Health and Barb Shaw; and Karen Hayward from Papulu Appar Kari Language Centre. They provide a very professional, tireless service to people in Tennant Creek and are the great economic drivers in that community.
Also to all the nurses, teachers, doctors, health professionals, the police right throughout the Barkly, the ambulance people and firies, all those people who do excellent work, thank you very much. To all the volunteers - we do not sometimes recognise the volunteers enough - and you know who you are, thank you very much.
In conclusion, to my branch, thank you very much for all the support that you have given me. The local branch has increased significantly this year.
I want to thank someone very special to me and that is my partner, Barb Shaw. Thank you, Barb, for your wonderful support throughout 2006. I know that you are going to have an easier 2007. I look forward to spending a lot more time with you in the next few months. To my three children Allira, Ngara and Adrian, thank you very much; I love you all.
I believe it was the member for Braitling who said sometimes it gets a bit tough in here and you look for some inspiration. I pay tribute to Jane Aagaard, the Speaker of the House, because she has had a tough year. If we think we have had it tough, you only have to look to people like Speaker Aagaard for inspiration. She is the reason that many of us are in this place doing the job that we do. I wish you all a wonderful Christmas and a great 2007.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Katherine Region Tourist Association held its annual general meeting on Thursday, 23 November, at Knotts Crossing Resort in Katherine. The association covers a very expansive area, over 400 000 km2, so there is quite a diversity in tourism product. However, in the main, the region caters for and complements the drive market with numerous caravan parks and budget accommodation.
Over 50 people attended the AGM with several members travelling some distance. We were treated to a delicious three course meal which was enjoyed by all. Talking of travelling distances to attend, the president, Gary Higgins, and his wife, Rhonda, own Daly River Mango Farm Tourist Park. Their dedication to the promotion of tourism is evident from the amount of travelling they do in support of the industry. It is also always a pleasure to have as guests KRTA life members, Werner Sarny from Travel North, and Sylvia Wolf, who is based in Darwin but has long-time connections with Katherine since around 1969.
President Gary Higgins delivered his annual report and highlighted areas of concern for the development of tourism in the Katherine region. They were: difficulty with access, lack of signage and the disproportionate amount of infrastructure funding to regional Northern Territory. I could now add to this as well the speed restrictions on the highways. Hopefully, the new Minister for Tourism was listening intently and will be able to look into these areas of concern which affect regional development and our economy. The Minister for Tourism was present, and I thank him for being in Katherine at that time. He was presented with a framed print of our magnificent Katherine Gorge, which I have promised to check to ensure he hangs it in his office.
The election of the new executive resulted in the following for the year 2006-07: Gary Higgins was re-elected as chairman; and Willem Westra van Holthe from Maud Creek Country Lodge and Rick Murray of Middle Star Pty Ltd Consultancy were elected as vice chairmen. Elected members to the executive were: Werner Sarny from Travel North, Mick Jerram from Gecko Canoeing and Kookaburra Ventures, and Lisa Mumbin from the Jawoyn Association. Regional representative is Suzy Forwood from Bonrook Country Stay, Pine Creek, with one other vacancy to be filled. Nominated members to the executive are Alderman Trevor Ford from Katherine Town Council; Mark Crummy from Tourism NT; and Judy Faulks from Parks and Wildlife NT.
The experience that is within the new executive certainly augurs well for the Katherine region. I would like to place on the Parliamentary Record tonight some details about these executive members that were elected by ballot at the AGM. I have taken some of this information from the nominations for the positions.
Gary Higgins has held the position of chairman throughout 2006 and during the restructure of the KRTA during 2005. He was an elected regional representative of the KRTA executive committee in 2004. Gary has owned and operated the Daly River Mango Farm Tourist Park and mango operation since 1998 with his wife, Rhonda. Currently KRTA representative on the Daly River Management Advisory Committee, Chairman of the Lower Daly Landcare Group and Duty Officer, Northern Territory Emergency Services Daly River. Rhonda and Gary moved to Darwin in 1986, where Gary joined the Northern Territory government, holding positions as Director, Corporate Services, Department of Attorney-General; Commissioner for Consumer Affairs; Chairman of Private Security Licensing Authority and Controller of Prices.
Rick Murray arrived in Darwin in 1965, where he is still based. Until February this year, he was General Manager of Odyssey Tours and Safaris, which he established in 1988. Presently, he runs his own consultancy, Middle Star Pty Ltd, offering tourism business development services, and he serves two days a week as Manager of Savannah Guides. Rick served as a Commissioner on the Board of the NT Tourist Commission from 1992 to 1994, and has recently been appointed to the new Advisory Board of Tourism NT. He is Chairman of the Kakadu Tourism Consultative Committee and a member of the Kakadu National Park Board of Management. Rick currently represents the industry as a member of an advisory group for the CRC for Tropical Savannahs, which is encouraging environmental and socioeconomic research and development for tourism across northern Australia. He is also Director of Aboriginal Tourism Australia, and has recently also been elected as a board member of Ecotourism Australia. Rick has been Deputy Chairman of the Katherine Region Tourist Association in 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Werner Sarny - well, there are not too many people in the tourism industry in the Northern Territory who do not know Werner and his wife, Patricia. They have been operating Travel North in Katherine since 1966 and, since that time, have employed hundreds of locals in the tourism industry. They both have a strong commitment to the Katherine region, its community and the tourism industry. Werner was a founding member of the Katherine Region Tourist Association in 1969, and has held the position of chairman on 15 occasions. He has also served as vice chairman and as a committee member many times. Werner also served as Chairman on the NT Tourist Industry Association, as it was called then, for a period of six years.
I know of no other person in the Northern Territory tourism industry who has given such a long-serving commitment to tourism. Werner has been recognised for his outstanding service to the tourism industry. He was awarded the 1990 Chief Minister’s Award for Tourism and the Qantas Airways Award for Outstanding Contribution by an Individual in 1989. He was also awarded the Order of Australia in 2000. It goes without saying that he is a life member of the KRTA.
Willem Westra Van Holthe and his wife, Jennie, own and operate the Maud Creek Country Lodge, which they purchased in 2003. Willem has been in the Northern Territory Police Force for 18 years; for the past several years in Katherine. Willem has been a member of the KRTA executive committee in 2004-05 and again in 2005-06, and re-elected for 2006-07 as vice chairman. It is very gratifying to see Willem’s commitment to the promotion of the Katherine region by not only working with law and order in our community, but by establishing his family in the tourism business which enhances the visitor’s day to Katherine. Maud Creek Country Lodge is a great place to stay and is very close to Nitmiluk Gorge, another great tourism venture.
Mick Jerram is owner/operator of family business, Gecko Tours in Katherine, and has lived in Darwin and Katherine since 1984. He has been an elected member of the executive in 2004, 2005 and 2006, and re-elected for 2007. For the past two years, Mick has been Chairman of the Savannah Guides, and also has extensive training qualifications as an instructor in tourism outdoor and leadership. Gecko Tours were winners in the 2003, 2004, and 2005 Brolga Awards for the Ecotourism and Adventure Tourism categories, and Mick was also awarded the Outstanding Interpretive Guide Award. I can assure you that there was plenty of noise coming from our table at the Brolga Awards, and well-deserved celebrations. Mick and Gecko Canoeing hope to add another Brolga to his mantelpiece this weekend at the Alice Springs Convention Centre where the 2006 awards are being held. I will sure be there cheering him on.
This year, Gecko Tours expand to encompass Kookaburra Adventures and Speargrass Experience - which is adventure camping and deluxe-based touring throughout the greater Katherine region in Kakadu National Park. Mick is also involved with Manyallaluk in a mentoring capacity to continue to grow indigenous tourism products within the region.
Suzy Forwood has been in the Top End of the Northern Territory since 1978. Suzy and her husband, Sam, currently manage Bonrook Country Stay in Pine Creek and have been there for 10 years. Bonrook Country Stay is being run as a bed and breakfast with a horse riding operation, and is a very peaceful and relaxing place to stay. While it is now several years since I last relaxed there, I can thoroughly recommend Bonrook for a great escape from the hustle and bustle. Of course, if you love horse riding, it is an added bonus. Suzy was a regional elected member of the KRTA executive committee in 2006 and is looking forward to being part of the executive in 2007.
That is just a brief overview of the members of the Katherine region executive for 2007. As you can see, there is a great deal of experience from across a broad range of tourism involvement. Having been a chairman for several years, and also on the executive for an additional few years, I have a particular interest in the tourism industry and the benefits that it brings to regional Northern Territory, especially. The executive, with Shelly Davis as General Manager of Marketing, and her administrative assistant Bree Hepden, the Katherine Regional Tourist Association, I feel, is in good management hands to continue developing and expanding their marketing activities.
It was great to view the new television advertisements. They have been a while coming but are well worth the wait. Of course, the aim is to convert these ads to tourist numbers. Here’s hoping that tourist numbers for the KRTA will be better in 2007.
In closing this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot miss the opportunity to put on the Parliamentary Record some history about a person who has given long-standing and outstanding service to not only the Katherine Region Tourist Association but also the tourism industry, generally, throughout the Northern Territory. That person is Maureen Thearle. Maureen has resigned as manager of the Katherine Visitor information Centre as of 15 December, and will be joining her husband, Phil Thearle, near Coffs Harbour in New South Wales where they have relocated for family reasons.
Maureen began working for the Katherine Regional Tourist Association on a casual basis in 1992. Her enthusiasm and commitment to promoting not only the products in the Katherine region but wider Northern Territory was evident from the beginning. It was not long before Maureen was representing the industry at the annual trade and consumer shows which are held in each state of Australia beginning in Adelaide in February and ending in Brisbane in June. Working on the stands at these trade shows means long hours over several days and talking to thousands of people about what we have to offer. Believe me, it might sound glamorous flying off to interstate destinations, staying at lovely accommodation and talking with lot of people. Let me assure you it is hard work. Maureen can testify to the many aches and pains of standing for hours at a time, lifting cartons of brochures, and talking constantly while promoting the Northern Territory. She had many soaks in a bath and many early nights to get her energy for the next day. Invariably, Maureen returned to Katherine with a sore throat and a cold from sheer exhaustion. It goes without saying that the 10 years that Maureen attended these shows, she was always enthusiastic and totally committed. It was an outstanding effort and very much appreciated by the industry operators who always knew Maureen would do her upmost.
The trade and consumer shows that Maureen attended including caravan and camping shows, fishing expos, Australian Tourism Expo, Walkabout and backpacker expos. I cannot tell you offhand how many hundreds of thousands of people over the 10 years have attended these shows, but those statistics would be available through the Tourism NT.
In 2000, when I was the Chairman of the Katherine Region Tourist Association, I nominated Maureen for a Brolga Award for Outstanding Achievement by an Individual. The awards that year were held in the Araluen Centre in Alice Springs and we made sure that Maureen attended along with the General Manager, Bill Dawe, my husband, Mike, and me. Maureen had no idea she had been nominated so it was a wonderful surprise and well deserved when she was announced the winner and presented with her Brolga by Catriona Rowntree.
The tourism awards in 2000 were very special, indeed, with Pauline Rayner winning the Minister for Tourism Award for Outstanding Achievement in Tourism. Pauline’s and Maureen’s night was very special and one that they both deserved.
Maureen is moving from Katherine. It will seem so very strange to me that she will be no longer be in the visitor centre helping our tourists discover the many wonders of the region. However, all things do come to an end and, while Maureen has moved on, she will be living just an hour from Sydney and approximately two hours from Melbourne so she can still assist promoting the Northern Territory. Well done, Maureen, you can look back on your years at the Katherine Visitor Centre with pride and know that you have done your absolute maximum with enthusiasm, pride and commitment. My best wishes to you and Phil as your lives take a new direction. Remember, as one door closes another door opens.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to acknowledge Maureen Thearle and to place my personal thanks to her on the Parliamentary Record.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I thank all those who have assisted me over the past year and to wish my family and friends a merry Christmas and happy new year.
First of all I thank my mother, Rosanne, and her husband, Steve; my sister, Nicole and Chris Lewis; my brother, Luke Bonson; my nephew, Cowan Bonson; Aunty Esther Carolin; Aunty Josie Guy and David Guy; Yasmin Crawshaw; Bianca Crawshaw; and Trevor - there are too many to name at the moment - Travis Carolin; Chelsea Kerwick; and all my cousins on the Ruddick side. I would also like to thank my father, Robert Bonson; Uncle Don and Aunty Vicky Bonson; Greg and Linda Bonson; Dookie Bonson; Kathy Lyness; Annie Bonson; Uncle Joe - who sadly is no longer with us - Aunty Pat Bonson who like the Speaker, Jane Aagaard, is going through a very similar treatment with cancer; her son Joe, his wife, Pacita Bonson, their three daughters, Jodie, Jaylene and Jasmine; and Rodney Bonson and his wife, April Bonson. Unfortunately, it will be the first Christmas that Uncle John Bonson will not be with us. Thanks to his sons, Jason Bonson, John Bonson Jr and his wife and daughter; Uncle Kenny Bonson; Jacob Bonson and wife Shelly Bonson; Kane Bonson and Kristine Bonson; Aunty Patsy Davey, Dennis Carolin; Yvette Carolin; Aunty Betsy and Uncle Ian McLeod; Tania and Cecil Lewis; Anne Marie McLeod and Cyril Oliver; Donald, Kristy, Ankin, Elliott and Hannah, my godchildren; Sheree McCleod, Aunty Dori and Uncle Alan Oates; Colleen and Tamara Oates; Aunty Lynette Bonson; Trisha Stokes; Nathan Stokes; Sonia Stokes and partner John May; Donna Stokes; Aunty Lila; Christine; Jemma; and Harley.
I take the opportunity to thank some Milner residents who have been helpful to me over the years and whom I have known for a long time. They make up an integral part of the Milner electorate: Willie and Karen Markos and family; the Grant family; Aunty Ruthy; Dominic Dion; Nathan, Paddy and Peter and all your extended families; the Ah Sam family - Denise, Joe, Jason, Darren and children; and the Seden family - another large Darwin family - in particular Paul Seden, Peter, David, Peter Senior, Dallas, Eden and all the Sedens. I hope you have a merry Christmas and a happy new year, along with the Parfitt and Fejo families and, of course, the Ah Mat families.
I take the opportunity to thank the Mu family at Happy Foodland at Rapid Creek Shopping Centre: Victor, Marty, Paulo, George and their wives and children and Mr Mu Snr. I hope you have a merry Christmas and a festive season. You have been fantastic supporters and really community orientated people. Some people would not get through the week without the help of the Mus, in assistance with groceries and other items.
I thank certain members of my branch: Peter O’Hagan and Julie and their children, who often do work for me, Frank and Maria Moukaddem and their little bub. I would also like to thank John Oliver and his wife, Nicole Lewis, who is part of my branch; Joe Gallagher, Lesley Cameron, and Chris Karaolias. Without their hard work it would just make my job harder. I thank Betty Gould, a former member of the Coconut Grove Seniors Hall. Unfortunately, her husband, Kevin Gould, is no longer with us; we will miss him this first Christmas. I thank you for the support over the last five years. Without your help, there is no doubt in my mind that it would have been a lot harder to be re-elected.
I thank Aunty Maree De La Cruz for all the volunteer work that she does around the area; Aunty Rose Damaso, Robyn Pinkerton, Anne-Marie Scholl, Jane Biddlecombe and Dan. Thank you very much, Mick Hartwell. To Norm and Tania Hoffman and all the Hoffman boys, I hope you look after my son when he grows up, and keep an eye on him. To Esther Egger and Terry Lawler, local legend Ted Kilpatrick, and Mick and Dewi Purcell and the kids - you are fantastic people and I wish you best as the chairman of the local school at Ludmilla.
I thank Ronnie Mitchell for all the help, Kenny Cosser - go the St George Dragons, - Glen and Jacinta Stanford, Ronnie Riddle and the Riddle family, Michael Cubillo and the Cubillo family, Ken Jackson, Wes Miller, Mick Lemmon, Steve Billias - a fantastic supporter, thanks for all your help, Michael McGregor, Damien Zammit, Aunty Stephanie Zammit and Dennis Lew Fatt, and Benny and Aunty Sandra Lew Fatt. Also to Johnny Politis and the family at BP Bagot Road, thank you for all your help over the last year and years before.
I also thank my local schools: Pam Young at Nemarluk school; Dr Terry Quong at Millner school who is doing a fantastic job and we all appreciate his help; Helen Southam at Ludmilla school and Mary Cutjar at St Paul’s; and to all the staff who do a fantastic job. They work very hard and I hope to continue to work with them in the future.
Jan Cook is the Principal of Millner Preschool. She has been an icon at the Milner Preschool and really makes people feel comfortable, and I thank her for the work, along with Nicole Shoobridge and Sarah Penny.
I cannot forget one of the backbones of my community in the Millner electorate, the Coconut Grove Seniors Hall Committee. Terry Hine, the new chairperson, is going to be a fantastic asset for the Coconut Grove Seniors Hall and I will enjoy working with him in the future. Audrey Svara the secretary, Bridie Kuskey, the treasurer, Carmen Greene, the booking officer, Bill Parry, the public officer - Bill is bit of a character and I enjoy working with him, and, on the committee, Maureen Hack, Hannah Stamm, Rhonda Blaser, Joan Morse and Vic Delacour, otherwise known as Ginger – a bit of a character that we have to work with.
I would like to mention a couple of close friends, Michael Devery, Paul Seden, Reggie Saylor, and a friend of mine no longer with us - we had a debate on the roads, and Michael Edwards, unfortunately, died on the roads. His family came out in strong in support of the changes. Tim Edwards, Patrick Edwards, and Jackie and Stem, thanks for all your support. Joe Ah Sam, Glen Dooley, Rocky Cousins, David Parfitt, James Parfitt, Kenny Sutton, Damien, Shaun and Aaron Kneebone, thanks for all your help and I will continue to try to provide any assistance I can. Brendan Atkinson, Barra, thank you for your help. Matthew and Johnno, without your support, it would make the job even more difficult. I thank Marian Patterson, one of the unsung heroes of the Millner electorate, without whose continued input keeping me up to date with issues, I would find it difficult.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Hansard for all the hard work they do during the year. Anyone who knows and works with the Legislative Assembly staff understands that when you ask advice, you get open and honest advice and usually the best advice available. They do all the work, running around for us and helping our electorate. Without their help, we just could not operate.
I thank all my colleagues who have worked hard over the last year. It has been a hard year because we have taken on some hard issues. I believe we are starting to come out of the other end of the tunnel. I would like to thank the member for Johnston, dragging me out in the early hours of the morning every Sunday and keeping me honest. That is Chris Burns, of course and, without his help, no doubt over the last four or five years we have supported each other, we might have fallen over a couple of times.
I mention Speaker Jane Aagaard. When we talk about ourselves having a tough year, with all the issues to deal with politics, then you realise that people have personal lives. The Speaker of this House, Jane Aagaard, and her family, have not only had to deal with the tough political year, but also with tough personal circumstances. I am very happy to see her, as are all members, coming through with flying colours. I look forward with working with her in the future.
I also thank my in-laws, Betty and Ziggy Vogt, Richie Vogt, Willy Vogt, Ziggy Vogt Jr, and young Joshua. Thanks for all your help and support.
Finally, I thank my wife, Mona Lisa Bonson. This year has been a good year for me; I have had my first son, Matteo Raphael Bonson. He has been a delight to be around and, over the last eight months, has made a difficult year in political life and work more enjoyable because you can always come home and be with your family. Without their support and continued support in the future - you have to have a yin and yang balance, career and family. I look forward to enjoying my life as we go on and, hopefully, adding to that family over the next few years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year, and I look forward to working with you in the year to come.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, it was with tremendous sadness that I learned earlier this month of the death of Percy Ellis on 5 November 2006. Percy was a wonderful man who will be sorely missed by his family and many friends. Percival Alwyn Ellis was born in Esperance, Western Australia on 16 May 1931. In the 75 years of his life, he touched many people with his warmth, generosity, kindness and courtesy. He spent the last 52 of those years with his wife, Judy.
In 1972, Percy and Judy came to Darwin. Their plan was to stay for a year and, like many Territorians, they never left. Percy was working with Amscol when he arrived, and later took over the Birds Eye frozen food transportation into the Territory. The frozen food came into the Northern Territory, while pet meat consisting of buffalo and donkey, went back down south on the trucks.
Birds Eye pulled out of the Territory after Cyclone Tracy and Percy’s career path changed. He joined the Education department as the purchasing officer, buying clothing and groceries for teachers in remote schools.
After a year of this, he was asked to draw on his background in carpentry and teach building maintenance at the missions. While he was passing on his woodworking skills at the missions and outstations, Percy studied at night to become a qualified teacher. He obtained his teaching qualifications and then spent nine years out at Gunn Point Prison Farm teaching the inmates. Percy taught a range of useful subjects: carpentry, plumbing, building maintenance, brick making, wool clipping, fish net making, and cooking - one of his great passions.
He spent any spare time doing the rounds of government agencies scrounging, begging and acquiring all manner of books, materials and tools to outfit his workshop. Judy was thrilled one day when Percy brought home an all-singing, all-dancing Kenwood mixmaster. Percy then broke the bad news; it was for the workshop at the prison farm, not for her. Percy’s workshop was his pride and joy. His scrounging enabled him to assemble a tremendous library and all the tools and implements necessary to work the vegie gardens, the fish traps and the kitchens. Percy also became an expert in helping the vets out with artificial insemination to improve the cattle stock.
In 1974, Alf Goody asked Percy and his son, Michael, to umpire some Aussie Rules games. So began Percy’s umpiring life. Percy umpired 522 NTFL games, including 243 A Grade games, 14 grand finals and one representative game, earning him life membership of both the NTFL in 1984 and the NTFL Umpires Association. He also organised the annual Umpires Carnival for nine years, from 1974 to 1983. ‘
Everybody knew Percy; he was the gatekeeper at the Royal Darwin Show from 1974 until 1980. In 1975, Percy joined the Royal Agricultural Show Society of the Northern Territory, becoming a councillor in 1981. Percy put in many years of dedicated service to the Royal Darwin Show and, in November 1999, he was elected President of the Royal Agricultural Show Society of the Northern Territory, a position he held until November 2004. During his term as president, Percy hosted the 1998 Royal Agricultural Show Society of the Commonwealth Biennial Conference which was held in Darwin. He also oversaw constitutional changes which introduced a board of management, dealt with the effects of the introduction of the GST, organised the society’s 50th birthday celebration in 2001, and implemented a major infrastructure upgrade in 2004 which meant the opening of the show that year was a close run thing.
While at Gunn Point Prison Farm, Percy encouraged the inmates to enter exhibits at the agricultural show, and they won many prizes for their pigs, bread, and fruit and vegetables. Many years after Percy left the prison system, he was still being stopped in the street by ex-prisoners who would thank him for his help, support, and advice, especially for the skills he had passed on during his working life in the prison system.
In 2001, Percy was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in the General Division for Service to the Community, particularly through the Royal Agricultural Show Society of the Northern Territory and as an umpire of the Australian Rules football. He was also a district winner of the Territorian of the Year Awards for Darwin region in 1999.
When Percy was not working, umpiring or devoting great amounts of time to the show society, he was making furniture and toys for family and friends, or handmade crab pots for his mates. He also made ginger beer and home brew, cooked cakes and scones, and even coerced me into baking a cake for the 2004 Royal Darwin Show.
I sum up Percy very simply: he was a giver. He gave of his time, his skills, his knowledge, his love, his energy, his wisdom and his creative ability. Percy leaves behind his wife, Judy, his sons, Michael and David, and his four beloved grandchildren. Vale, Percy Ellis, a true gentleman.
Tonight I also wish everybody in this House and in the wider community a very safe and happy and healthy Christmas. 2006 seems to have flown by. Personally, I have had a very busy year with stimulating portfolio challenges and complex electorate issues. However, I am fortunate to be surrounded by some wonderful people who have ensured that I have enjoyed these challenges as we continue to move the Territory ahead in such a positive and successful fashion.
My electorate, as always, is close to my heart. I try to spend as much time as possible in the Johnston electorate office to meet people who visit me there, and offer assistance to the best of my ability. I especially enjoy getting out doorknocking and catching up with my fantastic constituents. It is a privilege and an honour to be their local member.
During the year, I have mentioned in this House some of the wonderful achievements by people who live in the Johnston electorate. They include Jingili’s Tahnee Afuhaamango who won gold, silver and bronze medals at the World Down Syndrome Swimming Championships in Ireland in September; and Moil’s John Waldmann the inventor of Waldmann’s Multi-Panels as featured on the New Inventors program. Of course, in Wagaman, Graeme Sawyer, who lives up the road from me, is so instrumental and effective in the FrogWatch organisation and all the great work that they do.
Jingili Primary School’s made incredible fundraising efforts for their sister school in Leu Lau in Timor. All the schools are blessed with talented children and I enjoy watching them grow and hearing of their exploits and accomplishments. However, schools cannot operate effectively, nor students achieve their goals, without dedicated teachers and committed school councils. I take this opportunity to thank Steve Sjoberg, Principal of the Casuarina Senior College and all the members of his staff; Michelle Cody, Principal of Wagaman Primary School and her team; Eva Lawler, Principal of Jingili Primary School and the teachers and the administration of staff there; and Pam Erfurt, Principal of Moil Primary School as well as Ian Butler, Deputy Principal and all her workers. Thank you for all your excellent work you do for our children. Honestly, you could not find a better mob.
The school councils meet every month. I try as hard as possible to attend these meetings to stay in touch with the schools and their concerns. I have been very impressed this year with the calibre of the members and chairs of all the school councils and particularly thank Libby Smith of the Casuarina Senior College Council, Kelly Anstey of the Jingili Community Council, Gail Cumming and Sita Harrison from the Moil School Council, and Justin Heath of the Wagaman School Council for their commitment and input into the running of our schools. Of course, the chairs need support and the committee members and executive officers of these councils have ensured the smooth running of the schools and meetings in my electorate. I wish them all great fun during the coming school holidays and a very happy Christmas.
As members would be aware, I try to make myself available to the public every Sunday morning at the Rapid Creek Markets. Over the years, I have become a small part of that colourful market community. If anyone wants to see multiculturalism in action they just have to get down to Rapid Creek Markets on a Sunday. I feel a sense of pride when I see Darwin locals bringing their friends and relatives from interstate and overseas to the markets to absorb its unique atmosphere. To my Sunday morning market devotees, I wish you all fresh fruit and vegetables for many years to come.
I have to mention Judy Herring, my electorate officer, who continues to give me enormous support in her role. I also thank Kathleen Francaro, Erin Grace and Russell Wilson, who helped out his year when Judy took time out to play bridge and go fishing. Being a minister means I also shift a greater workload on to my electorate officer, and I am very lucky I can depend on Judy in every way.
I also have a few stalwarts in my ministerial office to keep things ticking. Vanessa McCall has been with me since I first became a minister. Her steady and dependable approach to a very heavy workload is very much appreciated. Jade Carroll has gone through the last portfolio change with me and keeps me in line and on the go with all the different demands and duties of being a minister. I thank both Jade and Vanessa for all their efforts in times of change and challenge. Our office is amazingly busy, and these two ladies ensure it is a fantastic place to work despite the hectic pace.
During the year, my colleagues and I - that is all of us - have spent 11 weeks in sittings, and it never ceases to amaze me how the Hansard and Tabled Papers staff manage to produce such great work supporting us, particularly the Hansard staff in the form of a bound book from our debates and committee work. I thank Helen Allmich and her staff, Sue Gray, Robyn Smith, Elizabeth Olajos and all the casuals who stay up way into the night deciphering and transcribing our words.
I compliment the Legislative Assembly’s Clerk, Ian McNeill, and Deputy Clark, David Horton. They do a magnificent job in maintaining Parliament House and ensuring faultless parliamentary sittings. I am looking forward to going to Alice Springs in April.
I thank Vicki Long, Director of Parliamentary Services, and her staff who ensure the smooth running of members’ electorate offices. I also acknowledge the work and support of Mary-Anne Almond and Cherie Thorpe who are unflappable in dealing with crises as they arise in the ‘burbs and in the outback.
Every officer in the Legislative Assembly has an important role to play and, together with my sincere thanks to each and every one, I wish them all a very merry Christmas.
We all have family. Elizabeth has been my rock throughout this hectic year, and I thank her from the bottom of my heart. My sons, David and Daniel, and my daughter, Amy, are all out in the workforce now and I appreciate the hard work that they do. I thank my family for their patience and good humour throughout the year. As part of my family, of course, I thank the mighty Bruiser. He will be there tonight when I get home. You might have noticed he had his picture in the paper the other week, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is not a political dog; he is just a dog, but he is a very special dog. I value his friendship and companionship.
As many members have done this evening, on a serious note, I thank Madam Speaker for her determination and guidance in this House, particularly the support and guidance that she gives me.
To all members in the House, I wish you all the very best of good health for the future, particularly Madam Speaker. I wish everyone a wonderful Christmas with your family and loved ones.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge members of my electorate and the hard work they have done over this year and thank them.
The community of Wadeye certainly experienced some difficulties earlier in the year. I welcome the new CEO, John Berto. I believe John will do a fantastic job. He was certainly well accomplished in his role with the Northern Land Council prior to starting at the Thamarrurr Regional Council. I wish John and his wife all the best for the new year and I look forward to working with him to improve the conditions there. There are two of my good friends down there who I thank for all their support, Mandy Leggett and her partner, Paul. The work that they do there is fantastic.
There are several local people to thank: Tobias and Alunga, whose work at the school is fantastic, with Tobias taking the role of co-principal, which is a challenging one. He is doing a great job and I hope that we can see some further advances in the new year. Anne Rebgetz, the other co-principal, and her husband, Pat, who is the local GP, have certainly energised both the school and the clinic and I thank them for their work through the year. I look forward to that continuing in the new year.
A couple of friends of mine are William and Michelle Parmbuk. William is taking on a role with the gas pipeline and has done a lot of work with the army cadets, and Michelle works with the Traditional Credit Union. Good luck through the Christmas break; I wish you well.
I want to acknowledge a mate of mine, Jack Wodidj Jr. He is the president of the Nganmarriyanga Community Government Council. He lost his father this year; it was very sad. I wish him all the best for this Christmas without his father. I look forward to the new year and all the developments that are happening around the Palumpa area.
Stephen and Anastasia Moore started this year at Peppimenarti Council. I know Stephen from way back. He is certainly getting things in order. With Anastasia’s work at the art centre, I am looking forward to some interesting development of that art centre, which really centres around Regina Wilson and her family. They are a fantastic family; they work very hard in that community. Regina is one of the most accomplished artists around the Northern Territory, I would say, and I hope they have a very joyous Christmas and a new year.
My uncle, Terry Sams is at Emu Point. They had the opening of their school this year. It was a fantastic day out there, and it all comes back to the work that Terry has done with his family. I hope they have a good year. They got trapped in the floods this year. I hope we do not have a repeat of last year.
The Pine Creek community has advanced this year with their mining interests, and I thank all the people at GBS Gold. Tony Simpson, and his staff have work to ingratiate themselves in the community and put the community first. I look forward to further discoveries of deposits and a longer life for that mine.
To a few friends of mine down there, Skins and Leonie, thanks for your support this year to not only me but my family. To Chris Mason and his wife at the pub, it is good to go in and have a chat with them and get a few tips for the horsies. Thanks again for your friendship.
Duncan Beggs has certainly been very helpful this year with his involvement with Territory Iron. I am very excited about the mine starting next year, and the employment and growth in the Pine Creek community that that will bring. To Ray Wooldridge and the councillors, Pine Creek Council is one of the most successful councils that I have seen around the place. There are a couple of others I will mention later. Good work, and we look forward to working in the new year.
To the Kybrook mob, and Maria Lee, who took over this year as president. She is a great, very strong lady. I know there are some challenges at Kybrook and we certainly will get stuck into those in the new year. Also, thanks to Robert Liddy for his management of the association.
This year, obviously, the floods incorporated both Katherine and Mataranka. Steve and Debbie at the Mataranka Homestead suffered quite significantly. This year, they fought back; they got the place going. It is a fantastic job they have done and a credit to them. Fingers crossed, nothing will happen this year, and I hope they have a very peaceful Christmas.
Barry Sharpe and Ann Kanters run the pub at Larrimah. I have had a bit to do with Barry and Anne over the years. They were fairly instrumental in organising the Back to Birdum weekend which I attended with my son this year. It was a fantastic day, and they keep Larrimah on the map as best you can. I look forward to catching up with them.
Around the Daly area, there is, obviously, a lot of activity. As has been mentioned in the House previously, Gary Higgins and his wife, Rhonda, do a fantastic job. They drive me mad - that is their job - and I look forward to chasing up every little issue that they bring up because I know it is to the benefit of that region.
There is Nola and Steve Foster. Nola works at the school and does an absolutely great job. That school is bursting at the seams and I dread to think how many more kids will turn up in the new year.
I thank Harold Sinclair, the president of the development association, and Val Cowan and her husband. Val stepped down as secretary this year, but she did absolutely fine work this year in writing me lots and lots of letters and keeping the interests of the association alive.
Special thanks to Betty Daly. She is a stalwart of the Nauiyu community. She has been involved with the Wooliana School more recently, and is moving things ahead. Also to Brian and Lina who have been good strong supporters of mine. Brian runs the Bushfires Council. I thank all the Bushfires Council brigades; they do an absolutely fantastic job. We had major fires in the Douglas Daly and the Darwin rural area, and those volunteers deserve a lot more. I hope we, as a government, can do a lot more for them. I hope they have a peaceful, wet Christmas and have a bit of a break for a while.
Robbie Robinson is someone who does a great deal of work in the rural area. He is on schools councils for Berry Springs and Taminmin, and is always bringing issues to me on behalf of the rural area. I pay credit to him for all the work he does. He has been at the forefront of the childcare issue there. I thank Robbie for his support this year, and hope I can reciprocate that.
Sheila Delahay and her staff at the Berry Springs school do a fantastic job. It is an excellent school. We had the opening of their shade over their basketball court this year, and it was only achieved through their fundraising. I make recognition of that and this government putting in additional dollars to make it happen. Well done, Sheila and your staff, and I look forward to catching up with you in the new year.
I also thank the Coomalie Council and Lisa Wain and her staff who do an absolutely fantastic job to service the Adelaide River, Batchelor and Lake Bennett areas. A special note to Cliff Walton who started this year as their recreation officer. Cliff has organised Auskick programs and footy carnivals, and he has certainly re-energised that sport and recreation area. The community is certainly appreciating it.
Nina Keener, who has Nina’s Ark and looks after animals which have been hurt in road accidents. She does a fantastic job with those animals. I hope she has a nice, peaceful Christmas and a happy new year. I hope that the stress she has had about mining exploration in the area has eased, and she continues the fine work she does.
A special thanks to Rod Elvish at Compass Resources who participated in a number of events that we organised this year. Compass is very community minded and is going to transform the Batchelor community. I cannot wait until it gets into full swing. Batchelor and those other centres are struggling with issues that they do not mind struggling with; that is, shortage of housing and staff. The population will grow and I look forward to working with Rod and his staff in the new year.
The members and committee of the Adelaide River Show Society have done a great deal of work this year. I am the patron of the ARSS Club - an ARSS patron in some ways. They put in a hell of a lot of time; they organise the show and the races. The Adelaide River races is shaping up to be one of the finest bush races in the Territory, if not Australia. Special thanks - and I am not going to get everybody but I will just mention a few names - to Debbie Koch, Trish Forscutt, and Jane Ellem and her partner Karl who are disappearing for about six months on a trip around Australia. Thank you, Jane, I appreciate the time you give me and hope you and Karl have a great trip around Australia. Also to Sandy Maclean who is the president of the association. She certainly keeps it on track.
I make a special acknowledgement of the Wagiman Guwardagun Rangers. They are a Landcare rangers group from Kybrook and they won the Alcan Landcare Indigenous Award 2006. They received the recognition at the national level. The award was presented to this outstanding indigenous community group that has adopted sound land management practices and is working towards cultural sustainable land use. It is a great recognition for a small community. There are many Aboriginal ranger groups around the Territory, and it good to see that the Kybrook mob and the Wagiman mob won that.
I will just mention their names: Jabul Huddleston, Cedric Blitner, Laurie Corrigan, John Kulwain, Damien Ritchie, Brenda Huddleston, Verona Huddleston, Elizabeth Sullivan, John Lee, Rhys Lee, Timothy Lee, Geoffrey Coleman, Jamie Corrigan, and Colleen Alangale. There are also people who came and went. It is great work that they have done. Also, their facilitator is Veronica Birrell. It is great acknowledgment for the Northern Territory, let alone their communities.
Following on from other statements this evening, I also say a special thanks to the parliamentary staff. They do a great job; they certainly put in the hours. To the Legislative Assembly staff starting with the Speaker, I thank them for all their work.
I would just like to finish with special thanks to my family. They have put up with a hell of a lot. I do not spend a great deal of time at home. I say a special thanks to my wife Tracey, to our children, Jacob, Dakota and Lily. I certainly hope I can spend some more time at home over Christmas and next year. Thank you very much. I know you put up with a lot from me. I love you very much and I hope we have a great Christmas and new year.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITION
Braitling Primary School Airconditioning System
Braitling Primary School Airconditioning System
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 858 petitioners praying that the Braitling Primary School airconditioning upgrade be nominated as a matter of highest priority on the capital works rolling program. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully request that the NT government recognise that the problems encountered at Braitling Primary School due to its current airconditioning system do not provide a suitable physical learning and working environment for children or staff of the school. Disruptions to planned classroom teaching during hot and humid conditions at the commencement of the academic year led to considerable delays in the commencement of teaching programs. Measured humidity and temperatures at this time were above NT WorkSafe recommendations exposing staff and students (some children in their first year of primary school) to heat stress that made it difficult to concentrate and engage successfully in classroom activities and curriculum planning.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the NT Department of Employment, Education and Training nominate the Braitling Primary School airconditioning upgrade as a matter of the highest priority on the Capital Works Rolling Program, Arid Regional Evaporative Airconditioned Schools Upgrade. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
Braitling Primary School Airconditioning System
Braitling Primary School Airconditioning System
Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I am able to present a response to this petition forthwith.
I was pleased to visit Braitling Primary School about a month ago to advise principal, Sue Crowe and the school council chairperson, Clive Rosewarne, of a $120 000 upgrade to the school’s airconditioning system. I can advise the House and petitioners that the tender for the supply and installation has been let. The Northern Territory company, Airducter, has won the contract. The equipment has been ordered and work is on schedule for completion by the first day of school in 2007. I will be writing to the 858 petitioners advising them of this fact.
PETITIONS
Closed Circuit TV Monitoring in Todd Mall Precinct
Closed Circuit TV Monitoring in Todd Mall Precinct
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 543 petitioners praying that closed circuit television monitoring be implemented in Todd Mall and adjacent areas. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully observe that there is a breakdown of law and order in our community, inadequate resources for the police, unacceptable level of antisocial behaviour on our streets, and our personal safety at risk. Your petitioners further observe the alcohol abuse, antisocial behaviour and personal violence that take place in the Mall when there are no police in the vicinity to enforce the law.
Your petitioners believe that CCTV monitoring will help control the level of antisocial and violent behaviour, act as a significant deterrent of such behaviour, and assist in the apprehension of perpetrators of antisocial behaviour and violence.
Your petitioners humbly pray that the Northern Territory government immediately implement closed circuit television monitoring in the Todd Mall and adjacent areas.
Power for Launceston Road Dundee Beach Residents
Dr LIM (Greatorex)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 28 petitioners relating to power for Launceston Road, Dundee Beach residents. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- We the residents of Launceston Road, Dundee Beach are requesting that the funding needed by Power and Water to supply electricity to Launceston Road be made available now.
Clare Martin promised to complete the electrification of Stage 1A, Dundee Beach during this term of her government prior to the last election. Michael Bock of Power and Water has advised us that we can have power down Launceston Road if we pay for it out of our own pockets. It is not fair that we have been dropped from the project funding. This is not the election promise made to us by the Chief Minister. On another note, having so many generators running creating toxic fumes cannot be good for the environment, can it?
Electricity is an essential service for all Territorians – we need it now.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Federal Government’s Multicultural Policy
Federal Government’s Multicultural Policy
Ms LAWRIE (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, today I express the Martin government’s opposition to moves by the Commonwealth to scrap the word ‘multiculturalism’ from its Multicultural policy. Federal Parliamentary Secretary, Andrew Robb, recently said he wants to scrap ‘multiculturalism’ because the word has a different meaning for different people.
The Territory is wonderfully multicultural and while the Howard government might see it as a dirty word, we consider the Territory proudly multicultural and we are going to keep it that way. Our multicultural society is part of our great Territory lifestyle. We love being able to head down to the Mindil Beach markets for the flavours and entertainment from around the world. We have plenty of cultural festivals held throughout the Territory throughout the year – Chinese New Year, the Greek Glenti, the Bali/India at Mindil, and Barrio Fiesta to name a few. I have written to Andrew Robb pointing out our concerns.
The Australian government has also proposed introducing a formal citizenship test. They claim that a formal citizenship test would demonstrate commitment to Australia’s way of life and values. Our multicultural community does not need to be tested. The contribution to our great lifestyle in the Territory does not need to be tested. Formal citizenship tests have been used in the United Kingdom and the United States. I have not been there lately, but I see absolutely no evidence that these countries have a more harmonious society than here in the Territory.
The Martin government fully supports the need for all Australians, including migrants, to participate to the best of their ability in an Australian society, and commit to Australia’s democratic institutions, and also supports assistance for migrants to improve their English language and general knowledge of Australia. However, we believe that Australian citizenship should be seen as an opportunity to promote and celebrate our social cohesion, not as a means to exclude certain categories of migrants. We are all aware of many first generation migrants in the Territory who have not achieved functional English, but who have still made a significant contribution to the Territory. We also know that children of these migrants are frequently represented in the highest levels of academic, professional and business achievements in the Territory. We can ask for no greater commitment.
The Northern Territory government’s commitment to our multicultural community continues with the latest round of our Ethnic Community Facilities Development Program. This year we have some terrific organisations being supported. Some of the grants include: Alice Springs Islamic Society, $50 000 for a driveway and car park; the Buddhist Society of the Territory, $81 479 to bring their premises up to code; the Chung Wah Society, $15 000 for repairs to the community hall roof; Filipino-Australian Association of the Territory, $45 000 for completion of floors, eaves and car parking space; the Hindu Society of the Territory, $31 479 as a top-up grant to complete their hall; the Kalymnian Brotherhood, $45 000 to upgrade their car park; the Katherine Filipino Association of the Territory, $41 685 for renovations to their community hall; and for the Multicultural Community Services of Central Australia, $2836 to convert a store room to a wardrobe.
All of these organisations, and plenty of others, do a wonderful job in contributing to the multicultural lifestyle of the Northern Territory. We are very proud to support them to achieve this. We call on the federal government to scrap its views around removing the word ‘multicultural’ from its Multicultural policy. We urge the CLP in opposition to join us in a bipartisan call to the federal government to remove their dogmatic approach and embrace the multiculturalism that is very much a part of the fabric of Australian society.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I would like to seriously support the minister’s report, except that the way she did it is dishonest. It was a dishonest way of praising and celebrating our very diverse community in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is unique when compared with the rest of Australia. We have the greatest mix of various ethnic groups celebrating together in this very special community that we have. I could hear violins when she was saying: ‘Oh, my heart bleeds’. Minister, do it honestly. I support the government in what you have continued doing since the days of the CLP when we supported every cultural group we could possibly support in the Northern Territory.
On the matter of the citizenship test that the minister mentioned, it was the disgraceful ALP government that introduced the language test that excluded every Chinese from this country. That was what it was all about, and this government says: ‘Don’t you dare do it’. It was the ALP that did it many, many years ago. It was the Chinese who suffered the consequences of those very racist actions of the ALP. Now this government says we must not do this.
The minister needs to explore this issue a lot more. Let us talk about citizenship and what citizenship means to us in Australia; the loyalty we have to this country, and what it means to be able to link into the wider community. That is what is important and this government has not done that.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, just 10 days ago I went to a multicultural night in Alice Springs. Alice Springs has a diverse range of different nationalities and it was interesting in that each table put on an act, depending on their nationality. On our table, I was a bit shocked to find that there was only me and one other fellow who knew this Australia ditty which went a little like this:
- There once was a farmer who took a young miss
In back of the barn where he gave her a lecture on …
Okay, I can see none of you know it either. It was fun. We appreciated everything that people contributed on that night. It was one of those events where you knew the mixture of nationalities in Alice Springs were able to get together and have a good time. It is not a racist town as people sometimes claim. When we use the term ‘multicultural’ I think it is a bit hackneyed. I believe it is a 1960s word and it is time we started thinking about saying something else. It has connotations that have been tagged; it has baggage, particularly in this day and age.
Even though I do not agree with the Prime Minister when he talks about testing new people to come here, it is good to have a certain criteria. I believe the criteria we use now are quite adequate. I say to the minister, perhaps this is an old term. It is a 1960s term. Let us think of something that represents the Territory today: the modern, new Territory, with all these nationalities working together. I have been thinking about it. We all should be thinking about it and put forward a different term and not let the Prime Minister make up his own mind.
Ms LAWRIE (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, I find the response from the shadow minister absolutely disheartening, that he is prepared to support the Commonwealth in their citizenship test. It is disgraceful. I will be letting the communities know about your whinging words in here this morning, shadow minister, in support of Johnnie Howard and his mates in Canberra who stand opposed to our harmonious society.
I have to agree to disagree with the member for Braitling. I do not think multiculturalism has baggage. It has baggage in the minds of the Liberal, National and Country Liberal Parties, but for the rest of us in our society it does not have baggage. Let us embrace it, enjoy it and celebrate it.
I pay tribute to the work done in Alice Springs by the multicultural group, they are harmonious, they celebrate their multiculturalism and, at a debate recently, they all vehemently expressed their opposition to the Commonwealth’s agenda to scrap multiculturalism.
Biodiesel Facility - Opening
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, last week, the Chief Minister and I had the pleasure of helping Richard Selwood and his team at Natural Fuels Australia Ltd officially open their new biodiesel facility at the Darwin Business Park.
This $48m renewable energy plant is one of the most technologically advanced biodiesel production plants in Australia, and one of the first of its kind in the world. From early next year, the plant will produce up to 140 million litres of biodiesel, and around 12 000 tonnes of pharmaceutical grade glycerine every year. I am pleased to inform the House that the company has already entered into an agreement for the sale of up to 140 million litres of biodiesel each year, or 82% of its capacity.
The opening of this world-class facility in Darwin is good for local business and jobs. There will be around 100 jobs created directly and indirectly, and the facility will generate millions of dollars for the local economy. This landmark industrial project is a great example of our ability to deliver on major resource development projects. It is further evidence that our strategic investment in the Darwin Business Park is starting to reap dividends.
Together with the Vopak Fuel Terminal, which the Chief Minister opened last year, we have the core of a clean fuel precinct established within the Darwin Business Park. We hope to see a condensate processing plant next door in the near future.
The clean fuels precinct is a perfect example of the vision we had for the Darwin Business Park when it was established in 2003. We always envisaged complementary industries grouping together, and working together, such as Vopak and Natural Fuels Australia, to reduce costs and increase efficiency.
This company should be applauded on their collaborative approach. It is a great example for other industrial developments in the business park. In addition to this strategic clustering, the business park is close to road, rail and port facilities, and our new modern bulk handling facilities will see Darwin become an even more attractive option for new industries such as Natural Fuels Australia.
The Darwin Business Park has also constructed more freight forwarding operations. Toll Holdings has just commenced Stage 2 of their $20m development, which will see another 5000 m2 facility being built alongside their existing facility. It should be operational by mid-2007.
I am also advised that Shaws Transport Darwin and John Bain’s Westrans are both set to commence construction of their new freight forwarding facilities in January. Negotiations with other companies are also well advanced, which is great news for the future of the Darwin Business Park.
This means even more jobs and business opportunities for Territorians. Natural Fuels Australia deserve our highest praise. I take the opportunity to congratulate their Chief Executive Officer, Richard Selwood, Chairman, Barry Murphy, and the Board of Directors of Natural Fuels Australia Ltd for their vision and professionalism. I also acknowledge and thank the Chief Operating Officer, Michael Allenby, and his operational team who worked so hard to get the plant to where it is today.
The opening of Natural Fuels Australia Darwin Biodiesel facility is good news for the Territory. It will create jobs for Territorians and provide a big boost to our local economy. Importantly, it has once again shown our capacity to attract and deliver on major industrial projects.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I speak on this on behalf of the opposition because I have taken a close interest in this development. It is interesting to hear the statement that this will have a big impact on the Northern Territory. We need to have that explored more carefully and thoughtfully by government because the real potential for the Territory is if it is developed down the line of understanding that the need is for oil seed production in the Northern Territory. That is the real capacity that will be unleashed in the Northern Territory.
It is a tremendous vote of confidence in the Northern Territory that Natural Fuels Australia has chosen the Northern Territory. It was chosen because of its close location to palm oil seed production within the region but, more importantly, because of the capacity of growing oil seeds within this part of the world. That unlocks the potential for the Northern Territory.
The government has done the necessary things to facilitate the establishment of the plant. That is just the beginning; the potential is now there for road blocks to be removed by this government, or problems that will impede the development of land in the Northern Territory to be focused upon by this government so that those road blocks can be cleared.
One is the land issues. There are many pastoralists who went to the field day trials in the Douglas Daly area who became enthusiastic because now there is a market and a plant that can use the production of oil within the Territory - a market. Therefore, the land issues need to be attended to, and the research to back up the capacity to produce oil seeds in the Territory. Finally, the most important issue that was raised during the field day was water rights. Those are the sort of things that this government can focus on to unleash the potential of a vote of confidence that has been shown in the Northern Territory by the establishment of this plant.
I applaud those who have taken the foresight to establish this. They need the support of government, not just quick briefings and to turn up at ribbon cuttings, but to actually be there and do the job.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. As I said before, whilst I support biodiesel, there are still questions about the economics behind the production of biodiesel.
I went to the Alternative Fuels Conference in Perth a few months ago where this was discussed. There were certainly issues about using land that is set aside for producing food crops being used for producing fuel. They are issues that we need to look at. It may not be such a matter in the Northern Territory because we have vast amounts of land. However, it would be good to know that the source of that oil is not from plantations that either affect the environment or are using land that could be used for food. It is a big issue, but it is an issue we still have to look at.
I agree with the member for Blain; there are big land issues that the government has to address. For many years, I have asked about the Ord River Stage 2. It appears our government has done very little about developing the Ord River Stage 2. Western Australia is miles ahead …
A member: No, they are not.
Mr WOOD: Western Australia is miles ahead in the opening up of the Ord River Stage 2. We need to advance on that, so that if we are going to produce crops for biodiesel, then we are in a situation where that can happen. We certainly have uncertainty about what is going to happen on the Daly River as well.
You mentioned clean fuels - distillate condensate. I presume one of those fuels that is being produced is hydrogen. I am still interested in the government looking at whether it can use hydrogen as a fuel for its fleet, or use biodiesel in its fleet. You have promoted both of these industries. If the government wants to give both of these industries a bit of a leg up and support, then it should be trying to use the fuels that are produced there in its own fleet as a sign of encouragement and support.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, it is refreshing to finally hear a member of the opposition supporting the government’s endeavour to attract this kind of industry. It is not doom and gloom. It is promoting the Territory and creating jobs for Territorians. I would like to advise the member for Blain that yes, the department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is actively involved in discussions with farmers about the possibility of growing these kind of seeds in the Territory. There was a trial on Tipperary Station growing soya beans that went very well.
As for the member for Nelson, I share his concerns about clearing especially tropical forest to grow palm oil. I would like something like that to happen here rather than importing from areas like in Indonesia which have suffered from uncontrolled clearing. I also share his concern about growing crops for food or growing them for fuel. The reality is a fuel-hungry society will need fuel. In the Territory we are in the best position to utilise our land to effectively produce renewable fuels like biodiesel.
Masters Games 2006
Mr VATSKALIS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I inform members about the very successful Alice Springs Master Games held recently. This year’s Alice Springs Masters Games was the 11th games held and signifies the Games’ 20th year. A record 4457 competitors with an average age of 50, some competitors from as far as France, came to Alice Springs to participate in 34 sports.
I assisted with the opening of the Games and the town was buzzing. Both the opening and closing ceremonies were huge events attended by thousands of competitors, visitors and Alice Springs residents, including our former parliamentary colleague, Peter Toyne, sporting a newly shaved head.
More than 140 Masters Games records were broken with some Australian records falling. Kay Jorgensen, a 49-year-old swimming powerhouse, broke Dawn Fraser’s Masters Games record in both the 50 m and 100 m freestyle, records that had stood since the first games in 1986. Dawn was on hand to congratulate a very excited Kay on her great achievement. It was great to see Dawn Fraser, the patron of the Alice Springs Masters Games, once again competing in the Games, and also guest ambassador, Daryl Somers, for once again being everywhere and sharing his humour. I thank them both for their continued support of Alice Springs.
I would like to make a special mention of swimmer, Margo Bates, the oldest competitor of the Games at 96 years old. She only learnt to swim in her 80s.
It was not just competitive sports that made the 2006 Games a success. It was the community spirit. More than 120 people participated in the slower paced 5km walk for a very good cause. They donned pink outfits and walked to help support the fight against breast cancer, obviously a topic very close to your heart, Madam Speaker. It was great to see the Masters Games organisers embrace it.
Local businesses got involved with a competition to design a Masters Games themed shopfront. Feeling Peckish in the Todd Mall came away with the $1000 airport advertising package prize for their tribute to the Games. Congratulations to Renae Brown and Sandy Burnnard on their great effort.
More than 2600 interstate and overseas visitors came for our friendly Games this year. The Games are funded by this government to the tune of $1.5m. I am advised an estimated $18.5m is injected into the Alice Springs economy as a result of the Masters Games.
The Games could not be successful without the tireless work of the hundreds of volunteers and the Games ambassadors: for your efforts we are truly grateful. Nor could this event be a success without the monetary and in-kind support of the sponsors. Thanks must go to the Diamond Sponsors, Peter Kittle Motor Company, Imparja Television, Lasseters Hotel Casino, and the Alice Springs Town Council, for your generosity and commitment to this event. Thanks also for the support from the other valued sponsors, Carlton United Breweries, The Crowne Plaza, Coca Cola, Tattersalls, Centralian Advocate, Sporting Plus, 8HA, Alice Springs Airport, Telstra Country Wide, Colemans Printing, The Ghan, ROWO, the TAB, Alice Plaza, Power and Water, Thrifty, Centralian Records Management, the Dept of Correctional Services, TIO Insurance and Banking, Fujitsu, The Overlander Steakhouse, Redback Productions, Alice Springs Creative Gifts and Awards, and Neata Glass and Aluminium.
The lion’s share of the responsibility for the Games’ success is due to the dedication and commitment of the fabulous Masters Games staff, ably lead by Judith Dixon. I also pay tribute to Les Garraway who has overseen sponsorship management for the games since its inception 20 years ago. His corporate knowledge and his networks are invaluable to the Games. The Masters Games were a huge success and I do not think any of the competitors wanted it to end. I encourage each of my parliamentary colleagues to make it to the next one between 11 and 18 October 2008.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I speak both in my capacity as a member of parliament from Alice Springs and as a participant in the Masters Games - a bronze medal winning participant, having knocked a few a points off my golf handicap. I had a very enjoyable Masters Games. My colleague over here, Dr Lim, picked up a couple of silvers and a bronze medal. I am not sure how many Toyney ended up getting. I am also not sure how much the member for Macdonnell participated in the Games. I am not sure whether she won a medal.
It was an outstanding Masters Games. What a fabulous CLP initiative the Masters Games have been. What vision the former CLP administration showed for the development of Alice Springs and the Northern Territory generally in implementing the Masters Games - a vision that this government is sadly lacking.
Thousands of participants came from everywhere for the Masters. The town looked great. There was a fantastic feeling in the air. It is always an outstanding opportunity for the residents and businesses in Alice Springs to strut their stuff and all was going well. It was noticed that the usual ministers from Darwin flew in and flew out, but the Masters Games managed to proceed pretty much without them.
Madam Speaker, you would be aware, as would everyone else in this Chamber, of the outrageous cowardly assault that occurred on the Friday night after the Masters Games. That was an outrageous assault and one that really took the wind out of everyone’s sails. The gentleman involved is doing reasonably well in all of this and all of us, I think, have contributed to his fundraising efforts. That was a sad moment for the town of Alice Springs and that is partly why CCTV cameras and more police presence in Alice Springs are required. On that unhappy note, however, the Masters Games was a success and we look forward to participating in even more.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, as a non-participant but as someone who handed out many medals, and strung them on tall people and short people, it was a great event. I do want to pay compliment to a member for coming last. I am sure he spoiled his record actually; he came last in the 100 m, 200 m and the 400 m, but he ruined it by coming second last in the shot put: the member for Nelson.
Mr Wood: Thank you. The other bloke gave up.!
Mrs BRAHAM: It was a great night and the security guards told me that there were no problems at the opening and closing ceremonies, the rock and roll concert, or the concert at the convention centre. I walked down the mall and there was a good feel. As the member for Araluen said, the assault incident was unfortunate, but we should not dwell on the negatives. Accommodation is a problem. I know a number of participants were billeted by sporting clubs because it was difficult to get accommodation in the end.
I thought Dawn Fraser and Daryl Somers as ambassadors were tremendous. I joined them in presentations. They were so obliging to people. Daryl, I think, gave up awarding medals because people just wanted to have their photos taken with him and he did it freely and with such good grace. Dawn, who was often pestered, was also very calm and willing to stand there and be the model that people wanted to hug and have their photographs with. They are tremendous ambassadors and I hope we continue to have that type of publicity.
When I did a presentation with Daryl Somers, he told me that he had done 18 interviews interstate that day. You could imagine the huge publicity that was for the Masters Games in Alice Springs. We cannot buy that sort of publicity. We need someone like him. Minister, it was great. Well done, and I hope you continue to support it as you have done in the past.
Mr VATSKALIS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, it is great to see bipartisan support for the Alice Springs Masters Games. Yes, it was an initiative by the CLP, and our government will continue to support it and Alice Springs. As I said yesterday, in one year we put $12.75m into Alice Springs to support the development of sporting facilities. Yes, the spirit was fantastic; I really enjoyed it. I did not want to leave but I had to attend a conference in Brisbane. I enjoyed my time. I enjoyed playing golf with Dawn Fraser. She played really well; I played badly and I am not ashamed to say so. I am sorry that I missed the soccer competition. I had my boots and everything, but because I had to go away, I missed out.
I congratulate the people of Alice Springs in particular because they are the ones who make sure that the people who participate in the Master Games will come time after time because of how hospitable they are and how beautiful the town is.
Business Breakfast Program
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I report to the Assembly on the Business Breakfast Program. This government believes in consultation and keeping in touch with business and the community. As Treasurer, for some time I have had a program of business breakfasts which allow me to keep in touch with the business community and the issues they face.
Recently, I held a breakfast with a number of local businesswomen and, last week, breakfast with a number of business people who also write for business publications.
We are a leader in the Territory with many of the things we do, but perhaps it is most evident in what I would describe in the business world as the having-a-go attitude. There is no doubt that the businesswomen I met with on 2 November are all shining examples of people willing to have a go at very different elements of business across our community. Present at that breakfast were women from communications companies, rehabilitation businesses, Darwin motor sales companies, jewellery businesses, and a major legal firm. The common issue raised by each of the businesswomen present was the issue of staff and the need for more staff to work in their businesses. Clearly, the labour shortage grip is continuing and it is a point made repeatedly by business in a number of forums and again at this breakfast.
As I reported to the House yesterday, year on year growth in employment was 5.9%. It is much higher than was predicted at the time of the budget, and clearly more jobs are available. It represents significant opportunities for employees and an opportunity for government to continue the strong program of supporting Territory training.
The breakfast last Wednesday was with businessmen and women who are also business writers. I was pleased to have a broad discussion with them on the general state of the Territory economy. The Northern Territory will remain a great place to live and do business while we have terrific business minds like those I met at the breakfast. The issue of labour shortage was again raised. We also dealt with land availability issues, the long-term prospects of the Northern Territory, and the nation’s economic outlook.
It is important for the Treasurer to meet with business people in this way to hear directly from those involved at the coalface just how things are really going. It is a much more valuable insight than the broad, high level data and statistics that I see as Treasurer on most days. With business so busy, I am grateful that they gave up some of their time to meet with me. I believe they view these breakfasts as an opportunity to let the government know directly their concerns and views. I look forward to continuing this program of business breakfasts across the Northern Territory next year.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the Treasurer prefaced his comments by saying this government believes in community consultation. To believe in something and not practice it is the issue, particularly when it relates to the effect of the decision to restrict the speed on open highways. That was not community consultation. There is consultation when it suits the purposes of government.
I am very interested to know whether the Treasurer, in his interest in going around and talking to people and hearing what they really think, has actually spoken to those who are most directly affected by the imposition of speed restrictions on the open roads, particularly the cattlemen and those who work in the regions and sustain their living and support the Territory in very difficult situations remote from urban centres. The urban centres are where the larger number of our problems on the roads do exist. I hope that the minister does extend his ear to listen very carefully, and openly and humbly, to the voice of those who are directly affected by the decisions that are made by his government. They may say they believe in community consultation but when it comes to things like education reform, they managed an exercise called community consultation which was, in fact, the management of a public relations exercise.
I also note that, from the point of view of opposition, it is becoming increasingly clear that this notion of consultation has a sinister edge to it. There are many who once were unencumbered and free to speak who feel constrained now. There is subtle pressure being applied to those who have spoken up in the past. You may be offended deeply by such claims, but it is, in fact, the case, and very difficult for anyone to substantiate it because they would be pressured.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
The overall time for ministerial reports has expired.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The question is that ministerial reports be noted.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, order! Honourable members! The question is that ministerial reports be noted.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
BAIL AMENDMENT (SERIOUS SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL
(Serial 72)
(Serial 72)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The aim of the bill is to add serious sexual offences to the list of offences where bail is not presumed. The bill defines serious sexual offences as eight particular offences under the Criminal Code. These eight offences already fall within the category of ‘serious violence offence’ for which section 7A of the Bail Act does not presume bail, but only if the accused was on bail for a separate serious offence and had previously been found guilty of a further serious offence within the previous two to 10 years. Section 8 also does not presume bail for some specific sexual offences, but only if the offender had been found guilty of murder, bodily harm, common assault, or sex without consent within the last 10 years. I totally agree with these provisions except they do not apply to an accused who does not fall within these criteria.
Bail is the right to be at liberty instead of in custody based on the principle that the accused person is innocent until proven guilty. However, there are situations where it is considered that the accused should not be at liberty such as if there was a risk that they would not front up to court for their case, or they may re-offend, or they may be a risk to the victim or community. In these circumstances, a court can reject bail. At the same time, it is accepted that there are certain crimes for which bail should not be presumed. That is why many Australian jurisdictions do not presume bail for murder, as an example. In the Northern Territory, the Bail Act does not presume bail for murder, treason, and some drug offences.
Let me go into some of the details of the bill. First, the bill amends section 3, Interpretation, to include a definition of ‘serious sexual offence’ which will constitute eight offences from the Criminal Code. These are generally considered to be of a serious nature: section 127, sexual intercourse or gross indecency involving a child under 16 years; section 128, sexual intercourse or gross indecency involving a child over 16 years under special care; section 130, sexual intercourse or gross indecency by a provider of services to a mentally ill or handicapped person; section 131A, sexual relationship with a child; section 132, indecent dealing with a child under 16 years; section 134, incest; section 192, sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent; and section 192B, coerced sexual self-manipulation.
Second, the bill amends section 7A(1), Presumption against bail for certain offences. The amendment adds the offence of serious sexual offence to the list of other offences where bail is not presumed. This clause also amends section 7A(1)(e) which details circumstances where bail is not presumed for serious violent offences. The definition of these offences includes the sections relating to serious sexual offences. It is necessary to amend section 7A(1)(e) to ensure the circumstance where bail is not presumed for serious violent offences will not limit the new section 7(A)(1)(db), which includes serious sexual offences, being included in the list.
Third, the bill amends section 8, Presumption in favour of bail for certain offences. This section lists the offences and circumstances where bail may be presumed. It is regarded as a ‘neutral presumption’ in that there is no presumption that bail will be granted, nor is there an express presumption that bail not be granted. This is because an offence may fall under the categories of section 7A or section 8. Section 8(1)(aa) states that bail may not be presumed for some offences defined as serious violent offences under the Criminal Code. These offences are section 181, Grievous harm, and some parts of section 192, Sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent, if the accused has previously been found guilty of certain offences under the Criminal Code.
Amendment to this clause is necessary, therefore, to ensure that serious sexual offences do not fall into the neutral presumption area. This is done by removing the references to the Criminal Code section 192 offences in section 8(1)(aa) so as to avoid any potential confusion about the presumption of bail because these offences will be listed as serious sexual offences.
Fourth, the bill inserts a new section of transitional matters. The presumption against bail for serious sexual offences will apply retrospectively for an alleged serious sexual offence committed before the commencement of the new act. This will not apply to an accused person who is granted bail for such an offence prior to the commencement of the new act. However, it will apply if that person’s bail is up for review after the commencement date, as the new provisions will apply.
Section 24 of the Bail Act, Criteria to be considered in bail applications, is not removed or altered, but allows a court to consider each case and whether to grant bail on the probability of the accused appearing in court, the interests of the accused, and the protection and welfare of the community. I stress that section 24 will not be altered or removed.
Opponents will argue the courts are well aware of potential negative impact on granting bail and will not do so if there is any risk to the victim, their family or the community. However, a brief look at a number of cases shows the majority of accused are granted bail, even those accused of sexual assault against children. I could go into descriptions of cases but too often they are distressing and I am assuming as members you are in touch with your community and you know of them.
What has prompted me to introduce this amendment? The increasing reports of violent and sadistic sexual offences against children and adults. Statistics taken from the Office of Crime Prevention quarterly report show that for the last three years sexual assault offences constitute between 4.4% to 9.3% of all offences against a person. The average monthly number of sexual assaults for the same period is between 22 and 38; that is almost one every day. Of course we cannot measure the long-term effects on the victims. It affects their attitudes to relationships, and sometimes without closure and unrepaired damage there is often no closure at all.
Many of you may ask why I am bringing this amendment. It is not for political chest beating as one lawyer group has suggested. It is for the victims. It is a fact that I have worked with children for many years and I can tell many sad stories. As well as that, many people who consider the system has let them down have contacted me. What would you do if a Year 6 girl in the middle of development lesson asked you how many times you have to have sex to get pregnant, and when told as little as once, retreats into her shell and takes no part in that lesson. Yes, her stepfather was the offender.
How do you react to a six-year-old at show and tell when she said she slept over at a friend’s place but did not want to stay again as the games her friend’s father wanted to play, hurt her?
Do all cases go to court? No. What made an 11-year-old burst into tears when her mother said she was going out and her grandfather would look after her? Her mother would not report him to the police. Her excuse? He is my father. But what of the daughter?
There are cases where the accused is released on bail and these cause even greater concern to the victim and the family. Let me read you part of a letter I received when this amendment was circulated. Obviously, I will not reveal who it came from. The young person said:
- In response to the letter by Col Friel in Saturday’s paper concerning denying bail to people accused of sexual offences, I am a 29-year-old mother of three who struggles with life every day due to the effects of sexual abuse. I am one of the many victims whose life will never recover from the trauma of a shattered childhood. Not only do I live with the memories, the shame and the effects of my abuse, but I also have to deal with the fact that my offender was never made to face trial due to him being granted bail. He was granted bail to another state, never to return for trial - never to answer for anything he did to me. I pay everyday, not him! The proposed legislation should be supported so there may never be the benefit of the doubt given to these predators, and there will no longer be the chance of people like me suffering because they are still waiting for justice to be done - all because he got bail!
The feedback I have had to the distribution of my amendment for discussion has produced a variety of responses. Some too ignorant to respond to, and some too set in their ways to see the victim’s side of the story such as some of the ridiculous remarks made by lawyers even before they saw the bill. On a positive note, I heard on the weekend at the White Ribbon Day event, a lawyer referring to domestic violence say: ‘We should not walk on by’. We should not stop being shocked. I do not intend to walk away from these hard topics.
I thank the groups which have taken time to give me constructive or objective feedback. Many use the argument of innocent until proven guilty, but one group of lawyers concedes that a reduction in the number of offences listed may be acceptable. One group submits that the definition of ‘serious sexual offence’ is too broad. As an alternative argument, they concede that the following would be appropriate to include within a proposed definition of ‘serious sexual offence’: a sexual relationship with a child, section 131A; sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent, section 192; coerced sexual self-manipulation, section 192B.
They say:
- So far as the other sexual offences proposed … we concede that these offences are both serious and of concern to members of the public. However, they are not so serious when, in the context of allegations (ie charges) and the presumption of innocence that applies to persons charged with any criminal offence, that there should be a presumption against bail for persons charged with such offences. We therefore submit that the inclusion of any definition of ‘serious sexual offence’ should not include such offences.
Other community groups offer thoughtful support. This was from a community club in Alice Springs:
- Club members discussed the draft bill at our November meeting as part of our observation of ‘16 Days in November’ to Eradicate Violence against Women and our continuing club self-education awareness efforts.
The club of Alice Springs fully supports your draft bill to amend the act. While keenly aware that the justice system must protect the rights of those who appear before it having been charged with an offence, we are firmly convinced of the imperative to also protect the rights of victims.
In cases of serious sexual offence, as defined by your draft bill, the impact to victims can be life-threatening as well as horribly demoralising; some of the victims such as small children and/or those individuals who are impaired, handicapped and otherwise unable to fend for themselves often have no voice in the judicial system. Full consideration should be given to previous convictions, complaints and circumstances of family and community members who may be at risk, if the individual charged is not held on bail.
Since the draft bill still provides for courts to weigh each case individually, club members are assured the rights of all individuals who are party to the case are still protected.
I stress that, Madam Speaker. It is a very sound way of summing up what we did. Courts will still have the right to look at each case individually, but the presumption of bail has been removed for serious sexual offences.
Members, I am not asking you to support this for me. Support it so that all victims are not afraid to come forward. I am not denying the accused the right to defend the case and seek bail. Section 24 still gives the court that option. I am asking that it be weighted in favour of the victim, not the accused. I know you will vote on party lines, but if you know of cases such as those about which I have spoken, then you must acknowledge the rights of the child and the victim. Do not allow the victim to be violated again by someone walking out the door on bail.
I have heard the Leader of the Opposition many times criticise government for their inaction in this area. Let us all work together for a better system for victims. I urge you to support this. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 82)
(Serial 82)
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 is a reasonably straightforward bill. It is about removing the possibility of people being charged with serious offences from walking out of the front door of a court house. Obviously, this is not the first time the issue of sentencing has been considered in this parliament and it certainly will not be the last. The community has high expectations in relation to the punishment of offenders. They have even higher expectations in relation to people convicted of particular types of crimes that are regarded as heinous and with a measure of abhorrence by most decent-thinking people in the Northern Territory and this country. Those types of crimes include rape; sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children; as well as aggravated assaults, that is, male on female violence, which is so prevalent, I am sad to say, in the Northern Territory.
In the past, there have been numerous examples of offenders receiving a sentence of imprisonment, however the courts, on occasion, suspend those sentences. In line with the community’s expectation, the Country Liberal Party is of the view that there is an imperative to respond to the outrage that results from such cases. In other words, people do not want to see those convicted of very serious offences walk out the front door of courts after their sentences have been fully or wholly suspended.
There are many cases which illustrate the point, but a recent one in Alice Springs is particularly germane. A father beat a five-year-old boy within an inch of his life - his injuries have received a deal of media attention. The father who beat this five-year-old child was given a three year gaol sentence. On the face of it, it sounds very reasonable. However, the twist is that his sentence was fully suspended. That, of course, led to understandable community outrage.
In modern politics, both parties, in the Northern Territory and in Australia, vie for the position of who is toughest on crime. At times we see in this country a competition between political parties about who can come up with the toughest law and order policy. Within those media releases and, on occasion, policy frameworks, we see and hear of politicians and governments talking about increasing the sentences. We have seen this government do it; in fact, they have excelled at it. We have seen the media releases which have said: ‘We have increased the sentences for this that and the other, therefore we are tough on crime’.
There is no point in having tough or long sentences on the statute books if various people are not actually going to go to gaol. As a practitioner, I saw, on occasion, the look of glee of offenders after they were, in a sense, given a serve by the magistrate, a dressing down – ‘You have been naughty, haven’t you? Your offence has been abhorrent. Do not do it again. I hereby sentence you to a period of whatever in gaol …’ – pause – ‘… but then I fully suspend your sentence on account of the material which your lawyer has put to me’. The courts should have a level of discretion. No one would argue with that. This proposal ensures that the courts continue to have discretion. It simply requires that wholly suspended sentences be abolished in relation to very specific crimes and, once again, that is in line with community expectation. The community does not want to see gleeful offenders and perpetrators leave the court.
As a lawyer, I well understand the seriousness of a suspended sentence; I know what it means. However, the public at large does not understand the seriousness of a suspended sentence when it means that the offender or perpetrator can walk straight out the front door after getting a dressing down from a judge or magistrate. The time has come, particularly in the Territory, given the type of heinous offences we see, particularly perpetrated against women and children, that we nail our colours to the mast, as it were, and say enough is enough.
The proposal ensures that the courts continue to have discretion in relation to less serious matters. There is also the discretion as to how long offenders will be in gaol. It is time that the notion of wholly suspended sentences for serious offences becomes a thing of the past.
The particular provisions in the bill seek to prevent courts from using suspended sentences in relation to certain specific crimes - they are Division 2 of the Sentencing Act, excluding section 138 and section 140; sections 188(2)(b), (c), (d) and (k); section 192; and section 192(b). They are offences that include certain offences against morality such as possession of child pornography and child sex offences; and certain types of aggravated assaults based on the disparity of power between the victim and offender; and rape. These are matters that we, as parliamentarians, have a duty to advocate for the wider community.
While this government is in its policy vacuum, it falls to the opposition to put forward significant proposals that represent the needs and wishes of the community. While this government is occupying its time squabbling among themselves, it falls to the opposition to come up with policy alternatives in order, as I said earlier, to respond to the needs and wishes of Territorians.
That is the bill in a nutshell; it is not a particularly complicated one. I note the somewhat arrogant comments of the Attorney-General; that they would not support this bill - that is without even looking at it. I am sure that represents to the average person the height of arrogance. This government cannot now say from this day on that they are tough on crime if they do not support this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill and look forward to the contribution from the Attorney-General in due course - light on though it will be.
Debate adjourned.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT (IMPOUNDING AND FORFEITURE OF VEHICLES) BILL
(Serial 81)
(Serial 81)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
This bill is designed with the underlying philosophy that the law should punish the guilty and not the innocent. Unlike the government’s approach to road safety which sets out to throw a blanket over all drivers whether or not they are responsible and safe drivers, the CLP’s policy is to say to Territory drivers: if you are responsible and safe in what you do we will support you with reasonable freedom on the road. If, however, you are the sort of driver who likes to drive drunk and, in doing so, expose yourself and others to dangers, as well as regularly driving without paying the premium for personal injury protection, then the CLP is out to get you. The CLP has designed this legislation with such an approach in mind.
The legislation says that if you consistently demonstrate yourself to be the sort of person who cannot conduct him or herself sensibly and reasonably on the road, and conduct him or herself soberly on the road, then we will take away your vehicle. It is that simple.
I take members now through the bill. Clause 1 is the title of the bill. Clause 2 amends the Traffic Act. Clause 3 is definitional. Clause 4 provides for an amendment of section 19 of the act.
Clause 5 inserts new sections 19A, 19B and 19C. Section 19 provides the grounds for which a vehicle may be taken from a miscreant driver. This is the ‘second strike you are warned, and third strike you are out’ policy. In short, if you have driven drunk with a blood alcohol reading of 0.15 or higher three times in five years you will lose your car.
Proposed section 19(2) provides that the court must make an order and it will take away the offender’s car for a period of three months. If, astonishingly, the person gets into their car and goes for another spin, then proposed section 19(2)(d) will demand that the car be forfeited to the Northern Territory. The order to take a car away will be on top of and additional to any other penalty provided by law. Nevertheless, we are not ignorant of the fact that there may be other interested parties who have a right to a vehicle: the partner of a repeat drunk driver who relies heavily on the car; a rental car firm; or if the car was in someway being unlawfully used. Apart from the obvious, a public servant driving home drunk would be an example of that type of unlawful use. In all of those instances there is a capacity for the court to find grounds not to exercise this power.
The proposed section 19B(1) allows for interested parties to apply for the custody of the vehicle after the impounding period. The opposition is not ignorant of the fact that many vehicles on the road today are only partly owned by their drivers. Credit providers maintain an equitable interest in such property and it is not in the interests of the opposition or its desire to deprive people with an equitable claim of right to exert that right. Therefore, should a finance provider or any other person with an interest wish to exercise their interest in the impounded car, the legislation is designed to protect that interest as far as practicably possible.
Proposed subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) are procedural instruction. Proposed subsection (6) empowers a court to make or refuse an order. Proposed subsection (7) determines that it is in the purview of the court to determine that the vehicle be transferred to the applicant if the court deems that sufficient evidence exists. If the vehicle is being applied for by a finance company or the like, then I am sure that this House would expect that if the driver’s equitable interest was sufficiently large, then the property would be liquidated and the equity returned to the driver subsequent to the payment of all other costs such as impounding costs and the outstanding loan amount. Pursuit of this matter would be by way of civil debt and is of no interest to the criminal court or this parliament as to how those issues are accommodated.
The other approach available to the court is to liquidate the asset and to pay the finance company their interest. Should this occur the part of the forfeited amount could be offered to the financier of the loan and the rest of the proceeds folded into the Central Holding Authority.
Proposed section 19C is largely procedural. When no application is made in accordance with proposed section 19B, then this section deals with the method of disposal and which interested parties are to be compensated and in which order as well as any leftover money to be forwarded to the Central Holding Authority.
Clause 6 of the bill inserts new sections. Clause 7 of the bill introduces the proposed sections 33C, 33D and 33E.
For section 33C to make sense, attention has to first be given to section 33. That is the section that says that it is against the law to drive unregistered vehicles. The reason that this is important is because registration of vehicles means that they have to be inspected for safety, and secondly, a vehicle will not be registered unless the third party personal insurance fee is paid at the same time in case all safety checks fail to protect the people who are in the vehicle. To fail to maintain a safe vehicle and not insure against an accident in which any third party may be injured or killed is a monumental act of selfishness and stupidity, and laziness. The truth is that the majority of people in our community would do the right thing if there were no registration and insurance requirements, and if the tort of negligence was the only law dealing with vehicle safety and third party insurance most people would still take all reasonable steps to cover themselves. Many people do so with comprehensive insurance. Sadly, there are people who cannot be trusted, which is why there is a need for the present amendments before the House.
There is an even smaller minority who will continue to flout the law. In doing so, they pose a chronic risk to others, not only because their cars are unsafe, but because, as they drive about in their unsafe cars, they have no insurance when things go wrong. The question needs to be asked: should these people have the right to continue to use our roads when they so flagrantly continue to endanger themselves and others? The opposition says no. The proposed section 33 says that if a person drives an unregistered vehicle in a public place or on a public street, they will then be served with a notice. The notice will essentially demand that the person must within 60 days register their vehicle. If a person fails to register the vehicle in that 60 day period, the car will be forfeited.
So that our position is clearly understood, it is this: if you do not register your car and you use it on Territory roads, the CLP will take your car away from you. We will confiscate your vehicle.
Proposed section 33C(4) allows a person to apply to the Commissioner for Police for an extension of time. Proposed section 33C(5) provides for a discretion for the Commissioner to give a 30 day extension to get the vehicle registered. Proposed section 33C(6) says that the owner of the vehicle commits an offence in driving an unregistered if they fail to register the vehicle in question in the time permitted. Proposed section 33C(7) provides defences for the offence. Proposed section 33C(8) comes to the heart of the matter: if a person is found guilty of the offence, the court must order the vehicle be forfeited as well as impose a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units.
Proposed section 33D again provides for the rights of other interested parties in the property, and I will not repeat what I said earlier in relation to the protection of those rights. The terms of the bill are straightforward enough. Proposed section 33E provides for circumstances of the disposal of the vehicle.
I have gone through the clauses of the bill in some detail to hammer home a couple of points. One is that this government may well be keen to sit back and sanction the desires of those people who choose not to register their vehicles. The opposition does not sanction such an approach. This government may well sanction drunk drivers driving on our roads repeatedly. The opposition does not sanction that approach. This is, as our previous policy position has outlined, a position …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition cannot allege that this government sanctions drunk drivers on the road. That is an untruth and she should withdraw it.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. There is much said in this House which has been given a very wide berth by the Deputy Chief Minister. This is not something that is out of order. He knows it is not out of order and I ask that I be permitted to continue my remarks in the circumstances.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice. There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to be careful in your wording in relation to this bill. Deputy Chief Minister, if you wish to, you may approach me to make a personal explanation in relation to this matter. Please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. Madam Speaker, I ask how can it not be the case that this government is soft on drunk drivers and people who register their vehicles when they received the same letter I received from a Northern Territory solicitor many months ago who attached to the letter various research, both domestic and international, about the confiscation of vehicles for repeat drink drivers and those people who refuse to register their vehicles? How can the Chief Minister and her band of unhappy little friends contest the assertion that this government is not interested in tackling these problems when the minister wrote back to that solicitor and, in essence, said: ‘Cheers, thanks a lot for your letter, but we are not even going to look at it’.? How can the Deputy Chief Minister hold the view he apparently does when there is all of this hoo-hah about road safety, and the spin that this government puts on the reasons for the road safety report, and the outcome, that is, the imposition of speed limits on Territory roads, when this government has refused to tackle the very issues that are predominant factors in causing fatalities on Territory roads?
You think that by doubling the fine for repeat drink drivers from $100 to $200 is enough? I think not, nor does the average Territorian. You think that people who repeatedly drink and drive …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, the government members, divided and unhappy though they are, all collectively think that drinking and driving is just fine and dandy because they refuse to do anything about it. They have been in five years and they have actually turned their attention to the issue, and what do they come up with: a brochure and an announcement there will be an imposition of 130 km/h on the open highways of the Northern Territory. What nonsense. It should not, and ought not be forgotten that, prior to the 2005 election, we know, and it received publicity, that the government, and the Chief Minister in particular, received some advice about imposing a speed limit. Did we hear anything then from the government members? No, we did not. Why? Because they did not have the courage of their convictions. Now they think they can sneak in this speed limit. They were hoping no one would notice, but I think they have been beaten on that one, and …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … and you do not even tell the truth!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition well knows she should be directing her speech through you, instead of trying to incite members opposite. Let her keep on with her dribble, but let her direct it towards you.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to direct her comments through the Chair. Leader of the Opposition, banging on the desk is not very parliamentary as well.
Ms CARNEY: I think I may have …
Madam SPEAKER: Been very active in your speech, yes.
Ms CARNEY: It is an issue of great interest to Territorians. Many of them are somewhat perplexed by it, that is, that the government’s answer to all of the problems is to impose a speed limit on the Stuart Highway. That does not even address the very figures and facts that the government’s own task force received. What are the main causes of fatalities in the Northern Territory? Grog, drink driving and failure to wear seat belts. What are some other factors? Unregistered vehicles. I know that members opposite have the utmost contempt for the people of Alice Springs, which is regrettable, and that they remain very angry about that. Go to Alice Springs and you will see the sort of cars I am talking about - people who consistently fail to register their vehicles. They do so because the sanctions are so irrelevant; they just keep doing it because they cannot be bothered. They take the view: why should they register their vehicles?
Under the CLP’s proposal, if you refuse to register your vehicle, and many of them are notoriously unsafe, the CLP will take away that vehicle. I am staggered beyond description that members opposite have difficulty with such a proposition. Similarly, in relation to drink driving, and I know it irks the Deputy Chief Minister, this government takes the view that doubling the fine from $100 to $200 for drinking and driving will fix the problem. Well, it will not.
This government is so busy fighting amongst themselves about who is going to be leader, it falls to the opposition to cut through and provide some answers. The answers really are straightforward. Yet, this is an arrogant, lazy government, the hallmark of which is its own infighting and egocentric behaviour by the members for Fannie Bay and Wanguri – they have not even stopped to have – yes, I cannot say that. They have not even stopped to look at the policies put forward by the CLP.
If I am wrong in that regard, if they have actually read the documents – and, of course, we saw the biggest bill in the Northern Territory’s history come before the parliament yesterday, and it did not appear to anyone that the Attorney-General actually read that bill. However, if it is the case that government members have read the material we have put out and which has been out for some months, then the question has to be asked: why will these people not do the right thing and actually do what they say they do, that is, be tough on crime? Why do they not actually follow through with the sentiments of the Chief Minister – wanting to save lives, wanting to get good outcomes for our fellow Territorians? If she was fair dinkum about this matter, she would instruct her little comrades on the other side to agree to this and other bills and packages put forward by the CLP. Perhaps she will not do so because she is so distracted by the leadership turmoil and infighting which is plaguing her government.
I will digress, if I may, briefly. There has, of course, been a great deal of media attention on this government and they deserve every bit of it because they are a divided and fractured government. Everybody knows that such a government will self-destruct. They dropped the ball on the way through and they are not doing their core function, which is looking after and protecting the needs and aspirations of their fellow Territorians.
Much has been said and written so far about the leak. I heard an interesting story the other day. I heard that it was the member for Casuarina or his office - so I was informed. A tipster said that there was some media material on the member for Wanguri; there was a suggestion that he leaked it. There was a suggestion, I think, that the member for Millner leaked it, he having had form when it came to his now famous memo. However, the betting money is on the member for Casuarina or his staff. I am not sure. I know that the Chief Minister was very angry and, presumably, she did what ever anyone would do. She probably called everyone into her office and said: ‘Was it you?’ ‘No, Chief Minister’. ‘Was it you?’ ‘No, Chief Minister’. It was someone on the other side and the best money is on the member for Casuarina …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition is fond of reminding everyone that she is a lawyer and we are not, and how much she knows about the law. She might take into account that the second reading of a bill into parliament actually plays a quite important role in the interpretation of the bill in the courts at a future time. If there is a question around clarity or ambiguity of a certain clause, the courts may, in fact, go back to the second reading to try to determine the intent of parliament from the second reading.
It would be impossible for any court to dive into this mess – this absolute tirade of nonsense - from the Leader of the Opposition to try to determine what, in fact, the bill is about. If she wants to do her bill any justice in this place, she should drop the arrogance and the condescension of all those around her. The contempt she holds, not only for her own colleagues, but for …
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, is this a point or order? Or is this a speech? You can have an opportunity at a later time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: … all Territorians. Then get back to the substance of the bill which, if it was ever law, the courts might want to rely on the second reading.
Madam SPEAKER: While there is no point of order, Leader of the Opposition, I say to you while there is a level of latitude in all speeches, you do need to speak more closely to the bill.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will undertake to do so. I am surprised that the Deputy Chief Minister is like his Chief Minister - has his eye off the ball and invited me by implication to go on for as long as I did.
The comments I make are, nevertheless, specific and germane in this respect. It shows - and I will be brief – that the government has taken its eye off the ball because they are divided, which is why they refuse to look at sensible policy alternatives. They are operating in a policy vacuum because of their division. The division is, not that I understand Labor politics, that there is the left and the right, the centre, the centre left, the middle right, I do not get it. However, they are so divided that they cannot even collectively as a group sit down and say: ‘Is this a good policy, is this a good idea, would this assist our fellow Territorians? We have a job to do, let us do it’.
I urge this unhappy and divided government to do the decent thing with this legislation. I know what the outcome will be: they refuse to accept any proposal from anyone because of their sheer and indescribably high arrogance; they refuse to accept a proposal from anyone unless it is one of their team although they increasingly do not even trust each other. I do not expect much legislation to come on to the floor of the parliament in the next two years, because I am not even sure they will be able to agree between themselves.
In any event, I commend this fabulous bill to members opposite because Territorians will know they have a point of difference, they will have thousands of points of difference at the next election.
In relation to road safety, and I know I have another bill to talk about shortly, the CLP will overturn the speed limits on Territory highways. The Labor party will not. Further there is a concern that the speed limit will be reduced over time. That is outrageous.
The CLP takes the view that if you drink and drive repeatedly, your car should be taken away from you. The CLP has the view that if you are a selfish, ignorant fool and you refuse to register your vehicle, we will have the strength, the intestinal fortitude, to take that car away from you.
These are just some of the array of differences that Territorians will see at the next election. We have two or so years until the next election and the government has plenty of time to change its view, take our policy. We have seen it on a range of issues. We saw it in the last term. The CLP would come in here, propose some bills, you would all talk us down and say no, no, no that is stupid, and then somewhat miraculously in a matter of months we would see a very similar bill come back before the parliament. We would look at it and we would say: ‘That was our bill’, but your spin doctors upstairs, your $8m to $10m spin doctors in salaries alone on the fifth floor of Parliament House, they earn every cent of it because they ensure that this government’s spin is pretty much swallowed and is a bit more convincing than its substance of which there is very little.
Madam Speaker, I could keep talking all day about this but there is much more work to do. Given that the government is in crisis, paralysis, because they are not getting on well it will fall to the opposition to set the agenda, legislative and otherwise. I commend the bill to the House for obvious reasons.
Debate adjourned.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT (SUSPENSION OF LICENCE) BILL
(Serial 80)
(Serial 80)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
This bill is also a part of the alternative government’s policies dealing with road safety in the Northern Territory. This bill is remarkably straightforward because it will achieve what is required and which this government so foolishly in our view and others simply refuses to do.
The government should know, but they appear not to, that there is a range of things that cause fatalities in the Northern Territory. First is alcohol, and we have just talked about that. That is why we proposed in the preceding bill to confiscate people’s cars if they habitually drink and drive. Fast or slow, driving alone kills. Speeding or not speeding, you could still be killed in a motor vehicle. Seat belts and failure to wear them are a significant factor in road fatalities and injuries in the Northern Territory. For anyone who doubts that, I invite them to look at the government’s own report which was widely published and circulated throughout the Northern Territory.
What enraged the opposition and other Territorians was that in the political spin and huff and puff which typically represented the Chief Minister’s announcement on this issue, she failed to satisfactorily address the issue of failure to wear seat belts. Once again, it falls to the opposition to do so. The CLP is prepared to legislate that people who breach the law consistently should lose their licences. That is a quantum difference between the two parties. It is not an imposition of any sort to demand that Territorians wear their seat belts. It takes less than a second to put on, and even less to take off. We have, for the most part, modern cars - some of them not maintained as well as they should be - but all vehicles in the Territory do, and if they do not they most certainly should, they may have been ripped out, but they do have seat belts. People who choose not to wear seat belts are, logically, much more susceptible to greater injury and death. Therefore, those people, through their own foolishness and irresponsibility, represent a burden on us all when they are in the hospitals of the Northern Territory.
This bill intends to drive the message home even more strongly than it has ever been driven home before, and its essence is blindingly simple: if you do not wear your seat belt consistently, we will take away your licence. ‘Consistently’ means three times in 12 months. If you are found guilty of that offence, then your licence will be suspended for three months. Territorians should not bear the costs - physical, emotional, financial or otherwise - of other people’s laziness and stupidity. Some time ago, we issued yet another policy. Unlike the government, we issued a policy called Seat Belts Save Lives. It is part of our comprehensive plan to improve road safety in the Territory and reduce road fatalities. As I have said, if a driver is caught three times in 12 months for a seat belt infringement, they will receive a mandatory - there is that word – three-month suspension of their licence.
The policy is broader than the bill. We want to see seat belts in school buses. We want to see education; that is important in any road safety initiative. We are not afraid to take the plunge where this government refuses to do so. If you do not wear your seat belt three times in 12 months, your licence will be suspended. I will be surprised if the government supports this bill because they have said, somewhat arrogantly, that they have all the answers to road safety. This is a simple and straightforward policy. It is a good one.
If you do not, government members, through you, Madam Speaker, support this, then one will wonder why, and all Territorians will say that this government just does not get it. Its own figures are such that failure to wear seat belts is a significant factor in fatalities and injuries, and yet this government fails to act. They have done a bit about seat belts in their big policy, but there is not much there.
This is a fair dinkum, cut through, easy to understand, how-can-it-fail policy. One has to consider a carrot and stick approach. This is definitely the stick. If you do not put your seat belt on in the Northern Territory you are going to lose your licence. I am not sure how on earth anyone could have difficulty with that. It is for that reason that I commend this sensational bill to government members.
Debate adjourned.
NORTHERN TERRITORY ABORIGINAL SACRED SITES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 84)
(Serial 84)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill represents an effort to bring equity to a system of property acquisition that has occurred in the Northern Territory in spite of what the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act says. The process leading to the establishment of sacred sites operating in the Northern Territory does not have the desired effect when it comes to outcomes for the owners of other property interests that are affected by the discovery of sacred sites in a particular area. The Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act attempts to skirt around property issues in section 44 by saying that the proprietary interests of land affected by sacred sites is preserved. This is because both the Australian Constitution and the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act determines that, if property is acquired, then it must be compensated on just terms. This requirement is subsequently acknowledged by the Legislative Assembly, because the act has been amended at section 48A, which demands that, where property is acquired that such property be settled upon just terms.
The investigation into the nature of property will leave one to recognise that the concept of property is not a straightforward one, as one would immediately think. I am not going to enter into a dissertation on the nature of property, but suffice to say that the absolute ownership of property is not possible. Property is, in fact, held by degrees. If I own freehold, I am still bound by the laws of the land, including planning and other laws, which limit my capacity to dispose of or use property in the ways that I might choose. A licence is, in many forms, a form of property, as it entitles the holder of a licence to exert rights that are beyond the capacity of a person who does not hold such a licence.
As I said before, property is, in fact, held by degrees. This means that when sacred sites are discovered over certain areas, the holder of a commercial fishing licence, for example, may be diminished in his or her capacity to exert the rights that such a licence grants. That is the point of this bill: to recognise the impact upon other holders of rights.
I pause briefly to quote Justice Rich in a famous property acquisition case, Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel 1944 68 CLR 261. In that case, during World War II, the owner of a car park was deprived of his income because the Army had acquired the land by simply moving onto the land using the powers that it had under the wartime legislation. The Army argued that they had not acquired the land because they had not assumed title and were intending to leave as soon as the war was over. Mr Dalziel was deprived of his capacity to earn an income. Justice Rich, before ruling in favour of Mr Dalziel, captured his thinking very succinctly, saying: ‘You take my house when you do take the prop that does sustain my house. You take my life when you do take the means whereby I live’.
It is my understanding of the law that limiting the capacity of a licence by taking away a part of that capacity of a licence to earn in a particular way does not equate to the acquisition of a property right. Nevertheless, the fact is that government will put pressure on other fishing grounds, for example, and on competing fishermen, if the licence that they rely upon to provide an income is removed. Either they pay through lost revenue, the environment itself pays because of the increased pressure on fishing grounds elsewhere, or the government pays because the decision made by surrounding sacred sites are decisions made under the government’s administration; hence the bill.
The proposed section 48AB has the effect of extending the impact of section 48A. The bill creates a mechanism to deal with exactly the circumstances outlined above, but may also extend to people such as tourism operators or pastoralists. Proposed section 48AB(2) of the proposed bill basically says that this amendment will not operate if the prohibition or restriction caused by the declaration of a sacred site amounts to an acquisition of property rights because the existing section 48A will apply.
Proposed section 48AB(3) of the bill refers to just compensation being available. This means that the applicant still has to demonstrate that there is a compensatory loss to the balance of probabilities. Proposed section 48AB(4) gives the court the power to set an appropriate amount and, of course, courts will use reasonableness to test the measurable loss. Proposed section 48AB(5) provides those definitions.
Within the philosophy of mutual obligation, there needs to be give and take. If sacred sites have the effect of limiting other rights, then it should be a matter that people affected are given some form of recourse as well.
Madam Speaker, this is a sensible bill. If the government chooses not to support it because it feels that it will lead to excessive expense, then the government will be engaging in an argument that is contrary to the implied assertion in the act; that rights and values are unaltered by the existence of a sacred site. I urge honourable members to support the bill.
Debate adjourned.
LEARNERS AND PROVISIONAL DRIVERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 79)
(Serial 79)
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 follows on from the preceding bills and represents the Country Liberal Party’s alternative to road safety that we and others are so desperate to have this government pick up. We want this government to pick up these initiatives because they are good initiatives. They are good initiatives and worth a run and it is a mystery why the government has been so dismissive thus far. We know that, in recent times, this divided and arrogant government has spent a lot of money selling its road rules package to the public. Obviously, it continues to do so despite the public irritation in some quarters, and anger in others.
This amendment seeks to do something different to government. It seeks to provide a solution to the dilemma that we have with young drivers in the Territory, most of whom drive sensibly and responsibly. Sadly, some do not. The package is part of targeted and detailed reforms that the CLP has brought to this House with the aim and desire of directly attacking a particular group who are over-represented in road deaths and injuries in the Northern Territory. It is the young who are so often the cause of carnage in our streets. Tragically, many of the accidents we see on our streets are caused by young people - mostly young men – who, in some cases, do not contain their desire for recklessness.
It should be no surprise to anyone in this House that the impetuousness of youth is real. Nevertheless, at the very time that this trend manifests itself in a real way, in mid-teens, we, as parliamentarians, say that young people can have a licence and we put them in charge of great chunks of metal that, in many instances, they drive very fast and recklessly. All too often from news reports we see that many young men attempt to set land speed records, not on the Stuart Highway, but in Stuart Park, in other suburbs around Darwin, Alice Springs and elsewhere. It is those people who are over-represented in our statistics. Even if they were not, then is it not incumbent on us as parliamentarians and legislators to deal with those people in an overall package designed to improve road safety?
This bill deals directly with young people and I will go through some of the details. First, a provisional licence is issued for a period of three years if a person is under 25 years of age. If a person is 25 years or older, then the provisional status of the licence, when issued, remains at one year. I pause briefly to point out that I am aware that the effect of this is that if a person gets a licence at the age of 24, they will have to wait until they are 27 before they come off their P plates.
After section 10A(2), the proposed amendment introduces a demand for a more rigorous training system. The effect of this is that a log will have to be kept by the learner that will expect 120 hours of driving must be completed before a learner can be given their provisional licence. Who would argue with such an eminently sensible suggestion? That is, rigorous training and you have to do, for the time you are on your L plates, a minimum of 120 hours. What we see, not just in the Territory, but around the country, is young people getting their L plates and just going through the motions, satisfying the criteria of the number of times they need to fulfil statutory obligations, but not actually getting a great deal of experience. The Country Liberal Party thinks that, as a minimum, 120 hours should be set. The time frame is reasonable. It is quite a long time, so it is not as though you have to jam it in the space of a couple of months. We think 120 hours is a reasonable period of time for a learner driver to have under his or her belt before they are unleashed, as it were, onto the roads of the Northern Territory.
Clauses 6 and 7 provide that a person cannot drive a car as a provisional or learner licence holder that is towing another vehicle and, most importantly, a provisional licence holder cannot drive with more than one person in the car between 10 pm and 5 am. Not surprisingly, these are traditionally the hours where young drivers do so much harm to themselves and others. The proposal in the bill and in our policy to ensure that provisional licence holders or learner licence holders cannot have a passenger with them between 10 pm and 5 am has been particularly relevant probably all year and indeed prior to that. Some of us, I am sure, have been distressed beyond belief at what we see on our news bulletins this year in this country, not necessarily in the Territory. There have been so many young people who have died in the middle of the night; groups of kids from small communities around the country, five kids here, four kids there, seven kids somewhere else. There was one in Sydney on the weekend where four or five young people died.
It is not necessarily the case that they had extra people in their car; that is for coronial inquests and others to determine. However, I understand that the father of one of the young people who was killed on the weekend in Sydney met with a minister in the New South Wales government yesterday and asked that the government consider - and I am fairly sure I have this right, apparently it was on Lateline last night, I did not see it - that grieving father asked the relevant transport minister to consider proposals such as these. You can understand why. Of course, parents of kids who die in motor vehicle accidents would want, like any sensible person, any government to respond in an appropriate way.
I do not want to see the sorts of things we have seen in regional Victoria, regional New South Wales, regional Queensland, and in the heart of Sydney. I do not want to see that sort of stuff happen in the Northern Territory before a politician stands in this Chamber and says: ‘I think we should do this’. I have a very deep and genuine interest in this matter, and this is an eminently sensible suggestion.
Part of our proposal in relation to young people is the carrot and stick approach: a bit of stick, but a lot of carrot. Members will know that part of our policy dealt with providing free registration, stamp duty and third party insurance for two years for young drivers who purchase vehicles generating no greater than a 95kW capacity such as, for instance, Fiestas, Corollas, Barinas and so on. Once again, I would have thought that is an eminently sensible suggestion. I do not know whether the father who met with the politician or the minister yesterday supports that. I would be surprised if he did not.
This is not about having a go at young people; it is about being responsible and, most importantly, doing our jobs to anticipate difficulties that may occur in the future, to respond to them and of course to deal with the difficulties that exist now. Young people are traditionally over represented and we, unlike this government, want to do something about it. I would be tickled pink if the government pinched this policy. I invite them to do so because my very strong and fervent view is that there may well be lives to save. How can anyone argue with that?
Madam Speaker, for those reasons and many others, I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of traditional owners from Mt Everard, Harts Range, Muckaty, Arrernte Nation and Fisher’s Ridge, as well as people from the Australian Conservation Foundation, Arid Lands Environment Centre, the Darwin No Waste Alliances, and the Central Land Council. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear! Hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Members, I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of visitors as part of the Parliament House education program. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Fannie Bay
Member for Fannie Bay
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the Chief Minister for the rest of the day owing to the fact that she has a bad dose of the ‘flu and has lost her voice. I advise that all questions that were to go to the Chief Minister be directed to the Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Nhulunbuy.
Leave granted.
MOTION
Open Road Speed Limits
Open Road Speed Limits
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this House:
1. express its anger at the actions by the Chief Minister and her Labor government for removing the open speed limit on the Stuart Highway.
Madam Speaker, this motion does not come as a surprise, given the policies, unlike the government, the CLP has released in relation to road safety. I meant what I said this morning: I am happy for government to have these policies, they should. What they have done, however, is simply dismiss them in the past, and all of a sudden, late today in Question Time, we had the minister responsible suggesting that her department has actually been working on all of this. It is the first time such a suggestion has been made.
I also indicated this morning that we would expect the government to take our policies, (1) because they are good, and (2) because they have done it before. What we have seen by the admission of the minister in her answer to the final question this afternoon, is ‘Oh yes, we have been working on it’. We ask: be honest. Yes, it is a good policy; everyone knows it is a good policy. Do not suggest that you have been working on it. If that was the case, you would have announced it in your big road safety package a few weeks ago ...
Ms Lawrie: We did.
Ms CARNEY: You would have announced things like - under the CLP - drivers between the age of 16 to 23 who purchase a car less than seven years old with an engine capable of generating no greater than a 95 kW capacity, such as a Fiesta, Corolla, Barina, etcetera, will be entitled to claim no stamp duty, no cost of registration for two years and no cost for third party insurance for three years. The minister and the Chief Minister would have announced that, in relation to young drivers, this government would introduce a system whereby a provisional driver in their first year of a provisional licence - and learner drivers as well - between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am would only be able to have one passenger. The minister would have announced a loss of licence for three months upon a second breach of these restrictions. The minister would have announced the minimum 120 hours driving experience to be log booked for supervised driving for a learner driver. The minister and Chief Minister would have announced another measure such as no towing for learners and provisional drivers.
This is where it is, after all of the glossy brochures, all of the publicity that even went nationwide. The Chief Minister said: ‘We have all of the answers. What we are going to do is impose speed restrictions on the Stuart Highway. In terms of drink drivers, we are going to double the fine from $100 to $200. This and a few other things represent our extensive package’.
Be honest, I say to the government members, through you, Madam Speaker. They should be honest because they had their opportunity to come up with an extensive, comprehensive package. Territorians wanted them to do it. What they did do was fall short. There is the document; we have all read it from cover to cover. They had one opportunity to get this right and they fell short of the mark. I do not doubt the minister’s sincerity in the same way that I am sure she would not doubt mine. I am not sure that …
Ms Lawrie: I doubt your sincerity.
Ms CARNEY: Pardon?
Ms Lawrie: I doubt your sincerity.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: The minister has sunk to new depths of being both impolite and nasty. Of course, we expect that from her.
Any human being who is not affected by deaths, generally, and in particular deaths of young people in motor vehicle accidents is – well, I have not met one. That transcends politics, gender, race, etcetera. Like the minister, I have some personal experience in this area as well.
In any event, Territorians expect much better of this minister to doubt the sincerity of anyone who stands up and expresses discomfort and upset about the death of young Territorians. That is why the CLP proposed this policy. There was an opportunity; it was an opportunity lost. That is why we introduced legislation today. We welcome the government pinching it - they should because it is good - but when they do so, if they would be so kind as to not wrap it up and say it was all their idea.
This motion comes on for very good reason. The Chief Minister, as I have said, has missed an opportunity. She has adopted a reactionary approach in her imposition of speed limits; it has more to do with social control than it has to do with traffic control. However, that is the nature of the Chief Minister. She likes to control things and that is why her colleagues remain so agitated with her. Her hand is, at least for the moment, firmly on the throat of her colleagues and, with the assistance of her spin machine upstairs, she is able, for now, to spin her way through. Territorians expect and deserve much better.
As I said when introducing the bills this morning, alcohol is a significant factor in fatalities and injuries in the Northern Territory, yet the Chief Minister missed an opportunity: she did not deal with it or did not deal with it adequately.
Seat belts, and in particular the failure to wear them, are a problem. The correlation between seat belts and deaths and injury is well established. The government did not grasp the mettle, as it were, and come up with a comprehensive plan.
The case has not been made out as to why there must be a speed restriction on the Stuart Highway. What we have seen is a blaze of publicity and that is about all. There was an opportunity to deal with significant matters and the Chief Minister, no doubt for her own reasons, chose not to embrace that opportunity.
The imposition of a speed limit is arbitrary and there exists in the Territory good reasons why some people may want to travel faster when conditions allow. The first and most obvious is for those people who regularly drive between Darwin and Alice Springs and in between. Currently, it is possible to do the trip in daylight hours in one day. People will continue to want to do the trip in one day into the future. If a person drives from Darwin to Alice Springs, leaves after the sun goes up and travels at a speed over 130 km/h, they will be in Alice Springs before the sun goes down. Allowing for rest breaks and fuel stops, 130 km/h will not make this possible. I ask members what is more dangerous: travelling at 130 km/h at dawn and dusk or travelling at 150 km/h during daylight hours? Anyone who has driven in the Territory for more than a few months knows the answer to that very important question. For many people it is now no longer going to be an option to overnight along the way and they will continue to do the trip in a single day.
The other issue is that if the average speed of a person on that trip is 150 km/h they will take about 10 hours to do the drive; 130 km/h means that there will be a couple of extra hours added to the trip. That is extra time behind the wheel and, of course, all of us in this country are being reminded about the dangers of fatigue, yet this government pursues a law that promotes it.
This government has been telling Territorians that the situation on our roads is getting worse. A closer look at the statistics indicates that that is not necessarily the case. In fact, it can be argued that the situation in the Territory is getting better, and has done so for a number of years.
The number of overall crashes has fluctuated since 1998-99, but over that time has fallen from 2315 to 2043 last year. That was the lowest level recorded in the Police annual report. The number of fatal accidents has fluctuated because of the small numbers represented. Even from that small number, a general view of the numbers suggests a contraction over the past seven years from the mid to high 50s to the mid to high 40s in that time. That is also reflected in the Road Safety report.
The number of injuries has substantially decreased from 1376 seven years ago to 890 last year. What really stands out is the better yardsticks of casualties per 10 000 population, casualties per 10 000 licensed drivers and casualties per 10 000 registered drivers. In the case of the casualties per 10 000 head of population, the number has fallen from 75 casualties per 10 000 head of population to 46 in the past seven years. The measure for licensed drivers shows that in 1998-99 there were 136 casualties per 10 000 population and that has fallen to 78. The same applies to the numbers of casualties per 10 000 vehicles – in 1998-99, 123 casualties were reported in that category. That fell nearly by half to 68 last year.
The trends began before Labor took office and they have continued. The reasons for this are many and much of it has to do with the better design and safety features of cars and how they respond in accidents. The trends in the Territory are not unique or particular to the Territory.
There should be debate, discussion and initiative from government about making roads safe, and that is a reasonable expectation. I note that the test of reasonableness implied by the report is to be found in its graph on page 5. In that graph it lists the best in the world to the worst. The Territory is the worst and the ACT is the best. The USA is at the top end and Germany is towards the bottom end. It is worth pausing to note that Germany has an open speed limit on its Autobahn system and it is one of the safest places to drive. It is also the largest country in Europe. By using an OECD global average then, the implication is by the people who wrote this road safety report that that may be the reasonable benchmark as to what is an acceptable level of carnage on our roads, if indeed anything is acceptable. It is worth pointing out that the best performer still has people being killed and injured on their roads.
If we accept, for argument’s sake, that the OECD average is an acceptable benchmark, then let us look at the government report with fresh eyes. A look at the two graphs on page 7 immediately reveals one stunning and irrefutable fact: the biggest contributor to death and injury on our roads is alcohol. Alcohol is the biggest killer on our roads. When it comes to fatal accidents, grog is the number one killer, but in the area of drink driving, the report has various weaknesses, as indeed does the Chief Minister and her Transport minister.
The number one killer on our roads gets the weakest response. The response is to double the minor fine of exceed 0.05 to 0.08 from $100 to $200. The rest of the recommendations are: do research; run a communications strategy; and increase the power to collect certain types of evidence. Where, we ask, is the recommendation that says take their cars away? It is for this reason that the CLP has introduced a bill to take cars away from habitual drunk drivers who excessively exceed the limit and repeatedly do so. Take their cars away; that is a recommendation for the biggest killer on our roads.
What is the second biggest killer according to the graphs? Seat belts and failure to wear them. If people consistently do not wear their seat belts, we say take their licenses away. This government should say so, too. Get caught not wearing a seat belt and you can expect not to have a licence if you do it too often. It is that simple; three times in 12 months. What we get is the recommendation for increased fines and education programs and demerit points across a raft of offences which lists seat belts as a middle level offence.
Curiously, the graphs on page 7 reveal that speeding contributes less than failing to wearing seat belts to death on our roads, but speeding earns more demerit points. The nub of the argument is simple: the government has decided to attack speed the most aggressively of all, yet there is, by and large, an ignoring of the major contributors, which are failure to wear seat belts and alcohol.
In relation to the findings of the report and government action thereafter, it is worth looking at the report carefully. We can, if we join the dots in the report, so to speak, see that the majority of fatal accidents occur in built-up areas, that is, in restricted speed zones. If we accept the logic of such an observation in isolation, it would be easy to assert that speed limits are dangerous. Of course that is nonsense, but that is what happens when you rely so obviously on certain types of statistics, particularly when you add a bit of spin. The trick is to get the right number to give the clearest picture.
It is this which frustrates my colleagues and me, and other Territorians to whom I have spoken. I have spoken to many with a very long-standing and genuine interest in road safety. People have sought me out from quarters that I did not think imaginable, and they are also frustrated about the numbers in the report and the government’s use of them.
The number I would like to see is missing. We have two excellent measures in fatality rates per 100 000 population compared with the other states and countries, but what is missing is another important yardstick, and that is the number of fatalities per one million kilometres travelled. We have a tiny population spread over a vast area. We travel vast distances compared with people who live in the Australian Capital Territory, for example. I wonder if there is such a figure. I am curious to see what the graphs look like if we take that as a measure.
I suggest that Territorians spend more time behind the wheel than anyone else in this country. Some would say that Western Australia might be competing with us, but the vast majority of their population, as we know, is tucked away in a corner of the state.
The CLP is offering options, and the government has dismissed them until the tiny indication given by the minister in Question Time that all of a sudden the department, or her office, has been doing work on this. The response of the Chief Minister and her Transport minister, and let us see what side she is on, I think, judging from the Crikey article, let us see, I believe she is pretty much in the middle. No, it has her down as a supporter of the Chief Minister. I suppose that is not surprising.
I have seen some comments somewhere that she was sort of hedging her bets a bit. Here we go. According to the article in Crikey, everyone knows the one I am talking about, Tuesday, 21 November, and I quote: ‘Both Elliot McAdam and Delia Lawrie are soft Martin supporters, both have a commitment to their own ministerial careers, but would be likely to switch camps if they are convinced the leadership is about to change’. Well, nothing like backing the right horse, minister. Nothing like conviction and nothing like loyalty. You will straddle both sides and see who wins.
Mr Henderson: Nothing like sincerity about the road toll. You cheapen it with contempt.
Ms CARNEY: Judging from the sudden illness that overtook the Chief Minister, notwithstanding a media conference she had around lunchtime, notwithstanding that she hosted a function in the Elsey Room - mysterious, mystery illness. She did not come into Question Time today. In fact …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition has been here long enough to know that you cannot refer to the absence of a member …
Ms Carney: Yes, I am sorry.
Mr HENDERSON: … unless she wants to do it by way of substantive motion.
There is a second point to the point of order, Madam Speaker. We are on general business day. The motion before us is about road safety and the appalling road toll in the Northern Territory. I would urge the Leader of the Opposition to get back to the point if she is sincere about addressing this issue, or does she just want to play politics, in the same way she did during Question Time, she is carrying on here today.
There are two points: reference to the absence of the Chief Minister and relevance in regards to the question currently before the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I will ask you to withdraw the comments regarding the Chief Minister.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, and I do apologise, it was not deliberate.
Madam SPEAKER: I have actually asked you previously not to refer to the presence or absence of a member.
Ms CARNEY: Yes. I am sorry.
Madam SPEAKER: We are debating your motion. If you could stay as close as you can to the actual motion that you presented.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I accept your ruling unconditionally. It is interesting that, in Question Time today, we saw ministers go on and on, and not even answer the question. Under the rules of our parliament, points of order were made, and the ministers can pretty much do what they like. They have very extensive latitude, yet, when the opposition has a motion there are limitations on us.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I must say that I believe you are reflecting on the Speaker.
Ms CARNEY: I am sorry. I have no intention of so doing.
Madam SPEAKER: I am actually saying to you that there is a level of latitude in all speeches in this place, which I have made clear on many occasions. You are debating something which you have presented yourself. Whilst you can deviate and talk about various matters, you should speak as closely as possible to the motion that you have presented.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The government sensitivity on these issues is understandable. Now, it is naturally relevant, through you, Madam Speaker, about where the minister stands in relation to the infighting that is engulfing this government. It explains why she was so happy and proud to stand next to the current Chief Minister when the road safety measures were announced.
She was happy to do it because she is backing that particular person at the moment. One wonders, and I am sure Territorians are terribly interested in this, whether, in the event that there is a leadership change, and of course we are expecting that to be the case, the minister might then seek to distance herself from her comments and her actions in relation to the Territory’s road safety package. However, for present purposes she is backing the Chief Minister and they have been at one, and it was terrific to see some unity. We have not seen much from the government for a while. Mistaken though they were when it came to the substantial issues, it was refreshing I am sure, not only for members of Labor Caucus, but for other Territorians and Labor Party supporters, to see a level of unity.
The fact is that this government is working in a policy vacuum. I referred to it today, and the facts speak for themselves in that regard. The CLP came up with an innovative package to encourage young drivers to use lower powered motor vehicles. Under the CLP, drivers aged between 16 and 23 who purchase a car less than seven years old, with an engine capable of generating no greater than 95 kW capacity, such as a Fiesta, Corolla, Barina, will be entitled to claim no stamp duty, no cost of registration for two years, and no cost of third part insurance for two years. We also suggested that for young provisional drivers they not have a passenger with them between 10 pm and 5 am, something that I understand, as of yesterday as a result of the accidents in New South Wales, that the Labor minister is at least considering a number of recommendations for young drivers. We have not seen any policy from the government on this - have not seen anything. All we have seen is the glossy brochure and the unity demonstrated by the Chief Minister and her, for now supporter, the minister.
We have a policy on seat belts and we talked about that when I introduced the bill today. We have a policy on seizing cars from drunk drivers and, in certain circumstances, confiscating them. We have a policy, unlike the government, where, if you are a recalcitrant human being and you are hell-bent on not registering your vehicle - those dangerous vehicles that we see around the place – if you do not want to register your vehicles, the government members might be happy to avoid that. We, on the other hand, have stepped into the breach because of a policy vacuum and division that is engulfing in this government. We have some suggestions and I have invited the minister - and the aspirational Chief Minister over there - to pick up these ideas because we all know that you know that they are very good ideas.
The fact is that the government does not have evidence, even on its own figures, to impose the speed restriction on the open roads. People would have come to Labor members – although I am not sure that they are as popular as they used to be so maybe constituents do not come in as often as they used to. Surely someone on the Labor side would have had a constituent saying: ‘If I have to do a job …’, talking about someone in the private sector or, indeed, a public servant: ‘… and if I have to go down to Katherine for the day, if I have a long meeting and I do not like driving at night, I have to stay there overnight’. The minister for Business would surely be interested in this. People in Alice Springs who can do Tennant Creek in a day are now saying: ‘This is an imposition on our business and we are going to have to pass the costs on’.
If the figures supported the imposition of speed limits on open roads you would say: ‘That is okay, that is reasonable’. When the government’s figures show that failure to wear seat belts and alcohol are critical and key factors, and the government chooses merely to bump up the fines from $100 to $200, then you have to ask yourself how committed the Chief Minister and her, for now, supporter, the minister for Transport, are in these areas.
I have been happy and proud to announce the policies of the opposition in the last few months. This motion calls on the government to reverse its decision to impose speed restrictions on the open roads. It calls on the government to introduce tougher and specific penalties in relation to drink driving, including mandatory breath testing by police when pulling drivers over for any other reason; for the government to adopt the policy of seizure and disposal of cars from repeat high range drink drivers, and for those who consistently fail to register their cars. Why on earth would a government have any problem with that? Similarly, why on earth would any government - regardless of what side of the political fence it is on – have a difficulty about adopting a policy implementing a three strikes in 12 months and loss of licence for people who fail to wear seat belts when your own figures show it is a problem? It is a no-brainer.
Specific education and training measures for younger drivers was part of our initiative. There is some veiled reference to it somewhere by the Labor Party, but that is about it. Specific incentives for younger drivers to purchase lower powered motor vehicles. I do not know whether the mums and dads are ringing up government members these days, but our phones have been ringing hot. You know why? Because the parents have been more than interested. They have been excited about our package for younger drivers. Indeed it is so often the case that the parents are the ones putting their hands in their own pockets to pay for the stamp duty, the registration and insurance. Parents are happy for a number of reasons: it is going to save them money at the end of the day for their young children who just get their licences and cars and so on. Also, they see the policy as being a profoundly responsible and effective one. So for young drivers who have for the most part been missed by the Labor Party, we the CLP opposition, has said do not worry, there is a policy vacuum because they are all fighting, we will give you some ideas.
We have also announced incentives for good drivers to include such things as a licence renewal without cost for drivers who have not had a speeding infringement between renewals. Now that is incentive and you always have to get the balance right, carrot/stick, carrot/stick. For young drivers there is a range of incentives; for good drivers there is a range of incentives; for people who drink and drive, there is a hell of a big stick and rightly so. For people who refuse to register their vehicles, there is a hell of a big stick, and rightly so. For older drivers, there is a skills update program which would, if completed, provide older drivers with an insurance and/or registration discount.
Madam Speaker, I am just at a loss to know why this increasingly arrogant government has not warmly embraced those things. Would it not have been nice for the Opposition Leader to have received a call from someone in the Labor Party to say: ‘We have heard you have this terrific policy, do you want to work together?’ When the minister talks about bipartisanship, well it cuts both ways.
Road safety ought not be a political issue, but this government has made it a political issue. They have gone out of their way to politicise it in whatever way they can. That is why we saw the extraordinary performance of a minister of the Crown in the last answer in Question Time accusing us, putting words in our mouth, about having difficulty with her sincerity and so on. That is just nonsense. No such suggestion was made, nor would it be. It is an outrageous and offensive suggestion but that is what we have learned to expect from the minister for Transport, the member for Karama. I suppose her colleagues have come to expect that, which is why she finds comfort straddling both sides of the current leadership battle.
I said earlier today that given the paralysis and crisis and policy vacuum that has engulfed this government, the opposition is prepared to step up to the plate and is prepared to come up with ideas. I said at the outset, when I got this job, that we would oppose legislation and policies of government where it was appropriate to do so. I also said that we would agree to them where it was also appropriate. Further, I said that part of our responsibility as an opposition was not just to knock ideas but to formulate new ones, to put our ideas into the policy mix, to tell Territorians what we would do if we were government, to invite this paralysed government to pick up good ideas where they exist.
Madam Speaker, this is an exceptionally good motion, one that I know has the support of Territorians. I look forward to it being passed.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support the Leader of the Opposition’s motion expressing anger at the actions of the Labor government for removing the open speed limit on the Stuart Highway. For something that is such a serious issue, I am sick and tired of listening to all the politics about it. It is an issue that needs to be addressed and I sincerely get annoyed when I look at the expressions on people’s faces when suggestions which I believe need to be taken seriously are shunned because they come from the opposition. Right now I see the minister is yawning she is so bored. I become very annoyed when a joke is made of such a serious issue and it is twisted and turned. It is absolutely pathetic.
First, any fatality on our roads is an absolute tragedy. It will not matter what we do in here, there will be more tragedies on our road. It deeply saddens me that that is so. If this government is serious about addressing road safety issues, there are several things that can be put in place that would have far more impact than this knee-jerk reaction of putting speed restrictions on our highways and introducing a demerit system.
Despite the hot air, and there has been plenty of it coming from the government side of this Assembly, that speed limits and the demerit system have been introduced to save lives on Territory roads, let me say right here and now that speed limits on open highways and a demerit system are nothing more than a revenue raising exercise for this government. There is no evidence that suggests that these two strategies have saved lives interstate and, in fact, have been an amazing revenue raiser for your respective Labor governments. I am sure the Treasurer is rubbing his hands in glee looking at the additional revenue that your government is going to have by ripping off Territorians with a demerit system and speed limits on highways.
I find it laughable when you say that putting restrictions on the highways is the answer. How many of you sitting opposite travel extensively? Yes, there are some who travel extensively on the open highways. How many of you travel within the speed limit around Darwin, Palmerston and the rural areas where there are speed restrictions in place? Be really honest with yourselves because my experience when travelling in the already identified restricted areas is that I am usually on my lonesome. I am driving on the limit or just under it. I am regularly tail-gated and passed by the majority of motorists. All this happens in areas that already have speed restrictions and have had them in place for many years.
If the road rules are not adequately resourced and policed in the already restricted areas, how is government going to deal with resourcing the highways with these new rules and regulations? I can assure you that to impose these restrictions there will have to be dozens of additional traffic police to enforce the regulations to add to the Treasury coffers, not just the three traffic units that you are proposing.
I can say without reservation that this government’s decision to adopt restricted speed limits on the Stuart Highway has angered Territorians like nothing else I have seen before. There were thousands of very angry people when TIO was threatened with closure last year and they took serious steps to ensure that government heard them loudly and clearly. Government was very wise to take Territorians seriously and reverse their decision to sell TIO.
The government’s decision to adopt restricted speed limits on the Territory open highways, such as the Stuart Highway at 130 km/h and other Territory arterial highways at 110 km/h, has angered Territorians more than you are prepared to accept. I have received more telephone calls, more personal visits, more e-mails and more mail, and have been stopped by more people in the street over this issue than any other. There is real anger out there, and I mean fair dinkum anger. I am one of those people who is angry; I was when the announcement was first made and I still am.
I could not believe that government was blaming speed for the number of road fatalities on Territory roads and using that as a reason to reduce the speed limit on our Territory highways. Where are the statistics for alcohol-related fatalities and fatalities where seat belts were not worn? I have written to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport seeking a break down of the cause of road fatalities in the Territory for the past five years. I am looking forward to receiving those statistics. It will make very interesting reading. I pre-empt, minister, that it will reinforce my argument that the main causes of road fatalities are not wearing seat belts and the effects of alcohol.
One of the bones of contention in the community, and it is a very valid one, is that there was no community consultation at all before government decided to announce that there would be speed restrictions implemented on 1 January 2007, followed by a roll-out of other changes as 2007 progresses. Knowing such a decision was going to have a huge impact on Territorians, especially regional and remote Territorians, why on earth did you not go out and talk to them? Why did you not provide them with the hard evidence to support what you wanted to do? Most importantly of all, why did you not listen to what Territorians have to say? Or is this just another sign of arrogance by government towards Territorians?
I am one of those Territorians who has to travel long distances from Katherine as part of my role as an elected member of this Assembly. I can assure you I am not at all impressed with having speed restrictions put on the open highway that will keep me out there for even greater lengths of time than I already am. It is fine for you who live above the Berrimah line. As usual, regional Territorians are being disadvantaged even further. There are no regular or consistent airline or passenger bus services which give regional people the alternative opportunity of travel. Therefore, to get anywhere, it is by vehicle on the highway. Remote Territorians, such as pastoralists who live long distances from their supply centres, have to travel on these highways regularly. These people drive to suit the conditions of the highway. They are not reckless lunatics. If the road conditions allow for 140 km/h, that is the speed they travel. If the road allows for 90 km/h, that is the speed they travel.
What the Chief Minister and government have done and said to these pastoralists, effectively, is that they are irresponsible, do not know how to drive on the open roads, and that they need to be controlled. You have also very effectively told them you do not give a rip about regional development, because you do not. Your government’s implementation of speed restrictions on our highways has said that loudly and clearly. Many of the regional and remote drivers will be likely to lose their licence in the first 12 months, because it is highly likely they will continue to get on about their business as they have been doing for years. In addition to doing that, they will also receive huge fines, and that could be in the vicinity of $500. These people who lose their licences will also be restricted with their work practices. There are already enough challenges which face regional and remote residents purely through distance from service. The speed restrictions will ensure some drivers will be adding hours to their trip to access services, not just minutes like you people who live above the Berrimah line. You will have an additional few minutes, but those people who live in regional and remote areas have a considerable length of time added to their journey.
Not only will the pastoralists and people who live in communities in remote areas be disadvantaged, but business in regional towns such as Tennant Creek and Katherine are also very concerned. Several contractors in Katherine have told me that the speed restrictions will change the way they operate their business. I will give you an example of that. Many business people travel long distances from Katherine, firstly giving quotes for jobs, and then carrying out the job if their quote is successful. At the present time, with unlimited speed on the highways and travelling within their speed capability, they are able to do the return trip in a day. With speed restrictions, several have advised me that they will have to stay overnight, which will increase the cost of the job, plus keep tradesmen away from Katherine for longer periods of time. You may not think that is a very serious problem, however, we already have a shortage of tradespeople in regional areas and this is going to add to their challenges.
These comments have been expressed by several businesses in Katherine, so it goes without saying that there will be many others throughout regional Northern Territory who will be affected and feel the same way. So much for this government being interested in regional development!
There is anger from some residents who feel that the last of their Territory unique lifestyle has been eroded to the point that they are adamant that this is the final straw and they will be leaving. Their argument was more than reasonable: they came to the Territory many years ago to enjoy the different lifestyle that Territorians have always had the privilege of living. Now, we have become no different to any other jurisdiction in Australia. We have lost our uniqueness and our identity. We do not have to have regulations like the rest of Australia. I am not a redneck, and I am very much in favour of safety, but let us get some commonsense into the discussion.
The most common causes of road fatalities on Territory roads are associated with alcohol and the non-wearing of seat belts. Let us deal with these two factors, and deal with them seriously. It does not matter what regulations and restrictions that you and your government put in place, minister, you will never stop the 20-year-old inexperienced driver from getting into a high-powered car, roaring off down the road at breakneck speed and, unfortunately, sometimes ending up in a tragic accident. You will never stop that from happening, no matter what restrictions you put in place. How about getting back to the basics of road safety? That begins with the serious education and training of young people. The recent Road Safety Taskforce showed that road crashes are the biggest killer of people aged between 18 and 25 years of age, which clearly indicates that young people need to be seriously targeted with significantly increased education and training.
We have stated very clearly that we would, in government, incorporate road safety topics into the school curricula, and school-based education will be formed in conjunction with the police. We would have police visiting all Territory schools throughout the year, and would have appropriate age-specific road safety resources in preschools, primary and high schools, to ensure every step has been taken for students to gain knowledge and understanding of the road traffic environment. Students would learn from a very young age about being responsible for their own safety and the safety of other people in vehicles. The most effective way for the training of younger people to work is to have a partnership between parents, schools, police, and the government. That is how we would focus on road safety. I certainly hope, minister, following Question Time today and your response to one of those questions about young driver safety, that that is exactly what you and your department would be doing.
The CLP also has a policy for young road users, and our leader has talked about that today. That policy will give young road users an incentive to purchase a smaller engined vehicle. We would encourage people aged 16 to 23 years to purchase a car that is less than seven years old, with an engine capable of generating no greater than 95 kW capacity. Should they choose to purchase a smaller engined vehicle in preference to a high speed one, they would be entitled to claim no stamp duty, no cost of registration for two years, and no cost of third party insurance for two years. We believe with incentives such as these, young people would be encouraged to purchase a vehicle that is in line with their driving experience.
The CLP would also have additional provisions and restrictions to keep our younger drivers safer on our Territory roads including: no towing for learners and provisional drivers; 120 hours of driving experience to be log booked for learner drivers on supervised driving; move the provisional period from the proposed two years to three years; allow only one passenger of a provisional driver in their first year of a provisional licence between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am; and the loss of licence for three months upon a second breach of these restrictions. All of these are aimed at having safer young road users.
I believe that what the CLP has proposed for young drivers is sensible and responsible, and that is where government needs to start with their road safety. We also believe that all new drivers should undertake an advanced driving program to assist their driving skills to ensure they have a better understanding of how to handle a vehicle in various road conditions.
Had I had that advanced driving course when I was much younger, maybe I would not have ended up in the predicament that I did earlier this year. An advanced driving course would have taught me not to brake before you hit the water or get near water, because you move the load of the vehicle from the back to front and that put me into a spin. I am very much in favour of advanced driving courses.
I would even suggest that people who have had driving experience for quite some time need to have an advanced driving course. I have been on the road and driving vehicles since I was 11 years old - not on the road I might add, Mr Deputy Speaker, but on my parents’ farm. I have been driving since I was 11 years old and this was one thing that I did not have experience with. I believe if I had, I would not be having these aches and pains as I get older. The successful completion of an advanced driving program for everybody, and especially for young people, would qualify that young person for a full open licence immediately.
Another incentive the CLP would offer for the young driver would be if they complete their P plate period incident free, and also complete the first three years of their probation incident free, they would be entitled to free licence renewal. An incentive such as a monetary benefit to them is usually appealing and I would suggest it would appeal to the majority of the younger people.
Another serious problem identified is the number of road fatalities where occupants of a vehicle were not wearing seat belts. Over the past two years, 30 people who were not wearing seat belts have died on Territory roads. That is clearly unacceptable and should not have happened. There is legislation already in place that makes it illegal to travel in a vehicle without a seat belt on, but clearly with the 30 people who have unfortunately lost their lives, that legislation meant diddly squat. Surely that should spell it out very clearly that tougher action needs to be taken. The Country Liberal Party has taken that on board with significantly increased fines. We make no bones about being tough with our stance on seat belts. We have a policy that clearly states the penalty if you are caught three times in 12 months not wearing a seat belt: it is the mandatory loss of licence for three months. This will directly target those who fail to understand the importance of wearing a seat belt.
All Territory school kids will be given seat belt education at least once each term from school-based constables. We feel it is important that people learn from a very young age the acceptance and the responsibility of wearing seat belts. We have also clearly stated that we would have seat belts on all school buses fitted over a period of 12 months to Australian standards. We have also clearly stated that we would triple the traffic police presence to ensure the laws are enforced. There is absolutely no point in having laws in place if there is not the number of police to enforce them.
The evidence suggests that due to the lack of resources, people are not complying with the laws. This has to be changed otherwise all the rules and regulations in the world are not worth a grain of salt. The CLP believes that the position that we have on seat belts and the extensive driver education we propose for young people is a positive step in the right direction for significantly reducing the road toll in the Territory. We do not consider that the demerit system and the reduced speed limits on the open road are the answer at all. We believe it is education for young drivers.
I fully support the motion put forward today by the Leader of the Opposition. I ask government, if they are sincere about a bipartisan effort between us to address road safety on roads in the Territory, to look at these suggestions because we all know the concerns of road users in the Northern Territory, and we take them seriously.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion deals with a broader range of issues than I intend to raise in my motion. There are some matters on which I wish to comment. I support the motion. It is a proactive motion and has some good concepts. There are a few issues that the government needs to look at.
Just looking at the key findings document, which the government released, and which deals with drug driving. One of the recommendations is to amend the Traffic Act to provide the necessary power to collect samples of blood to test for drugs from people involved in motor vehicles crashes and in cases of dangerous or unexplained driver behaviour. That does not go far enough. We know that drugs affect driving just as alcohol does. We know that we have random alcohol breath tests on the highway. We should have random drug testing as well. Otherwise, this recommendation is saying people will be tested for drugs after the event.
The member for Katherine has been getting some flak over her remarks about breath testing people in boats. The minister, in reply to a question yesterday, said there are sufficient laws to cover that because if someone is driving a boat recklessly, they can be charged with not being in control of that boat. The problem with that is it is after the event. When you crash into the port in Darwin, as some people did not so long ago, the action has already occurred. The reason we have random breath testing is to get people off the road before they have an accident. I would like the government to look at that when developing these policies and recommendations. Victoria has random drug testing. I am told it is reasonably expensive and it has taken a while for it to be sorted through. There were some issues when it first started about the practicality of what was involved. I gather now that you pull up and they give you an icy-pole stick which you put in your mouth. They then put it into a machine which can sense whether you have been using any drugs. I have concerns if that is the only testing that will be done, that is after the event.
Demerit points have not had much debate in this parliament. I know many people who do not want demerit points. You might say they do not want demerit points because they do not want to lose their licence, and that might be fair enough. If the government is going to introduce a system of demerit points, it has to be sensible about it. In the back of the report there is a national guide for demerit points. I would hate to see a system of demerit points which got you up to one point below the maximum where you would lose your licence and you found your tail light was not working or something, a minor offence, which then tipped you over to losing your licence. There needs to be a system that reflects that if you are doing an act that is dangerous to other drivers and yourself, you could lose your licence through the demerit point system. For the more minor offences, I would prefer no system of demerit points and people were fined. If you think the fines are not big enough, we can look at that. That is another area that should have been debated more in the community. I will speak more on that when my motion comes up.
I realise that the opposition is looking at legislation for the forfeiture of vehicles for certain offences. Already we have a Traffic Amendment Bill that was passed in this parliament; it was amended from what I originally put forward to this parliament. It was called, colloquially, the ‘Hoon Bill’, and it was designed originally under the Queensland legislation, where a first offence for people doing burn-outs and donuts and such dangerous activities like drag stripping or dragging up a main road, would have lost their vehicle for 48 hours. On a second offence, you would have lost it for three months, and on the third offence in Queensland I think your car is confiscated and can be sold off.
The government watered that down a bit: now, you get a yellow ticket for a first offence and a magistrate has to decide whether you lose your car for a weekend. Unfortunately, that is too convoluted and too nice a little tap on the wrist. I know the minister for Police at that time, earlier this year when I asked him a question about how many people have been apprehended or given a ticket in relation to this legislation, he said he believed it was in the 60s, but what he did not say is, I do not think anyone has lost their vehicle. It is successful in Queensland because young people do not like to lose their vehicles. They found that if you lost it for a weekend and you know that next time you are going to lose it for three months, you are not really out there doing too much hooning.
Hooning is dangerous, and yet it does not appear to be a part of the recommendations in here even though we already have legislation. That legislation needs upgrading and tightening. In the key findings in this document, groups at higher risk of death or injury are the young or new driver. We have legislation that can deal with some of these issues. There is no doubt that hooning does cause injury and death. Some may remember the young people who were dragging outside BP Palms one night. One of them turned their lights off and they crashed. I am not sure whether it was one or two people killed; one was burnt; and some were very seriously injured. It was only luck that some were saved when people pulled them out of the vehicle.
There is legislation there already. The problem is, we are not enforcing it and I believe it is not strict enough. I will give you an example. There is a little community in the rural area called Howard River Park. It was always marketed as an upbeat place, with white fences and good quality housing, and people paid the extra money to live at Howard River Park. Over the last year or so, we have had quite a number of young people in there burning up the roads at all hours of the day and night. In fact, there is so much rubber on the road one could start to call it Howard Rubber Park. It is causing problems with people in the community, not only from the safety perspective, but they feel the value of their properties is going down. When you drive into that area and you see rubber everywhere on the road it does not put out a welcome mat to people who want to purchase a home there.
I believe there is a public meeting coming up this Thursday to get the police to do something about it. They do try, but the reality is they cannot arrest people because they simply cannot be there when the hooning takes place. So, except for a warning or a presence, not much changes. What we need is some sort of mobile surveillance equipment. The government is putting through all these changes to legislation which will include a $1.5m highway patrol. To me, it is putting money in the wrong place. How many people are we looking for on our main highways with a highway patrol? How many vehicles travel up and down our highways? Compared to other states, we are pretty mild. Go through the Wet Season and there is hardly anyone. I guarantee if you go to Kununurra in November, December, January, or February, you will not get run over by a fleet of cars, yet, we are going to put $1.5m into a highway patrol. Is that the best use of our police resources and money?
If we cannot get control over some of these people who are causing disruption in our own communities because we do not have the money to police and prosecute them, then people are going to say: ‘Why spend money out in the bush for a few people driving a bit faster than the speed limit when the real problems, the problems that are driving people mad, are right here in our urban or rural communities?’
We need to look at whether having a highway patrol is a good use of resources. Is it just going to make lot of people aggro? If I am driving to Kununurra and am 100 km out of the Victoria River Roadhouse in November, and I am doing 140 km/h, and a policeman jumps out from behind a Brahman bull and says: ‘You’re done’, he might be within the law, but I tell you I will not be pleased. I will say: ‘Haven’t you something better to do?’ That is the question which should be asked: is it a good use of resources?
Believe it or not, it does not make the police very popular if you are getting pinged when you are driving down the road and no one is around, and you are breaking the speed limit. Are we making people law breakers when we do not need to do that? You might say yes, but the point is: how many of us go down the highway and pass a road train at 140 km/h? In theory, you can get picked up. It was not a problem before, but now it will be. I will get on to that in my motion. I will give you some reasons why I believe it is a bad decision.
Ms Lawrie: Road trains do 100 km/h.
Mr WOOD: That is right. However, when you are passing, you try to pass them as quickly as possible. When there is another car coming, if you have misjudged then you really have to put your foot down.
Mr Knight: Not a problem with that as long as you go back to 130 km/h.
Mr WOOD: That is right - maybe, maybe not. We forget the practical application of what you are trying to do - and, basically, in the middle of nowhere in some cases. I know we are dropping the speed limit to 110 km/h on the other open speed limit roads. For some roads that might be perfectly okay. In reality, is someone going to be sitting on the Buchanan Highway? Not likely! Is someone going to be sitting on Port Keats Road with a radar? Not likely! What I am asking is: does the change mean anything? I would not drive over 100 km/h down the Daly River road. Some people might. I certainly would not drive to Port Keats at very high speed. If it is an open speed limit road, you have to ask: was that a problem?
I will cover some more specific issues. I do not see anything particularly wrong with what the opposition is putting forward. They have put forward some positive incentives. Some of these are in this document. The step-by-step approach to gaining your licence is important. I also believe that positive incentives are the way to go. If you keep wielding a big stick, people get a bit jack of that and say: ‘We are getting picked on’. I would take the suggestion regarding incentives in another direction. For instance, if a person has been driving for over five years and has had no traffic infringements, would the government be prepared to reduce their registration fees by 10%? It is something that says we are rewarding you for being a good driver. It is not all about looking at how to fine you; it is also about how to reward you for doing the right thing.
In summary, there are some good suggestions put forward by the opposition. Naturally, I can understand that the government is not going to agree with part 1 of the motion. Part 2 has some positive programs and I would support those.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave the rest of my comments until I move my motion later today.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak now rather than after the minister. I am sure she has a prepared response to this motion. There were other points that were raised by the three previous contributors which I hope the minister will respond to specifically. I would like to put some points to the minister for her to also consider.
The government has come up with a mantra ‘speed kills’. If a pedestrian was hit by a car that travelled at 35 km/h it would cause serious damage. A person inside a vehicle who is not restrained, travelling at 60 km/h, coming to a sudden stop would suffer serious damage, if not be killed inside the car or thrown through the windshield. The two Japanese drivers at the Cannonball Run were killed travelling at 80 km/h. That is the speed they were travelling when they impacted the other vehicle and were killed. So at 80 km/h you could kill. It is not simply saying that speed kills. Any speed can kill. The human body is not designed to travel at more than what you can run. Faster than that, you hit something hard and come to a sudden stop, you will hurt yourself.
It is about reckless driving; that is what it is about. It is reckless driving that causes the problems. What is reckless driving? Driving an unroadworthy vehicle; driving when you are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs; driving without seat belt restraint, and driving when you are fatigued. That is what reckless driving is and reckless driving can kill. You can be recklessly driving at 80 km/h and kill yourself or kill somebody else. You can be driving fast with due care in a roadworthy vehicle on a good highway and you will not be driving recklessly.
This government ignored all that and said we are going to have a cap because you are all crazy drivers, driving at speeds that will kill you. Well, we should then have speed limits across the Territory at less than 80 km/h because at 80 km/h you can kill yourself and others.
I listened very carefully to the responses of the Chief Minister yesterday during Question Time and she was referring mostly to traffic between Humpty Doo and Darwin. She was talking about running red traffic lights. She was not talking about the open Stuart Highway, yet this speed limit issue is about the open Stuart Highway and that goes to the very core of Territory lifestyle.
We need to think about why your committee recommended 110 km/h. You saw some political benefit in increasing it to 130 km/h. You have to accept that most people in Darwin tend not to drive south of Humpty Doo. People living in the regional centres do drive long distances say between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek or vice versa, Katherine to Darwin and vice versa, and all points in between. To cover 1550 km between Darwin and Alice Springs at 110 km/h or even 130 km/h would take in the order of 16 hours or so. Add fuel stops and calls of nature and it is going to take more than three quarters of a day if you did it in all in the one drive. It means that people would have to stop overnight and that will increase the cost.
Businesses from Alice Springs which have to service a regional centre such as Tennant Creek will now have to spend more money an hour to ensure that the staff who travel to Tennant Creek have the means to stay overnight because they are not able to get back to Alice Springs in the one day. Where will the cost be borne? By the consumer.
When you talk about driving at 110 km/h or 130 km/h along the highway, the result is fatigue and it is fatigue that causes the problem. Someone driving fast along the highway would not necessarily go off the shoulder of the road because the person is fully alert. It is the person who drives slowly, hour after hour after hour, who becomes fatigued. It is fatigue which causes the person to drive off the road. It is fatigue which triggers the whole process that causes the car to roll. A tired driver drives off the road, has one or two wheels on the gravel, overcorrects, flips the car, and away you go. If the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs and the car was unroadworthy, if the driver was not wearing a seat belt, if the passengers were not wearing seat belts, if there were more passengers than seat belts - some cars have eight people in the car when there is a maximum of five seat belts fitted so at least three to five passengers are not wearing seat belts - those people would be thrown out of the vehicle. Those vehicles could be only going at 80 km/h but fatigue and the subsequent roll over of the car with passengers or a driver who is not restrained, with the driver under the influence of alcohol, that is what kills.
It is not speed that kills per se. It is the fatigue caused by being in a car for long periods of time. I am sure the expert committee would have looked at that, but this government decided that it would do something different.
The government needs to address the seat belt issue and enforce it so that no one gets into a vehicle without putting on a seat belt, that each vehicle does not have more passengers than the number of seat belts fitted. That is law, but I do not see it enforced. I see many cars driving in Alice Springs and on the outskirts with more passengers than the number of seat belts fitted.
Motor vehicles that are unroadworthy seem to be able to drive around Central Australia without any restriction. We do not see any enforcement to pull them off the roads. I say to government that if you do not seriously consider that reckless driving is the cause of road deaths rather than just speed, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Let us go to demerit points. Demerit points work on people who hold a driver’s licence. You have a driver’s licence and if you break the law and are pulled up by the police, you will probably get a TINE as well having points deducted. What if you do not have a driver’s licence? Does it matter? If you do not have a driver’s licence, demerit points do not make a difference; the person is prepared to drive whether they have a driver’s licence or not.
Demerit points will only impact on law abiding citizens who have a driver’s licence. The majority of Territorians are law abiding people. They drive the car to work each morning and each afternoon they drive the car home. Taxi or private hire car drivers who are trying to make a living will be driving their cars all day. These are the law abiding citizens who are out there every day trying to make a dollar to feed their families. They are the ones who will be penalised. These are the ones who are going to be inconvenienced. The other ones can be pulled up and told that they have broken the speed limit so they will lose demerit points. When they lose all of their demerit points, what happens? They forgo the right to drive.
Would not it be better if the government enforced the rules, made sure people abide by the rules and prevented reckless driving? That is what it is about. Make sure the people who drive between Humpty Doo and Darwin drive safely as many of fatalities also come from that group of people.
The government has not been able to provide any evidence to demonstrate that there are many fatalities from very high speed drivers on the open highways. I was surprised to hear the minister, the member for Wanguri, in the media yesterday saying that, in fact, only 50% of the people driving on the Stuart Highway go above 130 km/h. So it really is not the cause of the problem, is it, when you have only a small number of people who drive along the highway at such speeds?
These are the ones who are on the highway trying to earn a living, trying to go about their business without interference from this government. Instead, this government is going to take away what is uniquely Territorian. Show us the evidence that this high speed driving is the cause of the high number of fatalities that the Northern Territory suffers from, especially last year. Show us the evidence. It is not there. I have read the report from your expert committee and it is does not show that. That is why I am so perturbed as to why this government has done this. All I can say is that it has obviously been politically motivated for them to drive this policy. This policy is not even going to come into this Chamber. This policy is going to be brought about by regulation. That is what this government is going to do: do it by regulation so that it is not even out in the public arena for debate.
Had the opposition not brought this on as a motion, it would not have been debated. It would have just gone through behind closed doors as regulatory changes and then become law on 1 January next year. That is what it is going to be. Allan Moffat drove up the highway and stated quite clearly that the highway is in perfectly good condition for another Cannonball Run, no doubt about that at all. If that is the case it says that the highway is not the problem. The problem is in our built-up areas. You can say it over and over again: it is the built-up areas which cause the problem. The government does not like hearing criticism of their policy. I do not know where they got this advice from, trying to make us a nanny state is what this is all about and taking, again, another aspect of the unique Territory lifestyle.
For five years now we have faced this whittling away by this government of the unique lifestyle that we have in the Territory. I lament the day when this law comes into action. I believe it will be such a great pity. The government will have to wear the wrath of Territorians and eventually they will speak in the polls, I am sure.
I will not go into the rest of the points I raised in the motion, they are fairly self-explanatory. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken at length about the value of the government following the opposition in these. It will give young drivers and new drivers good instruction and incentives. It is a carrot and stick-type initiative which will ensure better quality drivers and drivers who will obey the law and not be reckless drivers. That is what it is about, it is about reckless driving. I ask the government not to recklessly ruin the Territory lifestyle.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will begin by pointing out that I believe it is a bit of a travesty that we get to discuss this motion from the Leader of the Opposition before the member for Nelson’s very similar motion. The member for Nelson put out a media release earlier this week outlining his intention to put forward such a motion. The CLP is so out of touch and so lazy that they simply decided that if it is good enough for the member for Nelson, then it is good enough for them. In stark contrast - not reactionary, as members of the opposition labelled this government in terms of road safety reforms – the Territory government sought expert advice on how to tackle the Territory’s unacceptable road toll.
Dr Lim: Dr Scruby, an expert in traffic, is he? What is an expert?
Ms LAWRIE: Expert advice - a range of experts; all experts who individually have more than 20 years experience in the Territory. I note the member for Greatorex is denigrating the Road Safety Taskforce experts and that is a shame. I stand alongside the Chief Minister in congratulating the experts who put in a great deal of research, and created an evidence-based report relying on more than 61 studies, which was presented to government for consideration. It was identified to address safer road use.
The NT Road Safety Taskforce report came up with a range of 21 recommendations. I am delighted to say that the Territory government took them seriously, considered them at length, heard a great deal about what the public had to say about the more contentious recommendations contained therein - that is, to impose restricted speed limits on our open roads and to introduce for the first time a demerit point system. I am proud to be part of a government which takes road safety more seriously than populist politics, which has been the extent of the debate I have heard from the opposition.
Why do we take it seriously? Fundamentally, our current road safety record is the worst in Australia with our road toll three times the national average. One person dies and nine are seriously injured on Territory roads each week. The chances of Territorian families losing their loved ones on the roads is simply too high. That is why the government has taken the tough decisions to reduce the carnage and it has accepted the recommendations from the Road Safety Taskforce. The recommendations form a comprehensive package - a package of measures designed to cut the trauma on our roads.
Mr Deputy Speaker, make no mistake, the motion from the CLP is nothing but a rejection of the task force recommendations. Tragically, these recommendations, as I have said, have come from Territorians with a great deal of expertise. However, the CLP prefers to play politics with the road toll and ignore the recommendations.
Arising from the recommendations, there will be a much greater emphasis on road safety education in our schools. Government will double the fines for drink driving, and those who do not learn the lesson and drink drive again will have their licence immediately suspended – an action that the Leader of the Opposition continually fails to mention when she talks about the government’s response to drink driving. Penalties for speeding, for not wearing seat belts, and for running red and orange lights will also be increased. We are introducing a speed limit of 130 km/h on the Stuart, Arnhem, Barkly, and Victoria Highways. This decision took into account the views of Territorians, the long distances travelled in the Territory, and the condition of these roads.
I want to pick up on some of the myths that are being floated by the opposition during the debate today on the motion. We heard the members opposite talk about the vast distances that are travelled on the highway and how it will impact on businesses in Katherine and in Alice Springs because of the many extra hours it will take to travel these distances. Let us just look at a calculation done on the difference in the amount of time it would take in a vehicle travelling at 130 km/h instead of travelling at – let us choose a speed of 160 km/h, which they could have done on an unrestricted road. Say Katherine to Mataranka: the difference between travelling at 130 km/h and 160 km/h would add eight minutes.
Mrs Miller: I told you do not look at those short distances. Look at the long distances.
Mr Henderson: It is coming.
Ms LAWRIE: Not hours. Eight minutes. Katherine to Timber Creek is a distance of 285 km. The difference between travelling at 130 km/h and 160 km/h is 25 minutes. Not hours as claimed – 25 minutes. The difference between travelling from Katherine to Pine Creek, again eight minutes difference when travelling at 130 km/h and 160 km/h - not hours as prophesised opposite. Darwin to Katherine is some 270 km. This is taking it from the point where you move out of the restricted zone, so if you like Acacia Hills …
Dr Lim: This is ridiculous mathematics.
Mr Henderson: This is the truth.
Dr Lim: This is not the truth. Then explain the mathematics. This is not the truth.
Ms LAWRIE: It is interesting. The opposition really does not like it when the facts are presented.
Dr Lim: That is not the truth.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr Lim: You drive 110 km/h, your average is about 90.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex.
Ms LAWRIE: When we move off myth and start to look at the facts.
Dr Lim: That is what it is.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Dr Lim: You drive at 110km/h. Maximum. The average is about 80km/h.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, the minister is trying to speak.
Dr Lim: I am telling the minister to be truthful.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: I am being factual.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat. Member for Greatorex, other members were fairly respectful when you were speaking. I feel that you should return that courtesy to the minister. Minister, please resume.
Ms LAWRIE: The difference in travelling between Darwin and Katherine - noting that we are looking at really from Acacia Hills because we are not including the restricted zone - so between the restricted zones the difference in travelling 130 km/h and 160 km/h adds 23 minutes. Twenty three minutes. Not hours. Not the difference between being able to do it in a day trip or stay overnight. Twenty three minutes.
Alice Springs to Tennant Creek is a distance of some 500 km. The difference between 130 km/h and 160 km/h adds 42 minutes. Forty two minutes. Again, not hours. Not hours. Not the difference between having to book accommodation and stay overnight. We are not talking hours and hours here. We are talking 42 minutes. The distance between Tennant Creek and Katherine is some 660 km – travelling 130 km/h and 160 km/h the difference there in time is 57 minutes. I have to say to the CLP when you want to have your arguments on the economic impact of reforms to save people’s lives, put some facts behind them. Just put some facts. A few simple mathematical calculations would not go astray. Put a few facts in there.
A default speed limit of 110 km/h, which was the recommendation very clearly by the experts, was accepted for the Territory’s other open roads. In its decision, the government recognised that we have good quality road conditions on the Stuart, Arnhem, Barkly and Victoria Highways which we believed would accommodate the speed of 130 km/h.
There has been some discussion in the last couple of days around the issue of 130 km/h and how the government arrived at it. The government has consistently said we arrived at it because we understand the Territory’s distances, we understand the road conditions of those major highways, and we listened to the community. Significantly, people were saying we will cop 130 km/h, do not bring it down below that, we drive these distances all the time. We have many members of parliament who have bush electorates and are often travelling on the open roads.
In addition to that, the government was also provided with what are called speed histograms. Histograms are not empirical data. They are a snapshot of speed over a certain distance registered on a particular day. They are not something you contain in a weighty report such as the task force report. I will table these for members opposite to have a look at them. They show sections of the Stuart Highway, for example, a section 19 km north of the Carpentaria Highway, a section 30 km north of Barrow Creek, a section 100 km south of Alice Springs, another one west of Timber Creek on the Victoria Highway which is east bound, west bound on the Victoria Highway, and on the Barkly Highway.
By and large, you will see that the bulk of travel is between 100 km/h and 130 km/h. Most motorists are travelling at that speed. The histograms are simply that: they are a snapshot of a particular section of highway on a particular day and time. They are not empirical data at all; they just show you a snapshot of what speed drivers are doing on the road. I table the histograms for members opposite because they seem very interested in the speeds at which Territorians travel. These histograms show you that some 85% of people travel at or around 130 km/h as a maximum speed on our good, open highways.
A member: Yes, but the evidence is 110km/h.
Ms LAWRIE: The experts recommend 110km/h. Categorically the experts recommend 110 …
A member: Well, it differs from 130km/h.
Ms LAWRIE: … and I encourage all members opposite to have a discussion with Professor Ian Johnston, an expert on the impact of speed on the road toll. He is a very knowledgeable man who has dedicated years to research to this subject. I squirmed in my seat every time I heard the opposition say that speed was not a factor. It is a factor. You said it is a fact that people are not wearing seat belts, and it is drink driving.
I refer members to the Road Safety Report where it talks about the key factors, and they are drink driving, speeding and fatigue, and there are compounding factors. A compounding factor is not wearing your seat belt. A causal factor is not wearing your seat belt. You do not have an accident because you are not wearing your seat belt. Not wearing a seat belt does not cause an accident; it is not a causal factor. I am not down-playing the importance of the effort the government will take to impose a regime of seat belt wearing, and enforcement is the key to that. Having the police traffic branch resurrected and out there enforcing the seat belt rule is the most effective tool based on the advice of the experts to whom I have spoken.
I take on board the fixation the opposition has on the issue of seat belts and that somehow is going to be the panacea to the cause of accidents. Seat belt wearing is a compounding effect on the seriousness of injury or fatality; it is not a cause of an accident. I do not think we are enormously far apart in all of us in this Chamber wanting to ensure that something as basic as someone putting their seat belt on does happen. We want to see that.
It absolutely astounded members of government to discover that we are the only jurisdiction in Australia that does not mandate restraint of children under 12 months. Restraint of children under 12 months was previously not mandated. This government will make it mandatory.
The opposition is opposed to speed limits because they say that speed does not kill. They say there is no evidence that speed kills. What I say is that they clearly have not read the Road Safety Taskforce Report. Let us just look at the Lasseter Highway where a speed limit was introduced in 2001. The task force outlines the results since then.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: There were some inane interjections from the opposition where they said there are no Territorians driving on it any more. Let us have a look at the Lasseter Highway. Since we introduced a speed limit in 2001, deaths have been cut by 37%; serious injuries have been cut by 44%; and the total of all injuries are down by 33%. These are lives being saved because of a reduction in speed, and yet we still have the CLP saying there is no evidence.
Twenty-one percent of all fatalities in the Northern Territory occur on the open speed limit sections of the Stuart Highway ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I will repeat that because there are a few interjections: 21% of all fatalities in the Northern Territory occur on the open speed limit sections of the Stuart Highway. I want to take you through the Stuart Highway issues, seeing as both motions, the CLP’s motion and the member for Nelson’s motion, really do go to that core issue of should we apply a speed limit to our open highways, and the Stuart Highway being the iconic highway of those highways. Data from 2000 to 2005 – on the Stuart Highway, it shows that in that period, there were 62 fatalities, 292 serious injuries, a total of 354. Yet, you sit there and you say that you will stand by and justify no speed limit on the Stuart Highway. Absolutely extraordinary.
Mrs Braham: Speed was not the only cause of the accidents.
Ms LAWRIE: But speed is causal in all accidents.
Mr Wood: Not according to your own figures.
Ms LAWRIE: No, speed is a causal component to all accidents. Go and talk to the experts, because if the car is stationary, you are not having an accident. So, whether it is 5 km/h or 10 km/h, 60 km/h or 100 km/h, speed is a causal component to all accidents.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Obviously, the faster you go, the more dangerous it is. The experts will tell you that. They have a whole lot of research to show you. Talk to Professor Ian Johnston and avail yourself of his expert information. Please go and find it out.
From 2000 to 2005, we have had 62 deaths; 62 people killed on the open speed limit sections of the Stuart Highway.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I do not have that information and I am wondering if the minister would please table it?
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to table it. The Barkly and the Victoria Highways, from 2000 to 2005 …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time to allow for the minister to conclude her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank my parliamentary colleagues for the courtesy.
On the Barkly Highway, from 2000 to 2005, there were nine fatalities and 39 serious injuries. On the Victoria Highway there were 11 fatalities and 32 serious injuries. I table this information for the members opposite.
Most Territorians do not travel at more than 130 km/h on the Stuart Highway, and I have tabled that evidence of the histograms. However, the number of people who do travel at above that speed, the Territory government believes is far too high, and we want to reduce the speed to make the roads safer for all Territorians.
The issue of drink driving is a significant problem in the Territory. When a Territory family is on the road they are eight times more likely to share it with a driver who is over the legal alcohol limit than if you were, say, driving in Victoria. At least 48% of fatal crashes in the Territory are alcohol-related. There are five specific recommendations in the task force report to address drink driving and the CLP has decided to reject them.
Currently, a driver can be apprehended for driving with up to 0.08 blood alcohol concentration an unlimited number of times and not lose their licence. The task force made a recommendation that the driver’s licence should be immediately suspended for three months for a second 0.05 BAC offence, and six months for any subsequent offence within three years. The government is adopting this recommendation. Again, the CLP chooses to reject it.
The CLP’s plan for drink driving is to seize repeat drink drivers’ vehicles. There are a couple of problems with this. First, this will have an impact on the whole family. Some Territory families have only one car and the whole family relies on that car. If one member of the family is stupid enough to drink and drive, then getting the kids to childcare or school becomes a real problem for the families who have had their car confiscated. For a drink driver with more than one available car, then you have achieved nothing. Rather than punish the whole family, we would rather punish the drink driver.
A much better approach to consider would be the use of an alcohol interlock system. An alcohol interlock is an electronic breath testing device wired to the ignition system of a vehicle. Interlocks can be fitted to motorcycles, cars and trucks. A vehicle fitted with an interlock will not start unless the driver passes a breath test. Additionally, the interlock will randomly request the driver to pull over to perform a breath test. That is what other states are introducing and the evidence is showing it is working. In America, they are already looking at alcohol interlocks being standard in some vehicles. The CLP simply refuses to consider these options and goes to the lowest common denominator, a knee-jerk reaction of confiscation.
Young drivers, we all agree, are particularly at risk on our roads. Young drivers are three times more likely to die than others in the Territory. This is an important issue for Territory families, the core of the recommendations that the CLP has rejected making roads safer for young people. The task force recommended that we implement a graduated driver licensing system in two phases. The Territory government has agreed to that. Phase 1 would include what we are introducing: a minimum of a six-month learner period for all drivers and motorcycle riders under 25; no mobile phone use during learner and provisional periods; and double the penalty for driving with L or P plates. Phase 2 is the graduated driver licensing scheme in its entirety which goes to the minimum supervised driving hours during the learner phase, limits on night driving, and the number of young passengers.
We are developing a road safety education curriculum for young people. The task force recommended a graduated driver licensing system which will ensure the young drivers get the experience and skills they need to drive on our roads. Every parent should be aware of the importance of helping their teenagers get experience on the roads. Experts say that driver training systems off-road do not get you there. For the safety of our young drivers, it is the hours spent driving on the roads through a range of road and driving conditions that improves their chances of not being the subject of traffic accidents.
The task force outlined the high incidence in the Territory of not wearing seat belts, and how this leads to a high number of fatalities. People not wearing a seat belt is a compounding factor, not a causal factor, in fatalities. This was a compounding factor in some 50% of fatal crashes in the Territory since 2000. The report recommended a package of education and media campaigns which we have already implemented, complemented by increased penalty and enforcement efforts. There should be also a higher profile enforcement campaign at the time the new penalty begins - the all-important aspect of enforcement, which is the resurrection of the traffic branch which was disbanded by a previous CLP government.
The CLP motion does not talk about tourists or indigenous Territorians and they completely ignored the task force recommendations in this area. They have also overlooked recommendations in relation to running red lights and amber lights and the penalties. The CLP says that recommendations are revenue raising. We are trying to stop people driving through red lights and the CLP cries ‘revenue raising’ - unbelievable. We are bringing back the police traffic unit that the CLP abolished and we will have highway and remote patrols to help enforcement. All the rules and all the regulations in the world do not change the driving culture and will not reduce the carnage on our roads. Enforcement is critical to reducing the carnage on our roads.
We are a government that understands we need to make our roads safer. That is why our roads budget this year is more than $130m. We are putting an extra $50m into roads which is above what the CLP ever did to make our roads safer. We will continue to invest in our roads. The opposition claims that there was no consultation on road safety reform and has suggested the government has not let the public have a say on our road safety debate. You have to wonder where the CLP have been. Have they been under a rock, hiding? We know they are out of touch but this really takes the cake. I cannot think of too many issues in the Territory that have sparked greater debate than the recent road safety debate. As I said in the last sittings, we welcome this debate. It is worth having a vigorous debate. The number of stakeholders that put forward their position on the debate was terrific. I will name just a few: TIO, AANT, the AMA, surgeons and doctors, police, ambulance officers, the Chamber of Commerce and alcohol rehabilitation organisations.
It was not just the stakeholders on this issue. The public certainly had their say. The NT News was swamped with articles, letters and text messages. ABC radio dedicated hours to talk back on the issue. There was a great variety of opinion from those advocating ‘no need to change’ through to ‘something must be done immediately’. We have victims of road trauma speaking out and we have relatives of Territorians who are no longer with us contributing to the debate. It was a very active debate; a debate that somehow the CLP missed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we reject this motion from the CLP. As a government we are committed to implementing the recommendations of the experts who provided us with the road safety report. We will do everything we can, everything we should, to stop the trauma on our roads.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, frankly, I do not think the minister’s response really warrants much more of the taxpayers’ dollars. It was predictably dreadful, predictably vitriolic and predictively aggressive. There is, though, a matter that should be raised and it demonstrates the untruths that the minister has told in her contribution which again is predictable. The minister said that the opposition had said that - I cannot remember her exact words – we have bagged everything in the Road Safety Taskforce report. That is not correct. She did lie to this parliament. She lied because …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition well knows she cannot accuse any member of this House of lying unless she does so by way of a substantive motion. I ask you to request her to withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you either withdraw the statement, or you move a substantive motion.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘lie’. I understand that we are still able to use the word ‘untruth’ in this parliament.
The minister, predictably - well, she told a number of untruths but one where she can be clearly caught out and she should know better, and she sailed dangerously close to the wind in the Question Time today. We look forward to further exploring that one. She is on dangerous ground, straddling both sides of the leadership contest, and she still does not know which way is up or down when it comes to a number of matters in her portfolio.
The minister, surely, would have remembered receiving a letter from my colleague, the member for Katherine and shadow minister for transport, dated 31 October 2006. Let us read it.
- Dear Minister
Re: Road Safety Taskforce Recommendations
Having now looked closely at the recommendations and the report provided by the Road Safety Taskforce, on behalf of the opposition I would like to set up a meeting as soon as possible so we can work in a bipartisan way in respect of those measures that the opposition is willing to support. Of the recommendations, we agree in principle with seven, agree with the intention of 10 others but believe they do not go far enough, reserve our view on two, and oppose two.
The letter goes on:
- While there may be a difference of view in respect to some recommendations, I do believe there is significant common ground.
While there may be a difference of view in respect to some recommendations…
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I can keep yelling; I think you are the one with the sore throat. Are you right?
While there may be a difference of view in respect to some recommendations, I do believe there is significant common ground.
My colleague goes on in the letter to say:
- I look forward to being able to meet with you in the near future and getting to work on the measures to reduce the number of road deaths and serious injuries on Territory roads.
Sincerely
Fay Miller
Shadow Minister for Transport.
So, it was untruthful, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, on both sides of the House!
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was untruthful and a misrepresentation in its most vulgar form to suggest that the opposition did not agree with some of the recommendations of the task force.
The minister’s answers in Question Time today in relation to the Ombudsman’s report raised a number of serious matters. The bottom line is that she is not in touch with her department. She is not availing herself of the wonderful work and assistance no doubt people in the department are prepared to offer her. She is obviously not bothering to read the correspondence that comes across her desk. If she was serious about getting better outcomes for Territorians as she has professed, she could at least read correspondence to her written by Territorians, including my colleague, the member for Katherine. It is a nonsense to say that we did not agree with it, but it is typical of the somewhat disingenuous and duplicitous manner in which this minister works.
The motion is a straightforward one. I thank the member for Nelson for his support. You cannot deny what is undeniable, that is, that the CLP has put forward some very good proposals. Why on earth shouldn’t the government pick up on them? When we chuckled in Question Time today, given the minister’s lateness, and were given the revelation that her department has been working on some of these sorts of things, the smiling was because the minister, having demonstrated her form when it comes to misrepresenting things, did it again.
We know that she knows that some of these policies will be taken up by the government. Why on earth should they not be? What she has done is sought to manufacture something from thin air and say that the department and her office has been working on it. I doubt that very much. When we had the press conference the minister sidled up to her present friend, the Chief Minister, trying as she does to get into the camera shot - and people comment on it - there was an opportunity for those two ministers to say: ‘But wait, there is more!’. Just like the steak knives ad. They could have said: ‘Here is the report, but wait there is more! Another 20 knives, or another 20 recommendations, or another 50 ways to address the Territory’s road safety problems’. No, there was not that claim; it was nothing like the steak knives commercials.
The minister had an opportunity to tell Territorians that she had much more work to do and was going to undertake it. She did not. It is blindingly obvious that the government has been caught out. We know the vile politics they play. We are used to that. There is something quite liberating about being a very small opposition. On occasion you are bullet proof because there is nothing you can say or do to hurt us. Nothing you can say or do. Then we have the member for Barkly today in Question Time saying: ‘You are an arrogant opposition’. Well, that must be an Australian parliamentary first to say ‘you are an arrogant opposition’, wow! Who would have thought that it was even remotely possible? You have 19 people over there, half of them bovver boys, and how dare you say that we are an …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Dr Lim: Look at the bovver boys – they are objecting to being called bovver boys!
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson, do you have a point of order?
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am calling a point of order regarding the offensive language of ‘bovver boy’ by the Leader of the Opposition. Quite clearly, the member for Greatorex, I will also pull him up and ask him to retract that statement as well.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear the statement.
Mr KIELY: He used the same words.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I caution members about their language. I will reserve my judgment on …
Mr KIELY: I will state that again, Mr Deputy Speaker. We were accused of being bovver boys. I was personally called a bovver boy by the member for Greatorex. I ask for him to retract that statement under Standing Order 62, offensive or unbecoming words.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, you are speaking to the point of order?
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder where we are going sometimes with offensive language. A bit of colourful debate is not going to hurt this place. Are we getting so sanitised with our language we cannot even say anything that is slightly offensive? For crying out loud, let us live and let live. We know it is offensive and we know it is semi-humorous. Leave some of our colloquialisms. We got rid of buggerlugs. Let us be reasonable with our language.
Mr Mills: Of all people, worried about language.
Mr Kiely: I would not pontificate if I were you, Terry.
Mr Mills: Oh really! Oh, you have heard me use a rude word like buggerlugs or something.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I do not feel that ‘bovver boy’ is offensive, but there was another word that was also used, was there?
Mr KIELY: There were probably many.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I caution members about their language. Things are getting a little heated. Use a lot of caution with your language. Please continue, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your ruling. I am keeping a list here in my file of words I cannot mention. It is quite straightforward really, but I think buggerlugs is the most interesting. I am sorry for even using the word ‘slippery’. Thank you for your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We have here, in tabulated format, the recommendations of the Road Safety Taskforce that we agreed to. I repeat and direct the minister’s attention to the letter written by my colleague, Mrs Miller, on 31 October 2006, clearly indicating that there were recommendations that we agreed with. This is a sensible motion. I do not propose to get into the petty politics of this issue. Members opposite are obviously touchy. We understand why they would be so because of the division and hatred going on in the back rooms between them. There are 19 of them. Obviously there is not much room for egos and agendas.
Mr Stirling: You cannot even talk with your deputy leader. You cannot even bring yourself to hold a discourse with him.
Ms CARNEY: We look forward to your retirement, member for Nhulunbuy. When are you going to retire? We would win a by-election in your electorate …
Mr Stirling: You can’t even be in the same room. Talk about division!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … because we will get stuck into that. The word is that the member for Casuarina leaked the stuff to the media because he was trying to position himself as deputy because they are all talking about when you are going to go. I believe the latest bet is April next year, but only time will tell. In any event, you are a bunch of divided and highly agitated people. That is why you are so twitchy when it comes to a fair dinkum motion like this.
Under my leadership, we will question you where it is appropriate to do so, and we will get stuck into you where it is appropriate to do so. We will also come forward with exciting, innovative, and intellectually sound policies because I take that obligation very seriously. I am not surprised, and I am sure many other people will be appalled, that the government does not see fit to even support any part of the motion. However, I guess that is what we have come to expect from an arrogant and lazy government.
I do not think there is anything else I can add, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask that members support the motion.
Motion negatived.
LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT (SALES OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) BILL
(Serial 78)
(Serial 78)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is similar to a bill I introduced in 2004 and 2005. The bill aims to introduce vendor disclosure in the sale of residential land and property in the Northern Territory. This enhances consumer protection for buyers and sellers, and reduces the risk of gazumping. When I first introduced this bill, it was not supported by the government in 2004 because the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General argued ‘more consultation was necessary’. In his response in October 2004 the minister said:
- The government will always support measures that provide consumer protection, so long as they are workable and have a broad community support. A balanced approach to the regulation of sale of property is required, and the government takes the view that the bill proposed by the member for Nelson certainly goes some way towards achieving that. The Department of Justice will shortly complete a discussion paper concerning the issues of vendor disclosure that I foreshadowed last year. The government proposes this discussion paper be developed and circulated for public comment. The member for Nelson has undertaken consultation of his own, some of which has been forwarded to my office.
That was a long time ago, during which no discussion paper surfaced. In the meantime, people can still be gazumped in land or property purchases. With no obvious moves by the government to do what they said they would do, I again consulted with the industry to revise my bill and re-introduce it. That was last year. Funnily enough, the government did put out a discussion paper for the property and commercial law task force, amazingly, just as I announced I was re-introducing my bill for the second time. Then, the government announced it was releasing a general discussion paper in March 2006 to obtain the views of key stakeholders and the general community. The government opposed my bill.
In August this year, Dr Toyne, the then Attorney-General, gave an update on the status of the discussion paper saying ‘the final report will be made shortly’. The definition of ‘shortly’ is different depending on whether you are talking about the melting of the ice caps or the introduction of government urgent legislation. Instead of waiting for the ‘shortly’ to happen, I have, therefore, introduced the bill again.
This bill is largely modelled on the ACT Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act which, in turn, was an amalgamation of the best features of the Queensland, South Australian and New South Wales’ conveyancing systems. However, this bill also varies in some small, but important, ways from the ACT legislation to reflect different conditions in the Northern Territory.
Gazumping occurs when a seller or real estate agent accepts a verbal offer from a buyer which might be through a verbal agreement or handshake but, later, the vendor accepts another offer - usually higher - from another buyer. It usually occurs when the market is booming, demand is high, and there is limited supply of residential properties or land. Sellers can also be gazumped, usually in a depressed market when the buyer finds a property at a better price and pulls out after making an offer. Gazumping can cause distress, frustration, disappointment, annoyance, tears, or a breakdown in trust and financial loss.
Potential buyers can feel cheated and deceived but the buyer has no rights to a property simply because he or she has made an acceptable offer or even paid a holding deposit. The real estate agent is acting on behalf of the vendor and wants to get the highest sale price. In fact, the agent has an obligation to pass on all offers to the vendor until the contracts are exchanged. Therefore, when gazumping does occur, the agent is usually doing what he or she should be doing. All relevant literature says there is no legal binding sale until the contract of sale has been signed by the buyer and seller and exchanged. A verbal promise or the acceptance of an offer does not constitute the contract of sale.
Gazumping is an unpleasant fact of life in private treaty real estate transactions. This apparently arises because of the history of the sale of land. Compared with other goods and services, the sale of which can be agreed on a hand shake, agreements to sell and buy land are governed by the statute of fraud, a centuries’ old document which requires the contract for land to be in writing for it to be binding. All of the relevant literature also says ‘buyer beware’. The Northern Territory Law Handbook says that in the Territory there is limited legal protection for people who buy property, and the legal maxim caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware, applies.
In the standard contract of sale the seller is not required to disclose any matters that may affect the saleability or value of the property, nor to give any warranties. Some states have introduced legislation to restrict the window of opportunity for gazumping. That is what I am doing with this bill. No jurisdiction has tried to outlaw gazumping or to create an offence of gazumping. Gazumping occurs because of the time gap between verbal acceptance of an offer and the exchange of contracts. Anti-gazumping measures are generally aimed at reducing this window of opportunity. Briefly this is what the bill proposes and I will outline each section in more detail later.
The seller of a residential property will need to have a draft contract for sale prepared before listing the property on the market. Attached to this contract will be due diligence documents and reports which will provide the buyer with all the information necessary to help determine whether they want to buy the property. These documents includes the title search, the results of the building inspection, the pest report, the bore status report if the land is a rural block, a septic tank status report if that applies, and a flood prone report if that is applicable to the land being sold.
The ACT government claimed that because the New South Wales anti-gazumping legislation did not require such inspection reports to be attached to the sale contract, it had not worked. The window of opportunity for gazumping still existed. The seller will recoup the cost of these reports from the buyer. The buyer and seller will be able to enter into a binding written contract as soon as an offer is accepted. The conveyancer or lawyer will still be needed by the vendor to get the documents and certificates, and by the purchaser to check the documents attached to the contract. There will be a shorter time frame for doing these checks. The sale can still go through without a conveyancer or lawyer as can happen now, although it is not usually recommended because of the possible legal pitfalls.
The real estate agent will not be drafting the contract but will able to fill in certain prescribed details such as the name and address of the parties, the sale price, and date of contract. The seller can be fined if the report or certificates misrepresent the situation, or if the person who prepares the report is a relative or a business partner. Having these documents for a buyer to inspect from the time the property is first advertised for sale closes the window of opportunity for gazumping. Buyer and seller would enter into a binding contract as soon as the offer is accepted.
The new bill inserts a provision in the Law of Property Act. The division starts with a range of definitions including one for residential property which basically means any land on which a residence has been built or can be built no matter the size of the land. Clause 78C of the bill spells out the documents that are required to be prepared and attached to the contract of sale before the property is listed for sale. I have outlined those already. It will be an offence if the seller gets a relative, his agent, his lawyer, or anyone who has a direct or indirect interest in the seller’s business to prepare these reports or certificates. I have added several extra reports: the title search, the bore status report, and the septic tanks status report which are important for rural residents, and the flood prone report which is important for consumer protection. This is the one area where legislation differs from that in the ACT.
Clause 78E requires all the documents to be available for inspection once the property has been listed for sale. Clause 78F spells out the details of the cooling-off period where it applies; when it does not apply; and how long it is. The purchaser can shorten, lengthen or waive a cooling-off period only when he or she has sought advice from the lawyer. The lawyer must sign a certificate and a copy of that certificate must go to the vendor.
My original bill of 2004 included a penalty should a contract be rescinded during the cooling-off period. I have removed that penalty following consultation with the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory. While many jurisdictions do not have such a penalty clause, I accept REINT’s view that this is an unnecessary financial punishment. The bill does, however, require refund of a deposit in times of rescission. Despite not having a penalty, the bill contains consumer protection provisions through vendor disclosure. Clause 78L requires the buyer to reimburse the seller for any costs involved in getting their reports attached to the contract of sale. This would be part of the normal process of settlement where certain payments such as council rates are adjusted and levied.
It will be an offence under clause 78M for a person to give misleading information in any of their reports. A person who prepares a report or certificate containing misleading information will be liable to compensate the purchaser for the loss or expense. This will give the consumer, in the case of the buyer, extra protection and ensure that building and pest inspections are carried out with due diligence.
Buying a house, it is well known, is probably the biggest expense many people will ever have and is even more so with the ever increasing cost of land and housing. It is important therefore that buyers have the utmost confidence in consumer protection, which they do not have under the buyer beware philosophy. My bill will afford this protection.
I advise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there have been some very minor changes to the 2006 version of this bill, none of which change the original intent. I commend the bill, which includes explanatory documents, to the parliament.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Environmental Assessment Administrative Procedures
Environmental Assessment Administrative Procedures
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that:
1. The environmental assessment and administrative procedures currently do not require the minister to seek a proponent’s comments on a report, or advice or recommendations that were sought elsewhere by the minister on a proposal which is the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement or a Public Environmental Report;
- (i) Amendment of clause 11 (Examination of Report)
- subclause (2)(b)
after
report,
add
and
- after subclause 11(2)(b)
add
(c) direct the proponent to provide him/her with comment on any information that was provided under clause 11(2)(b).
- subclause (2)(b)
after
statement,
add
and
after subclause 14(2)(b)
add
- (c) direct the proponent to provide him/her with comment on any information that was provided under clause 14(2)(b).
Mr Deputy Speaker, before I comment on the proposal there is a typing error on the copy of the motion circulated to members. I think it is a cut and paste error. The first amendment under part (3) said:
- Amendment of clause 11 (Examination of Report)
- subclause (2)(b)
after
statement,
add
and
It should have actually read: ‘after report add and’
That section is actually referring to the Public Environmental Report. It does not make any difference to what I am putting forward. It is just a typographical error. I went looking for the word ‘statement’ and I could not find it because it was meant to say ‘report’. I apologise for that.
Parts 1 and 2 of this motion clearly explain the intention of the changes. Basically, under the existing procedures, the government can seek a report or advice or recommendations on a proposal from another source in assessing an Environmental Impact Statement or Public Environmental Report. There is presently no requirement for the government to provide that report, advice or recommendations to the proponent of the development subject to an EIS or PER. The changes as shown in the motion, if the government agrees, will allow that to happen.
This motion has come out of the environmental impact statement process for the expansion of the McArthur River Mine. I am not trying to start the McArthur River debate, but it is out of that development that a problem arose which if fixed could perhaps mean avoiding unnecessary delays in the EIS or PER process.
The case of MRM, then Mt Isa Mining, started off matters with a notice of intent in 2003. The guidelines for the EIS were put out by the government for public comment. A draft EIS process started and then took 10 weeks under the new company, Xstrata. The draft EIS was completed in August 2005, and a further 10 weeks were allowed for public comment. After the public comment, a supplement was produced which dealt with issues raised by the public and other interested groups. That was completed on 14 December 2005. The government, or dare I say it, or the so-called EPA, then considered the supplement. In late December early January, the so-called EPA then asked Professor Wayne Erskine from the University of Newcastle to report on the draft EIS but not the supplement.
The EPA also asked Xstrata more questions dealing with water management and ground water and waste management, which it answered through the company, URS. Professor Erskine finished his report in early February. The environmental assessment report was made public at the end of February, and more or less on the same day the government released the document, Professor Erskine recommended improvements in design of the McArthur River and Barney Creek diversion channels for the McArthur River Mine open cut project. Xstrata had not seen that document. The government had based its environmental assessment report on a number of matters Professor Erskine had raised. However, Professor Erskine had based his comments on the draft EIS, some of which had been answered by Xstrata in the supplement.
Of course, if Xstrata had seen Professor Erskine’s report, they could have addressed the issues raised and their comments could have been taken into account when the environmental assessment report was written.
Ms Scrymgour: You have a misunderstanding of the assessment process.
Mr WOOD: If the government had allowed – did I hear a whisper?
If the government had allowed a little flexibility in the process …
Mr Stirling: You said we did not have an EPA, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I have mentioned it as the ‘so-called EPA’.
Mr Stirling: You said we did not have one.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: It is your words, the so-called EPA.
I will take up that interjection. Minister, you will remember the environmental assessment report had a big stamp on it: ‘EPA’. The next environmental report came out with ‘interim EPA’. I will not dwell on that.
Ms Scrymgour: It did not, Gerry, now you are misleading parliament.
Mr WOOD: You can tell the parliament why I am misleading parliament.
Ms Scrymgour: Well, tell the truth.
Mr WOOD: I am doing my best. You can raise an urgency debate and censure me.
Ms Scrymgour: I will respond, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Okay. Of course, if Xstrata had seen Professor Erskine’s report, they could have addressed the issues raised and their comments could have been taken into account when the environmental assessment report was written. If the government had allowed a little flexibility in the process so that the company and Professor Erskine could have got together to sort out issues, and if Professor Erskine had been given a copy of the supplement and the draft EIS, the process may have been considerably shorter.
This motion simply allows for reports, such as the one given to the government by Professor Erskine, to be given to the proponents to assist in streamlining the process to ensure that it is better for all concerned.
That is simply what it is about. The minister may argue that my chronology is not correct – well, we will debate that. The basis of what I am saying is that, if the government is going to use reports in its environmental assessment report that the company or the proponent had not been able to see or comment on, I believe that that is a downside to the process.
Surely, in this sort of process which takes a long time - as you can see, it started off in 2003 and was only completed in the latter half of this year - but if we can still come up with good processes and conclusions, and do it a little more efficiently, surely that is something the government would support.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Deputy Speaker, I give the government’s response to the member for Nelson’ motion. I suppose it would be of no surprise to the member for Nelson that this government does not support the motion ...
Mr Wood: It would not be a surprise.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I would really like the member for Nelson to listen very closely to what I have to say in relation to the assessment process because it is clear that he sometimes gets a bit confused about some of these procedures.
The environmental assessment administrative procedures allow the minister to engage a suitably qualified person or an organisation to provide information in respect of a Public Environmental Report, a PER, or an Environmental Impact Statement, an EIS, or to make comments, suggestions or recommendations in respect of the PER or EIS.
On rare occasions when government does not have the required specialist knowledge in-house, external advice is sought to ensure all aspects of a proposal are properly assessed and considered. I am not going to go into detail or respond to what the member for Nelson talked about regarding McArthur River. I believe the EPA’s assessments and Reports 51 and 54 were very well done and due process was carried out.
The administrative procedures enable this advice to be sought late in the assessment process to assist me, as Environment minister, in providing advice to the approving minister. If a consultant is engaged to provide this advice on a proposal, the advice is absorbed into the assessment report done by the EPA and is then presented as part of the minister’s findings because the assessment is being done on behalf of the minister.
The suggestion to alter the administrative procedures to ensure that any consultancy report prepared as part of this process is to be provided to the proponent for comment is, in effect, a suggestion that I, as minister, provide a copy of my findings on a development proposal to the proponent for their comment before I release my report to the approving minister and the public.
Logically, it is hard to see why there would be a difference in the minister receiving external advice compared to receiving internal advice which does not seem to be questioned. Such a step would mean that the proponent is given a further opportunity to negotiate and to influence the findings of the environmental impact assessment process and the government’s decision-making when it has already had the opportunity to present its intentions through the Environmental Impact Statement or PER and the supplementary process.
The member for Nelson’s motion implies a lack of understanding of what the whole environmental assessment of development proposals is about. It implies that the environmental assessment process is a continual negotiation process in order to facilitate the approval of a development, rather than an independent assessment to ensure the receiving environment is protected from unacceptable impact and to enable government to weigh the risks and benefits of a project. I repeat: it is an assessment of the proponent’s proposal; it is not a negotiated facilitation of the proponent’s proposal.
Such a step also does not recognise that there are other stakeholders in the EIA process besides the proponent. Accordingly, if this information was to be provided to the proponent, it should also be released to the public and NGOs, etcetera, to provide them with the opportunity to comment. This means that there would be further time taken to assess a proposal, and it is hard to see when the iterations would stop.
This is not a process, member for Nelson, that would achieve an independent, rigorous environmental assessment of development within the Northern Territory and should not assume that what a proponent puts in an EIS, or a PER, or a supplement is the end of the story. It is quite common for the minister to use the powers under the Administrative Procedures to ask for additional information from the proponent to assist in the assessment of the EIS or PER. In these circumstances, proponents have the opportunity to explain their additional information and to work with government until what is provided is considered sufficient to meet the minister’s request. This information is provided to the government assessing agency and is only made public with permission of the proponent. Adopting your suggestion, member for Nelson, would mean that this information should be provided for public scrutiny which in turn would add more time and complexity to the assessment process.
I am not saying that the current Environmental Assessment Act and Administrative Procedures are perfect. They were instituted by the previous government and are now quite old. I believe we have all acknowledged that and we have had a look at, and yes, through various development proposals there are some things that need to change. I have undertaken to have the legislation reviewed; that was part of the undertaking and commitment that we gave with the development and the establishment of the EPA. We have given a commitment to ensuring that we have the best legislation, updating and bringing our laws up with the 21st century best practice. I have already met with the interim board of the EPA with their draft report, after all their consultations. What you have brought up in that context is part of that broader legislative review.
Madam Speaker, until then, the government does not support this motion. As I said, I will take some of the member for Nelson’s significant comments into consideration when we are looking at that legislative review.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. I am grateful that she has taken them on board and that there will be a review of the procedures. I need to make a couple of comments to clarify where I am coming from.
In the case of McArthur River - this is where it does not make sense to me. You may think I do not make sense. You probably think that often. In the case of McArthur River, there was a draft EIS. Then there was a public time to comment on the draft EIS …
Mr Stirling: Better off to say we have an EPA, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: … and the response - wash your mouth, minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: No, it is all right. He mentioned the EPA and I told him to wash his mouth.
Madam SPEAKER: Please continue, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker, he has put me off again. There was a draft EIS which is the normal procedure that McArthur River Mine had to put forward. The public and other bodies were allowed to comment. In response to that, there was a supplement brought out by McArthur River Mine.
Ms Scrymgour: They put the draft in.
Mr WOOD: Draft at the beginning and then it has a supplement and that gives you the EIS. Now …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, no, that is the draft. That is it. That is the bit that is going to go to government. In the meantime, the government asked Professor Erskine to comment on the draft. Now …
Ms Scrymgour: It was an EIS. It was not a draft.
Mr WOOD: All right. Officially, I think it is called a draft EIS in the statement. Anyhow, we will call it the EIS. The government asked Professor Erskine to comment on the EIS, not the supplement. The problem I had with that was that when you read Professor Erskine’s report he did not deal with issues that the company had dealt with in their supplement after listening to the public. He dealt with the EIS that had not been commented on. That was the initial government’s proposal. They then listened to the people and various environment groups and came up with a supplement.
Ms Scrymgour: And what were his comments after that?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I will give you a classic example. If you read the supplement, for instance McArthur River Mine said, when it came to revegetation of the new river course, that it would be employing local people to collect seed. Because Professor Erskine had not read that supplement, he said that the company should go out and get local people to provide seed for the plants. Obviously, he had not seen the supplement.
When the government released its environment assessment report, it based it on what Professor Erskine had said. When you look at the recommendations …
Ms Scrymgour: Who told you this, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: I read the environmental assessment report and much of that was based on doubts that the government had believed that Professor Erskine had raised about the viability of re-routing the river. That is what a fair bit of what was in that report was based on…
Ms Scrymgour: When you read the supplement, what did he say? Did he change his opinion? No!
Mr WOOD: That’s right. He did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: The thing is that Professor Erskine, when I rang him, was not asked by the government to respond to the supplement. I rang him. He was asked by the government to talk about the original EIS …
Ms Scrymgour: The EIS, that is right.
Mr WOOD: That is right, but not the supplement. The supplement is just as important because you as a government will look at both the EIS and the supplement before you make your comment. The process broke down in the sense that if Xstrata had been allowed to look at Professor Erskine’s response …
Ms Scrymgour: I don’t think so.
Mr WOOD: Well, perhaps if Professor Erskine had looked at the supplement, he may have had a different outcome.
Regardless, minister, this process went on further. How did it go on further? The government said they will consider this if the mine did such-and-such. Xstrata went back to see Professor Erskine and spent quite a considerable amount of time discussing how a realignment of the river would occur. They came up with an agreement on how to do it. That meant we still went on and on. The process still continued.
All I am saying is that if that had happened in the original …
Ms Scrymgour: No, because the proponents have to prove it.
Mr WOOD: I know that, but I am looking at ways of streamlining it. I understand you are going to look at reviewing it. This motion came out of that problem. If the government had allowed Xstrata to look at the document and sit down with Professor Erskine, which they did later on …
Ms Scrymgour: No, they did not. Xstrata did not, you know.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, please direct your comments through the chair.
Mr WOOD: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I did not even mention the EPA. That has mucked me up; I nearly said the wrong word and then put something in the swear box then, Madam Speaker.
All I was saying is that had there been some flexibility in the process, it may have shortened the way that the McArthur River Mine project had gone ahead.
I will not go on any more. I thank the minister at least for taking on board my comments. I will be happy to see what comes out of a review of the Environmental Assessment Administrative Procedures. I hope that a public document is released so that people can comment. I am sure there are plenty of people - not only environment people but the mining industry and other people who undertake major projects in the Territory –who are interested to see what happens. I support the EIS and PER; we need to make sure that what we do is environmentally sustainable. No project is going to result in no damage to the environment. That is an impossibility. We have to find a balance between sensible development and the environment. If we can come up with procedures that can help with development of the Northern Territory but at the same time look after our environment, I will give that support.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Speed Limits on Territory Highways and the Northern Territory Road Safety Taskforce Report
Speed Limits on Territory Highways and the Northern Territory Road Safety Taskforce Report
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that –
1. the Northern Territory government leaves the present open speed limit on the Stuart, Victoria, Arnhem and Barkly Highways;
2. the government be condemned for not allowing the public a say in changes to the speed limits;
3. the government be condemned for not including the public in the development of the Northern Territory Road Safety Taskforce Report; and
4. the government delay the implementation of the report until it establishes a Road Safety Taskforce Committee which travels throughout the Territory facilitating public forums to allow community input.
Madam Speaker, I know we have covered some of this. There has been quite a bit of discussion here today and people might ask: ‘What is the member for Nelson on about?’ Does he not know speed kills? All signs on the roadsides say that, and also the ads on television. What is he doing saying that the speed limit on the Stuart, Barkly, Arnhem and Victoria highways should stay open? Well, it is like this. Presently, the speed limits on all Northern Territory roads outside the municipalities are open and they are signposted. The four main highways have an open speed limit. But the government now says no more. The right of Territorians to travel at an open speed will finish. As from next year, these four highways will have a top speed of 130 km/h, although it should be noted that the government went against their own task force which recommended 110 km/h.
How was that determined? In January this year, the government set up a task force to examine strategies to reduce fatalities and serious injuries in the Northern Territory. That is a proper thing for government to do and should be supported. This task force then wrote a report that was completed in 2006. I have a copy here. However, it was not made available to the public. For the next few months, there was a lot of speculation in the newspapers about what changes the government was going to introduce. This created copious letter writing and text messages in the Northern Territory News, which obviously helped sales. We heard about the speed limit going from 110 km/h, to 100 km/h and then to 130 km/h. We heard about there being no demerit points and then there was. I would like to show members: ‘demerit points, backdown’. ‘Government going cold on the penalty system’. Oh, 130 km/h or bust. Well, 110 km/h on open roads speed limit already ruled out. Hang on, these have not been announced by the government. How did these leaks get out? Not sure what is happening here. No belts, booze, our road killers, that is fair enough. And then there was a big 130 km/h – look at that, the day the Territory changed forever.
I know the minister said community consultation, but let us get real. This is not community consultation. This is just letter writing to reports that were somehow leaked. Do not forget, the road safety report had not been released. Yet, amazingly, all these leaks come out. Even the parliamentarians said: ‘We did not know about it’. So can one really believe that that is public consultation? That is about selling papers. Consultation is something different. While all that was going on, the public still did not have access to this document.
In the last sittings of parliament, four months after the report was completed, the Chief Minister, in an answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, said the following, referring to this report:
- It is a most comprehensive report and it has been done in an evidence-based way. It is not a case of this might be a good idea, or that might be a good idea, or what I did I think up overnight. It is evidence-based and government will be working with that evidence-based report and will be releasing it, as I said, shortly to the community.
I actually gave a little cheer, thinking the public was actually going to have a say. But, alas, this did not happen. The next week, a pile of booklets turns up. This book turns up about a week after we sat in parliament. It is sort of an executive summary. Before a week was up, by the way, the government announced its response to the recommendations in the full report.
The community had roughly one week to look at these findings before the Chief Minister announced that she was going to make a decision on this report. This report was not asking for public comment. There was no address or e-mail to send comments to, nor a closing date for submissions. This document was a fait accompli. Again, I refer to the answer the Chief Minister gave to the Leader of the Opposition: that she was going to put out a report to the community. Most people would think that was good; the community is going to be able to have a look at this report and respond. That certainly was not the case. That is the report.
After listening to the Chief Minister’s answer in parliament, and believing that an evidence-based document was going to be put before the public for comment, one could be forgiven for thinking there was going to be public input and public consultation. The facts are that the government had absolutely no intention of allowing the public to have any input into the task force report; it was all decided beforehand. Just look how quickly the road safety advertising hit the airwaves after the Chief Minister made her announcement. Television ads are not put together overnight. The evidence-based report released to the community was nothing but an expensive sales pitch; it had nothing to do with asking for comments from the people.
I was caught out myself, thinking that the key finding document would be around for a while for public comment. I downloaded the full report and rang the 1800 number to ask for a definition of unlimited speed roads. I was told that this was all roads outside municipalities. I then asked how I could find out on which unlimited speed roads the 19 fatalities had occurred from 2000 to 2005 - page 85, Table 9 of the report. I should make a comment that the minister gave us this: Stuart Highway nil speed limit fatalities. I was under the impression from what the minister said that the total of 354 people who were either killed or injured on our roads was in relation to speed. Yet, if you look at the only figures that were released until today - these figures here - you certainly get a different impression. Table 9 says: ‘On unlimited speed roads 19 people total killed, injuries 113’, over those six years. I wanted to know where the fatalities occurred to see if the speed-related fatalities had been on the four major highways. The response was that they - that is, the Road Safety people, I presume, behind this document - were trying to get a map on the web page to show where the fatalities happened but were having some difficulties doing it. Here I am, trying to go through the evidence through the document, as I should, but before the map was eventually posted on the web, the Chief Minister made her decision.
One of those decisions was that the speed limit was to be 130 km/h on the four major highways, not 110 km/h as recommended by the task force. I have been wasting my time going through the report as the government had already made up its mind - and no correspondence would be entered into. Isn’t it strange that we have now heard that the evidence-based decision of 110 km/h upper speed limit was replaced by the 130 km/h speed limit, based on traffic road measurement on our highways? Where was that in the report? It was not. Was the government looking for its own evidence to stop the voter backlash? Fine to use this report. If you are to use the logic behind that, let us, say, stick it on Bagot Road and then say: ‘The average speed there is 85 km/h to 90 km/h. People never bother about the 80 km/h, we will make it that’. That is not the evidence base we are talking about in this document.
Another interesting feature of the process is that to get a copy of the full report you had to go to the website shown on the inside front cover of the key finding booklet. The full report could only be downloaded if you had Adobe, which not everyone has. The report was only available from www.saferroaduse.nt.gov.au. It was not available from the standard government home page or road safety site. If you did not know the web address, you certainly had trouble finding it by other means. The maps were not part of the full report; they were attached later. The maps do not give you much information either. There is the map that came off the web page. It gives you lots of dots, but it certainly does not allow a person to have proper analysis of deaths and fatalities.
I need to comment on the evidence-based argument the Chief Minister has used as her reason for changing the speed limit on our major highways. The reason for the reduction is that according to the statistics 19 people were killed by speed over six years on our open speed limit roads. As I said before, the statistics do not show where the fatalities occurred. Were the fatalities on the Daly River Road, the Buchanan Highway, the Plenty Highway, or the Tablelands Highway? We do not know from the report.
We do not have a definition of speed. From page 8 of the report it states police investigators had difficulties working out whether an accident was speed-related. Was the speed that caused the accident related to the open speed limit, or was it related to driving too fast according to the conditions? For example, was it raining on a very dark night, fog, driving into the sun, a sharp bend in the road? The speed under those conditions may have been simply inappropriate speed for the conditions and nothing to do with the open speed limit.
Again the evidence is difficult or impossible to prove one way or the other from the report. The government has said that based on the evidence the open speed limit will go. The government uses generalised evidence based on the dangers of high speed and it mentions other roads where speed limits have been reduced. I have no objection to that. But it does not show accurate figures or deaths and fatalities on our main open speed roads. Some people may say I am wrong, but I cannot find the evidence in the report. So how do you expect the public to do that?
If the evidence is there why did the government not accept it and bump the speed up to 130 km/h? The government has shot itself in the foot. When the Chief Minister says she has to make hard evidence-backed decisions and then bumps up the speed from 110 km/h to 130 km/h not based on the evidence, as in the task force report, but on road speed counters on our highway, then who is the populist in this debate?
The government has tried to be popular by not sticking with the evidence-based recommendations in the report but is happy to accuse others of populism when they challenge the government on this issue. The government certainly has not listened or talked to the people. This can be clearly seen from a survey I recently put out in various locations in the rural area, the 11 Mile, and at one place in Berrimah. I will read out the results of this survey; this was only out for two weeks and it was at 13 sites: the total number of surveys signed was 2979 - close enough to 3000 people. I have to tell you that these were left on counters or on tables in various places throughout the rural and 11 Mile area. People were asked to tick a box. They were not asked to just say yes or no. There was no one stuffing this down their throat. They could tick 110 km/h, 130 km/h, or an open speed limit for the Stuart, Barkly, Arnhem and Victoria Highway. With the Stuart Highway, 2979 people ticked off; 2782 people said they wanted the open speed limit to stay; 145 wanted the 130 km/h; and 46 wanted the 110 km/h. In the case of the Barkly, 2730 wanted the speed limit left open; 190 for 130 km/h; and 50 at the 110 km/h. In the case of the Arnhem, 2562 wanted it open; 320 wanted 130 km/h; and 85 wanted 110 km/h. In the case of Victoria Highway, 2670 people wanted it to be open; 247 people wanted 130 km/h; and 49 people wanted it at 110 km/h.
That in percentage terms for the open speed limit means that 93.4% of those people surveyed wanted the Stuart Highway to stay open; 91.6% wanted it to stay open on the Barkly Highway; 86% wanted the Arnhem Highway left open; and 89.6% wanted the Victoria Highway left as open.
Madam Speaker, I ask to table these surveys.
Madam SPEAKER: Seek leave to table, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table these surveys.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, if the government believes they are on the right track in changing the open speed limit, and that is what they are arguing to date, they certainly have not brought the people along with them. If they believe Territorians need to have a change of culture when it comes to speeding then they have done a lousy job trying to convince them. That is the truth. They have an argument that is based on evidence. If they believe the community should drive at a lower speed, they have not convinced the public. The Chief Minister said, in this glossy brochure:
- After listening to Territorians, I feel confident the higher limit on our main highways recognises our circumstances.
I will deviate from my written speech and say that on two accounts, this is not right. If ‘after listening to Territorians’ means ‘I have removed the open speed limit and brought it down to 130 km/h’, that survey shows the government has not. If the Chief Minister says after listening to Territorians she is happy to raise it from 110 km/h to 130 km/h and that is due to community input, I say: ‘Bunkum’.
The ‘community input’ were these surveys done after the report was finished. These reports are marked 6 July 2006. This document is dated June 2006, the month before. This is not part of the evidence. If the evidence, as the government says, is that speed kills, the slower you go the safer it is, and as the task force is agreeing with you and came up with a figure of 110 km/h on the main highways, surely you cannot bump up the speed to 130 km/h, but you have. You have found out that 85% of the people travel at around about that speed. Why have you changed it? Not because of the evidence because otherwise you are refuting your own task force evidence, but you know there will be public backlash. You have gone with the popular move.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you have. You have gone to the popular move. This document is not part of the task force. This is not part of the evidence base that I have to look at to come here and debate. This document has only been released in parliament today. I only found out when the member for Wanguri mentioned it in a television interview. It was not part of this report.
Minister, these figures you gave us for the Stuart Highway speed limit were not part of the report. I am expected to debate on this document and you pull out other documents. How do you expect the community to come along with you when you treat their local members this way?
Dr Burns: Where do you stand on the recommendations?
Mr WOOD: I will get to that. The reality is that except for the members of the task force and whoever on the fifth floor put this brochure together, and looking at this survey, I am not sure which Territorians you were listening to. What this shows is that the government has imposed those changes on the community without public input and public ownership of the report. You were a bit worried about public backlash so you bumped the speed limit up to 130 km/h. Many people see the report as being like Big Brother: no chance to have a say on the report, no one offering the opportunity to be listened to. The changes will happen, and that is it.
There is no doubt that one of the differences in the Territory from the rest of Australia has been the open speed limits. They have been around for a long time and are a bit of a Territory icon. People naturally get a bit upset when something that has been around a long time is changed without consultation or discussion. That is why there is large opposition to the change.
Have you noticed that the government did not even bring this report to parliament so that we as parliamentarians could debate the report? If the government wanted to bring both sides of parliament along with them, or allow a little healthy debate and analysis in this Chamber, it should have brought the report before parliament, but nothing was done except by the Independents and the opposition.
I do not believe the government has listened to Territorians and it has not consulted Territorians. The minister said they talked to the Chamber of Commerce and various groups. You have not taken it out to the public. Most members of the public are motorists. That is the public. They are the ones who signed that survey. The motorists, the cyclists, have signed it and it is obvious by the response, which is a huge response; nearly a full electorate of people, nearly 3000 people have signed this survey. If you have 90% voting for you, you would say that you are a very popular person. You have 90% of the people saying that this decision is wrong. If this government really believes that this decision is right, then go out and tell the people and prove it. It has not done that.
We will now need a highway patrol, I mentioned this before, at $1.5m per year. Why? I know I will be asking some questions about the waste of police resources if I get picked up for doing 140 km/h on the Victoria Highway, 100 km east of the Victoria River Roadhouse, in November by a lonely police officer from the highway patrol sitting behind a herd of grazing cattle waiting for an unsuspecting motorist. I will be asking, politely, of course, ‘Don’t you have anything better to do?’ People in the rural area who are continually having problems with hooning will, I am sure, like to see more effort put into controlling this antisocial behaviour than pouring money into a highway patrol.
I believe the government has shown few brains and little commonsense in this matter. Most people would agree on many of the recommendations in this report. So do I - and I make that clear. However, the government surely must have known that the change to the open speed limit was going to be opposed by many. Even though I might support most of what is in here, why did this not go out to the public? Surely that would not be too much. It is easy to say that these people will forget about the issue before the next election. I doubt it, especially when every time they go past 130 km/h sign, the only ones in Australia by the way, they will think of the Chief Minister. The 130 km/h signs will be a reminder wherever they are installed along the highway.
Some people I have spoken to said they never drive over 130 km/h, either because their car is too old or at that speed the car burns too much fuel, or they do not like driving any faster, but they still would like to be able to pass a road train a bit quicker, or put the foot down a bit where the road is straight from time to time. To have the ability to do that without getting pulled over by a policeman in the middle of nowhere is why so many people like living in the Northern Territory. I know there are also many motorcyclists who say that the Northern Territory is the only place you can let the bike out and are very much opposed to the changes to the open speed limit.
I can understand the Chief Minister’s concern about reducing the death and injury toll, but one feels that the evidence for the speed change has not been definitively shown. The lack of public involvement in the making of this report has been practically non-existent. If the government had thought this through a bit better, perhaps it could have said that it would implement all the recommendations of the report except changes to the four major highways. It could then have announced that the open speed limit would be reviewed in five years, giving time to see if the other recommendations put in place had created the desired drop in fatalities and injuries. This would have allowed time to look at other things if the evidence showed that to be appropriate. That is where the task force could still have a role.
As you might have heard, the Cattlemen’s Association is not pleased with some of the other roads coming off the open speed limit. With consultation, maybe some sort of compromises could have been brought into place. This is just an imposition. Bang! Something that has been part of the Territory for a long time – bang! This is what is going to happen. The government should delay the recommendations for three or four months. After all, it has taken since January to put it together, it came out in June, and about another four months later it was eventually announced that it was going to happen.
The government should delay the recommendations for three to four months while the task force heads off with the report, travels around the Northern Territory and listens to what people are saying, as well as giving the task force reasoning behind the recommendations. If you believe in this report, sell it, not through the television, not through ads. Go and sell it, because you have pushed it as an evidence-based report, and allow people to put forward their points of view. It seems it is okay for the government to consult with the public on such things as cane toads, or gamba grass, or substance abuse, but when it comes to road safety, father knows best – or mother knows best - and community involvement is non-existent.
This report has many good things in it that I would support. Other things need more debate, and there are some which are not needed, at least for the moment. If the government wants to change the culture of poor driving, wielding a big stick is not the only way. Has the government looked at rewarding good drivers, for example, five years without a traffic infringement means a 10% reduction in registration fees? A big stick should be matched with a bit of carrot.
The government has not come up to standard on this issue. It has failed the inclusive test and made people very angry, and that anger will be reinforced for many years to come as motorists see the signs just south of Noonamah. I am sure at the next election they will become cheap election placards for the opposition. It is all a great pity. This report has many good things in it, but the sales people on the fifth floor have lost touch and the government has lost the hearts and minds of many people.
I will show you that survey. No one has gone out and told people to tick it off and sign it. That is a pretty instantaneous feeling for many people. The Chief Minister says in her brochure that she has listened to Territorians. I do not know any people who had a say, so she must have good hearing or believes listening to the rubber speed counters on the roads is listening to the people. The community will not accept speed monitoring devices as another pseudonym for consultation. They will see it for what it is: this government speaks with forked tongue. It says that it supports all the recommendations of the report based on the evidence. The report says the upper speed limit should be 110 km/h for all Territory roads. The government says that 130 km/h will be the top speed limit. In other words, it is not supporting the evidence given by its own task force. The government criticises those who support the retention of the open speed limit as populist and not looking at the evidence. The government, by moving the speed limit up to 130 km/h, is doing exactly what it accuses people like me of doing - being populist and not looking at the evidence.
I note that the minister said if you go up to 160 km/h, you only gain this much in time travelled. Fair argument. You were taking up the argument from the opposition, that you do not gain much by going from 130 km/h to 160 km/h in time travelled. However, if I was playing the devil’s advocate here and you were being criticised for bringing the speed up from 110 km/h to 130 km/h, I might say: ‘Minister, you know the time taken to go from A to B, if you travel at a 110 km/h compared to 130 km/h, is only 10 minutes’. Why have we not left the speed at 110 km/h using the same argument you have put the opposition down for. You have not listened to this evidence.
The government has not convinced the community. They have not attempted to bring the community along with this decision, and that will be to their detriment in the future. That is the real key to my argument. I do not drive fast; 130 km/h is quite all right for me. I might go up to 140 km/h. I do not go racing down the highway like a maniac. As you can see from that document you have, most people do not. What you have not proved - why don’t you leave it as it was?
I know that speed kills, but I also know that the Chief Minister said it was evidence-based. I have not seen the evidence and you have not convinced me there is the evidence on those particular roads. If you really believe in this document and everything you have in here is worthy of public support, you should defer the process three or four months, establish a task force committee, travel around the Territory to tell people what is in the report, and listen to what people have to say. Then, the government should make a decision.
I just have to put a quote at the end. Here is a media release from 27 September 2004:
- NT government rejects call for highway speed limits.
‘This sort of interference from Canberra is exactly why Territorians need federal representatives who stand up for the Territory’, Dr Burns said.
‘Unfortunately the current member for Solomon seems hell-bent on being Canberra’s representative in the Territory, rather than the other way around. First he invites Canberra to send nuclear waste to the Territory, now he sits by while Mr Anderson meddles with our speed limits. Mr Tollner’s failure to put the Territory first means we continue to be treated as second-class citizens by the Coalition’.
Dr Burns: That was before the report.
Mr WOOD: Ah ha. On Wednesday, 2 April 2003, TopFM, Mr Daryl Manzie asked the Chief Minister: ‘Should we have speed limits on all Territory highways?’ The answer was: ‘No’.
I understand that government can change its mind, but why were people saying such things then? I understand that times change, but if you are to convince people that times change and, therefore, regulations should change and we should lose our open speed limit, then you have to go out and sell it. It is not my job to go out and sell it; it is your job. You said this. You said on the evidence the speed limit needs to be put down to a 110 km/h, and then you have obtained so-called evidence, that is not in the report, and said it should go up to 130 km/h. Explain that to the people. There is an inconsistency that is a real weak spot in your argument. If it is okay to take all these recommendations and to agree with them that it should be 110 km/h, why did you change it to 130 km/h? It is simply because you realised there would be a public backlash.
I say there will be a bigger public backlash unless you go out and sell this. There are people out there who say: ‘No, no, no, we would like our speed limit left as it is’.
Madam Speaker, I put it to the government to delay the implementation of at least that part of the report. There would be no harm, I believe, in giving it time to see if you put your recommendations out for the next five years, and put the majority of these recommendations into place …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mrs BRAHAM: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I believe there is a good reason for leaving those speed limits as they are for say the next five years. Put all your other recommendations into place and review whether the majority of your recommendations as you have in here have been effected, and see if we need to revisit whether the speed limit should not be open anymore. That is a sensible suggestion.
There are two reasons why people have said no to what the government is doing: (1) they believe this is being imposed on them without consultation; and (2) they believe they are losing a bit of what they call the Territory’s freedom. It is just another little piece of the Territory’s flavour disappearing. I do not want people killed on the road, and I do not want injuries on the road. If I thought that the evidence was really pushing that this was the case on the Victoria, Stuart, Barkly and Arnhem Highways, I would be asking some questions myself.
There is room to move for some other compromises. A reasonable number of people are saying that we should be careful with the Arnhem Highway because there are many minibuses; some parts of that highway are not particularly great, other parts are quite good. Maybe there is a difference in speed limits there. There is a lot of traffic between Darwin and Katherine and maybe people would accept the speed limit there. But I think …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That’s right, that’s right. What I am saying is that there has not been any of this debate. No one has been allowed to talk about this.
Ms Lawrie: What a load of rot.
Mrs Miller: Well, we haven’t.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Sorry, sorry. It says here ‘Nigel Adlam’ and the last time I saw him he was a newspaper journalist. That is not consultation about this report. This is the report, minister. This report should have gone out to the public. What do have here? That is the classic – demerit points. The great backdown. The government’s going to backdown on demerit points. What came out in the review: we are going to have demerit points. What was the point in arguing the case? That was a waste of time. What people need to see is the final document, a task force committee to travel around the Territory, allow people to have a look at it and have their say, and allow the task force to put its arguments out there.
Be inclusive and you might have had a chance with the community. If you do not want to be inclusive then it will be on your head. I tell you that many people will oppose this. They do not want to lose that open speed limit. You have to convince them otherwise; I cannot help you.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Nelson and the points he has raised. During the Leader of the Opposition’s motion earlier we discussed some issues about the road safety task force recommendations. The minister has said quite often that she wants the opposition to come onboard and work in a bipartisan manner with government and support them. Yes, that is fine, except that it is just words on her behalf.
I wrote to the minister on 31 October to advise that I had looked closely at the recommendations and report issued by the Road Safety Taskforce, and that there were some areas we agreed with and some we did not. I wanted to set up a meeting with her to discuss these issues as we were also concerned with fatalities on the road. I have not been given the opportunity to talk to her.
Seeing she was not going to meet with me and has already handed down the recommendations, I thought I would put on public record what we stand for, what recommendations we support, and what we do not. Of all the recommendations, we agreed in principle with seven of them. We agreed with the intention of 10 others but believed they did not go far enough. We reserved our view on two and we opposed two. So that the minister is aware, seeing we are not going to meet and have this conversation, I will put on the Parliamentary Record what the recommendations are and what we agree with.
Recommendation 1 was to approve increases in drive with alcohol infringement penalties. The government has suggested increasing the current penalty of $100 with a proposed $200. Our response to that is in principle agreement with the additions that the opposition would extend the period to five years instead of three and opposition would add mandatory blood alcohol testing when a motor vehicle is pulled over by a police officer for any offence or suspicion of an offence.
I will not read out all the recommendations because it would take too long.
Recommendation 2: the opposition’s response is that we agree in principle. Recommendation 3: we agree in principle. Recommendation 4: our response is that we have in principle agreement but also note our addition to recommendation 1, which is doubling the fines.
Recommendation 6: we strongly disagree. This recommendation is the introduction of a default speed limit on open roads of 110km/h and to approve additional funding to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in 2006-07 of $100 000 for an education and media campaign. We strongly disagree with recommendation 6(a), the introduction of the default speed limit. We do not believe this is the right approach and we have emphatically put that to you today. We believe it will have a negative effect on fatigue, and efforts need to focus on drink drivers, seat belts and rest areas. The CLP opposition advocates and supports the establishment of rest areas along the Stuart Highway.
Recommendation 7 from the task force was to approve increases in current traffic infringement penalties for speeding, and introduce an infringement penalty for exceeding speed limits by over 45km/h. The government has suggested that penalties would be increased by 100%. The opposition’s response to that is in principle agreement with increasing fine arrangements. However, those caught travelling over 45km/h over the posted speed limit, will suffer an automatic 12 month suspension of licence in addition to the fine stipulated. In other words, the government does not recommend anything for exceeding the speed limit by more than 45km/h. We say $1000 fine and a 12 month suspension.
Recommendation 8: (a) is to enhance education and media campaigns aimed at increasing seat belt use supported by strategically placed signage and other visual reminders, and; (b) to approve increases in seat belt infringement penalties. Our response to that is: in principle, we agree with recommendation 8(a) to enhance education campaigns. In respect to recommendation 8(b), the opposition will support the fine increase but would put in place an automatic three month loss of licence for people who are caught three times within 12 months for a seat belt offence. We would use school-based constables to teach all years of school children at least once per term about seat belts. We would also mandate all school buses to have seat belts within 12 years with two years of incentives.
We support recommendation 9 in principle, however, we note that the Traffic Regulations already provide for recommendation 9(b), which is to approve an amendment to the Traffic Regulations to require children under 12 months of age to be appropriately restrained.
Recommendation 10: we agree in principle, however, we believe the pilot should be for six years and not four. Recommendation 11: we agree in principle.
Recommendation 12: we agree in principle, however, we do not believe it goes far enough and we have additional items to recommendation 12 that we would support. We would add to your recommendations: no towing for learners and provisional drivers; 120 hours of supervised driving to be log booked for learner drivers. We would move the provisional period from the proposed two years to three years. We would allow only one passenger in a car driven by a provisional driver in their first year of provisional licensing, between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am. We would put in place a new, lower powered vehicle incentive scheme for the young drivers; and, loss of licence for three months upon the second breach of any of these restrictions.
We strongly oppose recommendation 13 which is the development and implementation of the demerit point system.
Recommendation 14: we agree in principle with the additional loss of licence for three breaches in 12 months. Recommendation 15: we agree in principle, however, we would have it resourced with five cars; one in Katherine and three in Alice Springs. Recommendation 16: our response is the same as to recommendation 15. Recommendation 17: exactly the same as recommendation 15; we are talking about road traffic patrols. Recommendation 18: we agree in principle. Recommendation 19: we agree in principle. Recommendation 20: we reserve our view. We also reserve our view on recommendation 21.
It is not as if we are trying to oppose everything that has been put forward. We have some very strong opinions about everything that is put forward, because we do agree with you on many of these task force recommendations. However, there are two fundamental ones that we do not agree with: the introduction of the speed restrictions and the demerit system. I am disappointed that the minister keeps implying that there is not support for the Road Safety Taskforce recommendations, because there is, but there are two very distinct differences between the recommendations they have put forward in relation to those two that we strongly oppose.
I support the member for Nelson regarding the lack of information and consultation in the community. If you sincerely want to convince Territorians that they need to change, dramatically, some conditions for the highways, especially the main highways, you needed to be out there long ago convincing them of the evidence and the reasons why they should be altering the speed limits and listening to what government wanted to do on those open highways. You did not do that so now you have this huge challenge ahead of you. I do not know how the heck you are going to convince them because, as I said before, there is a lot of anger out in the community about the way this has been handled and forced onto people within the Northern Territory. They do not like it. I will be very interested to hear how you are going to continue handling this particular issue.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I might be the odd one out on this side. I agree with the member for Nelson and his call for further consultation as I do not believe there was enough consultation. That is where the shock has come about. People have not been able to accept what government wants to do because they have been hit with it so suddenly. There has been no gradual chance to give their point of view, no community forums; it was just – whack: ‘This is what we are going to do’.
The publicity surrounding it did not help either. When we saw ads like ‘Your risk of being killed in a road crash in the Territory’, or ‘Your risk of being killed compared with the rest of Australia’ or even ‘Your risk of being compared with the rest of the world’, it was sensationalist, and completely unnecessary. That is what got people’s backs up because the ads almost said: ‘You drive on this road, you are going to die, as simple as that’. That is the ridiculous part about it; this has been handled really badly.
It could have been a positive for the government. There is no doubt we should all be concerned about the fatalities on our road. On the website, for instance, there is this map. The red dots show all the fatal crashes from 2000 to 2005. It is bad; as simple as that. However, what it does not tell us, and which the government has been saying to us, is whether these were caused by speed. How many of these were actually caused by speed? That is what we want to know. Which ones along this highway were caused by speed? This is the fatal crashes in Alice Springs. You are not trying to tell me in the municipality that these - there must be 10 - were caused by speed in the town? They were not. The ones that we had in Darwin were not caused by speed. This is where the government has lost the plot; they just have not sold it well. They are, basically, saying to us: ‘This is the only reason we are having all these fatal crashes; it is because you are all going too fast’. We know jolly well that is not true. The report says quite clearly 50% of all road crashes involved indigenous people and 75% of indigenous people live in remote communities, and most of them drive on unsealed roads in unregistered, unroadworthy vehicles and, often, many of them are unlicensed.
What government should be doing if they really want to sell this product properly is start telling us how we can fix it. We are not going to fix it by just saying: ‘Okay we are going to fine you more; we are going to use the camera approach’. What they should be concentrating on, in my opinion, is doing the things to make it better. Driver education would have to be one of the most important things our schools do. Driver education in remote communities - and I have a letter from, I think it was the minister for DEET about 18 months ago, highlighting which communities are doing this - there is not enough of it.
Too often, people on remote communities get their licence, they do not have a lot of supervision, they come into town and are confronted with all sorts of traffic conditions that they may not see out in their communities. Quite often, they are the ones who have accidents. Aboriginal people do not drive fast. It is as simple as that; 50% of them are killed in road crashes, but they are not the ones driving fast. It is not speed that kills the Aboriginal people; it is usually all those other things like alcohol, unroadworthy vehicles, seat belts - you name it.
The government has not sold what they want people to accept very well at all. People are coming in to my office to complain about the speed limit and they are the ones who have been in the Territory for a long time. They are people who are used to driving at fast speeds along the highways north and south. They are the people who complain that when you get past Kulgera into South Australia you have to slow down to 110 km/h. How many of us have been caught around Mala? Put your hand up all those who have been speeding through Marla at more than 110 km/h. Of course, we get caught because we are used to going at that speed along the Territory highway. To be quite honest, 130 km/h is fine for me. I do about 120 km/h when I come to Darwin. I am not one who goes faster, but I understand there is a group of people in the community who have been driving at this speed for many years, and who have confidence in their own driving ability. They are the people, most of all, who are saying: ‘We do not like this’. You have not won them over one bit. All you have done is get their backs up.
Minister, perhaps you could tell me something. We talked about the car testing industry which is big in Alice Springs. We have been competing with Kununurra and Broken Hill for many years. I do not know whether you have seen them, in the summer in particular. They drive around the town with everything all covered up and spend big dollars. They bring engineers, many of whom stay in the high class motels. They use the local maintenance workshops. They spend a lot of money there. I am asking if you will you give them a permit to test their cars at speeds greater than 130 km/h? They drive 24 hours a day testing their vehicles and they do it at different speeds. They might vary - drive at slow speeds, medium speeds, and then very fast for long periods of time. We should think about this from an industry point of view. I suggest that the minister for Business talk to the people involved in this industry and perhaps you can give them a permit to conduct their testing.
I say that because did I not hear you say that you would give people who drive in the Finke Desert Race a permit to drive at over 130 km/h? Isn’t that what is going to happen when we have the Finke Desert Race?
Ms Lawrie: It is a road closure.
Mrs BRAHAM: A road closure and they can drive as fast as they like?
Ms Lawrie: That is what happens with the Finke.
Mrs BRAHAM: Okay. So what is different to saying that the car industries can come along and drive faster? What is the difference? You are saying people in the Finke Desert Race can now have this closure and drive as fast as they like down the Finke, and they do go fast. You will give permission to do that but you will not look at another business industry that brings in millions of dollars into Alice Springs and into the Territory to do much the same thing. I suggest you think about that. If you have not spoken to the people involved in this industry, please do so.
I wonder how many people you have actually talked to who are involved in this. It would be worthwhile finding out exactly what sort of dollars and cents we are talking about, and there are not many cents attached to it. If we can do it for the Finke Desert Race then we should be able to do it for that other industry which would like a permit to be able to drive at fast speeds. They are not the people who cause the accidents. I cannot recall, and stand to be corrected, at any time any of those testing cars being involved in an accident around Alice Springs. We now know that these cars are possibly going to Broken Hill. Good luck to Broken Hill. It is a bit like the film industry, they have gone to Broken Hill. They are making a film in Broken Hill featuring our Northern Territory kids because they are getting a subsidy there. They are getting help there. This is where the Territory government should be helping these industries to stay where they are.
Think about it, minister. Do not just wipe it off and say: ‘No, I am not going to do anything about it’. Talk to the people who care. This is what we keep coming back to – consult. It does not take much to talk to people to find out the facts. Let people know how many of the red dots we see on this map were caused by speed. I do not believe that speed is the only indicator or the only thing that causes deaths, and you made it a huge problem for people to accept. You are overlooking all those other issues which are important.
I was pleased to see the advertisement running on Imparja, I might stand corrected, showing the Aboriginal guy talking to his people about ‘do not sleep on the road, put on your seat belt, if you are walking in the dark at night make sure you wear bright clothes’. Great! It is an Aboriginal person doing it. I was told by someone who was organising some of the other photographic advertising campaigns that there was not to be an Aboriginal person featured. That was a bit stupid in my opinion. We need to include everyone. It is not just the white fella that drives fast, it is everyone. That particular advertisement is good but I do not think you are reaching the hearts and minds of the people out there.
You talk about the reduction of accidents on Lasseters Highway. As a local who has driven that road many times there are many reasons for the accidents on that road, and it is not altogether to do with speed. Even you must admit that. Too often tourists tend to hire those high top, short wheel base vehicles. The road is narrow. They have to pass someone. They go too far to one side and roll over. It has happened over and over and over again.
When I got into my hire vehicle on Sunday I was pleased to find a pamphlet about road safety in the Territory. That sort of approach, selling the message, is a far better approach and you will get people taking a lot more notice than the approach you have already used. We do not have to over-sensationalise, we do not have to make statements that are fairly irrelevant to people in the Territory. We have to be mindful that if we want to sell something, change is always difficult to accept. Change management is the key about how you go about it.
I agree with the member for Nelson saying that we have to make sure the consultation is right. I agree with him that you did not do that very well. You have not sold your story very well, either. That is the hard part and that is why you keep facing these criticisms. If you asked people now how many of them disagree with a speed limit of 130 km/h on the open road, you might find there is more support than you think. By not having consulted, you might find that is the story you are getting.
This is the parliament. This is the place where things like this should be debated. If it was not for General Business Day, perhaps this would not have occurred. Government should remember that when they are making such a major change to our lifestyle, this is the place we should be hearing about it first; this where we should be able to contribute and pass on our thoughts. As it is at the moment, quite rightly, the member for Nelson feels as though he had to conduct a survey because government did not.
In conclusion, minister, think about the car testing industry and giving them permission to go at the speeds. Remember they are not going to want to do 200 km/h for 24 hours; that is not the way they operate. They operate on short times. If you are going close a road for the Finke Desert Race, there is obviously room to move for these people as well. Look at your advertisements. Get rid of some of the sensationalism, which is quite irrelevant. If you really want people to believe you, be honest. Provide the information that will give them a clear picture of what is happening on our highways. Do not try to smooth it over and say all these fatal crashes were caused by speed because we know they are not. We would like to know how many of these crashes occurred on the open highway. Give us a list of those that were caused by speed.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the member for Nelson for this motion. Sadly, the bulk of the motion has been debated previously because of its similarity with the CLP motion, so I will not be seeking to go over old ground in my contribution.
We will have to agree to disagree on the issue of the speed limit on the open road. I know that you do not see the need for the introduction of 130 km/h. The government believes that the introduction is necessary. I tabled the statistics of fatalities and serious injuries on the Stuart Highway from 2000 to 2005 inclusive, and that really shows that we have grave concerns about our open roads and the road toll on those open roads. There is a desire to see that reduced.
Government deliberated for a very long time on the recommendation of 110 km/h. We are the only jurisdiction that is as high as 130 km/h as of 1 January when we introduce that speed limit. Member for Braitling, picking up on your issue of the car testing and how we compete with Kununurra and Broken Hill, I will point out that they have lesser speed limits in those jurisdictions and we are still above them. So we are still, if you like, more attractive to the car testing regimes and manufacturers in the sense that they can get upwards to 130 km/h in the Territory where they are capped at 110 km/h elsewhere. I do not take lightly the concerns of the Alice Springs community about any economic impact of this decision. I am sure the government will continue to discuss any concerns of the car manufacturers.
The Finke does involve closure of a road. We could not have a situation where people testing cars at a variety of excessive speeds are sharing the roads with other motorists. That would be incredibly dangerous, so I would not be looking at a permit system per se. If the manufacturers want to come to government with a road closure at a particular time of the year, on a particular stretch of road that is not a major highway, it is for them to come forward to put those considerations before us. The car manufacturers have not brought any proposals like that to me as minister for Transport. If they did, I would naturally consider them. We certainly would not canvass any scenario where excessive speeds were sharing the roads with our normal road users. That would be a recipe for disaster that we would not countenance. I would be ruling that out straight away.
We can argue forever on the issue of whether speed is a major factor in road deaths. I urge members opposite who have lingering concerns around this issue to talk to the experts, to talk to someone like Professor Ian Johnston. I do not presume to be an expert on speed. I have not dedicated my life to the testing of speed and the impact of speed on road accidents and the results of that. However, I took the time and effort to seek out experts who have the experience and the knowledge and who could provide appropriate advice. The information and the evidence they showed me was outstanding. It really does change one’s perspective. I say that having been born and raised in the Northern Territory, having driven on our open roads ever since I got my licence at 16 years old. Like most people in this Chamber, I probably fit quite comfortably within 130 km/h. The fastest I have ever driven is 140 km/h on roads I know well.
I will say that I know the government has made a very bold decision. It is not a political winner. We are not out there selling a political package. We have made a decision based on the desire to reduce our road carnage. Many of the comments in the debate on the member for Nelson’s motion were about being able to sell our decision. I have to say that we are actually not looking at it from that perspective. It is not about selling the decision. It is about, as a government, being bold enough to make what we consider to be the proper decision to reduce our road toll and save Territorians’ lives.
I will hark back to an example that we do have, that has been made while Labor has been in government. A speed limit was introduced in 2001 for the Lasseter Highway. The only tool we used was the introduction of a speed limit. We did not use other road safety tools that are contained within this current comprehensive package. There was just one tool we used: we put speed limits on that highway. Deaths have been cut by 37%, serious injuries have been cut by 44%; and the total of all injuries are down by 33%.
Mrs Braham: Use real numbers, not percentages.
Ms LAWRIE: Well, it is pretty striking, when you have a look at those significant reductions, it is pretty striking. It was used by the experts to indicate to government and to stress their message that road safety reforms need to include matters that address the speed at which people travel. I have said it before and I am happy to say it again in debate today: these roads safety reforms do not all come into effect in 2006 and the government then walks away from its road safety responsibility. Contained within the task force recommendations, and recommendations accepted by government, is a road safety reference group. There will be a body within government working towards ongoing road safety reforms in addition to the reforms that we have already signed up to introduce as the result of the task force and its recommendations.
One of the first tasks the road safety reference group will need to look at is how we can reduce the road toll in the regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory. Questioning the Road Safety Taskforce experts on that issue, they said that there was no study or empirical evidence and data that clearly pinpointed specific things that could be done that tackled issues that we confront in our regional and remote Northern Territory. They know there is more work to do. They know they have to undertake a greater body of work to come forward with further recommendations to government that we will need to consider regarding the road toll in the bush.
As Transport minister, I have put my hand up and said our responsibility as government lies in doing everything we can to improve our road conditions. You cannot look at road accidents and ignore the actual road conditions. The number of single vehicle rollovers indicates that road conditions very much play a role in our road injuries and fatalities. Therefore, the task force and the recommendations are a significant body of reforms. Reforms will continue to evolve as further information comes forward. As further work is done by the road safety reference group, there will be further consideration required of government and I look forward to that ongoing body of work.
Member for Braitling, I share your views regarding public awareness. A big part of what the government needs to ensure happens is that we change the culture of our road users. An important way of doing that is public awareness. Significant funding is going to road safety messages in our schools and improving overall public awareness. We will be putting signs in communities, signs on our roadside, a whole raft of advertising, appropriate material for the appropriate messages. Whether it is a seat belt message, or a speed message, or a drink and drive message, there is a whole range of materials that will be produced and tailored to meet the needs, whether it is an urban, high density centre or bush area. You have to tailor your information to the audience so that it is applicable. I am glad you picked up on the Imparja advertisement as being an appropriate advertisement for that particular medium. We are focusing on what is the best way to get the message out, the range of messages that need to be delivered, and the consistency of those messages.
It will not be an advertising blitz and then it all disappears. There has to be a consistent message of public awareness of the issues that contribute.
Mrs Braham: Come back in 12 months time and give us a summary of the statistics.
Ms LAWRIE: Of course, everyone will be watching the road safety statistics, as you say, member for Braitling. This is a bold move by government to introduce the recommendations, so we will be watching closely. I am sure members of the opposition will be watching closely. I am sure the media will be watching closely. I am sure members of the public will watch closely. I am sure the member for Nelson will continue to be in touch with his constituents, as you will, and continue to feed back advice and information to government. It is not a static debate; it will continue.
Member for Nelson, the government had every intention of having a full and proper debate in this Chamber. We are bringing forward legislation to support the recommendations. Quite appropriately, legislation will be introduced. It will sit on the books and then be debated. We did not enter into this process believing, at any stage, that there would not be a debate in parliament. We knew that there would be a debate in parliament. I am pleased that there is concern about this issue, that we are able to start the debate today, and I have no doubt we will continue that debate when you see the details of the legislation that we introduce next year.
Whilst I cannot support your motion, and I cannot support your particular view on the speed limits and wanting to keep the open unlimited speed limit on the open roads, I thank you for your concern on this issue.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I had a chance to look through some of the tabled papers from the previous debate. The tabled papers were speed histograms of readings taken along certain highways through the middle of this year. Another paper related to the number of fatalities and serious injuries along the Stuart Highway where there was no speed limit. I hope the government does not pretend that it is a cause and effect between the two papers. One page mentioned cars driving at certain speeds in the areas and the other is a list of fatalities and serious injuries in the various regions.
The government needs to understand that there are many people who drive the Stuart Highway frequently and you must consider these people as professional or semi-professional drivers. They drive the highway for a living. That is not the same as the young hoons and irresponsible reckless drivers who drive at high speeds in the built-up areas of our communities between Humpty Doo and Howard Springs and Darwin, or near the environs of Alice Springs where there are more people and more vehicles. We are talking about the open highway where there are fewer cars and greater distances between cars. When you drive along the Stuart Highway you could quite often drive for more than 15 minutes without seeing another vehicle. If you are doing that as a professional and you are driving for a living you would know the highway well, and you are in a vehicle that is capable of higher speeds, so it should not be an issue.
As regards to the car testing industry in Central Australia, they bring the vehicles to Alice Springs to heat test the vehicles because of the extreme heat we get in Central Australia especially around this time of the year. The cars are put out in the sun in high temperatures and the manufacturers then test the cars to see how well they tolerate the heat. They test the airconditioning, and the tyres in terms of the heat that comes off the road. When the cars are driven on the highway at high speed they are driven by professional people who are being monitored in every aspect of the journey they undertake at whatever speeds.
These are not the day-to-day mum and dad drivers who may be coming from Melbourne and Sydney with their caravan purchased for the once-in-a-lifetime retire trip, who have never been outside of the built-up areas in the southern cities. This is about Territorians driving between regional centres for a specific purpose. These are the people who drive thousands upon thousands of kilometres every year. They are good at it, they know the roads, they have good vehicles, and they drive safely.
If the government is intent on saving the many indigenous people who are involved in these accidents then it needs to bring in a different policy. We have to ensure, apart from being taught to drive well, that they are not driving while under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, that they wear seat belts regularly, and that they only carry the number of passengers who can be secured with a seat belt in the vehicle.
We pump out the message that every responsible parent should have a baby in a capsule attached to a seat belt in a vehicle, that every child who travels should be in a booster seat and restrained with a seat belt, that every passenger you carry should have a seat belt. That message must be driven home to every Territorian who gets in a car. You need to ensure that you do not have motor vehicles carrying more passengers than the number of seat belts fixed in the vehicle, and that the vehicles are roadworthy. The government has not undertaken a program to remove unroadworthy vehicles. The government has not enforced the exclusion of people driving without a driver’s licence. The first time someone drives without a driver’s licence, the car should be impounded. That will prevent them from committing the serious errors that result in road fatalities.
Most accidents we hear about are in the built-up areas. The government has to deal with the culprits who commit this road carnage through reckless driving in high density areas where there is very little room for error, no room for error at all. Do not bring in an unreasonable speed limit which will prolong trips between both ends of the Territory because all you are doing is promoting fatigue in the drivers. It is fatigue which leads drivers into making errors. It is fatigue, not the speed. When the minister earlier said every fatality involves speed, what does that mean? If it is in the built-up areas, what speed are we talking about? Are we talking about 60 km/h or 80 km/h? I challenge the Deputy Chief Minister to run straight into the wall and see whether he survives.
Mr Stirling: And he would!
Dr LIM: Run fast – and he would. Oh, yes, he would! I have seen people do that and hurt themselves grievously, knocking themselves out. I have seen people taken to Intensive Care because they ran into a wall. That is just running, physically with your own two feet, and no more. It is not about speed. It is about the reckless driving, the reckless behaviour on roads, especially roads with high density motor vehicle traffic. You cannot afford to drive more than the posted speed limit because it is a known fact that if you do that, you encounter many difficulties and cause accidents for other people who are driving within the law.
I support the member for Nelson’s motion. It goes towards getting the government to seriously address this issue and not a knee-jerk reaction. It is just as well these motions have been brought into this Chamber today otherwise it would have gone through by default, by regulation, after the lull over Christmas and New Year. We will wake up on New Year’s Day and it is there in your face, and you cannot do a thing about it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I comment on the minister’s reply to my original motion, I want to say something about demerit points. I have had a few rural people see me about demerit points. They have said: ‘If the government is going to enforce it, are they going to increase the amount of public transport in the rural area?’ They would probably laugh at that, but the point is that we do not have a lot of public transport and if people do lose their licences they are going to have a lot of walking to do. People have said to me that it is all very well to lose your licence in the city, but if you lose it in the rural area - and you could probably say you should not lose your licence - there are some difficulties in getting to work. I mentioned that because I believe our rural public transport is still well below par.
I listened to the comments of the minister, and I know statistics – there are lies and damn lies and then there is statistics, and for me to try to analyse all these statistics would be a waste of time, I believe. Obviously, there are people who are experts in this area and could do a better job of this than me. The minister says that this is not about selling something. Well, I am not sure why not. You are selling it by putting advertisements on television. You can also sell it by going out to the community and putting your point of view so that people have an understanding of where you are coming from.
If you are saying that speed reduces the number of fatalities and injuries on the road, which is a known fact, you could actually keep reducing the speed, as has been done in many cities, down to 50 km/h and 40 km/h. We know that as you reduce speed, normally speaking, the number of fatalities and accidents decrease. The question is then, what is the upper limit? One of the problems when you read statistics - for instance, the statistics on the Lasseter Highway - I have the numbers to show that as the speed limit has been reduced to 110 km/h, the number of fatalities has decreased from 16 to 10. The number of people admitted to hospital with injuries has been reduced from 50 to 28. The number of people who have overturned their vehicles has decreased from 45 to 28. The number of people who have run off the road has decreased from 22 to 16. So you can say there is a reduction in those accidents since the introduction of the 110 km/h speed limit. The problem is that you do not know at what speed these people were travelling when they had an accident. I am not saying that those figures do not make it look like there is a reduction in fatalities and injuries, but I am not sure at what speed some of these incidents occurred.
If you accept it as it is, that 110 km/h has reduced the speed limit on the Lasseter Highway, why has the government allowed 130 km/h on the Stuart Highway? If you argue passionately that this has caused a reduction in the number of people killed on the Lasseter Highway, and your evidence-based recommendation from your own task force has said it should be 110 km/h on all the roads, including the Stuart, Barkly, Arnhem and Victoria, why have you gone up to 130 km/h?
A member: It is political.
Mr WOOD: That can be the only thing. You know that people will not accept it, even though your report says that if you do it you will reduce the number of fatalities. The table the minister gave us today is very interesting. There has been talk that it says that 85% of people travel basically under 135 km/h on some of these documents, 129 km/h, and obviously the government has said: ‘Looking at these particular figures, roughly 85% of the people travel from 130 km/h down to low speeds, therefore we will pick that speed as the speed we will put on the Stuart Highway, the Barkly Highway, the Arnhem Highway and the Victoria Highway’. You could also say that only 15% of people travel above that speed. Is that the 15% who cause the problem? We do not know. You can have a crash at 130 km/h and you will do an awful lot of damage. That is the speed limit you picked. In this case, are the 15% of people who travel over the 130 km/h speed limit the cause of the problem? Are they the ones who are dying? I do not know; I cannot tell from here. You have arbitrarily picked a spot on these speed histograms and said 85% of the people travel at 135 km/h or less, therefore, we will pick 130 km/h.
I am not sure what the science is there, but it certainly does not give me a lot of comfort that the government has done this on evidence. It is saying, if you take the Lasseter Highway example, they have promoted the idea that you will reduce fatalities and injuries by bringing the speed limit down to 110 km/h - and their own task force said bring it down to 110 km/h. Why have they put it up to 130 km/h? If you are going to have it at 130 km/h, why don’t you leave it open, because only 15% of people travel over that speed. That is what is confusing. You have set the parameters and told us the principles on which you are developing the recommendations of the task force and, then, when it comes to our major highways, you appear to have changed your mind. That, from my point of view, appears to be a political decision.
Be that as it may, I will reiterate that the government should sell what it believes in. If it needs to take one of the experts who is good at analysing statistics or knows a lot about the cause of death, that person should go out as part of that committee. It should be sold if you really believe in it. If you do not believe in it and just rely on advertisements on television, that will not change that survey; it will continue as it is.
I personally do not have a problem with driving at 130 km/h. I go up to 140 km/h and vary my speed according to the conditions. That has been one of the advantages of having the open speed limit. I do not race along like a maniac. If you have a look at these statistics, it clearly states that there are a few people who might drive up to 190 km/h, but not many. We are talking about maybe one or two. The majority of people on an unlimited speed road travel at a reasonable speed …
Mr Kiely: Is 190 km/h safe, is it?
Mr WOOD: No, I did not say that. I am saying the majority of people …
Mr Henderson: Should it be legal?
Mr WOOD: The majority of people …
Mr Kiely: Is 180 km/h safe?
Mr WOOD: You have …
Mr Henderson: Should 180 km/h be legal?
Mr WOOD: Well, 130 km/h is safe according to your government, 110 km/h …
Mr Kiely: You pick a speed limit then. You pick a speed. You tell us what is safe.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: 110 km/h is what was recommended; you made an arbitrary decision to put it to 130 km/h. It could have been 140 km/h, it could have been 150 km/h. What I am saying is …
Mr Kiely: What would you do?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Member for Sanderson, I am trying to explain so, if you put a sock in it, I will tell you what I would do. I am saying that this graph is as it is under an open speed limit. Was there a problem with that, because you have now picked 85% of that graph and said: ‘We will make it 130 km/h’? For the extra 15%, was there a real problem? Was there a real problem? That is all I am asking.
If you were sticking to your guns about speed limits being reduced to reduce fatalities, this would be 110 km/h. You have made an arbitrary decision for 130 km/h. Why not leave it as it is then? If 130 km/h is going to kill people, you are not going to stop them from doing 140 km/h. I just believe that there are inconsistencies in how you have come to that. That is the problem I have. That is why it is going to be more difficult to sell this. You do need to sell it. Some of the people who filled in that form could say they did not know what the argument against an open speed limit was and, possibly, they did not. They are ordinary people reflecting their thoughts about what they believed was a right they had to occasionally travel at a higher speed.
I know there are people who say that is dangerous. Many things we do are dangerous in this world. We have to draw lines about what is allowable in danger. How much does the government wrap us in cotton balls when it comes to risk? We have to make that balance. Of course, governments do have to make decisions about the safety of ourselves and other people. In this case, they have not convinced many people. They should go out and sell this. They should bring in most of those recommendations, and also look at some of the recommendations the opposition has put forward. I do not have a problem with people’s cars being confiscated if, for instance, they have been drink driving a number of times, or they have been driving without a licence a number of times. That is pretty reasonable: you are taking people off the road who are a danger to the community.
Put in those recommendations and then come back in five years’ time and analyse the effect of those recommendations. There is a real need to look at the major factors that are mentioned in here: youth, Aboriginal people, and tourists. They are the ones mentioned in this document that are major target of fatalities and injuries. Then come back and say: ‘These things have not changed. Now we want to have look at the speed’, and talk to people about it. Until you bring people along in the decision-making process, especially about something that I think people - it might be a corny word – love. They feel it is one good reason for living in the Territory; they can occasionally let the car go a bit. If you are going to change people’s culture, if you are going to change people’s feelings about why they are in the Territory, you are going to have do a lot better.
I recommend that you have meetings. It is not for me to have meetings on behalf of the government. I occasionally have meetings in my area, but on this issue it is up to you people as a government to show why you have made these changes. You can include the whole report, have a meeting on the whole report; it should not just be sticking with the speed limit. There are quite good items in here for discussion.
I feel that you have missed the boat. Before you announced these changes you should have had the public meetings. You have now announced the changes and it is going to be very hard for you to step back and say you have changed your mind. The public sees that, and they are very disappointed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Katherine, Greatorex and Braitling for their support. This could have been done a lot better. I hope the government has taken up some of the points I have raised. I have a feeling that there are some members of government who do not agree with this. Perhaps that is something that the government members are going to have to discuss because I believe it will not go away. It is one of these issues that will stick. It will be a bit like TIO. If the government ever tried to sell TIO, that famous TIO which just produced record profits in banking and insurance, because of community support. You will have the same depth of feeling when it comes to this. If you had done it right, you might have had a chance. This way, there is no hope. I will leave it up to the government to sort out how it gets out of this mess.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Farrar Medical Centre – Closure of Bulkbilling Service
Farrar Medical Centre – Closure of Bulkbilling Service
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move - That the Labor government’s decision to close down the after hours bulkbilling service at the Farrar Medical Centre is a cynical, cost cutting exercise that will impact mostly heavily on young families, the elderly and the chronically ill in Palmerston; and call on the government to immediately reinstate funding to provide after hours bulkbilling at the Farrar Health Centre, funding which is understood to cost the Territory government less than $300 000 last financial year.
This is an important issue and a delicate matter to be discussed for the people of Palmerston and the rural area. I urge government to seriously attend to the arguments that are contained within this motion. On behalf of Palmerston families, I will endeavour to set out a task whereby government can come to a reasonable and fair position whilst the business that is of concern to government can be conducted. I say that quite seriously because this is not a political issue as much as an issue of very direct and real concern to many families, particularly young families.
As a long-term resident with my children growing up in Palmerston, there was always a place to go, but as the town grew and became a city, so grew a need for a more substantial service within that community for those who had those concerns, particularly after hours: a secure place to go. For any young family, a dad or mum who has a youngster under 18 months who develops a temperature, is unable to hold down anything and passes anything they have within them, it is a most troubling time. I clearly remember having to comfort my wife and, as a dad, being very concerned for my daughter and, at another time, my son, thinking we were going to have to take that long drive to Accident and Emergency.
It is principally that need which resonates in the community that must be addressed. Out of that need was the establishment of a 24-hour health clinic in Palmerston. I looked through some photographs and saw the photograph of the sign that was put up heralding the soon to be established 24-hour health care service in Palmerston. Palmerston felt like it had grown up, that we would soon have a place where we could go immediately, that being the key issue.
If these emergencies arise after hours, the last thing you want is uncertainty as to where you need to go. It costs time thinking ‘surely there must be some place open in a city like this’. You then make inquiries and discover there is not. We now face the long drive into Royal Darwin Hospital. Times of decision-making are costly. It is those matters that give substance to the need for the after hours facility.
It was established based on that need. It was established as a 24-hour service. There was a change of government and there was one of the quickest reviews conducted by this government, which has conducted numerous reviews of different natures. This lightening fast review, soon after coming to office, frankly surprised me in its result, which was to reduce the time that this clinic was open based on arguments such as ‘not many people used it’, and ‘when we count the cost of the clinic and divide it by the number of people who have used it, it is unsustainable’.
In growing and developing a community, it really had not had time to establish. I have lived and worked in that community and I knew that at those early stages, people were still becoming accustomed to the existence of the place. It was within a very short time that this review was conducted and the decision made by government.
From that moment on, people began to express their concern to government. They did so by way of petitions. Those petitions numbered in excess of 13 000 signatures and they have been presented in this Chamber to government. They were collected in the rural area because it affects families in the rural areas. They felt they had been betrayed. Many thought it was astonishing that government would make such a decision. Many people are cynical, as we well know, and It was assumed in those days that it was because there are non-Labor members in Palmerston so the government can treat folk with contempt. That was a view expressed by people in the region.
There were petitions collected by the member for Nelson, the former member for Goyder, by me, and there may have been one other local member involved. I can assure members opposite that those petitions did not arise out of some scare campaign or some sort of glitzy little trick to try to get people into signing this thing and drumming up support for something they were a bit ambivalent about. It was an ongoing thing. Petition after petition would be presented and people asked: ‘What can we do now?’ ‘Well, sign more petitions’. And it just kept on going, and it goes on today. It is still going on. People want to know what they can do. People wonder whether there is any point in signing petitions, and then they think if they do not, definitely nothing will happen so they keep on going. That is a sign of the feeling that is out there.
The 13 000-plus signatures I referred to go back before the time that this government made the next astonishing decision to actually close the centre. I will get to that in a moment, because I honestly have trouble understanding why government made that decision, particularly considering the young families who have had a long-standing need for a facility like this, in a growing population, increasingly urbanised, which is almost the size of Alice Springs, and not counting the rural area which is also increasingly populated with young families.
We move on now to the decision that was made to close it. Before going down that path, the clich ‘community consultations’ has, sadly, become a dirty word under this government, as it will be a clich used to suit a particular objective or agenda. When government was able to spend taxpayers’ money on a campaign to demonstrate concern about a nuclear waste facility, they used the show circuit involving public servants, and direct mail and glossy brochures that went into letterboxes and littered the place, right across the Northern Territory urging people to sign. There were as many petition forms - and as an opposition member, I know how much paper costs - glossy paper, coloured paper, double-sided. How much did it cost? Well, I paid for it in one way or another, and so did every other Territorian. To have just over 4000 signatures resulting from that campaign - at a cost of?
Dr Lim: Seventy dollars each signature.
Mr MILLS: … $70 a signature, beggars belief that government could embark upon such a campaign. It was like deftly trying to prime this pump and to whip the community into a particular state of mind that would result in political capital, ah, there was a federal election campaign in the wind, there was indeed. And that was the strength of this campaign. No wonder we see cynicism when we have that kind of approach to managing public campaigns with public money. Shame on those who made that decision. I would much prefer to say ‘those’ who made that decision than ‘government’, because there are those in government and working for government who made that cold and calculating decision to attempt to achieve a political objective at our expense.
Meanwhile, on the other side of town, using photocopiers, volunteers and a card table purchased from Target that was slightly buckled, and an old chair that had been on many camping trips, sitting at the markets …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Just sitting at the markets, and at Howard Springs …
Mr Wood: I did not sit next to it …
Mr MILLS: They had a real flash table and a clipboard with a shiny bulldog clip on it, I bet you.
… and volunteers, pensioners, wanting to know what they can do - running around the place and asking if people could sign the petition. It did not cost anybody anything, and 13 000 were registered as a result of that grassroots campaign ...
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I believe that the honourable member is either deliberately or inadvertently misleading the House. There were not 13 000 signatures on a single petition; there were 13 000 - and I believe even that figure is inflated - cumulatively over a number of different petitions which may or may not have been repeated. It is not a single petition; it is several petitions. The honourable member ought not mislead this House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition, could you clarify?
Mr MILLS: It is a good point. He is quite correct. There were in total 13 000 out of the number of petitions that were presented to this Chamber. A fine point but, nonetheless, let us choose to meet in the middle: there is a lot of community support …
Dr Lim: Thirteen thousand signatures on various petitions seeking the same thing.
Mr Burke: Repeated signatures, not separate ones, member for Greatorex.
Mrs Miller: Excuse me! He did not like the truth.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please continue, member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: Anyway, I think you understand where I am coming from. I am not going to fight in the trenches over that kind of issue. As I said, as a matter of technicality the honourable member is correct but, nonetheless, it was in excess, I understand, of 13 000. That is not counting the ones of a different nature which are calling upon this government to re-open the whole show. I have not counted those. I will provide you with those details. Perhaps you would like to count them all, just to double check - that would keep you busy for a while - and make sure that there are not any double-ups.
Back to the substance of this issue which is the concerns of families in Palmerston. We now come up to the point: that this government was able to present a petition, that it had used public funds to generate, to place before the federal parliament and then expect that the federal government would change its mind. I do not think they really did; I thought they were actually just after scoring a political point, hoping it would capitalise in the election of some fellow I have forgotten. The government had lodged before it a number of petitions that total in excess of 13 000 signatures, and ignored them. That stands as an issue that speaks for itself.
Having established that, we now move to the next point. Quite astonishingly, the government made the decision to close the clinic. It was not spoken about directly, but indirectly. It was masked, like when kids have to take medicine that is bitter or sour you embed it in jam or honey. You give them a spoonful of it and they have taken their worm tablet which they would not have taken ...
Dr Lim: Makes the medicine go down better.
Mr MILLS: It does.
The families of Palmerston heard this great announcement; glossy flyers went everywhere, advertisements in papers. My goodness, we received all these wonderful things! $500 000 has just been spent on Palmerston. People felt good. I thought it was good too. I have quite a few responsibilities and, sometimes, I do not immediately catch what government is up to. After a while I realised that they had sugar-coated something and, in the heart of it, was something being removed; that is, the after-hours medical facility - the bulkbilling facility that families in the rural area and Palmerston had been expressing strong support for. Incredible! That decision was made. Once again, it beggared belief. Families could not understand why government did that. Then there was another campaign that seemed to arise out of nowhere, cleverly constructed I would have to say. You are in the political game of trying to hoodwink people and confuse them, and out comes a petition which is aimed directly at the federal government, and whilst there is some merit in it, it was deliberately timed to muddy the waters.
Now, look at timing. Why did this occur just then? Why is it happening now? Why remove a service now? Well, it so happens that there is a federal election in the wind. We have had evidence of that today in the announcements that have been made by way of using Question Time to run federal issues in this very parliament. I bet you tomorrow it will be the same again. It will be IR tomorrow. I bet I know what is on your list and you will have folk up here and you will endeavour to use this parliament to run a political agenda to suit the federal election campaign, running to the beat of your federal masters, and hoping to score some brownie points with whoever is in charge of the Labor Party tomorrow or at the end of the week.
I bet that is what is going to happen tomorrow and that is the reason that this decision was made by government at this point. That is all I can conclude. You have made that decision. People in government have calculated coldly, and in a calculated manner worked out that this would be the best time to do this because you could maximise your political capital by directing people’s concern and anger as far as you possibly can to the federal government and blame them, and people get confused.
All they want in a time of need is a place to go after hours with their kid who is crook. Not to mention those in my own electorate who do not have good incomes. Many of them simply need a bulkbilling facility. They simply need it and they have been hurt by this. In the midst of this to have this furore, with glossy brochures once again flying all around the place, in people’s letterboxes, advertisements in the paper and they are starting to think, my goodness it is the federal government. You have the local members explaining the Labor government’s policy. Rather than representing the needs of people, as far as I can see, they are representing the dictates of those cold and calculating people, those political masters who have made this calculated decision, to make this decision at this time to score a political point between the Territory and the Commonwealth, to advance whoever is going to be preselected in the seat of Solomon.
Meanwhile, back in the heart of Moulden or in Bakewell, you have families of an evening wondering where they should go. They cannot believe that government has closed the clinic notwithstanding there is a sign there saying ‘another Territory government initiative’. Notwithstanding that it has been funded by the Territory government for five whole years, all of a sudden it is now a federal responsibility. How calculating is this? One, it suits a political agenda with the federal campaign. Two, you have just hedged your bets. You know that you are a fair way from a Territory election so you can burn a bit of political capital, hopefully you can save a little money. More importantly, you might swing a bit of extra support for whoever is going to be preselected for the Australian Labor Party to represent you mob. I hope not, not on that sort of basis. Not on that sort of game that you are playing with families who simply are not interested in blame games. They are interested in finding a solution to a problem they have right here and now.
The objective to extract as much political capital as possible with a federal election in the wind is galling. The other one is that no matter which way you go, you are probably going to win something. You are hoping that if the Coalition stays on, one way or another you will have the feds come and bail you out. So you have saved yourself $270 000, and at the same time you have gained a bit of political capital.
I do not know whether you have worked it out, but I reckon that is the sort of thinking that has gone on at some stage. It does not appear to me that the 19 members are all involved in this stuff. It appears to me that there are a couple of characters, a small group, who work out these things and then they are established. Basically, you have your little Caucus meeting, but there are some fairly weighty strategic issues that descend from some very high place, are embedded and the rest toe the line.
My compliments to a couple of members on the other side who have at least murmured some dissent. Body language at times and looks across the Chamber seem to indicate that people are starting to find their own moral independence. I hope that continues because the good people of the Territory will appreciate it. A little tip to the local members who represent the Australian Labor Party in Palmerston: there would be much political mileage gained if you created the impression of being less representative of the Labor government in your community then being a representative of the people who have elected you irrespective of whether you are CLP or ALP. Those who sit here, although only small in number - and it gives you great fun and you giggle away in your lobby about how you have beaten up the four in the corner, the fact that the four in the corner are still here is because there is that element of doing the best you can to represent your community to government rather than the other way around. If you keep that up you will not last very long. The community is fed up with politics and they want to see some kind of result, particularly young families who have this need. They need support.
That is why I said at the beginning there is a way out of this if we have reason and fairness in government. I know you are enjoying your game. I know you are enjoying the fun, and I know that there are some deep and bitter agendas to be delivered because you have this terrible memory of 27 years of something terrible happening. I cannot understand the depth of bitterness in some members. I know that that gets your rocks off for some, but let us be fair about families. There is a way out of this.
You can play your game of politics and, at the same time, show some support for the families who most need it. There is a way of doing it. I will offer some advice: you could reinstate the funding, which I understand is around $300 000. Heaven knows, some of these campaigns with glossy brochures that you have run in recent times would probably total that. You could reinstate the funding and allow it to continue whilst you conduct your negotiations with the federal government. Play your game over the top because, as I said, and if you listened carefully, there is some merit in the campaign that is run with regards to the Commonwealth. There is some merit in that. I am not so jaundiced in my political view that I cannot see that there are different ways of solving this and the federal government has a part to play. In the meantime, we need to continue and extend the faith to those people in Palmerston and keep that clinic going. It is only going to cost you a small amount. They are not interested in the blame game; it is putting them off.
Extend the service, conduct your negotiations and, once those negotiations have concluded, then whoever has won that argument, you can continue on. You would have my support in that as that is a fair thing to do. It is not a huge amount of money. Let us pursue that then. I ask you, quite honestly - I do not know, I know a letter has been written - what negotiations have taken place with the federal government? A letter, anything more? Are there constructive negotiations taking place at this moment? What has occurred? Where are we at with those negotiations? If you are a fair dinkum about providing a service that you have provided for five years, where are you at with your negotiations, if all of a sudden, on the eve of a federal election campaign, you have discovered an opportunity to transfer attention to the federal government? Where are your negotiations? Is there anything more than a letter?
You have put effort into petitions, direct mail, glossy brochures and advertisements to drive your political agenda. What effort has been put into the negotiations to try to solve this problem? I need to know it is more than a letter. I need to know there has been more cost to government on behalf of those good families in Palmerston than your petitions. I see people walking around shopping centres confused, wondering what on earth this petition is, the direct mail, the advertisements in the paper. I hope there has been more expense spent than that kind of stuff.
I am sure what will come up in the minister’s reply is why did not the previous clinic, the Farrar clinic which operated after hours, make an application to the Commonwealth? Well, there is something you may not know, because you will not get people telling you this. There are people who may have a view that is critical of government, and they may say it, and they will say it to opposition, but I ask if they would please say that publicly, or perhaps support a media release and they hang back in increasing numbers. Now, throw stones at me because you may think that I am just making that up. I am not. I am not making that up. This is one matter related to that issue that I am sure will be used as a line of argument in this: how come they did not put in an application to the federal government?
I put to you, the reason for that is they never thought they were in a position to have to do so because they had an understanding with the Territory government. They had that for five years. They did not apply because they did not think they needed to. And you want to check that out for yourself, you will find that that is verified. All sorts of arguments have been run around the community, designed primarily to confuse people. I will say this to you: $270 000 is what I believe it cost; that will be a shot in the arm for families of Palmerston but it will also be a shot in the arm for the respect of this government in Palmerston. Palmerston residents feel that they have been short changed.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, anyone would support this motion. It is staggering that Labor members will not do so. It is staggering that the two members in particular from Palmerston will not and do not have the courage to publicly, on the floor of the Chamber, exercise any independent thought. As local members, they are the ones being sacrificed by the Chief Minister, as my colleague, the member for Blain, has said. These people have been sacrificed as local members to the ALP candidate for Solomon. I understand preselection will be occurring relatively shortly. The local members may well, and should, think to themselves: ‘Hang on, we are the ones left in an awkward spot here. We appreciate the political strategy at work. It is going to be an election year. Let us blame the federal government for everything’. In the meantime, much damage to both the members for Brennan and Drysdale will be done.
I have been to Palmerston; I know people are talking about this. The member for Blain, unlike the two other members from Palmerston, is a passionate and strong advocate for the people of Palmerston, as he should be. That is why he keeps getting re-elected. That is the standard which the members for Drysdale and Brennan should aspire to, not some weak and appalling political strategy at work coming out of the Labor Party branch office on the fifth floor of parliament.
I say to the member for Wanguri who is, like me, an aspiring Chief Minister, that I find it disgraceful that any Chief Minister would sit back and let this happen to her fellow Territorians under her watch. How on earth can a Chief Minister and her colleagues sit by and cut off the funding - it has been happening for five years, about $300 000 or thereabouts - and create a situation where the good people of Palmerston need to come in to Darwin. That is a disgraceful situation. Any Chief Minister worth his or her salt would move heaven and earth to ensure that this does not happen. Any local member in the area would be advocating very strongly for the people they represent. That is our job; that is our core function.
It is to their eternal shame that the members for Drysdale and Brennan will not be supporting this. It is to their eternal shame that they have not, apparently, appreciated that they are political pawns being sacrificed in the interests of the forthcoming Labor candidate for Solomon. It is to their eternal shame that they manage to keep a straight face when talking to people at Palmerston, trying to spin this Australian Labor Party Northern Territory Branch line that all of this has something to do with the Commonwealth …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition is misleading the House. Bulkbilling GP services have always been a federal government responsibility. To suggest otherwise is misleading. The only ones engaged in spin here are the opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Talking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is no point of order, and the member should well know that if he takes offence at such a thing he can bring on a substantive motion.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not actually hear the statement. I will seek clarification.
Members, I am advised that there is no point of order. The member for Brennan will have an opportunity to make his statement, as the Leader of the Opposition is making hers. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is interesting, but not surprising, that the member for Brennan is twitchy on this subject. He should be twitchy because, according to the authoritative report - and there were many; we have them all here: all of the reports about the division in the Australian Labor Party and the caucus of this Labor government. The Crikey one has the names listed. The member for Brennan is a supporter of the political aspirant, the Chief Ministerial aspirant, the member for Wanguri. So that is the camp he is in.
What a dilemma he must face if he has a Chief Minister whom he does not support, doing something that amounts to shafting his constituents, having the role of going around keeping a straight face and saying ‘but it has to be like this’, obviously not appreciating that he is being sacrificed for the new Labor candidate soon to be announced for Solomon. What a dilemma it must be. One wonders whether he is working behind the scenes to support the member for Wanguri. Well bring it on, bring on the challenge. We know there is a lot of it about in the Australian Labor Party. Because, member for Brennan, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, you might be able to achieve a result whereby you can look after the interests of your constituents and see your man get the top job. Would that not be a great solution to this dilemma?
Surely the members based in Palmerston cannot possibly think that closing the Farrar Medical Centre is anything other than a cynical, cost cutting exercise that will impact most heavily on young families, the elderly and the chronically ill in Palmerston. Surely, in their deepest and most private thoughts, they would be wanting to call on the current Chief Minister to immediately reinstate funding to provide after hours bulkbilling at the Farrar Health Centre, the funding of which is understood to cost the Northern Territory government less than $300 000 last financial year.
I know that the member for Blain, like me, wishes the member for Wanguri well in his endeavours to take the Chief Minister’s job. I am now very firmly of the view that even in his most private thoughts the member for Brennan would be sharing that view too. I know that there must be other reasons for why he supports the member for Wanguri but they are not relevant to the Farrar Medical Centre.
As I have said, the member for Blain is a passionate, strong, fair dinkum supporter and advocate for the people in his electorate unlike the shameful, insipid, weak performances of the members for Brennan and Drysdale. They should support this motion. I know they must be dangerously tempted to do it. Well, do the decent thing for your constituents but if you are happy being the sacrificial lambs, then so be it. We wish you well in your backroom manoeuvres.
I should say that the member for Drysdale is on the third list of the Crikey article; he is in the unsure one. He is a little like the member for Karama, having a bob each way. This Chief Minister promoted him so he is probably a bit keen for her to stay there but the member for Brennan missed out. Ambitious fellow, I would say, and there is nothing wrong with that. He would be thinking: ‘How come my neighbour, the member for Drysdale, got a ministerial gig and I did not?’
It is understandable where they sit, why they sit, and why they fail to do the decent thing in two respects. One is represent, in the fine and outstanding way that the member for Blain does, his constituents. Secondly, why they do not get on with the job and get rid of the current Chief Minister. You never know, the member for Wanguri might just have a very good look at this and say: ‘No, I am not prepared to sit by and watch this happen. It is disgraceful. It should never have happened in the first place and no political strategy is worth ruining the lives and generally making things very difficult for the good people of Palmerston’. I urge members to support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion of the member for Blain. I am confused to some extent as to how we have reached where we have because the government for the last five years has funded this bulkbilling facility. In a de facto way, it is our job to fund it but all of a sudden, mid this year the government said it is not its job to fund the Farrar Medical Centre; it is the role of the Commonwealth. The CLP says that is not right, it is your role to fund it. We get into an argument between parties. The bit that annoys me is that people who rely on that bulkbilling facility are the meat in the sandwich. They are the sacrificial offering for political expedience.
The government might have a point. I do not know as I have not gone into depth to determine whether this is a Commonwealth matter of funding bulkbilling clinics. The CLP might also have a good point. They say we give you enough money to do it. You have had enough funding, government, for the last five years. To me that says it was okay. Whatever the system was, they are obviously getting money from the Commonwealth somewhere and you were funding it. Why, all of a sudden, stop funding it this year? What is the big change from five years ago to now? I do not know.
What is wrong is that to get what you think you should get, you will close it down and those people in Farrar will not have that facility. That is bad. That is not the way to go about achieving what is, to some extent, a political end. You are trying to achieve a beneficial end for the community, but to use the community as a lever for that political gain is not appropriate.
This is something you could achieve by sitting down with the Commonwealth, by asking the opposition if they would also push for more funding for the bulkbilling facility if that is the problem. This should not have gone as far as it has gone. I support what the member for Blain has said. If there are issues that the government thinks are legitimate in relation to funding this, keep funding the bulkbilling facility as you have done for the last five or six years. Keep doing it.
In the meantime, negotiate more funding if you think the present circumstances are not adequate or you think you are getting done. But whatever you think, if you do not think it is right do not use the people of rural area and Palmerston as a political pawn. Sit down with your opponents, sit down with the federal government and I am sure we could achieve what you want and what we want without the people in the middle being bound in a political sandwich. With that, I support the member for Blain’s motion.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will ask the indulgence of the opposition for a moment because at the moment, my daughter, Lisa, is attending her Year 12 graduation ceremony. I would like to just place on the record my apologies to her for not being able to be there tonight on this important occasion for all of us as a family. I hope she understands that my presence was required here and that had to take precedence on this occasion.
Health services are an extremely important matter. That is why this Northern Territory ALP government increased health spending by 64%, the largest injection of funds to the health system - the Treasurer or minister might correct me on that figure, but I think a 64% increase to health funding by this government is accurate.
Let us get some facts on the table to back up my statement. It is not me, or the member for Drysdale, or the Minister for Health, or any of this side of the House who is guilty of the politics in this. It is you guys, the opposition, the CLP. Let us get fact one out of the way. Fact one: GP bulkbilling services are and always have been the province of the federal government. Inarguable, no dissent possible, always has been.
As I said, this government increased the spending for the services for which it has responsibility by 64%, something not matched by previous CLP governments. Oh, you can say GST windfall and that sort of thing, but I remember the time when this Territory was awash with federal government funds soon after Cyclone Tracy but they did not manage the spending then. They did not manage to spend all that much on the remote communities of the Northern Territory either. In 27 years, how many Aboriginal graduates were there from high schools in the communities? Nil.
Mrs Miller: Get back to health and the Farrar clinic.
Mr BURKE: Thank you, member for Katherine, for reminding me.
Let us mention another fact, a fact which I am told, and I confess I have never heard, but I am told, a fact that the member for Blain fails to tell people: that the Northern Territory government has increased funding to health services in Palmerston. Yes, the Northern Territory government removed funds that were being used to subsidise Farrar Health Clinic. Yes, that is a fact too. It took that money and reinvested it in the health services that this government has a responsibility to provide. As one gentleman said to me: ‘Well, if they are so happy for governments which do not have the responsibility to fund it, why does not the Palmerston Council fund the health centre?’ Because it is does not have the responsibility, it has other responsibilities. Governments never have all the money they possibly want to provide all the services they want, and health is a prime example. So why take on a responsibility that is not a responsibility of the Northern Territory? Why not expect the federal government to put its money where its mouth is and spend it appropriately? It managed to give $300 000-odd for a grant for services in Farrar in New South Wales, I understand. I believe if you look it up you will find it is a Liberal seat.
Mr Stirling: Is that right, James?
Mr BURKE: Indeed, so I am told by one of my constituents with whom I talk on regular occasions.
Let us look at the demographics of Palmerston. Fact, people can disagree, but I believe that the figure being referred to is that 30% of the Palmerston population is 15 or under. I am sure the local members from Palmerston will agree. When you look around the shopping centres, there are many young mums and young kids - that is a fact. So where did the money go that was taken out of the Farrar Medical Centre? Where did the additional money go that the Northern Territory government poured into services in Palmerston? Better child and maternal health services; more obstetric and gynaecology visits; and expansion of post-natal home visits and home birthing services. Just the sort of services that are needed. The introduction of yearly breast screening services in Palmerston. We paint the building pink to remind the population of the importance of breast cancer, and when this government does something to ensure that there is local breast screening services, we get criticised for it. One wonders. They are not all the additional services, but that is what I will keep myself to naming at this point.
Let us go back in history. We had some history touched on. Fact – in the year 2000 - correct me if I am wrong – the 24-hour health clinic opened. A fact also not regularly told to the people of Palmerston by non-government members was there was always a six-months trial, to be reviewed. And it was reviewed. On the basis that no one was using it between the hours of 10 pm to 6 am or 8 am, that part of the service was cut because it was costing a fortune. Why was it implemented? I do not know; it was a different government at the time. However, I do know something - the Chief Minister of the time had his seat in Palmerston, one of his senior colleagues had his seat in Palmerston, and the current member for Blain had his seat in Palmerston.
Let me paint a different picture to the picture that has been presented. Let us say we knew that there was an NT election coming up. Let us say CLP polling showed that they were not travelling too well in Palmerston because they have not travelled too well in Palmerston in the federal election before. They got over the line, but there was drop in their Palmerston polls from what I recall, that showed it. They never said anything about: ‘Yes, we are opening this 24-hour clinic but only for a six-month trial’. Surprise, surprise, the six-month trial ended after the election when they were guaranteeing themselves almost that they would get back in government - they might lose a few more seats, but they certainly were not expecting to lose government - by which time they would get the same advice this government got from the Departmental of Health - that it was not sustainable. They would have canned it and there would not have been a murmur out of any of the CLP members if that happened. There is a word for that: pork barrelling! You feed up your own electorate to make people think that there is a big boost in services, and then you whip it away afterwards.
Fact: this government continued to subsidise the Farrar Medical Centre for an after-hours GP services from 6 pm to 10 pm. They did not subsidise anyone else in Palmerston. It is true that there is not another after-hours service exactly like that one, but there are other after-hours services. There is one at Oasis. Yes, it is not bulkbilling, I accept that ...
Mr Warren: It is for seniors.
Mr BURKE: It is for seniors. I tell you why it is for seniors, because the federal government currently funds clinics to provide that service. That funding is not guaranteed after the next election, mind you, so we will see whether it continues.
Another fact: Farrar after-hours service was never an emergency service. I have had constituents come to me who have used the service who had an emergency. The ambulance was called and they were taken to Royal Darwin Hospital. It was never an emergency service - never fulfilled that role, never pretended to. Again, I have received reports and I honestly do not know whether they are true or not. I have received comments from people who claim they are being told otherwise. I am being fair to you, member for Blain. If that is not so, put it on the public record that you have not said it, and I will tell people that they are misunderstanding you; that Farrar Medical Centre was providing some sort of emergency service.
Fact: this government received advice about how it was providing services to the Palmerston region. It took that advice and got recommendations on the basis of that advice. That advice was to cease funding after-hours bulkbilling GP services which are a federal government responsibility and transfer that money into providing services which are a Northern Territory government responsibility. That is what this government did. The result is the Palmerston Regional Health Plan and the additional services that are set out in that plan is where the extra resources have gone.
Now this may be a fine point, I accept that; government did not close Farrar Medical Centre. Government ceased providing a subsidy to do so. Other services provide an after-hours service. Farrar made a commercial decision not to, to simply cease it. I want to make it clear: I am not criticising them for that decision. I do not know their commercial-in-confidence information, but they made that decision.
Mr Mills: Have you spoken to them?
Mr BURKE: I have not because I know that there have been other discussions in place. I have not contacted them directly, no.
So the federal government’s responsibility – I will go back a step. What was one of the things that was shown about the use of the Farrar after hours service? Primarily the reason people were accessing it is because it was a bulkbilling service. Why did this government fund a subsidy for as long as it did? Because it recognised that there was a need to keep that bulkbilling service because there were no other after hours services operating. Why was that? Because since 1996 bulkbilling rates in the Darwin/Palmerston region have fallen from 67.7% in 1996 to 55.9% in 2005. From 2004 to 2005, the fall was from 57% to 55.9%. Why is that? Because whilst this government, the Territory government, was increasing its commitment to health and provision of health services for which it had responsibility the conservative federal government was ripping money out of the Medicare system because it did not believe in it. All you have to do is read some of the books on Howard before he was Prime Minister and when he was Treasurer. He never believed in the Medicare system, and he has been ripping money out of it ever since.
I noticed during the member for Blain’s speech, not once did he say what he had been doing about this important issue he claims not to be politicking on. I know one of the things he has done. He has been involved in one of the petitions. He did not tell me about it. He did not write me inviting my involvement. I found out because when I was in the shop I saw it there. I said: ‘Oh, what’s that?’ Oh, that is a petition. A bit like the one I dropped of before, hmm’. I tell you something else, when Trish Crossin, the member for Drysdale and I launched our petition I faxed a copy to the shadow minister for Health, the member for Greatorex, and to the member for Blain, and the Mayor of Palmerston.
A member: How many responses did you get?
Mr BURKE: Well, I will come to that because the member for Blain earlier was talking about how he had written some letters and had not received a single response. That was the exact response I got to my letter to you by fax on that date: no response.
The member for Blain has a petition out, I had a petition out. What have I been saying to people who approach me? I have been trying to outline the facts as honestly as I can and I have been saying to people: ‘Sure, if you disagree with me, let us talk about that but let us talk about it on the facts. If you want to sign both petitions, go ahead, I do not care. I would prefer you to sign both of them if that is what you feel. I am happy to disagree, but do so on the facts in terms of whether the Northern Territory government should have redirected and increased the money and other services or not’.
That is not what the member for Blain and others have been saying. No, they have been saying to people: ‘No, the local ALP members are confusing you. It has nothing to do with the federal government’. Bulkbilling has always been the province of the federal government.
We hear the member for Blain and the Leader of the Opposition say: ‘Let us not make this political. Let us work together. Let us be reasonable and fair’. I am happy to be reasonable and fair. I have been trying to be. I have been facing the political campaign after people have been misinforming Palmerston residents. I do not know, but the feedback I have received is that I am not doing too bad a job. I tell you what, though, at least I have the guts to put my name on my own publications. We had a flier come around Palmerston recently purporting to be a community flier. Do you know what I have discovered? The CLP …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Brennan pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: I thank honourable members. This flier purports to be a community-based flier and features three families; one I know, two I have never met before. I tell you what I have found out: the three families did not know each other before this. They were put together.
Perhaps you had better say something about that, member for Blain, and make it clear what involvement you have had in the Palmerston Focus because your name is not anywhere on here, and the CLP’s moniker is not on here, but it is your work. I can tell.
Mr Kiely: Is it?
Mr BURKE: Well, there are not too many people who will come out and quote that the Territory government received $237m from GST. Not too many people with that at their fingertips. This reads like every line out of the CLP running sheet. Some of it, as I said, is wrong: ‘NT government is reducing money to services in Palmerston’. No, it is not; it has increased funding. So make it clear. Deny you had anything whatsoever to do with this in your response, member for Blain. I will accept it. It is on the record.
At the end of my comments, I will table that, but I will be satisfied with a full denial that the member for Blain had anything to do with this because it is out there and I am telling them out there that he did.
I am not going to table this one. That is mine. You can tell it is mine; it has my name on it. So, yes, I am happy to get rid of the politics; happy to do it. I will continue giving the facts. I suggest that the CLP and those supporting the CLP do the same. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this document.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to add to this debate. As I said in the last sittings of parliament, and as the member for Brennan has said, GP services, including after hours services and bulkbilling, are the responsibility of the Commonwealth government. It is true, as the member for Blain has alluded, that this government has funded these services for the Farrar medical service for a period of approximately five years. The rationale for getting the funding there was that there was a scarcity of GP services in Palmerston and the Palmerston region. Over time, that has changed. The member for Brennan has alluded to that and he has named a number of those services in the Palmerston region. It is important to note that the member for Brennan has given the history, the initial trial, the report and what has happened subsequently with these services in the Palmerston area.
It is interesting to hear the member for Blain. He seems to have shifted his position a little, to acknowledge the fact that the Commonwealth does have responsibility for GP services, after hours and bulkbilling through Medicare. It is fair to say that the federal Health minister, Tony Abbott, also acknowledges that. The round-the-clock Medicare funding grant scheme is evidence of that and the fact that it has been offered all around Australia. I do not have the media releases with me - I tabled them in the last sittings of parliament - which showed that there were approximately 63 grants throughout Australia, one of them in the Northern Territory in Stuart Park but not in Palmerston.
Everyone acknowledges there is a need in Palmerston. In the latest visit of minister Abbott to the Northern Territory, he was asked questions about Palmerston. He acknowledged that he knew there were a couple of applications currently before the Commonwealth in relation to this, although naturally, as a minister, he could not foreshadow the results of those. However, he acknowledged the fact that it is a Commonwealth responsibility. A report on the ABC news of 9 November said something like this: the federal Health minister says a number of medical practices in Palmerston have applied for funding which would allow them to run an after-hours service with bulkbilling available. Tony Abbott says the grants are available and will be awarded by the end of the year’. Then Abbott said: ‘I cannot guarantee that is going to happen because in the end it is up to the doctors to decide how they are going to bill their patients, but there is money there to make it more worth their while to open after hours and to bulkbill patients who come’.
It is interesting to compare that response from the federal Health minister to that of David Tollner, member for Solomon, when he was speaking to Daryl Manzie on Top FM on 20 September 2006. Mr Tollner was asked about responsibility for the provision of GP services. His response was, typical Dave: ‘Well, you know, you got me beat there, Daryl’. He kicked off by saying it was all a Territory government responsibility, but even David Tollner has come to the realisation that GP services, bulkbilling and after-hours services are a responsibility of the federal government. I hope he has finally woken up that he should be advocating to Tony Abbott and to the Commonwealth Health Department to actually give another grant in the Northern Territory in Palmerston.
The member for Araluen, the Opposition Leader, tried to assert that the local ALP members in Palmerston and the member for Goyder were somehow remiss, that they were not representing their electorate. If there is anyone who has not represented their electorate in all of this it is David Tollner, MP for Solomon. That is clear.
Another measure you can use is the fact that the federal government has arrested the decline in bulkbilling nationally to some degree, but in the Territory it keeps on falling. David Tollner has to start taking responsibility for all of this. It is not good enough for the member for Araluen to come in here and put all her political spin - everything for the past week here in this place from the member for Araluen, the Opposition Leader, has been full of this incredible spin. She could almost get a place in the Australian test team, but the Poms probably need her more. She has bowled some real googlies, she has that much spin. Everything she says she is trying to attribute to leadership challenges. She is reading from crikey.com
If we are talking about rumours, I have heard a couple of rumours from very reliable sources in relation to the CLP. One relates that there is probably going to be a retirement soon on that side of the House - maybe even two, I am told. I suppose it is a bit hard with four of them, but I am not going to say which one. Obviously, it is not yet the member for Araluen, but it could be one or two of the others. There is a plan from the Central Council of the CLP, from old-time CLP people - they want to parachute people into those seats. That must be causing the member for Araluen quite a lot of spin in her own head because I know there is a lot of dissatisfaction with her in the CLP ...
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister is wandering all over the place. We have a motion about bulkbilling services at Farrar Medical Centre …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, please, honourable members!
Dr LIM: The motion is about bulkbilling services at the Farrar Medical Centre. It is not about CLP pre-selection, or the Leader of the Opposition. It has nothing to do with that. This guy is just raving.
Madam SPEAKER: There is a fair bit of latitude in speeches such as this. There has been a lot of latitude today in many speeches. Minister, I ask you to get to the point fairly soon.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is interesting that the member for Greatorex – it is a bit of a tell, as they say in poker that he has got to his feet so quickly. Just previously in this very debate, it was the member for Araluen who was talking about leadership challenges and crikey.com. She went on for most of her speech about this. I will return to my speech, to the issue at hand. It is interesting that the word ‘twitchy’ has been used a few times here. It is obvious the CLP are very twitchy about what I mentioned then.
Lack of representation from the CLP: it was the member for Araluen – no, I think it was the member for Blain who talked about representing the dictates of political masters. I do not think any of our local members in the Palmerston region are doing that. I believe David Tollner is doing that, if you are talking about nuclear waste and other issues like that. I do not think the finger should be pointed to us in relation to that.
In answer to the member for Blain’s question, I have tried to meet with the federal Health minister; it was not convenient. I am not blaming him. I would like to speak to him on this issue. I am hoping that he will come through. We put quite a lot of pressure on him in relation to the correspondence and some of the media that we have done in relation to this, to ensure that there are after-hours services in Palmerston as part of his round-the-clock Medicare.
I know the member for Brennan wrote to the shadow minister. I have also contacted the shadow minister, and she put out a media release along with Trish Crossin which says a Beazley Labor government will deliver a bulkbilling after-hours service for Palmerston. It is important to remember Tony Abbott may well, in the next month or so, decide that he is going to fund another after-hours service in Palmerston. The question I ask is whether it is going to be a bulkbilling service. That is guaranteed, should there be a federal Labor government elected. Basically, they will ensure that there is not only an after-hours service, but it is also a bulkbilling service. I reiterate what I have said before that the percentage of bulkbilling in the Northern Territory through GPs has been plummeting in contrast to the rest of Australia, and David Tollner has done little to arrest that.
As the member for Brennan pointed out, this government has looked at our responsibilities in the Palmerston region and the demographic of people in Palmerston. We have realigned our services. We have almost doubled the funding into Palmerston for those community-style services that we believe are strategic and are in the best health interest of people in the Palmerston area. I will just name a few:
better child and maternal health services. A new child and maternal health service will begin before the end of the year for the region, and obstetric and gynaecology visits will increase;
occupational therapists and home discharge service will be expanded. RDH patients will be assisted by the occupational therapists prior to discharge with home visits to assess safety. The service is being expanded beyond Palmerston to include Humpty Doo, Acacia, and Darwin River. Occupational therapists continue to provide outpatient clinics three times per week for eligible RDH patients;
the member for Brennan mentioned breast screening services for Palmerston;
improved mental health services in the Palmerston region;
new and improved support for disabled young adults. Post-school options in Palmerston to provide care for young adults with high disability support needs;
new and improved child development services with occupational therapists and speech therapists;
improved home and community care. Expansion of home and community care service provided by Lovell Home Care service to Palmerston, Litchfield, Coomalie, and Cox and Finniss Shires;
new support for senior Territorians. Government funding of Australian Red Cross’ Telecross Services which monitors via telephone registered frail older people and people with a disability on a regular basis.
So there you have it, Madam Speaker, all in all a total of $500 000 of expanded services; services that the Northern Territory government should be providing. If we funded everything that the Commonwealth should be funding the Northern Territory we would soon go broke.
In answering some of the comments by the member for Blain, if the Northern Territory did not step back from the Palmerston service there is no way that the Commonwealth would come in and shoulder its responsibility. That is the fact of the matter.
There is another matter of equity: should the Northern Territory government be funding after hours bulkbilling services in the northern suburbs of Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, you name it? It comes down to a matter of equity. We do not have the resources to provide that sort of equity throughout the Territory for services that should be provided by the Commonwealth government. I hope that there are practices in Katherine, Tennant Creek, and other places that apply for round-the-clock Medicare or whatever it is, or if it is a Labor government in terms of after hours and bulkbilling services because there is a need out there and it needs to be fulfilled. The Commonwealth needs to step up to the plate and accept its responsibility.
Madam Speaker, I have covered most of the elements that I wanted to cover. The member for Brennan and I have clearly put the government’s position. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next month or so with the pressure that has been brought onto the Commonwealth to bear their responsibility, to shoulder their rightful responsibility for GP and bulkbilling services in the Palmerston region. I hope they do step up to the plate. I welcome the change in position by the member for Blain in his recognition that it is a Commonwealth responsibility and that is a big step. The CLP should be, through its federal member, David Tollner, strongly petitioning the Health minister, Tony Abbott, on this particular matter.
Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting the motion put forward by the member for Blain.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I cannot help myself. I have to respond to some of the wild ravings of the minister and the member for Brennan. The member for the Brennan really has to get his history right before he starts talking about any other issue here. Cyclone Tracy was in 1974, if I recall, four years before self-government. Whatever money poured into Darwin was in the hands of the Commonwealth government. It had nothing to do with the Northern Territory government. He obviously does not understand that.
The minister says that after-hours general practice is the responsibility of the federal government and therefore the federal government should provide an after-hours general practice and bulkbilling practice in Palmerston. The federal government provides, through the Commonwealth-State Health Agreement, funding for each jurisdiction to ensure that those jurisdictions, including the Northern Territory, can provide universal health care for all the people in those jurisdictions. The Northern Territory government receives very large sums of money from the Commonwealth government to provide health services across the board for all Territorians. They provide health care, in terms of hospital care, community health care, community dental care, oncology services, community nursing services, the lot. That is what the Commonwealth government provides funding for in state and territory jurisdictions.
It is the Northern Territory government’s responsibility to provide adequate health services to all Territorians wherever they live. That is their primary responsibility. In Darwin, you have the public facility called the Royal Darwin Hospital. In Alice Springs, we have the Alice Springs Hospital, the public facility. In Tennant Creek, likewise we have a hospital, in Katherine, Nhulunbuy and so on.
Palmerston and the region has some 44 000 people. They do not have a public facility. The Palmerston region, which extends as far as Adelaide River, I assume, has no public facility but the Royal Darwin Hospital. Is it equitable? Ask yourself. Is it equitable that people living between Palmerston and Adelaide River have to go to a private general practitioner who is prepared to open an after-hours service and, on top of it all, provide a bulkbilling practice at his economic peril? Is that equitable for the people of Palmerston and extending to the Adelaide River region? Is it equitable for the general practitioner to do that? The answer is no. It is not equitable. What is equitable is that the government must provide an accessible service at no cost to the people living in Palmerston and as far as Adelaide River.
People in the northern suburbs can access Royal Darwin Hospital at no cost. That is what I call equity. This Labor government says: ‘We are all for the battler; we are all about socialist policies and we want it to be equal for everyone’. Well, they are not being equal to everyone. People in Palmerston, and down to Adelaide River, deserve to have a publicly funded health facility. That is the reason the Country Liberal Party decided to embark on that. Maybe it was a Rolls Royce version of what ought to be provided, but it was provided and we made budgetary allowance to ensure that it was there to provide free and equitable services to the people of Palmerston and environs.
The moment this government got into power it reduced the hours to between 6 pm and 10 pm, four hours; from an all night service to a four-hour service. Maybe it was not used fully in the wee hours of the morning because most patients are at home in bed, sick or otherwise. By cutting it back, it forced people living in Palmerston down as far as Adelaide River, which takes over an hour drive, to the Royal Darwin Hospital emergency department. That is a long time. The same thing is happening with the closure of Farrar Medical Centre. Everyone is forced to go in there. From the time the practices are closed, if you cannot afford to pay an after-hours general practitioner the appropriate fee, you cannot go and see them, you have to track your way to the Royal Darwin Hospital emergency department. The government needs to understand that.
How many more people are now rolling up at the doors of the Emergency Department? What are the queues like because of the added population that is now accessing the Emergency Department? And when you think about the numbers of people lining up trying to get to the ED, it means that the time that a person has to wait to receive medical, or even nursing attention, increases because the queues get longer. Then you have to ask what are the adverse health outcomes arising out of long queues? The queues are longer. It takes you one hour, two hours, three hours, or five hours to see somebody. Your health’s deterioration has to be a lot worse five hours later than if you were to see somebody within the first half hour. That is going to cost the government a lot more money.
One patient in ED would cost you between $200 and $500. A general practice consultation, even subsidised by government, would be a fraction of that, and we are talking about $270 000 a year. Divide that by $500 and you see how many patients it takes to recoup that. This government is doing something that makes no economic or health sense, none at all. You are making people travel greater distances, taking longer before they get to medical attention, making people sicker before they get seen, and spending more money to get them better, all for the sake of $270 000. I do not believe that is a good economic rationale. I am sure, no matter how bad the health bureaucrats are, they could not be making those decisions based on this sort of information. It just does not add up. I would like to believe that our health bureaucrats are smarter than that.
This decision has to be political. I cannot see any other reason. That the government is prepared to allow the members for Drysdale and Brennan to cop the wrath of the people in Palmerston tells me that maybe your Cabinet colleagues and government believe that you two are dispensable. Lose all the seats south of Palmerston, including Barkly and Daly, and you lose nine seats. It does not really matter. The government will still be in power because of the northern suburbs. Look after the Royal Darwin Hospital and make sure the northern suburbs people are looked after, but it does not matter if Palmerston gets thrown to the wolves, the government is not going to lose its majority. So these people are dispensable, and they need to ask their Cabinet colleagues, why are they making that decision? For political gain? Short-term gain? To put the pressure on the member for Solomon, perhaps? Is that what government is about? Put short-term pressure on the member for Solomon, put his seat in jeopardy? Or is it about caring for Territorians? Caring for people who live in Palmerston? We all know many of them are on the lower socioeconomic ladder, who cannot afford an after-hours practice, which can cost anything from $70 to $130 per consultation, and when you add a prescription on top of that, it is going cost you $150 to $200 for a consult.
It is just not reasonable to ask somebody on low income to then pay for an after-hours service, not reasonable at all. The Royal Darwin Hospital can service the northern suburbs. You need to have some sort of facility in Palmerston, or even south of Palmerston, to provide a similar service. Maybe not as extensive as the Royal Darwin Hospital because that would be more than a Rolls Royce provision of health services after hours, but a basic service. An experienced general practitioner could provide that and, in an emergency where the general practitioner could not perform the services adequately, would then refer to the Royal Darwin Hospital after having instituted some resuscitative and remedial processes before the patient gets transferred to the Royal Darwin Hospital.
That is what it is about. It is no good saying: ‘Oh well, when the Palmerston clinic was open all night there was hardly anybody there. When the Palmerston clinic is not used what is the point in putting all that money in?’ Isn’t that what it is about? That this government provides comfort and security to people living in Palmerston. So, when they went to bed that night, if they woke up in the middle of the night unwell, they have a doctor they could go to. That is what it is about: looking after Territorians, their lifestyle, and their daily needs.
For the government to undertake this cynical exercise so that it can get some political mileage is just ludicrous. I have not been in full-time active practice for a few years, but I remember the days when I was in medical practice when I provided an after-hours, 24-hour service. I was available to my patients, they rang me up at any time day or night, and I provided after-hours house calls to ensure that their health was maintained. Over recent years, the Commonwealth government has recognised that there is insufficient support for the doctors who are prepared to provided after-hours services so it has entered into joint or collaborative exercises with Divisions of General Practice, with local community hospitals, and consumer groups, to develop an after-hours practice serviced by the resident general practitioners of the community, assisted by the local community hospital to provide a bulkbilling and after-hours practice.
The Alice Springs community has a practice, not entirely bulkbilling, that is partly funded by the federal government, assisted by the Northern Territory government, supported by the Division of General Practice, and manned by general practitioners who are in private practice in Alice Springs - and it works. This government should be encouraging that in Palmerston. The subsidy that was provided to the Farrar Medical Centre was, in a way, doing that. If the government were of a mind to withdraw that $270 000, before it withdrew the money, it should get into discussions with doctors who are interested in providing after-hours care. Talk to the Division of General Practice in Darwin to try to establish such an after-hours practice. It can be done. But no, the government did not do that. All it did was unilaterally announce that it was going to remove this money - and damn the consequences.
The consequences are that people in Palmerston and the environs suffer. I have had phone calls, e-mails, and letters asking: ‘What are we going to do? We live so far away. My Mum has asthma and she needs to be able to get help and have medical care or medical assistance quickly if she gets an attack, and the Royal Darwin Hospital is so far away’.
The government has to come back a little and come to its senses and get its bureaucrats to work out what it costs for the extended queues of people waiting at the Royal Darwin Hospital Emergency Department looking for treatment. People coming from Adelaide River or Palmerston or wherever are adding to the queue. The cost per patient that it generates for them to have their services provided at the Emergency Department - I can bet you anything you like that the cost at ED has now gone well past what it would cost to keep the Farrar after-hours medical clinic going. I can guarantee you that it will have gone well past that by now in just one month since its closure. The number of people who have gone there would be significant, the adverse outcomes while waiting for treatment, and the cost to treat those patients once they get through the doors of ED would have been significant - not to mention how many might have entered into the hospital ward system because they became so ill they had to be admitted, whether it be for a night or five nights or whatever.
The cost is being borne by the Northern Territory government and the taxpayer. We are burying it now because of this decision that you have made. We have not saved a single cent. Putting the $500 000 into other allied health care is commendable. I take my hat off to the government for lateral thinking and providing speech therapists and occupational therapists and the like, that is important. But having access to a doctor in an after hours situation is also very important.
As a mother, Madam Speaker, I am sure you would know that many a time when your child is sick through the day, you deal with it, you cope with it without much worry. When it gets dark something switches in your head and you start to worry: ‘What if my child gets sicker tonight?’ If a child gets sicker through the day you can go to the hospital, you can see a doctor somewhere, but once it gets dark, you worry. You worry what you are going to do if your child gets sicker, where you are going to get help, you do those things. Palmerston people deserve better than what this government is giving them. You can worry, you do not care, if you get really crook go to the Royal Darwin Hospital. What if you do not have a car, how are you going to get yourself there? Catch a cab? Even if you get a cab in Palmerston to go to the Royal Darwin Hospital, that is not the right thing for this government to do.
The government should in this first instance re-fund the Farrar Medical Centre as an interim measure. At the same time, instead of posturing and carrying on about the member for Solomon, the minister should be speaking with the member for Solomon and both Senators for the Northern Territory to ask them to jointly approach the federal Health minister to seek some out-of-turn funding to bring back an after-hours medical service which will be provided free of out-of-pocket expenses for the people living in Palmerston and environs. It is not too hard to do, you can do it. While you are negotiating, in the interim re-fund the after-hours service so that Palmerston and those areas have some form of security and some form of comfort that they can go to a doctor after hours if they need to.
That is what it is about. There is no point talking about all of the various things that the Northern Territory government has done in terms of health. This is about basic health care of people living in Palmerston and environs, people who have low incomes who need some form of government support to obtain what is known everywhere as normal health care. We have 44 000 people. The government must provide it on the basis of 80 000 in the northern suburbs, and 50 000 in Central Australia.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments that have been made on this important matter. I trust that the considerations have focused predominantly on the needs of those who avail of them of such services rather than the more defensive approach which is driven by political self-interest. I quite sincerely welcome the introduction of the member for Brennan to this debate. It is heartening to see members of the backbench participating in debates. That must have been some particular concession provided to allow a member, who is not a minister, on a General Business Day to participate in this debate. It is encouraging to see some loosening up. Perhaps we will see greater vitality in the operation of democracy in the Northern Territory. It is healthy.
Both the Health minister and the member for Brennan made an effort to distance themselves from any charge of being politically motivated in their decision. It was telling to stand back from the words and note the claims, and to note that the name of the current member for Solomon was used so many times. I did not count it, but the number of times the Health minister used the name of the member for Solomon, by his complete title, was telling. It revealed that the focus is not on families, their needs and finding solutions or some way of getting us through this impasse, but it is in fact a political one, and the federal campaign is ringing loud and clear.
The directions have been issued from headquarters of what you must run in this parliament and the way you must approach these issues. It is primarily political in nature. There is a solution, and that is the purpose of this debate: to find a way through this. If we think about the families who need this service – and, believe me, they do - there has been an expectation raised and supported for half a decade, five years. It has grown in use and is depended upon by a number of families. The local members and the Health minister have had the opportunity for people to tell their stories.
Some of those people are hard-working folk who do not have the time to get in the ear of a government politician. They are not too interested in the games that are played to shift blame from one place to the other. They just want what they have grown accustomed to remaining there. You can play your big boy games between the Territory and the Commonwealth. Play your game but leave us be to raise our families. There is a way through it, and I outlined that. I hope it registers at least with the sensibilities of those on the other side who have the capacity – not government, but people – and have a responsibility at a particular time to make a decision.
This motion, which you will quickly cast as a political game that does not involve people but points on the score board, involves people. I only wish that I had eye contact with the member for Brennan at this point. I cannot see him but I am sure he can hear. This is the problem: yes, I acknowledge that there are dollars available from the federal government. You acknowledged that. Those dollars might be able to assist the families in Palmerston I endeavour to represent. The problem is, which the minister did not allude to in his reading of the letter from Mr Abbot, the federal Health minister, was that this clinic did not apply. Why? The reason this clinic did not apply is that it did not believe it needed to because it thought it had an arrangement with the Territory government. If they were caring and sensitive enough to the primary focus of all this, which is the families that need the care, they would have gone ahead at the time and said: ‘Listen, we are going to break our arrangement with you and I urge you in an appropriate time to now shift your request to the federal government’. But they did not have that opportunity. They were dropped and they were left uncertain. They were not looked after. They who had the tender for a number of years were not looked after and enabled to shift their attention to another source, an alternative source of income. That is very telling. That shows the nature of the care that has not been provided in all of this. That once again reveals that the motivation is primarily political.
The families, not too interested in the blame shifting, are clearly used as pawns, that being the game and, as the member for Nelson very succinctly put it, being used as leverage in a bigger game. Those who are being used as levers in this bigger game are being crushed and bruised in their concerns.
As the member for Greatorex said, and I welcome his contribution too, the cost is going to be shifted to other pockets, largely those who can ill afford it, who will make a longer trip into Royal Darwin Hospital. That is the cost of fuel, the cost of time and, at a greater risk to those who are most vulnerable, particularly those young ones who are being cared for by concerned parents, and that is another cost that is going to shift to the Health minister and then across to the Treasurer. There are some really funny games and it just does not stack up. It has already been referred to that there is a way through this. I am convinced that there has not been appropriate care and consideration given to the families in the enactment of this decision. It is no coincidence that the federal campaign is just around the corner - this is a part of it. You are using the same language that has been used with other issues that you are running at this particular time. I have been here long enough to hear it, I am used to it now – disappointed, I must say.
Anyway, you have been given an opportunity to solve the problem. I would be delighted if you did take that offer up. For the member for Brennan, just so that you can have your confidence restored in the quality of the people who operate in this field, it is not always driven by politics. There have been some fairly genuine efforts to try to find a solution. You can slam us in the corner here and ask: ‘After wrecking the Territory for 27 years, why don’t you do something?’ Well, I am not going to report to you and tell you what I have done. I have done the darndest that I can from my position to try to find a solution to this. It is quite plain to me that there has not been sufficient care to drive a proactive solution in this regard, as it is being driven, quite clearly in my view, by political considerations rather than any considerations for the families affected by this decision.
There is a way through this. You could have taken greater care, but we are left now with a problem that I believe is causing some political pain for the member for Brennan. The member for Drysdale will wear it, but I guess they sort of weigh it up and think: ‘We can shake it off or work out a clever strategy and we will be able to get through it’.
As I said before, I welcome the comments from the member for Brennan; it is good to hear those. Thank you to the Health minister for his comments in this. The member for Araluen too, weighed into this very important issue. The member for Greatorex and the member for Nelson, I sincerely appreciate your contributions. I urge honourable members to support the motion and reinstate the funding to this important clinic whilst the big boys play their political game.
Motion negatived.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (CULTURAL PRACTICE AND CUSTOMARY LAW) BILL
(Serial 62)
(Serial 62)
Continued from 23 August 2006.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, this bill, now proposed three times by the Country Liberal Party, would amend the Sentencing Act. It would prohibit courts considering customary law to which an offender may be subject as a community member, or a cultural practice of a community of which an offender is a member, in determining sentencing.
She openly admits in her second reading speech receiving the assistance of the Commonwealth government. I believe it demonstrates, yet again, just how far the CLP pales these days to just pale shadows of their federal masters instead of the CLP that once ran the Northern Territory. At least then it had some free thinking amongst its members in providing as is necessary Territory solutions to uniquely Territory issues. It is a long way from the glory days of the CLP when they are told what to do by their federal masters. In fact, this bill is simply no more than doing the federal government’s bidding following Commonwealth government amendments along similar lines. She would have been better off going back over the Parliamentary Record and reading the previous Northern Territory Attorney-General’s responses to her earlier bills which clearly set out the government’s objections to support of these amendments.
This government believes courts must be free to take into account every relevant consideration in sentencing in order to deliver an appropriate sentence. Otherwise sentencing simply becomes a mechanical, thoughtless exercise along the lines of the mandatory sentencing that the CLP is so fond of, so that it administers exactly the same sentence on everyone convicted of the same crime regardless of how the individual’s personal circumstances or beliefs were affected in the committing of the crime. The community recognises, for example, that specific forms of abuse or taunting behaviour toward a deeply religious person, for example, could lead to an offence that would not have occurred if the same abuse had been directed at a non-religious person. It is, therefore, a pretty fundamental principle of fairness that a person’s religious or cultural beliefs ought be taken into account in such situations - not to justify or excuse the crime, but as a factor in sentencing.
In the Territory, if an individual judge errs and hands down a manifestly inadequate sentence as a result of their consideration of any offender’s cultural practice or belief in customary law, it has invariably been corrected on appeal. One example is the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the Yarralin case. Members will recall a sentence in the original case was appealed as being manifestly inadequate. The Court of Criminal Appeal on that occasion sent a very clear message in deciding on this case and I quote:
- Sentences must be set to discourage any reliance on customary law where that practice is inconsistent with the general law.
It was a very clear message about the weight to be placed on cultural belief. It is a clear message about the duty of the court to protect weak and vulnerable members of the community when crimes have been committed against them. In the Yarralin case, the Court of Appeal made a significant statement on how this complex area is to work.
The Country Liberal Party shows this House that by continuing to press into place legislation about process, they have forgotten that the real emphasis has to be on changing the circumstances that breeds violence in the first place, and capturing and bringing to justice quickly those who commit violence. This government has taken a wide range of legislative action to address violence in the Territory community. We have undertaken a community-wide program highlighting the unacceptability of domestic violence. We have undertaken a program of putting 200 additional police onto the streets. Police undertake specific violence crackdown programs, particularly in relation to domestic violence. We have changed the sexual assault laws. The Domestic Violence Act is currently under review as is the Evidence Act. These initiatives are balanced and appropriate responses. We have introduced widespread and effective programs attacking alcohol abuse and the antisocial behaviour that flows from it, particularly violence.
No member should be in any doubt that substance abuse, particularly alcohol, is at the base of much of the violence in the Northern Territory. In Groote Eylandt, a community that has had more than its share of violence over the years, the implementation of a strong alcohol plan along with the permits supported by the broader community has resulted in a significant reduction of violence, other crime, absenteeism from work, and many other problems. I expect alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs to continue to have a positive effect, as is happening on the Tiwi Islands. I am confident they will in my home community of East Arnhem when they are introduced on 1 March 2007.
We introduced, under a barrage of criticism from the Country Liberal Party during the last election, a comprehensive approach to antisocial behaviour. As well as offering a stronger health response, this government also said that antisocial behaviour and disruption to people’s lives would be punished with a strong police and legal response. The Leader of the Opposition is very fond of quoting The Australian. On 28 June 2005 in The Australian, the Opposition Leader had a quote herself. She said:
- For drunks, Labor’s policy is to lock them up, but we would say there’s a health problem and a health intervention is required. We have a core bunch of people in the Northern Territory who are alcoholics and putting them in gaol is not necessarily the answer.
That is a view that does not sit very easily with the political minders who run this Leader of the Opposition, former Country Liberal Party members of parliament, and of course the Liberal Party in Canberra. Now she is told that she has to act tough, be strong. That is the real motive behind this legislation that she has introduced. It is what she has been instructed to do, not what in her own heart she really believes.
The Martin government believes in tackling crime, violence and the underlying causes of both. We have introduced a range of legislative and legal weapons to do so. We have significantly increased our ability to respond in a health context as well. That is the Territory’s approach, that is the approach endorsed by Territorians, and that is why we will not play at the edge of these issues with the sort of legislation raised today.
The Territory complies with the COAG communiqu. There is nothing in our law that excuses, justifies, authorises, requires or lessens the seriousness of violence or sexual abuse. For these reasons the government does not support the bill.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is difficult to thank the Attorney-General for his comments. I do not know who wrote that speech, but they should not be part of the team worth the $8m to $10m you are spending on wages on the fifth floor. That was a shocker. That was arguably the worse contribution I have heard on such a serious matter since I have been in parliament.
Firstly, let’s get a few things right dealing with the atrocious contribution of the Territory’s first law officer. Your reference to me doing this bill after the Commonwealth did theirs is wrong. The Commonwealth passed legislation probably seven or ten days ago, couple of weeks thereabouts. Indeed, on the plane on the way up this time or last time I read the entire parliamentary debate. So, wrong, Attorney-General. Just like your colleague, the Transport minister, you sought to either misrepresent the truth or you just do not have your head across the issue.
Last time your predecessor said that the government’s opposition to changes to the Sentencing Act in relation to customary law could not possibly be made because if the changes were made they would offend the provisions of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. On the strength of that, I met with and wrote to the federal Attorney-General about that matter. The federal Attorney-General then indicated that the act would be changed. It is wrong to suggest that we are following the lead of the Commonwealth, but I was delighted when the Commonwealth passed its legislation.
The next issue the Attorney-General raised was that I am motivated, apparently, by my staff wanting to be tough and a few other things. How dare you tell me what my motivations are. My motivations are clear for all to see from about 2003 in this parliament at least. The audacity and the arrogance to assume that my staff have somehow wound me up to bring in this bill is amusing. The Attorney-General cannot be taken seriously in any event. I stand on my track record any day of the week. The sooner the member for Nhulunbuy retires, the better it will be for all of us.
In his ramblings he got off to gaoling drunks. Not quite sure why he went down that path. Whoever wrote the speech, I am not quite sure why you went down that path. I note that the Attorney-General has said that alcohol is the basis for violence; contrast that with the Chief Minister who, only a few months ago, seemed to hold the extraordinary view that it was overcrowding and housing that caused sexual violence against children. You apparently, according to all and sundry, are on the same team as the Chief Minister. You may wish to talk to her about it so at least you can get your lines right.
It was interesting that for the third time, not one indigenous member of this parliament has sought to be involved in the debate. You come in here, you proudly assert your indigenous credentials when it suits you, and yet on the tough issues you are nowhere to be seen and nowhere to be heard. How do you sleep at night?
The Attorney-General was wrong when he said that in the Yarralin case it was corrected on appeal. It should not have to have been corrected on appeal. It boils down to something even the Attorney-General should be able to understand: either the law needs to be changed or it does not. You cannot just say: ‘Oh well, it was fixed up on appeal so therefore the law is okay’. You have said nothing about whether the law in its present form needs to be amended because you say it is all fixed up. Have a view.
In a media release issued by the Chief Minister not long after the decision was made to appeal the Yarralin case, she said, that subject to the appeal: ‘We will look at this and we will see what to do’. So the door was open a bit. The former member for Stuart indicated in answer to a question I asked that the door had just started to open. Maybe that is why he left; because someone on that side closed it and they have shut it down again. In any event, the Chief Minister is on the record and from memory she was quoted in The Australian and elsewhere as saying we will look at the Yarralin case on appeal and if the law needs to be changed we will do it.
How disingenuous it was that when the appeal succeeded, as it should have, the Chief Minister in her usual fashion was nowhere to be seen, she stumbled her way through and was not asked by a journalist in the Northern Territory: ‘Do you have a view on whether the law should be changed?’
The Chief Minister has been silent on this issue and that is partly why she is under the pump. It is all about her atrocious performance in indigenous affairs. That is why the member for Millner wrote his famous memo talking about hatred that existed in the Aboriginal community against the Chief Minister. No wonder, because women and children expect and deserve to be protected. They expect to see some leadership. Bring it on; we hope to see some from the member for Wanguri in due course.
I did not expect the Attorney-General’s contribution to be up to much, but I did not expect it to be that bad. Going back to why it is that the law needs to be changed, I will rely on my third second reading speech. I have already touched upon the reasons the Racial Discrimination Act changes left this government with nowhere to go on that. Now they are inventing other reasons why the law cannot be changed to benefit the victims of sexual violence. Sexual violence, for those who are unaware and I assume everyone is, is the term now adopted by the United Nations in a report issued in August. I commend that report to you. I have it upstairs if anybody is interested, but of course no one on the other side of the Chamber is.
Customary law: let us go through it again. There is nothing culturally appropriate about violence. Customary law in all of its guises should be precluded from the courts’ deliberations when sentencing. 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. There is a failure on the part of this Attorney-General and, by inference, every single member of the government, to recognise the insidious way customary law is used to benefit violent Aboriginal men. It is clear to me that members opposite choose to ignore the insidious ways in which it works, or perhaps they simply do not understand why that is the case. As I said in my second reading speech on 23 August 2006, there seems to be an hysterical rejection of any consideration of the removal of customary law for sentencing purposes by some in the legal profession. That is the case. It also amounts to an hysterical rejection of it by the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party and they should hang their heads in shame.
As some members would know, Nanette Rogers was recently nominated as the Australian of the Year in the Northern Territory category. Despite the efforts of the Chief Minister on occasion to undermine Dr Rogers’ credibility, I do not believe that anyone else in the government has seriously sought to undermine her or attack her credibility. It is against that light that I refer members again to what she said in the Lateline interview on 15 May 2006 when she was talking about her research for her doctoral thesis. She said 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 …
…it closed off the voices of Aboriginal women …
… sometimes Aboriginal culture practices do not benefit the victim. 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 that same way, then why should there be an Aboriginal cultural practice that sustains that?
Customary law, in all its guises, is used frequently in Territory courts. It is used in an attempt to reduce or excuse an offender’s criminality. I am quoting here from my second reading speech:
- Defence lawyers urge the court to take into account the fact that some violent men have been subjected to payback, and they ask the courts 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.
I have never known the member for Wanguri’s view on this because he, like all of his colleagues, has never contributed, from my recollection, to the debate. However, I do wish him well in his endeavours to move the current Chief Minister out of her seat because I hope that he can bring a fresh approach. I hope that under his leadership he will look at this with fresh eyes and say: ‘It is the right thing to do, is it not?’ I hope the indigenous members of the Labor Caucus can speak with him in a more direct and open way than they can speak to the current Chief Minister.
I remain eternally optimistic and look forward to having this debate again and again until this government sees the errors of its ways and, under a new leader they decide to do the decent thing.
Motion negatived.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ASSAULT ON POLICE OFFICERS) BILL
(Serial 66)
(Serial 66)
Continued from 23 August 2006.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition several times today in trying to prosecute a point, or win support either for a motion or a bill before the Chamber, has this great need to reflect on what may or may not be happening within the Labor Party, particularly around leadership and this fabrication of a leadership challenge by the member for Wanguri. She leads a party of four, of which one member, the member for Greatorex, her fellow colleague in Alice Springs, cannot even speak to her. They do not even speak to each other. They can barely be in the same room together.
The federal member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, cannot bear her - cannot bear the thought of her and cannot even speak with her. He tells it pretty loudly around the traps!
A division of four - you cannot divide four very far before you finish up with individual cells. There is only one in each one. Here we have two members from Alice Springs. I do not how they go on the plane. I wonder if Qantas ever think two members from the CLP are on the plane tonight, so they sit them together. I bet they do not! I bet the Qantas staff in Alice Springs are a bit wised up to that. They say to the members for Araluen and Greatorex: ‘You are in 1A; you are in 2B. That is the other side of the aircraft and one seat back, so you do not have to talk to each other on the way up’.
Do not carry on in here about division on this side when you cannot even communicate with a caucus of four. One wonders how you get your position on bills because it is necessary to caucus on what position you will take on a particular bill. Obviously, the member for Greatorex must tell the member for Blain: ‘Please pass on my views because I will not be at the meeting because I cannot stand being in the same room as the leader’.
Returning to the bill before us, for four years …
Ms Carney: No wonder you lot are in such trouble.
Mr STIRLING: The other thing that you never admit in politics is that something that has got up your nose, but the patronising condescension and contemptuous attitude that the Leader of the Opposition has for anyone who is not a lawyer has been palpable today - just absolutely palpable. She resents, she hates, it burns her up inside, that the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory is not lawyer. As proud as I am …
Ms Carney: It burns me up inside that you are so stupid!
Mr STIRLING: Look at her, look at her, it is in her words.
Ms Carney: It burns me up inside that you are so stupid. You should not be the Attorney-General. There should be someone else - anyone else who can do that job.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: … I will tell you one thing. As proud as I am to be the Attorney-General for the Northern Territory, that pride pales into insignificance with the pride I carry in not being a lawyer.
For four years, the then Country Liberal Party government refused to recruit as much as one single new police officer position into the Territory. The consequences of those actions over those four years were so significant it has taken this government more than a decade to turn around the effect that that has had on the police force over the longer term. Those moves saw experienced police fleeing the Northern Territory interstate to the AFP, the Queensland police force, and the New South Wales police force, as their operational workplace needs were ignored again and again, and again, by the then CLP government headed at that time by Marshall Perron who, in many ways, was a consummate Chief Minister. However, he had a blind eye when it came to police, as did the Police Association of the time much to their discredit. One wonders what Commissioner Palmer was supposed to make of it with a government that refused to recruit any police to the police force. It took a change of government in 2001 in order to bring any change to that outcome.
The O’Sullivan Report commissioned by the member for Wanguri in his time as Police minister has seen an enormous and ongoing investment in the Northern Territory Police Force. It has seen us recruit 200 additional positions, and provide a better working environment for police, Aboriginal Community Police Officers and auxiliary police. We have improved the technology available to police and the equipment they use. We have set into place laws that allow them to get on with their job. The new anti-gang laws of last sittings which will come into effect in the very near future is one example.
We have responded to clear limits in the law. We have corrected archaic legal practices which were not operationally effective for police. This government strongly supported a good pay outcome in the last enterprise bargaining agreement to ensure we would continue to attract quality police officers to the job. We know it is a tough job and we hold our police force in the highest regard for the job they do in our community. We will not support this legislation because it does not add one single bit of safety to the police workplace, nor does it prevent assaults, nor does it stop police from having to deal with contentious and difficult situations.
It is legislation the Leader of the Opposition again has been told to introduce by her minders who worry when she writes things such as she did in The Australian in the middle of 2005. They worry out of a growing perception that she is soft. She has no personal commitment to improving the lives of our police officers in our police force. If she did she would not be putting this to the House but she would be seeking real ways of improving the workplace for our police.
This bill seeks to introduce mandatory minimum sentences to the Northern Territory and nothing more. It is the old standby for the CLP: when all else fails - mandatory sentencing. ‘That shows how tough on law and order we are’. It is nothing more than that. The government opposed this sort of mandatory sentencing when in opposition.
The very first bill passed by the Attorney-General in the new Martin Labor government in 2001 under Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, was the removal from the books of mandatory sentencing. We pledged that that would be the first legislation that we overturned. I was very proud to be in the Chamber when Peter Toyne introduced and subsequently passed that legislation. We opposed it then. We oppose it now.
The proposed changes under the private member’s bill do not increase the maximum penalties for the crimes that already exist. The opposition concedes that they are sufficient. The government knows and appreciates the tough and at times quite dangerous job that police do, and we support them in that work. We do what we can as a government and as an employer to protect them. A scheme such as this will not protect police. It has been shown in the past that similar schemes have no positive impact on crime rates whatsoever.
The courts consider offences against police to be of the utmost seriousness and again I say there is an adequate sentencing range available for these offences under the current provisions. Maximum sentences of five, seven and 16 years when found guilty on indictment are tough and sufficient. The courts exercise their discretion wisely. If their sentences in such cases are considered too lenient they can be appealed and that is the proper protection for our police. Assaults on police are considered violent offences under the Sentencing Act, full stop. That means if an offender is found guilty of assaulting police in any way, having previously been found guilty of another violent offence of any kind, they must serve a sentence of imprisonment. That is regardless of the seriousness of either offence. It is already tough sentencing and a more effective deterrent than that proposed by the opposition. Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill is opposed.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, what entertainment the outgoing member for Nhulunbuy has provided. We know that things will step up, in the lead-up to the next election, and bring it on, bring it on. The fantasy - what goes on in the member for Nhulunbuy’s mind is a mystery …
Mr Stirling: Do not presume to know what goes on in my mind! It just underlines your arrogance again.
Ms CARNEY: Well, you presumed to know what my motives were, sport, so if you cannot take it, do not dish it out. What goes on in the member for Nhulunbuy’s mind is a mystery no doubt to his friends, colleagues and certainly to those of us on this side of the parliament. Nice try in relation to the theme about division in the opposition. That is just extraordinary. Let us do a refresher course, will we? I have referred to the Crikey document a lot. Let us refer to …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: You even got an editorial in The Australian. Let me see. That was on 20 November. Was the CLP in the paper that day? I do not think so. I will tell you what was, though, and I will quote:
- It is the lack of progress on this issue …
that is indigenous affairs:
- … that has sapped the support of Labor colleagues and marked Ms Martin as a failure from a national perspective.
The editorial, we were not in there, said. and I quote:
- Administration of the Territory has reverted to the Chief Minister aided by a small group of senior ministers who all take directions from public service mandarins. The management of Aboriginal affairs is a fiasco of government by spin rather than substance, with the makings of a shabby personality cult.
I do like reading The Australian. The journalists there write so well and so accurately. The next one is The Australian, 20 November, an article by Ashleigh Wilson. I know you went out to attack him and there you go, he was less than impressed, clearly. Heading:
- Martin Shores Up Support
Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin has moved to shore up support within her ranks as the man considered a potential leader ruled out challenging for her job.
- Opposition Leader Jodeen Carney said Ms Martin should hand over the indigenous affairs portfolio to a minister who was not beset by internal criticism.
We can go on. Let us talk about what the member for Barkly had to say on ABC radio on 20 November, and this is a hoot. Asked a question by the ABC reporter in Alice Springs, the member for Barkly said:
I have spoken to some of the indigenous members and, equally, they were aghast in the context of the story, how it got out, who spoke to The Australian, etcetera.
He fluffed his lines. Everyone else came out said: ‘No, no, no. We love her, we love her’. Not the member for Barkly. He fluffed it because he came out and said: ‘I do not know how this story got out; we are really upset that the story got out’.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, there has been a degree of latitude today, but it is getting quite wide at the moment. This is apparently about assault on police officers.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, you were in the Chair, I understand it, when the Attorney-General had quite a bit to say …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand, but this is your …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I do believe, if you gave a ruling, there should not be any digression.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Sanderson. Leader of the Opposition, this is your bill and I am drawing your attention to the fact that the latitude is getting extremely wide now and if you could come back to the content of your bill, please.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I note your request and similarly you have acknowledged the great liberty and latitude undertaken by the Attorney-General who spent two thirds of his time responding to the bill making up fantastic stories, fantasy being an important word, about the CLP. I have an obligation, as we all know, in reply to rebut any matter, stupid or otherwise, put in the course of the debate.
There has been much national attention on the failings of this government, much national attention on why it is the Chief Minister is currently under threat. What has been interesting is that not much has been written by the member for Nhulunbuy. His performance as Attorney-General has not yet been assessed by the people of the Northern Territory, nor the media. Although he has not had the portfolio long, I can make a fairly good assessment: he is really bad at it. The Territory’s biggest bill, the legal profession one the other day, he had not even read it. His contribution in the Sentencing Amendment Bill was appalling. I do not care if he is a lawyer or not; he might have a law degree, for all I know. All I know about him is that he used to be a teacher somewhere. Probably like other Labor members, he probably was a union apparatchik. I do not know if he has got a law degree. It matters not to me.
What matters to me is that the Northern Territory government, under the leadership of this Chief Minister, make good laws. What matters to me is that the Labor Party gets it right when it comes to protecting the interest of Territorians.
Equally, what the …
Mr Stirling: Your intellectual arrogance betrays you.
Ms CARNEY: Have you finished or what?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: I have 20 minutes. I can keep talking.
The Attorney-General, in his remarkably bad performance, got it wrong by suggesting that we just sort of got this idea and when in doubt chucked it in the pot. Nothing could be further from the truth. I note the reference to my minders - hello, minders, I am sure you are watching and hooting with laughter at the suggestion that I was told to do this. It really is astonishing.
I will tell you where the idea came from, Attorney-General. It came from the Northern Territory Police Association. The Northern Territory Police Association called on you to do this. The Northern Territory Police Association called on government to introduce legislation like this. The former Police minister, the now demoted minister, him representing a threat to the Chief Minister, was at the same Police Association Conference I was where, in my speech, I invited the police members to speak with the then Police minister with a view to ascertaining what the basis and level of his objections were to the proposal.
So don’t you come in here, through you Mr Deputy Speaker, Attorney-General, and say: ‘You just plucked it from you nowhere, or your minders made it up or whatever.’ It was the Police Association. I am glad that your contribution is coming to an end, not just in terms of the Notice Paper, but your parliamentary career generally, member for Nhulunbuy, because it is getting worse. You cannot be taken seriously; you will not be taken seriously. The facts speak for themselves. There is a Latin maxim about that, but since you do not like lawyers very much, I will not bore you with it.
In any event, this is a good bill, one that was requested by the Police Association. Be it on your head that you have so stupidly opposed it. We all know how hard police officers work. We take the view that this bill makes some simple amendments to the Criminal Code. Not even the member for Nhulunbuy should be able to say that he does not understand it. He should understand it, and why it is that he, like the former Police minister, refuses to enact this legislation or agree with it, I do not know.
What I suspect might happen with the legislation however is, as we roll up to the next Territory election, we will probably see this or a variation of it before this Chamber. I look forward to going through the debate tonight. By then, of course, the member for Nhulunbuy will have retired. He will be out fishing, wherever it is he likes to go fishing, and we can talk about him, both in fond and perhaps not so fond terms.
However, mark my words, you blokes will come back and you will come up with a variation of this for two reasons. One, you know it is the right thing to do, and two, because my understanding is that the Police Association will continue to ask you to do it. The bill clearly should be supported.
Motion negatived.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (CODE OF CONDUCT) BILL
(Serial 67)
(Serial 67)
Continued from 23 August 2006.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am absolutely aghast that we are actually debating this bill this evening. I am quite astounded that we are debating the bill this evening. Honourable members will be aware of the fiasco that surrounded the introduction of the opposition’s dodgy code of conduct on the last General Business Day, and they also put on the Notice Paper this legislation to support a code of conduct that could never be enacted because it actually contravenes the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act.
At the time, in August of last year, as Leader of Government Business, I provided and tabled in this House advice from the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory on the validity of clause 2.2 of the Northern Territory Code of Conduct for Ministers and Members. This was formal advice from the Solicitor-General that has been tabled in this House. It has been in the Table Office, as it should be. There was a debate around this at the time. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who would purport to be a future Attorney-General would be seeking this evening in the parliament to advance legislation which, quite clearly, the Solicitor-General has said would be inconsistent with the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and could not validly operate in this parliament, I find quite extraordinary.
The Leader of the Opposition should have accepted the Solicitor-General’s advice and withdrawn or deferred or sought to amend this bill. It is quite extraordinary that she is seeking to progress this bill this evening, in direct contradiction of the advice from the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory. I find it quite extraordinary. The Solicitor-General makes very clear in his advice that was tabled on the 25 August this year - and I will quote from it on page 3:
- There is a more fundamental problem, however. I have early observed that the privileges and powers of the Legislative Assembly cannot exceed those of the House of Representatives (s 12(a) Self-Government Act). The Houses of Federal Parliament can only punish offences against the House, and offences against the House and offences against the House require essential elements. S 4 of the Privileges Act provides:
- 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 committee of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member.
Back to the advice from the Solicitor-General:
- The proposed code deals with conduct that 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 s 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.
Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition who, by her own professional standing as a lawyer, is seeking in the parliament of the Northern Territory to progress legislation which the Solicitor-General, in advice tabled in this House, says exceeds the powers and privileges of the House of Representatives and is beyond the legislative capacity of the Assembly. It is absolutely extraordinary. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to acknowledge that.
Obviously, the government cannot possibly support this bill, and attempt to put into law legislation that is beyond the legislative capacity of this Assembly on advice. Therefore, I would call on the Leader of the Opposition, in speaking in conclusion of this second reading debate, not to seek to progress the bill to the third reading, and to withdraw this legislation as per the advice of the Solicitor-General. We will not be supporting this bill.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Wanguri just does not get it. He just does not get it, which is unfortunate given his Chief Ministerial aspirations. I would have thought that even he would know that the federal government would take notice of requests from any Territory government to seek changes to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act if the Territory government wanted to do so.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: What does it all boil down to? Because that little grub over there …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr Henderson: You are a second-rate, suburban lawyer!
Mr Stirling: Oh, worse, a bottom feeder, a bottom dweller!
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, resume your seat.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I request that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw that remark that I am a grub.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I did not hear …
Mr KIELY: I heard it; it is on the record. I request that she withdraw it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, do you accept that you used the word ‘grub’ to the member for Sanderson?
Ms CARNEY: I did use the word ‘grub’. I am happy to withdraw it on the basis that they withdraw terms like ‘bottom feeder’ and a number of other offensive terms.
Mr Stirling: That is exactly what you are.
Ms CARNEY: They are very twitchy, very twitchy.
Mr KIELY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind you that if she is going to challenge you it has to be in writing. I once again request that she withdraw …
Ms Carney: I did.
Mr KIELY: … the offensive language that she is using as per the relevant subsection.
Ms CARNEY: I withdrew, Mr Deputy Speaker, of course I did.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can withdraw unconditionally please, Leader of the Opposition. You put conditions on it.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw it, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I ask that …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed with your speech.
Ms CARNEY: ... I ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you request the member for Sanderson to withdraw the reference. I heard ‘bottom feeder’.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not …
Mr KIELY: Speaking to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not make such a remark.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, as I initially stated I did not hear the words used in the commotion.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, if the term ‘bottom feeder, bottom dweller’ - that refers to the pretty low life that scunges across the bottom of the ocean picking a little here, a little there, trying to stay out of everybody’s trouble. That was the analogy I was referring. But here is a person purportedly trained in the law, a degree in law …
Ms Carney: What is the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Mr STIRLING: … and has no less than the authority of advice from the Solicitor-General that she wants to defy it …
Ms Carney: Mr Deputy Speaker, what was the point of order?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is completing his point of order.
Mr STIRLING: … I cannot believe it. But I will withdraw the term …
Ms Carney: Thank you. It was not hard was it?
Mr STIRLING: … bottom feeder.
Ms Carney: Gee, I do wish you would …
Mr STIRLING: She is. She has proven it.
Ms Carney: … hurry up, hurry up and …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, Leader of the Opposition. I will just deal with this point of order. Member for Sanderson, I did not hear the remark. The Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn her remark to you. I will ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue her statement.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Australian Labor Party, or the Northern Territory branch of it, promised Territorians before the last election that there would be a code of conduct for politicians - and they did not provide one. The responsibility once again fell to the opposition although small in number, dynamic in intellectual rigour, creativity and all those other things that the members on the other side do not have and will never have.
It took the opposition to create a situation where now, how many years, five years after they were elected to get excited about a code of conduct. There is one floating around. One of my colleagues, Dr Lim, my friend from the electorate of Greatorex …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARNEY: … the code of conduct. We have been discussing the code of conduct and we do so with a smile on our face because it came about because this lazy and arrogant government …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair …
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: … and to speak to the bill.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I am talking exactly about …
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, that is good.
Ms CARNEY: … the bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, the tone of this debate has been quite poor so far. Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair and to try not to incite unnecessary interjections.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, a point of clarification: do you mean physically? Do you want me to physically stand here and …
Madam SPEAKER: That is the process that is usually …
Ms CARNEY: … not look at the others.
Madam SPEAKER: … expected, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am very happy to do that because they are such an unattractive bunch.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In fact, I would be delighted to do so because some of them are just ugly beyond description. Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, it is really not necessary to make that sort of comment. Please just continue with your remarks.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, the Australian Labor Party said that they would promise a code of conduct and they did not deliver. There were a couple of speeches in parliament. The member for Arafura had a bit to say on 20 June 2002. She said and I quote:
- 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. That is what this code of conduct very clearly spells out.
I take the opportunity to direct the member for Sanderson to that speech. The member for Arafura went on to say, and I am quoting:
- 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.
I can feel over my shoulder the glare coming from the member for Katherine directed at the member for Sanderson. Of course, I am not wishing to look at him. When the member for Arafura made that speech, we believed her. We believed, as Territorians believe, so much of what the Chief Minister had to say prior to her election and no doubt that is why there is such division in the Labor Party now because I think even some of them believed that the Chief Minister had to say then as well.
The government does not deliver on its election promise of a code of conduct. Times roll on. Then one of their members, in particular, the member for Sanderson, made a number of vulgar and lewd suggestions at a …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It was an allegation.
Ms Carney: What?
Mr KIELY: It was an allegation. Get your facts right.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition, if you could try to tone down any personal comments it would be appreciated.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, of course on a previous occasion you ruled that I could not repeat what was widely published in the Northern Territory News and other places.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, and that ruling remains.
Ms CARNEY: Of course, I have done that. That was, and we all know it and in fact even the Chief Minister knew that it was both vulgar and lewd. It is appropriate in all of the circumstances that anyone describes that behaviour as vulgar and lewd.
Madam Speaker, as a result of the member for Sanderson’s behaviour and the public outrage and uproar that resulted from it, and given the laziness and arrogance of this government, because they were not going to do anything because the member for Sanderson kept his job, it then fell to the Territory opposition, the alternative government, to get on with the job of introducing a code of conduct bill. That was introduced.
There was a bit of a hoo-ha because the Leader of Government Business, Chief Ministerial aspirant though he is, was not listening properly and got all huffy about an amendment to the code. In any event, methinks they doth protest too much. The bottom line is that this code has, to some extent, achieved the objective insofar as five years after the election, members of this government have finally realised that it is important to have a code of conduct when they have members in their ranks such as the member for Sanderson. So, objective achieved.
We know that this bill is not going to pass. Of course, we know the bill is not going to pass. We know that if this government was serious, and I do not think they are, and if they wanted to enact legislation with fair dinkum penalties like the one recommended by the opposition, and it offended the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act as per the advice from Tom Pauling QC, what would the government do? They would go to the feds and argue the case to seek changes to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. They are too lazy and too arrogant to do so.
The message has, in any event, been hammered home. The member for Sanderson is now extremely vulnerable in his seat and he should be. Members of the government are tarnished as a result of him keeping his job and the inaction in relation to a code of conduct. So, the member for Wanguri, or alternative Chief Minister in this term at least, can say what he likes. He can carry on as much as he likes, but the opposition and indeed other Territorians are mildly pleased that at least we are seeing some action by government. We look forward to the government’s version of the code of conduct coming before us.
Madam Speaker, I am not sure there is much I can add to the debate other than to say on behalf of my colleagues: a job well done. We have partly achieved the objective, which is implementing, or getting done, or speeding up what this mob said they were going to do.
Motion negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight I express my thanks to the many people who work hard to keep both the electorate, the government and this parliament operating each day. I would like to thank all of my constituents for their ongoing support and wish each of them a safe and happy Christmas. Together, over the last 12 months, we have been working through many issues. Perhaps the most difficult is the one of substance abuse - alcohol, kava and drugs of other types. I am grateful for the efforts of community leaders, ably supported by police and the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Commission, for tackling these issues and bringing a great deal of hope to the situation. I am particularly thankful for the leadership of people like Senior Sergeant Tony Fuller and the very proactive stance on so many social issues in our region. Every community in the Northern Territory would love to have a Senior Sergeant Fuller on their staff, and we are ever so grateful to have him there in our electorate working on these issues.
This year, we saw major breakthroughs in childcare service delivery. I am grateful to all those involved in delivering improved childcare facilities to Nhulunbuy. In the new year, the opening of the new centre is to come, and I pay tribute to Charles Rue and Alcan for their enormous contribution, as I do the Northern Territory government for their contribution to that project.
Raymattja Marika, now nominated as the Territory’s representative in the Australian of the Year Award, also became a Justice of the Peace this year. Raymattja - great job. I wish her well in her quest as Australian of the Year.
It is worth remembering that, while we may deal with difficult issues, many of the leaders of our communities are faced with immense issues every moment of every day. For example, the people of Galiwinku are spending a considerable period of time in the spotlight over leasing issues, and these are issues that can tear into communities. I give my commitment to work with them to help resolve these matters. To Charles at Galiwinku, to Djuwalpi at Yirrkala, Alfred at Gapuwiyak, Galarrwuy at Gunyanara, the community leaders, I wish you and all of the members of those communities a safe Christmas.
In Nhulunbuy, after many years with Nabalco, Alcan remains a very important factor within the town’s make-up. I have maintained a good relationship with Alcan over the years, and I wish Dave Buick, the management and staff well for Christmas and the new year.
I thank my electorate staff for the terrific work they do keeping the electorate well served. It can be difficult with me spending a good deal of time and commitments here in Darwin. My thanks to Jenny Djerrkura and Jenny Laverty for looking after the electorate in my absence.
In Darwin, I would like to thank the agencies I work with. I attended the Treasury function last week and had the opportunity to thank them for all of the work that they do. I feel incredibly supported by both Treasury and the Department of Justice, and I thank Jennifer Prince and Peter Caldwell in Treasury, and Greg Shanahan and Terry Drier in the Department of Justice for their support. I extend that to Margaret Banks in the Department of Employment, Education and Training with whom I worked for most of this year prior to changing ministries. She has proven to be an absolutely outstanding selection as Chief Executive of our Department of Employment, Education and Training. They all are ably supported by a great team of public servants. I try to meet agency staff wherever they are and wherever they work. Community Cabinet often gives me the opportunity to catch up with remote-based staff. I thank each of the public servants in those agencies for the work they do and wish them well for Christmas.
I wish the staff of parliament well. The Clerk, Mr McNeill, Captain Horton, Graham Gadd, Helen Allmich, Sue and all of the Hansard team and all of those personnel who support committees - Pat Hancock, Terry Hanley, Michael Tatham in statehood - I wish you a great Christmas. To the security staff, I hope your Christmas is a good one. My thanks to the Parliamentary Library staff also. Thank you to Tony Hibberd, an institution in this place, Jan Bradley, Derek Stafford, Jan Sporn and each of the Parliament House team - good luck and have a great Christmas. I wish to thank the Parliament House cleaners who do a great job in great spirit, night after night
I thank my colleagues; it has been a good year. A lot of work was done but, as we said repeatedly during the last election, there is much more to do. I hope each of you have a safe and wonderful Christmas and new year.
I thank the Chief Minister, who remains an inspiration for this government, for her incredible work schedule, her dedication and absolute determination to improve the lifestyle and future of Territorians.
It is not within my heart to wish either the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader a merry Christmas. However, to the Independent members, the members for Blain and Katherine, I do hope you have a wonderful Christmas.
I wish you, Madam Speaker, a particularly good Christmas and new year. We know it has been a very tough year for you. You have been an inspiration to each of us in the way that you have handled the workloads and stresses upon you. I wish you and your family a much better outlook for 2007.
I thank Alf in my office, and my staff for all their work and support.
Over the last 12 months, I have met and worked with many good people in the private sector and I wish the business community well for the season.
I also wish the Territory union movement well. They have a tough year ahead with the onslaught of the Howard government’s determination to rip the heart out of workers’ rights.
To Gary, John, George, Thor, Wayne, and Hardy, the drivers who look after us so well; they do a wonderful job.
Madam Speaker, finally, I wish all Territorians a happy and safe Christmas. It is a great place we live in. I hope that everyone’s 2007 brings them what they wish, hope, and work for.
Mr Mills: I find it in my heart to wish you a merry Christmas.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, there are some comments I wish to make tonight. I note with great interest that the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory does not find it within his heart to wish me and my colleague, Terry Mills, a merry Christmas. It just goes to show how the Deputy Chief Minister remembers that caucus is losing the plot; they are losing their Christmas cheer and goodwill. We know why they are losing it, because they cannot be nice to themselves.
Members interjecting.
Mrs Braham: Be nice.
Ms CARNEY: They cannot be nice to themselves so, of course, I suppose it is not surprising now that they cannot be nice to anyone else.
Mrs Braham: Show Christmas cheer, Jodeen, and be nice to everyone.
Ms CARNEY: I note that – do you have something to say, member for Braitling?
Mrs Braham: Yes, I am saying be nice, have a bit of Christmas cheer.
Ms CARNEY: The member of Braitling is being her usual disruptive, interrupting self …
Mrs Braham: I am just asking her to be cheerful for Christmas, not a sour, little thing.
Ms CARNEY: In any event - Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, will you ask her to be quiet?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Araluen …
Mr Bonson: You sour person.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, please …
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. I refer to standing orders in that regard, that even you, Matty the memo, the member for Millner …
Mr Bonson: Oh that hurts – you with no friends.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Millner!
Ms CARNEY: I have said all along when you are pressing the buttons of this mob, they are just so predictable. Of course, it is understandable that, since they are not getting along with each other, they cannot really get along with anyone else. I note that that the Deputy Chief Minister wished all Territorians a merry Christmas except you and me, Millsy. However, I do not propose to lose much sleep about that.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a contentious Alice Springs issue; that is, demountable accommodation and issues associated with the demountables. I can honestly say that the Alice Springs community is feeling ill at ease about the demountable accommodation, as there would appear to be a sense of confusion among those managing this constantly changing situation.
Quite clearly, it appears as though there is a lack of clarity and none of the parties involved - namely the Alice Springs Town Council, the Territory government and the federal government - know what they are individually responsible for and, furthermore, where their joint responsibilities lie. The Alice Springs Town Council says that the matter is in the hands of the Territory government; the Territory government says it is in the hands of the federal government; and the federal government says it is in the hands of the Territory Labor government. They are, at least, the public utterances.
If the parties involved in the process do not know who is doing what, then how can it be possible for the community to be fully aware of what is really going on with this issue that has become so contentious and so vitally important to the lifestyle of those living in Alice Springs?
I have concerns that this Martin - or for now at least, Martin - Labor government is playing a filthy political game and passing the responsibility to the federal government when, in fact, the bulk of the responsibility lies with this Territory government. After all, it is some of the most disadvantaged Territorians who will actually utilise and benefit from this facility, and it is this facility that has the potential to change the lives of many disadvantaged Territorians.
The federal Indigenous Affairs minister, Mal Brough, has set himself a level of expectation and commitment to this initiative and, in fairness to him, these expectations should be met. All the same, the expectation of this Martin - or for now Martin - Labor government also needs to be met, and neither group of expectations are mutually exclusive. I have concerns that there is a considerable amount of buck passing going on, and that there is distinct lack of interest on the part of this Territory government. After all, it is the Territory government that has primary responsibility for the demountables, and for the primary and intended purpose of the accommodation, the location of the accommodation, the role of the accommodation in the community, the structure of the accommodation, and for managing the whole demountable accommodation.
I note that, while the application for an exceptional development permit on both the Dalgety Road and the Len Kittle Drive - that is the Tyeweretye Club - sites have been prepared for Indigenous Business Australia, the application clearly states that it represents the joint commitment of the federal government and Territory government to address particular and unique needs in Alice Springs.
The most pressing concern is the location of the demountables. It has been the role of the Territory government to identify and recommend potential sites. I have always been of the opinion, and continue to be of the opinion, that a site further to the south and another further to the north would prove more suitable as a location for the demountable accommodation. Some time ago I suggested Owen Springs Station, and I continue to support Owen Springs as an option. So I ask the question: who is responsible for decisions about demountables and why is it that the purpose of the accommodation continually changes?
Initially the short-term emergency accommodation was for indigenous people at risk. Now, it appears as though it is to be a short-term managed accommodation for people visiting Alice Springs from surrounding communities. When the idea of the accommodation was initially suggested it was a ‘pay for use’ facilities. That means that those who utilise the facility will pay for the utilisation. I am hopeful that that will remain the case, but I am also cautious that the facility may not be utilised by its target market. It is clear that the project is being driven by a group of well-intended decision-makers, and it is clear that the betterment of the living conditions of many indigenous people in and around Alice Springs is the foundation of that decision-making. However, it is imperative that the two sites in the accompanying temporary demountable accommodation do not deteriorate into another disgraceful town camp.
The former member for Stuart, I think, represented the views of government some time ago when he talked at length about the state of town camps in Alice Springs. Already, we see across the Territory a considerable number of town camps that are very poorly managed. The discrepancy in the way town camps are managed and the very problematic nature of town camp management leads to major concerns about how a temporary short-term ‘pay for use’ accommodation facility that is put together from the scraps of another facility can possibly serve a meaningful purpose to the Alice Springs community.
The submission claims that the use of the demountable accommodation ensures that the facility can be brought online quickly to address an urgent need and is, clearly, a cost-effective option. I remain concerned that utilising demountables intended for another purpose is far from a good idea. Ultimately, it may not be cost-effective. The submission currently before the Development Consent Authority contains plans which details that both sites have been developed to accommodate up to 150 people at a time. The submission states that the facility has a defined life of between seven and 10 years which, in turn, will provide the opportunity to consider, develop and introduce longer-term accommodation options for Alice Springs.
The Territory government, as a collective, notwithstanding what I believe to be some sincerely held beliefs about the advantages and the desired outcomes of the site, has not done well to date, and it needs to do better. Consultation should have occurred before the list of proposed sites were short-listed and found its way into the local newspaper. Further consultation should have been done and, there is no doubt about it, prior to those things occurring. That is the responsibility of the Territory government. It is frustrating that the Housing Minister, the member for Barkly, has been very difficult to catch publicly on this issue. By ‘catch’ I mean from the media point of view. He has had, after stumbling in the early stages, very little to say and many people in Alice Springs remain upset and frustrated with him.
In any event, the process of community consultation such as it is has now begun with the application for an exceptional development permit for both the Dalgety Road and Len Kittle Drive, that is the Tyeweretye Club sites, currently with the Development Consent Authority. The exhibition period closes on 15 December this year, and I strongly urge all those with concerns to make their written submissions to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. By doing so, there is a record of the concerns that the community has and, if the Development Consent Authority processes work as intended, then those concerns will form a substantial part of the decision-making process.
I did refer to the member for Barkly. I do believe that he has a very genuine and personal commitment to improving the lives of indigenous Territorians everywhere in the Territory, including in the Centre. I urge you, minister, to do better in this area because, if we are all collectively going to get a better outcome, the process needs to be watched much more carefully. It needs to be communicated better to the people I represent - one of the sites, after all, is in my electorate - and it needs to be communicated much more effectively to the people of Alice Springs. Conduct to date has been less than impressive.
There are people who are well intentioned, and they are the decision-makers. It is not me. My job is to call government to book as and when I see fit and, most importantly of course, to represent my constituents and, in a more general sense, represent the people of Alice Springs. Confusion abounds; it should not. There needs to be some clarifying statements. I hope that early in the new year, the minister might even send some material to the people of Alice Springs to explain where things are up to and why.
In the meantime, as I said, I urge people to participate in the Development Consent Authority process. I know that there are a number of people who will be making written submissions but, in a sense, they should not have had to have done so; they should have been consulted much earlier.
Unlike the Deputy Chief Minister, I take this opportunity of wishing all of my 24 parliamentary colleagues a very happy and prosperous merry Christmas, because it is Christmas after all. Life in politics has its highs and lows; everyone knows that. We are very privileged to be standing here. I have said on numerous occasions that, notwithstanding all of the huff and puff and game playing that goes on and deeply held differences on a range of issues, it is my view that the 25 people who take their place in this Chamber are doing their best, and everyone is working as hard as they possibly can to serve the people of the Northern Territory. I would like think that we all got into this job to make a difference and, for the most part, that motivates everyone.
I wish all of my parliamentary colleagues a happy and prosperous Christmas, and take this opportunity of thanking the Legislative Assembly staff - too many to name. I wish them a happy Christmas as well, in particular, Madam Speaker. She has done a very good job as Speaker and I am on the public record in that regard. I know she has had a difficult year. We all wish her well. To the Clerk, thank you for your assistance. I hope that you and your family also have a great Christmas.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as the member for Araluen said, I also have concerns about the proposal along Dalgety Road. I have had many approaches from constituents who have rung me or come to me seeking advice on how they can put in an objection to this application.
Hopefully, tomorrow I will table a petition if it arrives in time. Over four days, there were a large number of people who have signed this petition to indicate to the minister that they have concerns. I understand that the application is for an exceptional development. That is because the zoning is industrial but the facility that is proposed is residential. I am sure the fact that it is such an exceptional development, there should be reason for people to be concerned that a residential facility will be put into an industrial area. It just does not seem to be the right place at all. I realised that when I went to visit the particular site. The hill we walked over was towards the Warlpiri Camp, not towards Dixon Road. In fact, there are houses within 300 m of that particular site. The federal minister had said that it would not be so close to other residences.
Unfortunately, the proposal says that it has a defined life, and the long-term status of this facility is not stated. However, history has shown in Alice Springs that, quite often, sites for temporary accommodation turn into permanent town camps. That is one of the reasons the people are concerned about what is going to happen.
Interestingly, an independent survey showed that 350 private accommodation units are solely used by indigenous clients. That means there are 350 units already in motels used by indigenous clients when they come to town. It is an indication that people, when they come to town, do like to have somewhere good to stay and are prepared to pay the cost. However, I would be worried about the people who actually use the commercial accommodation who would seek to use this facility if it was established. Of course, that then takes away the business from the private sector. I am not sure how you ever get people who normally just camp in the river or in public housing, or anywhere else like that, to go into a facility such as this.
It will be interesting to see what sort of process we go through with the Development Consent Authority. Already, they are saying they have had a large number of objections placed with them. I know, when we get around to meeting with the authority, it will be an interesting exercise on how they handle it. There are some questions I intend to ask the Minister for Planning and Lands tomorrow about this particular application. There are a lot of concerns about why it is being built in that particular spot. I believe that the dongas the federal minister is apparently offering the Northern Territory government may be better utilised on some of the town camps where there is a shortage of accommodation, or out on communities.
I place on the record the concerns of people in my electorate of having this facility placed where it is. I believe it would be far better to go ahead with the one at the Tyeweretye Club, wait and see how that goes and, then, if that is a success, perhaps we can look at another site. However, at the moment, I do not think that is an appropriate site.
I also want to talk very briefly about a community service that occurred with the cooperation of Telstra and Larapinta Primary School. At Larapinta, we only had one telephone box, and it was way down by the shops, so all the people living on the western side of the suburb did not have access to a private telephone box. Of course, many of them did not have mobiles or telephones at all. With a lot of persuading, Telstra did put a box there. As you know, Telstra is in the habit lately of taking boxes away. However, they put a telephone box in for us. Unfortunately, within a week it was vandalised. It was not just vandalised; the whole thing was taken apart. With a lot of good talking, we managed to get Telstra to repair it. They told us they would only do it one more time, because every time they do it costs them $3000-plus.
We approached the Larapinta Primary School to see if they would get the students involved in the painting of the box. The students thought this was a good idea and they brainstormed on how they could paint this box that would make it attractive for community use. They decided on the theme of the circus. The strong man was holding up the box, and on the box there were clowns and seals and lions - it was absolutely wonderful. They went to Telstra with their design, and Chippy Miller, who is well-known in Alice Springs and works for Telstra, took the design and it was approved. Then, on a roster system, the students came out in the morning and spent a couple of hours painting the telephone box. As they did so, cars would go past, people would toot, people would wave, wish them well, and come and take photos of them. It became quite a community event. The school was very lucky, as Susy Mengel, who is the school assistant, is particularly artistic and she was able to help the students with the design and the finishing touches to all the artwork.
We were a bit worried, because Halloween Night was coming up and we thought perhaps it would get vandalised on. I contacted Skimbo - or Walter Turnbull, which is his proper name – who is the manager of Shane Ride Security which does the security checks on public housing residences in that area. I asked if he would have his drivers watch out for the telephone box as they drove past. Lo and behold, the box survived Halloween Night. As far as I know, it has survived every night since. That security team, as they drive by, keep and eye on it. It looks fantastic.
Chippy Miller and I attended the assembly at Larapinta and presented the children with some books and certificates for the good work that they had done. In some of the classes we visited, they wrote little stories about the book. We passed those onto Chippy Miller at Telstra because they are going to do a story about it in their internal communication, because it is a lovely box which has become a community telephone box. As you drive past, you cannot help but notice. I know - well, we cross we fingers - that it is such a good thing that it should last and it should not be vandalised. I congratulate Larapinta Primary School students who did that. In particular, I want to thank Chippy Miller because, without his cooperation and the persuasion he did with Telstra, we certainly would not have got that done.
Finally, it is the end of the year for the Legislative Assembly. Along with the other members, I am also pleased to say that it is the time of the year when I will be glad to be go home and celebrate Christmas with the family; that will be great. I hope we lighten up a little tomorrow in this House. I have some great questions but, whether they fall flat again like the one I did last year, I do not know. However, I am sure we can all have some nice Christmassy questions in the House at Christmas time. Let us hope there is a little Christmas joy in the House.
To the Clerk and the staff of the Legislative Assembly, thank you again very much for all your assistance. I know being Independent we have our own little strange situations that occur, and we have to come with cap in hand and say: ‘Can you help us out this way?’. The Clerk and the staff are always obliging and manage to assist us whenever they can in things that other members of the House do not realise we have difficulties with.
I also say to the public servants out there and the ministerial staff upstairs: thank you for your assistance. The information might not always be as much as I would like to get from them, but they are always obliging and polite. Of course, I often get the response: ‘You will have to put it through the minister’s officer’, and I understand that. However, I always to say them: ‘You are going to have to do a ministerial anyway’. Thank you for that.
Thanks to my electorate officer, Robyn, who is up this week - she has not been up for some time. She is an amazingly energetic person, always polite, knows a heck of a lot, and knows Alice Springs so very well, and people use her. I want to thank her again for her assistance and hope that she has a good, happy Christmas with her mother. She is going to spend Christmas with her mother who is now 86 and not well, and she deserves time off to share with her mother.
My thanks to Kerry, my temporary electorate officer who comes in and helps us whenever I am in need of that help. I am very fortunate that these two ladies have such positive public relationship attitudes. Because of that, the office is always busy with lots of people coming in and out.
Of course, there is Caroline. I have half of Caroline; the member for Nelson has the other half. She is amazing in that she does such a great job for both of us. She is an extremely intelligent lady and is a very good research officer. We are so fortunate to have found her, because she saves us hours of time and, quite frankly, I do not know how we would be able to get all the information we need without her. She certainly takes care with a lot of the legislation that we do not have time to go through. Caroline, have a merry Christmas with your cats. I know she will have a good time at the LA Christmas party, because she is already designing the costume. I believe she won it last year with ‘Christmas Eve’. Eve, as you know, wears …
Dr Lim: A fig leaf.
Mr Mills: No clothes.
Mrs BRAHAM: Oh, well, there we go! It will be interesting to see what she comes up with this year.
Of course, there is the member for Nelson. We caucused tonight - I do not know if that is the right word - to see whether we should have a leadership spill, but we decided that we might just have the power of one twice. I am not quite sure what that means, but we do not seem to have a leader amongst us.
To the opposition and government colleagues in this House, I wish you well. I hope you have a really great Christmas. I hope you have a time to relax with your families and friends, and come back refreshed next year, because we do get very tired - well I do, I have to admit - towards the end of the year and tempers fray a little.
To Madam Speaker, who has been through so much and done it with such dignity. We can all be proud of her. I wish her well, particularly with the coming year. Let us hope she comes back healthy and well.
Thanks very much to my family also who have given me great support. I will be going to Adelaide to spend Christmas with my daughter and my granddaughter. My son is staying in Alice Springs with his family but we will have a Christmas before I head off. So, everything is great; everything is really fine. That is what is nice about Christmas time because family and your friends are the most important things to you.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish merry Christmas to everyone. Let us hope we will see each other in the new year and see what the new year brings.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I pay tribute to a dear old lady I have known for many years. She was formerly my patient who left my care when I came into politics.
Her name is Dorothy Audrey Lothian-Black, born the 29 February 1916, who passed away on 25 September 2006, at 90 years and almost 7 months. I first met this lady when she was well and truly retired – I cannot say from active life because she remained active until almost the weeks before she passed away. When I met her she was the matriarch of her family, her husband having passed away long before I got to know this woman. I have a couple of eulogies that I would like to read. These eulogies were given when she was buried at the Memorial Cemetery in Alice Springs. I am not sure who wrote it; I assume it is from the family:
- Dorothy Audrey Lothian-Black.
Dorothy was born 29 February 1916. As I shared with the family during the week I discovered that Dorothy had a hard life. She was a battler. At the age of 12 she was working in domestic service, and then went on to work in hospitality by helping with cooking and other duties. Her life was not always easy. She was married in the early 1930s and then again in 1943. From those two marriages there were children, some of whom are present here today.
Some of the good things that we recall about her was that she had a great sense of humour. She would help anyone with anything she could. The house was always an open house and anyone who needed help would be helped.
In 1978 she moved here to be closer to her family. The connection with the Salvation Army came from volunteering at the thrift shop as well as volunteering for the Salvos. She also volunteered for the RSPCA and The Old Ghan train. Her husband, Sydney, passed away 18 years ago and she missed him very much. However, she remained very community minded.
This reminded me of the activities that Dorothy took part in particularly with The Old Ghan. She did so much work there that The Old Ghan paid tribute to her when she passed away too. They wrote:
- Dorothy Lothian-Black, 29 February 1916 to 25 September 2006.
There was a photograph of Dorothy, in her fitter days, standing on the steps of one of the carriages of The Old Ghan in company with her daughter-in-law, Diana. The caption on the photograph said: ‘Dorothy Lothian-Black pictured with daughter-in-law, Diana, on the steps of The Old Ghan on its first run in 1988’. Diana Lothian was Dorothy’s primary carer in her final years.
- It was with great sadness that The Old Ghan members and friends said farewell to Dorothy after she passed away at 90 years of age on the 25 September 2006. Dorothy is part of the Lothian and Lothian-Black families, has had along and industrious association with The Old Ghan, starting as a foundation member of the organisation in 1980 along with; Roger Vale, Syd Lee, Denzel Barton, Neil Sutton and the Lothian and Poole families. Dorothy helped clean up the MacDonnell site in 1985 and worked tirelessly with Clarissa Rose using an old works van to prepare morning and afternoon teas and lunch for the myriad of volunteers and contractors working on the site preparing the line in preparation for the arrival of rolling stock and the start of the train rides.
When the rolling stock finally arrived, Dorothy was one of the first out there cleaning and preparing the train and carriages for their first run. She did this every weekend for three years until the train started to operate in 1988. After that, Dorothy was on every trip to Ewaninga serving morning teas, lunch and afternoon teas every Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday until she had a stroke in 1993. Dorothy was in a wheelchair after that, but still came out to The Old Ghan whenever she could and, right up until the end, was always eager to assist or help out in any way she could.
I saw Dorothy off and on through the years that I have been in the Legislative Assembly. I used to see her at home because of her disability, and I would see her when she came out to the polling booth. She had never ever sought a postal vote or asked the presiding officer to come to the car to let her cast her vote. She would come in her wheelchair, right into the polling booth to vote. Her son or daughter-in-law would assist her in a wheelchair.
She was mentally very alert, right to just about three or four days before she passed away when I saw her at her home. She told me she had had enough, she was tired. I believe she was very well prepared to move on.
This lady had many children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I asked the family to provide me with a list of her offspring. She had six children of her own, three sons and three daughters. Out of those six children, she had two sons-in-law and two daughters-in-law. The son and daughter-in-law who had been her main carers were Tom and Di Lothian, who continue to live in Alice Springs in my electorate. The other son who lives in Alice Springs is Leo Lothian-Black, who lives out towards Ewaninga. I believe he is a returned Vietnam Veterans, and prefers to live out bush on his own, coming into town every so often just to get his supplies. Of the other children, there is one daughter, Alice Quigley, who lives in Western Australia, and a son, Frederick Ward, who lives in Queensland and Jan Becker, another daughter who also lives in Queensland.
From these six children, there are eight grandchildren, five grandsons, and three granddaughters and they are: Peter Lothian, Ann-Marie McCormack, who live in Alice Springs. Ann-Marie who works with Erwin Chlanda at the Alice Springs News. Other grandchildren include: Matthew Quigley, Matthew Lothian and Amanda Quigley who are in Western Australia; and Neil Decker, Steven Decker and Julie Martin living in Queensland. As for great-grandchildren there are nine of them - seven great-grandsons and two great-granddaughters. They are: Daniel McCormick; Megan McCormick; Bailey Quigley; Bruce David Lothian; Shelby Quigley; Brenton Martin; Quinn Martin; Shane Decker; and Scott Decker.
I would be remiss if I do not mention the in-laws. Diana Lothian is the daughter-in-law who lives in Alice Springs. There is a son-in-law, Barry Quigley, who lives in Western Australia; Lisa Ward, a daughter-in-law, who lives in Queensland, and William Decker, a son-in-law, who lives in Queensland.
I wish the family of the woman who had strong family ties, and a long list of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to carry on her memory, the greatest of condolences. She was a great friend to me and I share with them the sadness of their loss. I believe that Dorothy was suffering at the end and she was ready to move on to another life. To Tom, Diana and the rest of the family, and those in Queensland and Western Australia, my best wishes and I share with them the sadness that they must surely feel with the loss of a mother.
In the few minutes that I have remaining, I would like to continue with what I spoke about yesterday; the loss of Territory lifestyle in the Northern Territory over these last five years with the coming of this Labor government. Last night, I spoke about a letter that Mr David Collins wrote to the Northern Territory News on 22 November 2006. His conclusion is worthwhile putting on the record also. Mr David Collins said he was pretty sick and tired of the loss of the uniqueness of the Territory. In his closing paragraph, he laments:
What has happened to my Darwin? I hope you can find the space to print this. It’s a crying shame to watch the Territory slip from our grasp into the maws of ‘other jurisdictions’.
I believe that is a reflection of how Territorians feel across the board. They have felt, over the last five years, a slow, gradual, insipid deterioration of the uniqueness of the Northern Territory, with more and more southern influences brought in - not through natural migration of interstate people who come to live in the Northern Territory, but by a government, with its southern advisors, force feeding a southern ethos into our community. It is no wonder people are objecting so vehemently to it. I listed quite a few things, such as the $90 car rego levy, pool fencing legislation, speed cameras for revenue raising, failure to release land, especially in Central Australia, the forsaking of ensuring that people have food and petrol prices maintained ...
Dr Burns: Interest rates.
Dr LIM: When the government was in opposition, it was always screaming out about the cost of food, petrol, electricity and housing. Now, when they are in government, they have done nothing about it.
I pick up the interjection from the member for Johnston, who mentioned interest rates. Interest rates are lower now than ever during the time under Hawke and Keating. It is ridiculous. I went through those hard times myself as a businessman, and I know what it is like …
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: Never you mind, working on a salary; you never worry about whether your shirt comes off your back or not. It was a hard time. It was because of the Labor government, and you guys continue to do that here today. You talk about the way you try to bring in speed limits and demerit points, and all you are doing is eroding away the uniqueness of Territory lifestyle we all so very much enjoy. That is why people want to come to the Northern Territory; it is a special place. There are hardships that we all recognise but, if the Territory lifestyle remains unique, then it is more than compensation for the harshness of this Territory. If that happens, then people will come and live and stay. If they do not, they will move away. Maybe that is what you want. Maybe you want to drive people away from the Territory. If that is the case, then you should get up and say so. Tell them to leave, and they are to leave without any hassles …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time is up, member for Greatorex.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as 2006 draws to a close, I take this opportunity to thank a whole lot of people in this House and, of course, within my electorate and right across the Northern Territory. Before I do that, I would like to make some comments in respect to the whole issue of supported managed accommodation in Alice Springs. Whilst I was not privy to hear the total comments by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Araluen, I believe it is important to put on record precisely this government’s position.
People should be aware that, essentially, it arose out of a task force which I and the Martin Labor government commissioned. In effect, we had to deal with the fact that there was a whole host of issues occurring in Alice Springs which we did not accept, nor did the indigenous people or the general community in Alice Springs. There was a whole range of antisocial behaviour-type issues, including unnecessary deaths and, most importantly, there was a perception that a lot of this was coming out of the town camps in and around Alice Springs.
I pay tribute to people like Willy Tilmouth and Geoff Shaw who, obviously, shared the concerns of myself and other members. As a result of that, they took the bold step of putting themselves under the spotlight, knowing that they had to do something about it and, whatever they were going to do, it was not only going to benefit them but also the community.
One of the big issues that arose out of the task force was the fact that there was excessive overcrowding in the town camps throughout Alice Springs which gave rise to high levels of antisocial behaviour. The quality of life of the people who were living in those town camps was suffering and that then translated across into the general Alice Springs community.
I want to place on the record this: there is absolutely no doubt about it; there is agreement - something which is shared by the Commonwealth government, by minister Brough - that there is an immediate need for managed short-term accommodation options in Alice Springs, as there are across the Northern Territory. That is something that I am not ashamed of to share with minister Brough. He and the task force have acknowledged it. It is incumbent upon us as governments - of whatever persuasion, Commonwealth or state – to do something about it.
Our proposal is to provide bricks and mortar in supported accommodation. To that extent, we have provided $1.2m to Yeperenye Hostel under the auspices of Aboriginal Hostels, where there will be six accommodation facilities built - effectively, 24 beds. Stuart Lodge will be opened in the future and will provide a further 33 beds.
The difference between ourselves and the Commonwealth is that our proposal is bricks and mortar and the Commonwealth’s is based around the demountables. Very clearly, they are committed to address the issue and, to that extent, they have now chosen two sites in Alice Springs - Tyeweretye Club and Dalgety Road, which both members opposite referred to previously. The applications were submitted by Indigenous Business Australia, which is a Commonwealth government department.
I want to place on the record that we have to do something about the overcrowding that occurs in Alice Springs. The two approaches taken by the Commonwealth and the Territory government are a little different but, nonetheless, they provide the same outcome in what is a very critical issue of overcrowding and the resulting antisocial behaviour and dysfunction from the grog that goes on. For that reason, I place on the record that I know I have been open and very transparent with the community of Alice Springs. I have gone on radio on numerous occasions to point out the differences of our positions. Nonetheless, the bottom line is, yes, we do need more supported accommodation.
It is up to the Alice Springs community to determine and decide precisely what they want to do in regard to that. I am absolutely confident that this government will give due consideration to whatever the views are expressed, for or against the proposed facilities at Dalgety and Tyeweretye Club. I just want that to go on the record because the Leader of the Opposition sometimes gets caught up in local insular politics confined to the Alice Springs region. Alice Springs community also has to grow up, be mature, and deal with the issues that they face. I believe they can do that if they are, in fact, supported by their leader in Alice Springs, the member for Araluen, who should show leadership in this particular issue as opposed to slamming and banging blackfellas and a whole host of other people in Alice Springs. That concludes my part there.
I also pay tribute to someone who is in the gallery today. Strachan, you are probably not expecting this. Strachan comes from Alice Springs. I have known Strachy for a long time and he is a fine, upstanding human being. Strachy would take great comfort in the fact that the Northern Territory government is tackling head-on some of the issues that are occurring in his community. It is people like Strachy who make Alice Springs a very good place to live. Merry Christmas, Strachy, and to all the family. Strachy, well done, thanks for the inspiration.
I thank members of the Legislative Assembly who have worked so hard throughout the course of the year - I cannot possibly thank them all - none more so than Mr Ian McNeill, the Hansard staff, Dave Horton and a whole host of others. The people over to my right here, thank you very much for your support throughout 2006. I wish each of you and your families a good, peaceful Christmas. Have a good break, drive safely and, hopefully, we will see you all back here in 2007.
I also thank people within my respective agencies. Mr Mike Burgess has recently been appointed. Mike, thank you for taking on the task. It is not an easy one. I look forward to a very professional relationship. To Mr Les Hodgson, the Acting Director of DCIS in Darwin. Special thanks to Trish Angus, Fiona Chamberlain, Sylvia Langford and Nick Scarvelis, who have been a tower of support to me over the last 12 months. I thank you very much and I wish you all the best for yourselves and your family.
I thank everyone in all the agencies - Housing, Local Government, Sport, DCIS, and the Office of Central Australia – because we could not do it without people like these dedicated public servants who put in the hard yards, and provide very good, professional advice. Thank you very much for your support throughout the course of 2006. Have a very good Christmas, look after yourselves, and we will see you all back in 2007.
The other person I want to thank is Mike Dillon, who served as the Executive CEO of Housing and Local Government, first with Jack Ah Kit and then with me. Mike is a very excellent administrator and a manager. I know that the department has missed him and that the Northern Territory has missed him. Mike, to you, your wife and your family, thank you for all you have done in the Territory. We wish you the very best.
To Richard Galton, the previous Director of DCIS who has now gone across to DBERD, thank you for your outstanding service to DCIS.
To the people in my office upstairs on the fifth floor, thank you for all your support throughout the course of 2006. I know sometimes it has been a bit tough. I have been known to get a bit grumpy but …
Mr Bonson: It is true.
Mr McADAM: Mattie says it is true so it must be true. If it came from the other side, you would have to doubt it.
To Kerry Gardiner, thank you. Shelly Priore, my personal – well, she is not my personal assistant, she is my boss. Peter Holt has joined the staff of John Martin, Joshua Martin, Nicole Manison, Dianne Stanford and Deanna Hampton - thank you very much. I also thank people who have left that office: ‘Zipitty Zip’ Chips Mackinolty, Jamie Gallacher, Jeanie Govan, Donna Black and Leigh Gregory. Other people who have provided great support throughout this year are Michael Tatham, the head of the Statehood Steering Committee, Sharon McAlear and Nora Kempster, and Pat Hancock. Thank you very much for your work.
Gayle Dougall, who was my electorate officer, has now moved to Mt Isa. To Gayle and Michael, thank you very much; I wish you all the very best. Kent Peak, my old mate, who worked in the electorate office and was my campaign manager who is now working with Julalikari - thank you, Kent. To Claire Dreaver, my new electorate officer, and to her brother, Alastair, thank you very much. Thanks, Claire, for the hard work, and we look forward to even more hard work next year.
I pay tribute to all the people in the communities right throughout the Barkly - people in Borroloola, Barrow Creek, Mangoorbada, Robinson, Ali Curung, Alpurrurulam, Elliott, Kurundi, Epenarra, and Canteen Creek. There are probably some others I have forgotten, but they know who they are. I thank them for all the work that they do. I hope that 2007 is a lot better for all people out there. It is a tough life out there and I do not think we truly appreciate the effort they put in just to get by on a yearly basis.
To some of the organisations in Tennant Creek to Julalikari Council and Pat Brahim; Anyinginyi Health and Barb Shaw; and Karen Hayward from Papulu Appar Kari Language Centre. They provide a very professional, tireless service to people in Tennant Creek and are the great economic drivers in that community.
Also to all the nurses, teachers, doctors, health professionals, the police right throughout the Barkly, the ambulance people and firies, all those people who do excellent work, thank you very much. To all the volunteers - we do not sometimes recognise the volunteers enough - and you know who you are, thank you very much.
In conclusion, to my branch, thank you very much for all the support that you have given me. The local branch has increased significantly this year.
I want to thank someone very special to me and that is my partner, Barb Shaw. Thank you, Barb, for your wonderful support throughout 2006. I know that you are going to have an easier 2007. I look forward to spending a lot more time with you in the next few months. To my three children Allira, Ngara and Adrian, thank you very much; I love you all.
I believe it was the member for Braitling who said sometimes it gets a bit tough in here and you look for some inspiration. I pay tribute to Jane Aagaard, the Speaker of the House, because she has had a tough year. If we think we have had it tough, you only have to look to people like Speaker Aagaard for inspiration. She is the reason that many of us are in this place doing the job that we do. I wish you all a wonderful Christmas and a great 2007.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Katherine Region Tourist Association held its annual general meeting on Thursday, 23 November, at Knotts Crossing Resort in Katherine. The association covers a very expansive area, over 400 000 km2, so there is quite a diversity in tourism product. However, in the main, the region caters for and complements the drive market with numerous caravan parks and budget accommodation.
Over 50 people attended the AGM with several members travelling some distance. We were treated to a delicious three course meal which was enjoyed by all. Talking of travelling distances to attend, the president, Gary Higgins, and his wife, Rhonda, own Daly River Mango Farm Tourist Park. Their dedication to the promotion of tourism is evident from the amount of travelling they do in support of the industry. It is also always a pleasure to have as guests KRTA life members, Werner Sarny from Travel North, and Sylvia Wolf, who is based in Darwin but has long-time connections with Katherine since around 1969.
President Gary Higgins delivered his annual report and highlighted areas of concern for the development of tourism in the Katherine region. They were: difficulty with access, lack of signage and the disproportionate amount of infrastructure funding to regional Northern Territory. I could now add to this as well the speed restrictions on the highways. Hopefully, the new Minister for Tourism was listening intently and will be able to look into these areas of concern which affect regional development and our economy. The Minister for Tourism was present, and I thank him for being in Katherine at that time. He was presented with a framed print of our magnificent Katherine Gorge, which I have promised to check to ensure he hangs it in his office.
The election of the new executive resulted in the following for the year 2006-07: Gary Higgins was re-elected as chairman; and Willem Westra van Holthe from Maud Creek Country Lodge and Rick Murray of Middle Star Pty Ltd Consultancy were elected as vice chairmen. Elected members to the executive were: Werner Sarny from Travel North, Mick Jerram from Gecko Canoeing and Kookaburra Ventures, and Lisa Mumbin from the Jawoyn Association. Regional representative is Suzy Forwood from Bonrook Country Stay, Pine Creek, with one other vacancy to be filled. Nominated members to the executive are Alderman Trevor Ford from Katherine Town Council; Mark Crummy from Tourism NT; and Judy Faulks from Parks and Wildlife NT.
The experience that is within the new executive certainly augurs well for the Katherine region. I would like to place on the Parliamentary Record tonight some details about these executive members that were elected by ballot at the AGM. I have taken some of this information from the nominations for the positions.
Gary Higgins has held the position of chairman throughout 2006 and during the restructure of the KRTA during 2005. He was an elected regional representative of the KRTA executive committee in 2004. Gary has owned and operated the Daly River Mango Farm Tourist Park and mango operation since 1998 with his wife, Rhonda. Currently KRTA representative on the Daly River Management Advisory Committee, Chairman of the Lower Daly Landcare Group and Duty Officer, Northern Territory Emergency Services Daly River. Rhonda and Gary moved to Darwin in 1986, where Gary joined the Northern Territory government, holding positions as Director, Corporate Services, Department of Attorney-General; Commissioner for Consumer Affairs; Chairman of Private Security Licensing Authority and Controller of Prices.
Rick Murray arrived in Darwin in 1965, where he is still based. Until February this year, he was General Manager of Odyssey Tours and Safaris, which he established in 1988. Presently, he runs his own consultancy, Middle Star Pty Ltd, offering tourism business development services, and he serves two days a week as Manager of Savannah Guides. Rick served as a Commissioner on the Board of the NT Tourist Commission from 1992 to 1994, and has recently been appointed to the new Advisory Board of Tourism NT. He is Chairman of the Kakadu Tourism Consultative Committee and a member of the Kakadu National Park Board of Management. Rick currently represents the industry as a member of an advisory group for the CRC for Tropical Savannahs, which is encouraging environmental and socioeconomic research and development for tourism across northern Australia. He is also Director of Aboriginal Tourism Australia, and has recently also been elected as a board member of Ecotourism Australia. Rick has been Deputy Chairman of the Katherine Region Tourist Association in 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Werner Sarny - well, there are not too many people in the tourism industry in the Northern Territory who do not know Werner and his wife, Patricia. They have been operating Travel North in Katherine since 1966 and, since that time, have employed hundreds of locals in the tourism industry. They both have a strong commitment to the Katherine region, its community and the tourism industry. Werner was a founding member of the Katherine Region Tourist Association in 1969, and has held the position of chairman on 15 occasions. He has also served as vice chairman and as a committee member many times. Werner also served as Chairman on the NT Tourist Industry Association, as it was called then, for a period of six years.
I know of no other person in the Northern Territory tourism industry who has given such a long-serving commitment to tourism. Werner has been recognised for his outstanding service to the tourism industry. He was awarded the 1990 Chief Minister’s Award for Tourism and the Qantas Airways Award for Outstanding Contribution by an Individual in 1989. He was also awarded the Order of Australia in 2000. It goes without saying that he is a life member of the KRTA.
Willem Westra Van Holthe and his wife, Jennie, own and operate the Maud Creek Country Lodge, which they purchased in 2003. Willem has been in the Northern Territory Police Force for 18 years; for the past several years in Katherine. Willem has been a member of the KRTA executive committee in 2004-05 and again in 2005-06, and re-elected for 2006-07 as vice chairman. It is very gratifying to see Willem’s commitment to the promotion of the Katherine region by not only working with law and order in our community, but by establishing his family in the tourism business which enhances the visitor’s day to Katherine. Maud Creek Country Lodge is a great place to stay and is very close to Nitmiluk Gorge, another great tourism venture.
Mick Jerram is owner/operator of family business, Gecko Tours in Katherine, and has lived in Darwin and Katherine since 1984. He has been an elected member of the executive in 2004, 2005 and 2006, and re-elected for 2007. For the past two years, Mick has been Chairman of the Savannah Guides, and also has extensive training qualifications as an instructor in tourism outdoor and leadership. Gecko Tours were winners in the 2003, 2004, and 2005 Brolga Awards for the Ecotourism and Adventure Tourism categories, and Mick was also awarded the Outstanding Interpretive Guide Award. I can assure you that there was plenty of noise coming from our table at the Brolga Awards, and well-deserved celebrations. Mick and Gecko Canoeing hope to add another Brolga to his mantelpiece this weekend at the Alice Springs Convention Centre where the 2006 awards are being held. I will sure be there cheering him on.
This year, Gecko Tours expand to encompass Kookaburra Adventures and Speargrass Experience - which is adventure camping and deluxe-based touring throughout the greater Katherine region in Kakadu National Park. Mick is also involved with Manyallaluk in a mentoring capacity to continue to grow indigenous tourism products within the region.
Suzy Forwood has been in the Top End of the Northern Territory since 1978. Suzy and her husband, Sam, currently manage Bonrook Country Stay in Pine Creek and have been there for 10 years. Bonrook Country Stay is being run as a bed and breakfast with a horse riding operation, and is a very peaceful and relaxing place to stay. While it is now several years since I last relaxed there, I can thoroughly recommend Bonrook for a great escape from the hustle and bustle. Of course, if you love horse riding, it is an added bonus. Suzy was a regional elected member of the KRTA executive committee in 2006 and is looking forward to being part of the executive in 2007.
That is just a brief overview of the members of the Katherine region executive for 2007. As you can see, there is a great deal of experience from across a broad range of tourism involvement. Having been a chairman for several years, and also on the executive for an additional few years, I have a particular interest in the tourism industry and the benefits that it brings to regional Northern Territory, especially. The executive, with Shelly Davis as General Manager of Marketing, and her administrative assistant Bree Hepden, the Katherine Regional Tourist Association, I feel, is in good management hands to continue developing and expanding their marketing activities.
It was great to view the new television advertisements. They have been a while coming but are well worth the wait. Of course, the aim is to convert these ads to tourist numbers. Here’s hoping that tourist numbers for the KRTA will be better in 2007.
In closing this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot miss the opportunity to put on the Parliamentary Record some history about a person who has given long-standing and outstanding service to not only the Katherine Region Tourist Association but also the tourism industry, generally, throughout the Northern Territory. That person is Maureen Thearle. Maureen has resigned as manager of the Katherine Visitor information Centre as of 15 December, and will be joining her husband, Phil Thearle, near Coffs Harbour in New South Wales where they have relocated for family reasons.
Maureen began working for the Katherine Regional Tourist Association on a casual basis in 1992. Her enthusiasm and commitment to promoting not only the products in the Katherine region but wider Northern Territory was evident from the beginning. It was not long before Maureen was representing the industry at the annual trade and consumer shows which are held in each state of Australia beginning in Adelaide in February and ending in Brisbane in June. Working on the stands at these trade shows means long hours over several days and talking to thousands of people about what we have to offer. Believe me, it might sound glamorous flying off to interstate destinations, staying at lovely accommodation and talking with lot of people. Let me assure you it is hard work. Maureen can testify to the many aches and pains of standing for hours at a time, lifting cartons of brochures, and talking constantly while promoting the Northern Territory. She had many soaks in a bath and many early nights to get her energy for the next day. Invariably, Maureen returned to Katherine with a sore throat and a cold from sheer exhaustion. It goes without saying that the 10 years that Maureen attended these shows, she was always enthusiastic and totally committed. It was an outstanding effort and very much appreciated by the industry operators who always knew Maureen would do her upmost.
The trade and consumer shows that Maureen attended including caravan and camping shows, fishing expos, Australian Tourism Expo, Walkabout and backpacker expos. I cannot tell you offhand how many hundreds of thousands of people over the 10 years have attended these shows, but those statistics would be available through the Tourism NT.
In 2000, when I was the Chairman of the Katherine Region Tourist Association, I nominated Maureen for a Brolga Award for Outstanding Achievement by an Individual. The awards that year were held in the Araluen Centre in Alice Springs and we made sure that Maureen attended along with the General Manager, Bill Dawe, my husband, Mike, and me. Maureen had no idea she had been nominated so it was a wonderful surprise and well deserved when she was announced the winner and presented with her Brolga by Catriona Rowntree.
The tourism awards in 2000 were very special, indeed, with Pauline Rayner winning the Minister for Tourism Award for Outstanding Achievement in Tourism. Pauline’s and Maureen’s night was very special and one that they both deserved.
Maureen is moving from Katherine. It will seem so very strange to me that she will be no longer be in the visitor centre helping our tourists discover the many wonders of the region. However, all things do come to an end and, while Maureen has moved on, she will be living just an hour from Sydney and approximately two hours from Melbourne so she can still assist promoting the Northern Territory. Well done, Maureen, you can look back on your years at the Katherine Visitor Centre with pride and know that you have done your absolute maximum with enthusiasm, pride and commitment. My best wishes to you and Phil as your lives take a new direction. Remember, as one door closes another door opens.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to acknowledge Maureen Thearle and to place my personal thanks to her on the Parliamentary Record.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I thank all those who have assisted me over the past year and to wish my family and friends a merry Christmas and happy new year.
First of all I thank my mother, Rosanne, and her husband, Steve; my sister, Nicole and Chris Lewis; my brother, Luke Bonson; my nephew, Cowan Bonson; Aunty Esther Carolin; Aunty Josie Guy and David Guy; Yasmin Crawshaw; Bianca Crawshaw; and Trevor - there are too many to name at the moment - Travis Carolin; Chelsea Kerwick; and all my cousins on the Ruddick side. I would also like to thank my father, Robert Bonson; Uncle Don and Aunty Vicky Bonson; Greg and Linda Bonson; Dookie Bonson; Kathy Lyness; Annie Bonson; Uncle Joe - who sadly is no longer with us - Aunty Pat Bonson who like the Speaker, Jane Aagaard, is going through a very similar treatment with cancer; her son Joe, his wife, Pacita Bonson, their three daughters, Jodie, Jaylene and Jasmine; and Rodney Bonson and his wife, April Bonson. Unfortunately, it will be the first Christmas that Uncle John Bonson will not be with us. Thanks to his sons, Jason Bonson, John Bonson Jr and his wife and daughter; Uncle Kenny Bonson; Jacob Bonson and wife Shelly Bonson; Kane Bonson and Kristine Bonson; Aunty Patsy Davey, Dennis Carolin; Yvette Carolin; Aunty Betsy and Uncle Ian McLeod; Tania and Cecil Lewis; Anne Marie McLeod and Cyril Oliver; Donald, Kristy, Ankin, Elliott and Hannah, my godchildren; Sheree McCleod, Aunty Dori and Uncle Alan Oates; Colleen and Tamara Oates; Aunty Lynette Bonson; Trisha Stokes; Nathan Stokes; Sonia Stokes and partner John May; Donna Stokes; Aunty Lila; Christine; Jemma; and Harley.
I take the opportunity to thank some Milner residents who have been helpful to me over the years and whom I have known for a long time. They make up an integral part of the Milner electorate: Willie and Karen Markos and family; the Grant family; Aunty Ruthy; Dominic Dion; Nathan, Paddy and Peter and all your extended families; the Ah Sam family - Denise, Joe, Jason, Darren and children; and the Seden family - another large Darwin family - in particular Paul Seden, Peter, David, Peter Senior, Dallas, Eden and all the Sedens. I hope you have a merry Christmas and a happy new year, along with the Parfitt and Fejo families and, of course, the Ah Mat families.
I take the opportunity to thank the Mu family at Happy Foodland at Rapid Creek Shopping Centre: Victor, Marty, Paulo, George and their wives and children and Mr Mu Snr. I hope you have a merry Christmas and a festive season. You have been fantastic supporters and really community orientated people. Some people would not get through the week without the help of the Mus, in assistance with groceries and other items.
I thank certain members of my branch: Peter O’Hagan and Julie and their children, who often do work for me, Frank and Maria Moukaddem and their little bub. I would also like to thank John Oliver and his wife, Nicole Lewis, who is part of my branch; Joe Gallagher, Lesley Cameron, and Chris Karaolias. Without their hard work it would just make my job harder. I thank Betty Gould, a former member of the Coconut Grove Seniors Hall. Unfortunately, her husband, Kevin Gould, is no longer with us; we will miss him this first Christmas. I thank you for the support over the last five years. Without your help, there is no doubt in my mind that it would have been a lot harder to be re-elected.
I thank Aunty Maree De La Cruz for all the volunteer work that she does around the area; Aunty Rose Damaso, Robyn Pinkerton, Anne-Marie Scholl, Jane Biddlecombe and Dan. Thank you very much, Mick Hartwell. To Norm and Tania Hoffman and all the Hoffman boys, I hope you look after my son when he grows up, and keep an eye on him. To Esther Egger and Terry Lawler, local legend Ted Kilpatrick, and Mick and Dewi Purcell and the kids - you are fantastic people and I wish you best as the chairman of the local school at Ludmilla.
I thank Ronnie Mitchell for all the help, Kenny Cosser - go the St George Dragons, - Glen and Jacinta Stanford, Ronnie Riddle and the Riddle family, Michael Cubillo and the Cubillo family, Ken Jackson, Wes Miller, Mick Lemmon, Steve Billias - a fantastic supporter, thanks for all your help, Michael McGregor, Damien Zammit, Aunty Stephanie Zammit and Dennis Lew Fatt, and Benny and Aunty Sandra Lew Fatt. Also to Johnny Politis and the family at BP Bagot Road, thank you for all your help over the last year and years before.
I also thank my local schools: Pam Young at Nemarluk school; Dr Terry Quong at Millner school who is doing a fantastic job and we all appreciate his help; Helen Southam at Ludmilla school and Mary Cutjar at St Paul’s; and to all the staff who do a fantastic job. They work very hard and I hope to continue to work with them in the future.
Jan Cook is the Principal of Millner Preschool. She has been an icon at the Milner Preschool and really makes people feel comfortable, and I thank her for the work, along with Nicole Shoobridge and Sarah Penny.
I cannot forget one of the backbones of my community in the Millner electorate, the Coconut Grove Seniors Hall Committee. Terry Hine, the new chairperson, is going to be a fantastic asset for the Coconut Grove Seniors Hall and I will enjoy working with him in the future. Audrey Svara the secretary, Bridie Kuskey, the treasurer, Carmen Greene, the booking officer, Bill Parry, the public officer - Bill is bit of a character and I enjoy working with him, and, on the committee, Maureen Hack, Hannah Stamm, Rhonda Blaser, Joan Morse and Vic Delacour, otherwise known as Ginger – a bit of a character that we have to work with.
I would like to mention a couple of close friends, Michael Devery, Paul Seden, Reggie Saylor, and a friend of mine no longer with us - we had a debate on the roads, and Michael Edwards, unfortunately, died on the roads. His family came out in strong in support of the changes. Tim Edwards, Patrick Edwards, and Jackie and Stem, thanks for all your support. Joe Ah Sam, Glen Dooley, Rocky Cousins, David Parfitt, James Parfitt, Kenny Sutton, Damien, Shaun and Aaron Kneebone, thanks for all your help and I will continue to try to provide any assistance I can. Brendan Atkinson, Barra, thank you for your help. Matthew and Johnno, without your support, it would make the job even more difficult. I thank Marian Patterson, one of the unsung heroes of the Millner electorate, without whose continued input keeping me up to date with issues, I would find it difficult.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Hansard for all the hard work they do during the year. Anyone who knows and works with the Legislative Assembly staff understands that when you ask advice, you get open and honest advice and usually the best advice available. They do all the work, running around for us and helping our electorate. Without their help, we just could not operate.
I thank all my colleagues who have worked hard over the last year. It has been a hard year because we have taken on some hard issues. I believe we are starting to come out of the other end of the tunnel. I would like to thank the member for Johnston, dragging me out in the early hours of the morning every Sunday and keeping me honest. That is Chris Burns, of course and, without his help, no doubt over the last four or five years we have supported each other, we might have fallen over a couple of times.
I mention Speaker Jane Aagaard. When we talk about ourselves having a tough year, with all the issues to deal with politics, then you realise that people have personal lives. The Speaker of this House, Jane Aagaard, and her family, have not only had to deal with the tough political year, but also with tough personal circumstances. I am very happy to see her, as are all members, coming through with flying colours. I look forward with working with her in the future.
I also thank my in-laws, Betty and Ziggy Vogt, Richie Vogt, Willy Vogt, Ziggy Vogt Jr, and young Joshua. Thanks for all your help and support.
Finally, I thank my wife, Mona Lisa Bonson. This year has been a good year for me; I have had my first son, Matteo Raphael Bonson. He has been a delight to be around and, over the last eight months, has made a difficult year in political life and work more enjoyable because you can always come home and be with your family. Without their support and continued support in the future - you have to have a yin and yang balance, career and family. I look forward to enjoying my life as we go on and, hopefully, adding to that family over the next few years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year, and I look forward to working with you in the year to come.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, it was with tremendous sadness that I learned earlier this month of the death of Percy Ellis on 5 November 2006. Percy was a wonderful man who will be sorely missed by his family and many friends. Percival Alwyn Ellis was born in Esperance, Western Australia on 16 May 1931. In the 75 years of his life, he touched many people with his warmth, generosity, kindness and courtesy. He spent the last 52 of those years with his wife, Judy.
In 1972, Percy and Judy came to Darwin. Their plan was to stay for a year and, like many Territorians, they never left. Percy was working with Amscol when he arrived, and later took over the Birds Eye frozen food transportation into the Territory. The frozen food came into the Northern Territory, while pet meat consisting of buffalo and donkey, went back down south on the trucks.
Birds Eye pulled out of the Territory after Cyclone Tracy and Percy’s career path changed. He joined the Education department as the purchasing officer, buying clothing and groceries for teachers in remote schools.
After a year of this, he was asked to draw on his background in carpentry and teach building maintenance at the missions. While he was passing on his woodworking skills at the missions and outstations, Percy studied at night to become a qualified teacher. He obtained his teaching qualifications and then spent nine years out at Gunn Point Prison Farm teaching the inmates. Percy taught a range of useful subjects: carpentry, plumbing, building maintenance, brick making, wool clipping, fish net making, and cooking - one of his great passions.
He spent any spare time doing the rounds of government agencies scrounging, begging and acquiring all manner of books, materials and tools to outfit his workshop. Judy was thrilled one day when Percy brought home an all-singing, all-dancing Kenwood mixmaster. Percy then broke the bad news; it was for the workshop at the prison farm, not for her. Percy’s workshop was his pride and joy. His scrounging enabled him to assemble a tremendous library and all the tools and implements necessary to work the vegie gardens, the fish traps and the kitchens. Percy also became an expert in helping the vets out with artificial insemination to improve the cattle stock.
In 1974, Alf Goody asked Percy and his son, Michael, to umpire some Aussie Rules games. So began Percy’s umpiring life. Percy umpired 522 NTFL games, including 243 A Grade games, 14 grand finals and one representative game, earning him life membership of both the NTFL in 1984 and the NTFL Umpires Association. He also organised the annual Umpires Carnival for nine years, from 1974 to 1983. ‘
Everybody knew Percy; he was the gatekeeper at the Royal Darwin Show from 1974 until 1980. In 1975, Percy joined the Royal Agricultural Show Society of the Northern Territory, becoming a councillor in 1981. Percy put in many years of dedicated service to the Royal Darwin Show and, in November 1999, he was elected President of the Royal Agricultural Show Society of the Northern Territory, a position he held until November 2004. During his term as president, Percy hosted the 1998 Royal Agricultural Show Society of the Commonwealth Biennial Conference which was held in Darwin. He also oversaw constitutional changes which introduced a board of management, dealt with the effects of the introduction of the GST, organised the society’s 50th birthday celebration in 2001, and implemented a major infrastructure upgrade in 2004 which meant the opening of the show that year was a close run thing.
While at Gunn Point Prison Farm, Percy encouraged the inmates to enter exhibits at the agricultural show, and they won many prizes for their pigs, bread, and fruit and vegetables. Many years after Percy left the prison system, he was still being stopped in the street by ex-prisoners who would thank him for his help, support, and advice, especially for the skills he had passed on during his working life in the prison system.
In 2001, Percy was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in the General Division for Service to the Community, particularly through the Royal Agricultural Show Society of the Northern Territory and as an umpire of the Australian Rules football. He was also a district winner of the Territorian of the Year Awards for Darwin region in 1999.
When Percy was not working, umpiring or devoting great amounts of time to the show society, he was making furniture and toys for family and friends, or handmade crab pots for his mates. He also made ginger beer and home brew, cooked cakes and scones, and even coerced me into baking a cake for the 2004 Royal Darwin Show.
I sum up Percy very simply: he was a giver. He gave of his time, his skills, his knowledge, his love, his energy, his wisdom and his creative ability. Percy leaves behind his wife, Judy, his sons, Michael and David, and his four beloved grandchildren. Vale, Percy Ellis, a true gentleman.
Tonight I also wish everybody in this House and in the wider community a very safe and happy and healthy Christmas. 2006 seems to have flown by. Personally, I have had a very busy year with stimulating portfolio challenges and complex electorate issues. However, I am fortunate to be surrounded by some wonderful people who have ensured that I have enjoyed these challenges as we continue to move the Territory ahead in such a positive and successful fashion.
My electorate, as always, is close to my heart. I try to spend as much time as possible in the Johnston electorate office to meet people who visit me there, and offer assistance to the best of my ability. I especially enjoy getting out doorknocking and catching up with my fantastic constituents. It is a privilege and an honour to be their local member.
During the year, I have mentioned in this House some of the wonderful achievements by people who live in the Johnston electorate. They include Jingili’s Tahnee Afuhaamango who won gold, silver and bronze medals at the World Down Syndrome Swimming Championships in Ireland in September; and Moil’s John Waldmann the inventor of Waldmann’s Multi-Panels as featured on the New Inventors program. Of course, in Wagaman, Graeme Sawyer, who lives up the road from me, is so instrumental and effective in the FrogWatch organisation and all the great work that they do.
Jingili Primary School’s made incredible fundraising efforts for their sister school in Leu Lau in Timor. All the schools are blessed with talented children and I enjoy watching them grow and hearing of their exploits and accomplishments. However, schools cannot operate effectively, nor students achieve their goals, without dedicated teachers and committed school councils. I take this opportunity to thank Steve Sjoberg, Principal of the Casuarina Senior College and all the members of his staff; Michelle Cody, Principal of Wagaman Primary School and her team; Eva Lawler, Principal of Jingili Primary School and the teachers and the administration of staff there; and Pam Erfurt, Principal of Moil Primary School as well as Ian Butler, Deputy Principal and all her workers. Thank you for all your excellent work you do for our children. Honestly, you could not find a better mob.
The school councils meet every month. I try as hard as possible to attend these meetings to stay in touch with the schools and their concerns. I have been very impressed this year with the calibre of the members and chairs of all the school councils and particularly thank Libby Smith of the Casuarina Senior College Council, Kelly Anstey of the Jingili Community Council, Gail Cumming and Sita Harrison from the Moil School Council, and Justin Heath of the Wagaman School Council for their commitment and input into the running of our schools. Of course, the chairs need support and the committee members and executive officers of these councils have ensured the smooth running of the schools and meetings in my electorate. I wish them all great fun during the coming school holidays and a very happy Christmas.
As members would be aware, I try to make myself available to the public every Sunday morning at the Rapid Creek Markets. Over the years, I have become a small part of that colourful market community. If anyone wants to see multiculturalism in action they just have to get down to Rapid Creek Markets on a Sunday. I feel a sense of pride when I see Darwin locals bringing their friends and relatives from interstate and overseas to the markets to absorb its unique atmosphere. To my Sunday morning market devotees, I wish you all fresh fruit and vegetables for many years to come.
I have to mention Judy Herring, my electorate officer, who continues to give me enormous support in her role. I also thank Kathleen Francaro, Erin Grace and Russell Wilson, who helped out his year when Judy took time out to play bridge and go fishing. Being a minister means I also shift a greater workload on to my electorate officer, and I am very lucky I can depend on Judy in every way.
I also have a few stalwarts in my ministerial office to keep things ticking. Vanessa McCall has been with me since I first became a minister. Her steady and dependable approach to a very heavy workload is very much appreciated. Jade Carroll has gone through the last portfolio change with me and keeps me in line and on the go with all the different demands and duties of being a minister. I thank both Jade and Vanessa for all their efforts in times of change and challenge. Our office is amazingly busy, and these two ladies ensure it is a fantastic place to work despite the hectic pace.
During the year, my colleagues and I - that is all of us - have spent 11 weeks in sittings, and it never ceases to amaze me how the Hansard and Tabled Papers staff manage to produce such great work supporting us, particularly the Hansard staff in the form of a bound book from our debates and committee work. I thank Helen Allmich and her staff, Sue Gray, Robyn Smith, Elizabeth Olajos and all the casuals who stay up way into the night deciphering and transcribing our words.
I compliment the Legislative Assembly’s Clerk, Ian McNeill, and Deputy Clark, David Horton. They do a magnificent job in maintaining Parliament House and ensuring faultless parliamentary sittings. I am looking forward to going to Alice Springs in April.
I thank Vicki Long, Director of Parliamentary Services, and her staff who ensure the smooth running of members’ electorate offices. I also acknowledge the work and support of Mary-Anne Almond and Cherie Thorpe who are unflappable in dealing with crises as they arise in the ‘burbs and in the outback.
Every officer in the Legislative Assembly has an important role to play and, together with my sincere thanks to each and every one, I wish them all a very merry Christmas.
We all have family. Elizabeth has been my rock throughout this hectic year, and I thank her from the bottom of my heart. My sons, David and Daniel, and my daughter, Amy, are all out in the workforce now and I appreciate the hard work that they do. I thank my family for their patience and good humour throughout the year. As part of my family, of course, I thank the mighty Bruiser. He will be there tonight when I get home. You might have noticed he had his picture in the paper the other week, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is not a political dog; he is just a dog, but he is a very special dog. I value his friendship and companionship.
As many members have done this evening, on a serious note, I thank Madam Speaker for her determination and guidance in this House, particularly the support and guidance that she gives me.
To all members in the House, I wish you all the very best of good health for the future, particularly Madam Speaker. I wish everyone a wonderful Christmas with your family and loved ones.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge members of my electorate and the hard work they have done over this year and thank them.
The community of Wadeye certainly experienced some difficulties earlier in the year. I welcome the new CEO, John Berto. I believe John will do a fantastic job. He was certainly well accomplished in his role with the Northern Land Council prior to starting at the Thamarrurr Regional Council. I wish John and his wife all the best for the new year and I look forward to working with him to improve the conditions there. There are two of my good friends down there who I thank for all their support, Mandy Leggett and her partner, Paul. The work that they do there is fantastic.
There are several local people to thank: Tobias and Alunga, whose work at the school is fantastic, with Tobias taking the role of co-principal, which is a challenging one. He is doing a great job and I hope that we can see some further advances in the new year. Anne Rebgetz, the other co-principal, and her husband, Pat, who is the local GP, have certainly energised both the school and the clinic and I thank them for their work through the year. I look forward to that continuing in the new year.
A couple of friends of mine are William and Michelle Parmbuk. William is taking on a role with the gas pipeline and has done a lot of work with the army cadets, and Michelle works with the Traditional Credit Union. Good luck through the Christmas break; I wish you well.
I want to acknowledge a mate of mine, Jack Wodidj Jr. He is the president of the Nganmarriyanga Community Government Council. He lost his father this year; it was very sad. I wish him all the best for this Christmas without his father. I look forward to the new year and all the developments that are happening around the Palumpa area.
Stephen and Anastasia Moore started this year at Peppimenarti Council. I know Stephen from way back. He is certainly getting things in order. With Anastasia’s work at the art centre, I am looking forward to some interesting development of that art centre, which really centres around Regina Wilson and her family. They are a fantastic family; they work very hard in that community. Regina is one of the most accomplished artists around the Northern Territory, I would say, and I hope they have a very joyous Christmas and a new year.
My uncle, Terry Sams is at Emu Point. They had the opening of their school this year. It was a fantastic day out there, and it all comes back to the work that Terry has done with his family. I hope they have a good year. They got trapped in the floods this year. I hope we do not have a repeat of last year.
The Pine Creek community has advanced this year with their mining interests, and I thank all the people at GBS Gold. Tony Simpson, and his staff have work to ingratiate themselves in the community and put the community first. I look forward to further discoveries of deposits and a longer life for that mine.
To a few friends of mine down there, Skins and Leonie, thanks for your support this year to not only me but my family. To Chris Mason and his wife at the pub, it is good to go in and have a chat with them and get a few tips for the horsies. Thanks again for your friendship.
Duncan Beggs has certainly been very helpful this year with his involvement with Territory Iron. I am very excited about the mine starting next year, and the employment and growth in the Pine Creek community that that will bring. To Ray Wooldridge and the councillors, Pine Creek Council is one of the most successful councils that I have seen around the place. There are a couple of others I will mention later. Good work, and we look forward to working in the new year.
To the Kybrook mob, and Maria Lee, who took over this year as president. She is a great, very strong lady. I know there are some challenges at Kybrook and we certainly will get stuck into those in the new year. Also, thanks to Robert Liddy for his management of the association.
This year, obviously, the floods incorporated both Katherine and Mataranka. Steve and Debbie at the Mataranka Homestead suffered quite significantly. This year, they fought back; they got the place going. It is a fantastic job they have done and a credit to them. Fingers crossed, nothing will happen this year, and I hope they have a very peaceful Christmas.
Barry Sharpe and Ann Kanters run the pub at Larrimah. I have had a bit to do with Barry and Anne over the years. They were fairly instrumental in organising the Back to Birdum weekend which I attended with my son this year. It was a fantastic day, and they keep Larrimah on the map as best you can. I look forward to catching up with them.
Around the Daly area, there is, obviously, a lot of activity. As has been mentioned in the House previously, Gary Higgins and his wife, Rhonda, do a fantastic job. They drive me mad - that is their job - and I look forward to chasing up every little issue that they bring up because I know it is to the benefit of that region.
There is Nola and Steve Foster. Nola works at the school and does an absolutely great job. That school is bursting at the seams and I dread to think how many more kids will turn up in the new year.
I thank Harold Sinclair, the president of the development association, and Val Cowan and her husband. Val stepped down as secretary this year, but she did absolutely fine work this year in writing me lots and lots of letters and keeping the interests of the association alive.
Special thanks to Betty Daly. She is a stalwart of the Nauiyu community. She has been involved with the Wooliana School more recently, and is moving things ahead. Also to Brian and Lina who have been good strong supporters of mine. Brian runs the Bushfires Council. I thank all the Bushfires Council brigades; they do an absolutely fantastic job. We had major fires in the Douglas Daly and the Darwin rural area, and those volunteers deserve a lot more. I hope we, as a government, can do a lot more for them. I hope they have a peaceful, wet Christmas and have a bit of a break for a while.
Robbie Robinson is someone who does a great deal of work in the rural area. He is on schools councils for Berry Springs and Taminmin, and is always bringing issues to me on behalf of the rural area. I pay credit to him for all the work he does. He has been at the forefront of the childcare issue there. I thank Robbie for his support this year, and hope I can reciprocate that.
Sheila Delahay and her staff at the Berry Springs school do a fantastic job. It is an excellent school. We had the opening of their shade over their basketball court this year, and it was only achieved through their fundraising. I make recognition of that and this government putting in additional dollars to make it happen. Well done, Sheila and your staff, and I look forward to catching up with you in the new year.
I also thank the Coomalie Council and Lisa Wain and her staff who do an absolutely fantastic job to service the Adelaide River, Batchelor and Lake Bennett areas. A special note to Cliff Walton who started this year as their recreation officer. Cliff has organised Auskick programs and footy carnivals, and he has certainly re-energised that sport and recreation area. The community is certainly appreciating it.
Nina Keener, who has Nina’s Ark and looks after animals which have been hurt in road accidents. She does a fantastic job with those animals. I hope she has a nice, peaceful Christmas and a happy new year. I hope that the stress she has had about mining exploration in the area has eased, and she continues the fine work she does.
A special thanks to Rod Elvish at Compass Resources who participated in a number of events that we organised this year. Compass is very community minded and is going to transform the Batchelor community. I cannot wait until it gets into full swing. Batchelor and those other centres are struggling with issues that they do not mind struggling with; that is, shortage of housing and staff. The population will grow and I look forward to working with Rod and his staff in the new year.
The members and committee of the Adelaide River Show Society have done a great deal of work this year. I am the patron of the ARSS Club - an ARSS patron in some ways. They put in a hell of a lot of time; they organise the show and the races. The Adelaide River races is shaping up to be one of the finest bush races in the Territory, if not Australia. Special thanks - and I am not going to get everybody but I will just mention a few names - to Debbie Koch, Trish Forscutt, and Jane Ellem and her partner Karl who are disappearing for about six months on a trip around Australia. Thank you, Jane, I appreciate the time you give me and hope you and Karl have a great trip around Australia. Also to Sandy Maclean who is the president of the association. She certainly keeps it on track.
I make a special acknowledgement of the Wagiman Guwardagun Rangers. They are a Landcare rangers group from Kybrook and they won the Alcan Landcare Indigenous Award 2006. They received the recognition at the national level. The award was presented to this outstanding indigenous community group that has adopted sound land management practices and is working towards cultural sustainable land use. It is a great recognition for a small community. There are many Aboriginal ranger groups around the Territory, and it good to see that the Kybrook mob and the Wagiman mob won that.
I will just mention their names: Jabul Huddleston, Cedric Blitner, Laurie Corrigan, John Kulwain, Damien Ritchie, Brenda Huddleston, Verona Huddleston, Elizabeth Sullivan, John Lee, Rhys Lee, Timothy Lee, Geoffrey Coleman, Jamie Corrigan, and Colleen Alangale. There are also people who came and went. It is great work that they have done. Also, their facilitator is Veronica Birrell. It is great acknowledgment for the Northern Territory, let alone their communities.
Following on from other statements this evening, I also say a special thanks to the parliamentary staff. They do a great job; they certainly put in the hours. To the Legislative Assembly staff starting with the Speaker, I thank them for all their work.
I would just like to finish with special thanks to my family. They have put up with a hell of a lot. I do not spend a great deal of time at home. I say a special thanks to my wife Tracey, to our children, Jacob, Dakota and Lily. I certainly hope I can spend some more time at home over Christmas and next year. Thank you very much. I know you put up with a lot from me. I love you very much and I hope we have a great Christmas and new year.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016