2002-05-15
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I rise today to report to the Assembly on the way this government is building a better future for aged Territorians through the provision of land for nursing homes.
Since coming to power, this Labor government has worked hard to ensure that aged Territorians and their families can stay in the Northern Territory. One major impediment to that has been the lack of nursing home accommodation. Whilst in opposition, Labor promised that we would ensure that land was available for a nursing homes to expand their services. The federal government has now made provision to increase the number of nursing home beds in the Territory.
The first proposal we dealt with was from Masonic Homes. They received an allocation of land within the former Tiwi Primary School site on which to develop a nursing home facility. I made an offer of a Crown lease to Masonic Homes over approximately 9900 m of Lot 9489, Town of Nightcliff, on 24 January 2002. This Dry Season, Masonic Homes intend to commence the construction of a 50-bed facility to a value in excess of $4m. I believe that this construction is happening at the moment.
As an aside to this, I am pleased to say that this government has also moved quickly to resolve problems related to the Territory Kidz Childcare Centre. The operator of Territory Kidz Childcare and Education Centres, Ms Louise Fitzmaurice, who leases part of the former Tiwi Primary School, raised various concerns about the condition of the school buildings, especially the section she occupies. Negotiations with Ms Fitzmaurice have culminated in an agreement to house the childcare facility in a demountable building for the duration of her lease. An offer to purchase part of the school site will also be made to Ms Fitzmaurice to enable the construction of a new childcare facility.
The decision to proceed with the Masonic Homes development has necessitated consideration of the future of the school buildings. To improve the amenity of the site and to remove what has become a liability, given the age and condition of the buildings, the school is to be demolished in the near future.
The Salvation Army has also received an allocation of nursing home beds from the Commonwealth government. Following receipt of its allocation the Salvation Army approached the government to help identify a green fields site on which to establish a 75-bed nursing home facility. The Salvation Army’s requirement was for a site no further out than Nightcliff to replace its Mirambeena Street facility. My Department of Infrastructure, Lands and Planning and Environment has completed a detailed site assessment in consultation with the Salvation Army. Crown land, as well as private land options within the Darwin and Nightcliff areas, are very limited. The former Waratah Sports Club is the preferred site. The work done by my department with the Salvation Army in respect of a site for a nursing home has resulted in the Salvation Army developing a strategy to rationalise its Darwin land holdings. My department, in conjunction with the Salvation Army, is currently looking at site options to accommodate the Salvation Army’s planning objective.
In just eight months, this government has moved rapidly to resolve the long-term nursing home needs of our ageing population, through the provision of land. It is a sign of how this government intends to target our needs as a community, and how we are prepared to contribute land - that could otherwise be sold off at a profit to government - towards building a better Territory.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, the Minister for Lands and Planning ended by saying that, in just eight months, this government has resolved the issues to do with nursing home beds. That is a little simplistic given that, when we were in government, we were working with both of those agencies - that is Masonic Homes and Salvation Army - to provide land for the expansion of nursing home facilities in the Darwin area.
I gave a letter of ‘in principle approval’ for the construction of a nursing home on the Tiwi campus site to Masonic Homes quite some time ago - in fact, probably about a year ago - so that they could proceed to make their application to the Commonwealth for funding for nursing home beds, for which they were successful. You forgot to tell the House and Territorians that this is the culmination of work that had been going on for quite some time; in fact, quite a number of years.
I am glad that has culminated in the location of a nursing home at the Tiwi campus site - a good site chosen well back, as I said - and that you have also resolved the issue of the Territory Kidz Childcare Centre and Ms Fitzmaurice’s issues. I gave her every reassurance that her five-year lease with the former owners of that site from the Northern Territory University would be upheld, and that her facility would be taken care of in the scheme of things.
It is good news about the Salvation Army. The Waratah site that has been chosen can only be considered because of the moves that we took in moving the Waratahs, at some cost to the public of $750 000, to their new site and facility at the Gardens Oval. That is good community land and a site that - in consultation with the community - can be used effectively for such a nursing home facility.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for his comments. This government has no problem identifying and recognising the efforts made by the other side. The provision of aged care facilities and these kind of services is not a matter for politics; it is a matter for consideration by both sides. At the same time, this government moves quickly why it has to provide these kind of services, and we try at the same time to avoid mistakes that were made by the previous government - let’s say, for example, the Moran facility at Myilly Point.
At the same time, we are prepared to provide land or to make a decision to also consider other players in the area and the people who are going to be affected. Ms Fitzmaurice was certainly going to be affected by the development of the Masonic Homes facility. Her argument was that, despite the assurance by the previous government that she was going to stay there for the duration of her lease, the previous government would not assure her that they were going to relocate her if the school had to be demolished to make space for the Masonic Homes development. We have a solution now that will provide us with a new aged care facility and, at the same time, will accommodate a change of premises for Ms Fitzmaurice to avoid any dangers to the kids.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS: My apologies, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I made the commitment in the previous sittings to bring regular reports back to this House in terms of the progress of the Darwin-Alice Springs railway. In what has been a project full of milestones, the commencement of track laying stands alone. For many Territorians it will represent the true start of this long anticipated railway. Track laying commenced in Katherine on 8 April, and in Tennant Creek on 15 April. To date, 31 km of track has been laid; 36 000 tonnes of steel has been delivered to the Katherine and Tennant Creek railway yards; 690 km of corridor has been cleared; 432 km of embankment has been completed; 386 km of the capping layer for the final preparation before actual track laying has been completed; and 14 of the 97 bridges have been completed, and work is underway on the major bridges at both the Katherine River and the Elizabeth River.
A bridge that will not be built is the bridge which crosses the Ferguson River. As a testimony to the philosophy of building things to last, the bridge which the North Australia Railway used to cross the Ferguson River, after the new track is laid, will be used to carry trains on the Alice to Darwin railway being constructed today. We believe this bridge was built in 1915.
Mr Stirling: A bit better than the Adelaide River bridge, isn’t it?
Mr HENDERSON: I will table a current photo of the Ferguson River Bridge. As members can see, it is not a particularly edifying looking structure, but I have been advised by the ADrail engineers who have determined that, after minor repairs and alterations, it will be used …
Mr Reed: Probably as close as you have ever been to it.
Mr HENDERSON: No, I have been. I pick up on the member for Katherine’s interjection. He has not said much in these sittings so far, and it would be interesting to get a contribution. Given that a lot of this is work actually happening in his electorate, I would think he would be a bit more supportive of it. I move on.
The engineers have advised me that this bridge will be able to serve the new railway as faithfully as the old railway.
The member for Barkly, who is a lot more supportive of this project than the member for Katherine, was there when residents had the chance to watch the mammoth track laying operation in action as the railroad tracks passed the Warrego Road. The crossing, about 35 km north-west of Tennant Creek, is the first major road crossed by the fast-growing railway project. Locals say 75% of the town turned out for the event, which gave residents their first chance to watch the track layer in action. Buses were busy all morning ferrying local school children and the elderly to the site to watch the action and enjoy a sausage sizzle.
The construction of the railway is having a major impact on Northern Territory business. More than $650m in contracts have been let since the construction of the railway began, and more than half of these have gone to Territory businesses. The benefits of the project are being felt across a range of industries. 5000 small field orders have been placed with Northern Territory companies and another 10 000 are up for grabs between now and the end of construction in early 2004. I urge anybody with an interest in the railway and upcoming work to ensure they are registered with the local ISO.
During the last sittings, the Leader of the Opposition asked for detailed information about contracts let on the project, and I would like to table here for members a list of contracts that have been let to date on the project. The information is also available on the ADrail web site: www.adrail.com.au. I urge honourable members to keep an eye on that web site. It is updated every couple of weeks and provides all of the information on the project that members would require. ADrail’s web site also includes information on tenders forecast for the next three months.
Some businesses have raised concerns regarding the late payment of invoices by ADrail. In most cases, late payments are caused by insufficient information on the invoices. ADrail have prepared an information kit for contractors to ensure invoices meet standard practices. The information kit has been sent to every contractor conducting business with ADrail, and this initiative has resulted in a reduction of the number of complaints.
Employment and training on the railway project is reaching its peak, with 814 people presently employed, 508 from the Northern Territory. Picking up on comments yesterday, since October last year we have seen job growth in the Northern Territory of about 3600, 15% created directly from this project. It is a very important 15%, but other government initiatives such as QuickStart, an additional $15m to capital minor new works spending, and the increasing number of tourists coming to the Northern Territory, have certainly generated a lot of the additional jobs. A total of 400 Territorians have undertaken some form of training for the project, 140 of these indigenous Territorians; that is over 33%, which is a great effort. Employment and Training has also agreed to fund an access program in hospitality, which will be conducted in Tennant Creek and Katherine, and feature 30 participants, again sourced from the NLC and the CLC.
In conclusion, the railway has provided a huge shot in the arm for Northern Territory and South Australian economies and, combined with the East Arm Port development, it is crucial in terms of linking us with our lucrative Asian markets. With track laying now officially started, the enormity of this project and the massive economic potential that comes with it is closer than ever to being realised. I know that all members of this House are watching the project with interest.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Thank you, minister. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that update and, unlike some members of the House, I will not be critical or picky.
There are few occasions when I feel a great deal of envy of your position in government, and one of them is when you can stand here and applaud the success of the railway project. It is a wonderful project for the Northern Territory, it will be of great benefit for, not only the Northern Territory, but for Australia. There have been many people who have had a role in that project, and you are fortunate now, in government, that you can reap many of the benefits from that wonderful project, including the employment benefits that have come.
I might add - and this is, I know, a little personal - but it has disappointed me that, on not one occasion, has the Chief Minister been able to mention my name in relation to the railway project. It was quite disappointing to see the new Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, fly John Olsen up to that track laying ceremony, recognise his commitment and his part in that railway project personally, and the Chief Minister could not even bring herself to mention my name once. I think that is really unfortunate.
Ms Martin: You refused to go initially. You turned down the offer to attend.
Mr BURKE: But, that aside, I thank the minister for his information.
Can I raise two points, very quickly?
Ms Martin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: When it comes to the progress of the railway, it is astounding, not only the work that is occurring in Katherine and Tennant Creek, but as close as Marlow’s Lagoon. I was out walking the dog the other day and I got a hell of a shock. I thought it was the new road to the BMX Club, but it was the railway corridor running straight down to the Elizabeth River Bridge. If anyone wants to see what’s happening directly with the railway, go and look at the progress that is there with the corridor going through to the Elizabeth River Bridge and the work on that bridge.
Can I pick up on one of the issues that has been raised by the member for Blain? A very important issue, I believe, and that is, let’s get a fishing platform on that bridge; it really is needed. This is the sort of nitty gritty stuff for Territorians, that we’ll reap a tremendous benefit for recreational fishermen who fish on the current Elizabeth River Bridge. It is very dangerous, you can’t stop them from fishing there. A platform on the new bridge as part of that construction project would be a wonderful initiative of government.
Secondly, can we get a decision on where these railway stations are going to be? If we look at the tourist growth on the railway alone, Great Southern have a plan for the future. Territorians want to know where the railways will be. They know the design and scope will need to be of such a standard that provides a great tourist facility. Palmerston people and Darwin people want to know where the railway station is going to be …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr BURKE: … as do the Katherine people, want to know exactly the scope and design of that railway station and where that locality will be.
Madam SPEAKER: I would make the comment that the Independent members were also disappointed they did not receive an invitation to that particular event. So, I will allow the Independent member to make a comment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker, I was not going to comment on that. I also, like many other Territorians, welcome the railway and I have two points to raise.
One is, I would like to thank ADrail for their concern about preserving the Livingstone Airstrip. I gather the corridor at that point is the narrowest on the whole route, 40 m wide. If anyone goes past that area now they will notice that they haven’t destroyed the airstrip. I hope maybe Transport and Works or Infrastructure people might also take note of that when they are designing a road close to the Strauss Airstrip.
I also would like to raise an issue with the minister - and I think the member for Daly would also be concerned about what is happening …
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I’ll do it for you. I think trying to maintain and save the Adelaide River Historical route is important. It may not be that significant in the bigger picture, but to have that as a future tourist operation is something we should be trying to save.
Lastly, I would also support the Opposition Leader, who talked about the fishing platform. The idea has come from the member for Blain. I think it is a great idea, and at least a fishing platform gives the fish a bit of a chance.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, it is great to see that you can get fishing into virtually every debate in this parliament, if you try hard enough.
I can say to the House that the issue of the Elizabeth River Bridge and the fishing platform is being considered by government. We are into a budget process and that will certainly be considered.
Picking up on the Leader of the Opposition’s comments, it is not this government, or me as minister, reaping the benefits of this project; it is Territorians; it is Australians. It will serve the future of the Territory absolutely magnificently when this project is completed. It is a great Territory project. The Leader of the Opposition certainly had a large role to play, as did the previous minister, Barry Coulter. Lots of people have had a role to play in terms of bringing this great Territory project to fruition. We look forward to the opening of the railway in 2004.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I rise today to report to the House on the progress this government has made in establishing land use objectives for key areas, and in progressing the development of the Territorial-wide planning scheme.
The Finniss/Marrakai land use objectives were exhibited together in 1999. The work was subsequently separated and that relating to the Finniss subregion is now before government for determination. It is my intention to deal with these matters in a very speedy fashion, as further development in this area has been frozen pending final decisions on some critical issues. This was a policy decision of the previous government, and has been maintained by this government. Further development of the land use objectives for the Marrakai subregion requires additional consultation with land owners and other stakeholders, and will progress independently.
The Litchfield land use objectives and planning concepts have been on public exhibition once more, and the Development Consent Authority heard submissions on 2 April 2002. I have received the authority’s report on the hearing, and expect a report from my department in the near future. In addition, my officers met with the member for Nelson to discuss issues raised by him. We will be preparing a report to Cabinet to make a final decision in the near future. I am particularly pleased to advise members that, in the case of public comments on the draft land use objectives, my department advised all respondents of the consideration of the issues they raised. It is this responsiveness to the public that I intend to make my hallmark approach to planning matters.
The previous government promised the delivery of land use objectives for southern suburbs in 1997, prior to the elections, but they never delivered. I am very pleased to announce that in eight months in government, I now have land use objectives for southern suburbs. We also have land use objectives for Darwin Central 2 and Nightcliff. My office has briefed the opposition shadow minister and the member for Port Darwin; the Chief Minister, in her capacity as member for Fannie Bay; the member for Nightcliff; the member for Millner; and the Parap Residents Association. The Darwin City Council has received advanced copies and arrangements are being made to brief the relevant aldermen. We will also brief the Stuart Park Residents Association in the near future. Once those briefings are completed, the government will be placing these land use objectives on public display for two months. The act requires only one month, but in the interest of public consultation, we are committing the extra month. The documents that will be displayed are draft documents. We will take all public comments seriously, and each person or group who makes a submission will be advised of our consideration of their view.
Finally, work is continuing on the Territory-wide planning scheme; a critical document for the future development of the Territory. Cabinet has given the go-ahead for further development of the scheme, which will provide a consistent planning framework across the Territory. The next stage will be public display of the issues of the planning scheme, which we will be doing in the next couple of months. I am very pleased with the progress this government is making in setting into place key elements of our planning framework. It is critical for the future of the Territory.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, isn’t it just incredible that nothing changes but everything changes? The brand new Planning Act that I brought in, was bagged by this mob, especially by the Chief Minister who was then the opposition planning minister. Now we have a process that we started from that date, to bring in a Territory-wide consistent scheme. You would remember that, Madam Speaker, because you were part of that. They claim that this is their project.
The Planning Department has been working on the planning scheme with agencies and councils all around the place, and is receiving very good feedback on making it a consistent scheme. The other item that the minister mentioned was the Central Darwin LUOs that we put out in 1999. Once again, bagged by the opposition; and on process, I might say. Now we have the southern suburbs which began from that point; it was the next extension of central Darwin. Once again, they bagged the process. In fact, the now Chief Minister who was the planning shadow spokesperson at the time, said of the central Darwin process:
Those are her words: And the process has not changed. What a great process, what an endorsement for the way that we did business. I congratulate the minister, particularly for giving me a briefing prior to the release of the southern suburbs which …
Ms Martin: Did you understand it?
Mr BALDWIN: Did I understand it? I created them and you bagged them, and now you are in here saying: ‘This is a great process’. What a deceitful person. She is on record - there are reams of it. They carry on with that great process. I congratulate the department that is doing this work because they have carried on the same work that we implemented. It is a great process and Territorians should be proud of the planning processes that they have.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, regarding the LUOs for Marrakai and Finniss, I congratulate the government for at least bringing those forward. But, I would make the point that for many years we have been promoting the concept, especially local government that, at the moment those areas only have a development consent authority where the minister has the final say. If the government is serious about community consultation it will make a development consent authority similar to other parts of the Territory where people who live in those areas can have a real say.
I would also ask the government to try and make the Litchfield, Marrakai and Finniss land use objectives compatible. It seems strange to me that you can subdivide a block of land in Litchfield where you are required to have one hectare of dry land and you also must have domestic water supply; you go to other parts like Marrakai and Finniss and that particular regulation does not apply. I do not know why people who buy land in one part of the Top End have different rules from other parts. I think the two should be compatible.
The other area I would like the government to look at is that the East Arm and the TDZ zone should also have a development consent authority where the public can have a say. There should be land use objectives for that area because it is one area which is developing fast, yet the public does not seem to have a say in the matter. In keeping with the government’s policy of openness and transparency, especially with planning, I would like them to take up that issue as well.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I noticed that the previous government started a lot of this process, but I am very critical of the time it took to actually be finalised. It was the member for Nelson who drew to my attention to the face that land use objectives for Litchfield took enormous time to be finalised. I instructed my department that they will process, immediately, the land use objectives for Litchfield and the southern suburbs. On 28 April 1999, the member for Daly, then minister for planning, promised that the Litchfield Shire land use objective would be delivered in the coming year. He came back again, on 20 June 2000, and promised ‘the southern suburbs, with the CBD this year’. He then came back again one year later and promised that the southern suburbs will be delivered this year.
Promises, promises, promises but we never see the draft document. Well, now he has an opportunity to see the draft document. He was briefed by my office, by my department and, certainly, we will brief every minister, every shadow minister, every member who’s going to be affected by the action of my department.
On the matter that the member for Nelson raised, I am already considering that some of these land use objectives will not be considered by the minister only, but may involve advice from the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority to the minister. So, it is not going to be only the minister as the consent authority for Marrakai and Finniss area. That will be part of a review of the Planning Act.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table Message No 5 from His Honour the Administrator recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act authorising the issuing and expending of the public monies of the Territory in respect of the year 30 June 2003.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill, the subject of Message No 5 from the Administrator read earlier this day, be now read a second time.
Authority to spend monies under the 2001-02 Appropriation Act lapses on 30 June 2002. This year, the budget will be presented to the parliament in August, and legislative authority is required to enable government expenditure to continue from 1 July 2002 until the 2002-03 Appropriation Bill is debated and passed by the Assembly.
This interim authority is effected through the Supply Bill 2002-03. August budgets were the norm until only eight years ago and government expenditure was authorised by supply legislation every year. This is not an unusual situation. As the purpose of the Supply Bill is to enable expenditure of public monies until the budget is actually passed, the objective is that the total amount of funds authorised in the Supply Bill should be sufficient to cover prospective expenditure until passage of the Appropriation Bill. However, agencies cannot assume that particular appropriations from 2002-03 are inferred from supply provisions.
The Supply Bill provides funds for the first five months of the financial year, based on 50% of the 2001-02 current year outlays adjusted for 2002-03 special needs. This amounts to an appropriation of $1 604 100. This includes an allocation of $24m for the Treasurer’s advance, from which the Treasurer may allocate funds for the purposes specified in the bill including allocations to activities which have no allocation in the Supply Bill, and other unforeseen expenditures.
The Supply Bill provides sufficient funds to ensure the continuation of capital works programs, road works, grant programs, and normal services of government. There is no reason for the machinery of government to slow down or come to a halt on the premise the budget will not be passed until September sittings. I want to make that assurance very clear.
The Supply Bill provides sufficient funds for normal government business to continue until the 2002-03 Appropriation Bill is passed. The Supply Bill schedule details allocation at agency levels and reflects the administrative arrangements of 4 March 2002.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 53), Misuse of Drugs (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 (Serial 54), and the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act Repeal Bill 2002 (Serial 50): (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings of the bills together; and (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
There are two major parts of the Misuse of Drugs Act to be dealt with by these amendments. The first part is to provide for a ‘drug premises’ division in the Misuse of Drugs Act, along with necessary consequential amendments to the Residential and Commercial Tenancies Act and to the Liquor Act.
The second part deals with amendments to provide for both technical and substantive improvements to the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act to facilitate police practices and prosecutions of drug cases in the courts. The purpose of this bill is to implement major parts of the government’s three-point plan on drugs and drug-related crime.
The ‘drug premises’ division contains new powers designed to protect the community against drug dealers and manufacturers. For this government, the issue is simple. If we as a community want to combat crime, particularly property crime, we must introduce measures to prevent and deter the manufacture and distribution of dangerous drugs. The link between drug dealers and manufacturers and organised crime is well known. Police intelligence data indicates that some drug premises operators in the Northern Territory supply drugs in exchange for stolen property, forcing those who are addicted to these drugs to steal or deal in stolen property to maintain their habit.
The traffic and trade in dangerous drugs also has a significant impact on community health. The 2001 report into illicit drug use in the Northern Territory identified that amphetamine and methamphetamine use is increasing, particularly amongst young people. It has further identified that intravenous use is the most common form of administration. This carries associated risks of harm from infection and the transmission of disease by shared needle contact. Of utmost concern is that those who took part in the study identified that amphetamines were relatively easy to obtain, and the number of local suppliers and manufacturers had increased.
This government has always been clear on the link between drugs and crime. While in opposition, my colleagues and I consistently brought information to the House regarding the Territory and the rest of Australia, to demonstrate that link. While the then Chief Minister and Attorney-General dismissed the problem as minuscule, we listened to what people were saying and brought forward a range of strategies to deliver the outcomes that Territorians want; and that is, a safer community.
Dealing with drug premises orders. The bill provides for a new division 1A of the Misuse of Drugs Act: drug premises orders. The drug premises order target a particular type of drug supplier. It targets those suppliers who are able to sustain a drug business network primarily through rented premises. Police advise that dealers in these premises usually operate by having possession of small amounts of prohibited drug at one time so that they can deliberately avoid being caught with a trafficable amount. Consequently, it is unlikely they can be found guilty of an intent to supply these drugs. These dealers set up sales which allow the purchaser and other dealers to attend at the house briefly, purchase the drug and leave. If police attend the premises and charge a person, that person leaves the premises, but the business of dealing is simply taken over by the next person. The premises themselves continue by the strength of their reputation to be the drug premises. The staff of the drug premises simply turn over as they come to the attention of police. Consequently, police have been left with an operational problem concerning proper enforcement on these premises.
Advice from police indicates that the same conduct occurs at certain commercial premises where the only significant commerce taking part is drug dealing. On many occasions, police also attend to drug incidents on licensed premises. The bill recognises that a manager or landlord in these circumstances cannot control the type of clientele who visit the premises. However, the bill provides that some disciplinary control can and should be exercised over employees and agents by the management of the licensed premises.
The new division targets suppliers, those whose occupation or business it is to provide dangerous drugs. It does not target users and persons in simple possession who can be dealt with under the existing laws. The new division does not alter any of the existing powers of the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed against offenders of any type.
The bill provides that, if police reasonably suspect premises are being used for the supply of drugs, police can make an application to the local court to have the premises declared drug premises. The division applies to all types of dangerous drugs. The trend nationally, and in the Territory, is that a range of drugs is available from drug premises, not just cannabis, speed or heroin. Drawing on the operational experience of the NT police, the bill also provides that the quantity of the drug is irrelevant to the proceedings for a drug premises order. It is the activity of supply which is targeted. There are two ways in which police may make an application. First, if there are indicators that the premises are drug premises, police may rely on these indications to form the basis of an application. Those indicators are listed in section 11C and include such things as whether police have been obstructed in their duties on the premises; whether persons are acting as lookouts around the premises; whether things found on the premises indicate manufacture, supply or use of a drug; or the presence of documents, cash, persons under the influence of drugs, and the presence of drugs. If these indicators exist in a 12 month or lesser time period, the Police Commissioner may apply to the local court to have the premises declared drug premises.
The other way that premises may be declared drug premises is if police reasonably suspect that the supply of drugs is taking place from or at the premises, and the police find dangerous drugs on the premises on three separate occasions within a 12-month period. In these circumstances, police may also make the application. There is some modification for commercial or licensed premises in the sense that the three seizures must relate to employees or agents of the management, or the landlord or owner themselves. In relation to this second type of application, police must make a record of each seizure and give each affected person a warning that, after three seizures, an application may be made for a drug premises declaration. This is one of the safeguards built into the act. Individuals are on notice, and managers may take action in relation to their agents or employees, before any further adverse action is taken.
The application made to the local court is made ex parte and on affidavit evidence. Before the court can make an order, the court must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises has been used for the supply of drugs. If the court makes the declaration under section 11M, police must make all reasonable attempts to ensure that a copy of the order is served on the owner, landlord or tenant within seven days. A drug premises order has no effect until it has been served on all affected persons, and police have affixed a notice to an entrance door advising persons about to enter, that the premises are a declared drug premises.
It is the view of the police that a number of drug houses will cease operation once steps towards the making of an order are made. It is certainly our intention that, in addition to the serious criminal consequences that flow for drug dealers and manufacturers, the operation of this legislation will have the effect of making the business of drug supply extremely unprofitable and uncomfortable for these people. It will take a truly resilient drug dealer to continue business once drug premises orders are made but, if they are resilient enough to have had an order made against the premises, a number of adverse consequences flow. First is the notice itself. Second, police may utilise all their search and seizure powers under the Police Administration Act without the need for a warrant.
A series of new offences apply to attempts by persons to interfere with police executing their duties under this path. The bill will, by clause 11S, also provide police with the power to obtain a restraining order against a person who has committed a breach of the peace on a declared drug premises. This has been included to deal with problems identified by police; namely, that the fights and noise associated with drug premises can be difficult to deal with by those whose properties neighbor drug premises. Further, if police do find drugs in a common area of a declared drug house, the existence of the drug premises order is something the court can take into account in determining whether the person was themselves exercising control over the drug. That is, it provides an ease of proof mechanism. Anyone convicted of possession of a drug in a declared drug premises will face an aggravated penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Under consequential amendments to the Liquor Act, police may apply to the NT Licensing Commission in relation to licensed premises declared to be drug premises, to suspend the liquor licence for a period of up to 14 days. Further, eviction may be made easier under consequential amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act and the Commercial Tenancies Act.
The bill does provide for persons affected by the order, such as the owner, landlord, licensee or tenant of the premises, to apply to the court for the order to be revoked. The court may take into account the fact that the landlord has evicted or served a notice to quit on the tenants, in deciding whether to revoke the declaration. The court is empowered to revoke the order if it is satisfied that the premises are no longer being used as drug premises.
To implement our law enforcement strategy, we must be prepared to resource and provide the necessary tools to those in the front line - the police and our court system. The laws must allow the police to act with confidence to do the job the community requires of them, and to result in successful prosecutions. This bill contains further amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act to streamline police operational responsibilities and provide the tools police require to carry out their duties. It operates by:
I now turn to explain each of these amendments.
Dealing with the amendment of definition of ‘analyst’. The first amendment is of a minor change to the definition of ‘analyst’. This change allows for the tendering of analysts’ certificates from interstate in Territory proceedings. In recent years, there has been a increase in the number of cases where drugs have been seized in one jurisdiction and the prosecution takes place in another. Recognising the certificate supplied by the qualified analysts from any other Australian jurisdiction reduces costs by eliminating the need for re-analysis in this jurisdiction for the purposes of prosecution. It also saves significant costs in relation to air fares, accommodation expenses and appearance fees of an interstate analyst having to come to the Northern Territory to give evidence.
Dealing with admixtures: the bill amends the act to provide a more realistic and effective approach to the prosecution of drug dealers. The act currently provides for prosecutions to occur based on the quantity of pure, prohibited substance in a person’s possession. It is a well known fact that people who deal commercially in drugs cut the pure drug with other substances. This increases the profit from a minimal amount of the drug many times. We have brought some reality into the situation by recognising that a dealer does not sell pure drugs for profit, and a buyer does not expect to receive pure drugs in a deal. This bill amends the act to provide that a reference to a dangerous drug includes a preparation or mixture of that dangerous drug, which may include a substance which is not a dangerous drug, but contains any proportion of that dangerous drug.
Initially, the definition was based on the ‘admixture’ definition section 4 of the New South Wales Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 which provided:
However, after further examination it was decided that the current definition gave a far broader definition than that of the admixture definition in the New South Wales legislation.
The result of this amendment is that it is not necessary that a prosecution prove the actual amount of the particular prohibited drug contained in any substance which is the subject of the charge. Where there are two or more prohibited drugs in any substance, the charge is laid upon the more serious drug. The bill provides a stronger approach to prosecutions for possession of, or dealing in quantities of prohibited substances, and is consistent with my government’s strong stance against illicit drug dealing.
On the matter of precursors, documents and the equipment of manufacture: this amendment captures a person who has in their possession precursors commonly used in the manufacture or production of a dangerous drug. A precursor is a substance that is specified in the regulations. It will be an offence for a person to have in their possession documents which contain instructions on the preparation or manufacture of a precursor or a dangerous drug, when these documents are found in combination with other equipment used or about to be used in the manufacture or production of a precursor or a dangerous drug. There is also a separate offence created for a person to possess equipment, an implement or an article which may be used, or has been used, in the production or manufacture of a dangerous drug or precursor.
These provisions have been drafted to allow a court to use the proven fact of possession of a precursor, document or equipment as evidence indicative of an intention to use the precursor, document or equipment in the manufacture or production of a dangerous drug or precursor.
It is also important to note that the quantity of drugs involved in the manufacture process is irrelevant. The whole point of this amendment is to target all levels of manufacture, whether it involves a small amount or a very large quantity of a prohibited drug. It is the act of manufacturing or preparing to manufacture which attracts the penalty.
Dealing with pre-trial destruction of dangerous drugs and precursors: the main aim of the pre-trial destruction amendment is to act as a safety measure. There is concern that the requirement for police to hold large quantities of dangerous and decomposing drugs constitutes a danger to security and health. The amendments are also regarded as an effective anti-corruption prevention measure.
Currently, Part IIA of the Misuse of Drugs Act provides for pre-trial destruction of exhibits that are dangerous drugs in three ways. Firstly, police can make an application to a magistrate for an order to destroy the drug. Secondly, a police officer of the rank of commander or above can order the destruction if he or she is satisfied that there is no lawful owner, and no one is to be charged in relation to the offence. Thirdly, an officer of or above the rank of commander may order the destruction if he or she is of the opinion that a dangerous drug could not reasonably be securely retained pending a magistrate’s order.
Police have estimated that applications for pre-trial destruction of drugs cost $10 000 per year. The power of police officers to order destruction is generally only used in relation to the destruction of cannabis plantations. In the case of other drugs, police are required to secure the whole quantity of the drug prior to the application to court for destruction.
Northern Territory police have, at times, held up to 1100 drug exhibits at one time. Some exhibits of drugs have been held for more than five years. The storage of decomposing cannabis and other drugs is a considerable health risk and requires extensive storage space. The amendments provide that the Commissioner of Police can order the destruction of a dangerous drug or precursor, providing that steps are taken to ensure that the defendant is afforded natural justice. Firstly, a minimum of three samples are taken of the property seized; the samples must provide a true representation of the nature of the property taken. Secondly, a person who has been charged or will be charged with an offence has been notified of his or her right to have the sample independently analysed. Further, there are the normal chain of evidence requirements in place to ensure that evidence is properly documented by the police.
Section 29 of the Misuse of Drugs Act already provides that the production of an analyst’s certificate is prima facie evidence of the results of the analysis, and the identity and the quantity of the drug. Therefore, if there is any dispute regarding these matters, the analyst’s certificate can be conclusive evidence, especially if no evidence is offered to the contrary. Ultimately, it will be for the court to decide whether the analyst’s certificate is conclusive evidence of the facts alleged.
On the matter or pre-trial destruction of dangerous substances and equipment, these amendments are aimed primarily at decreasing the risk to police of exposure to dangerous chemicals used in the manufacture of drugs. Although these substances are not generally drugs or illegal substances in themselves, they may still pose a risk to safety when stored or handled. The provisions have also been extended to cover equipment contaminated with such substances. Similar safeguards have been put in place to ensure a defendant is afforded procedural fairness. A sample of the dangerous substance, if practicable, is taken to enable the defendant to independently analyse the sample. All reasonable steps are taken to notify the defendant of this right.
The amendments contained in this bill assist in controlling the health and security risks associated with the storage of large quantities of perishable and dangerous goods, while ensuring that defendants are provided with procedural fairness. They will result in more efficient court procedures for drug offences, and provide for uniformity of legislation with regard to prosecutions for commercial dealing in illicit drugs.
Regarding the medical examination of detainees: the Northern Territory police already have extensive powers of examination and search under section 145 of the Police Administration Act. This existing power allows a member of the police force to arrange a medical examination on a person in custody on a charge if the member believes that, on reasonable grounds, the procedure may provide evidence relating to an offence. This amendment will provide police with the power to detain a suspect if they reasonably suspect that the person may be concealing a suspicious substance on or in their body. The detention is to enable police to arrange for a medical and dental examination of the person within a reasonable time, by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner. The amendment allows use of the most modern technology available, providing that the examination may be carried out as unobtrusively as possible, by X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound or scan.
Moving now to the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act Repeal Bill 2002. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act 2001. Members will recall the debate which occurred in this House on 4 July 2001. On that date, the standing orders were suspended. During the debate, a number of my colleagues, then members of the opposition, expressed concern about the legislation. We were concerned that it was vague, and we were concerned that it duplicated, as a purely political exercise, powers that already existed within the Summary Offences Act. We were concerned that it would not address the underlying problems leading to antisocial conduct, and that Territorians were not generally agreed that this was the right thing to do. My former colleagues, the members for Barkly and Arafura, both identified the fact that, rather than deal with the symptoms, we should deal with the underlying social problems. The member for Nhulunbuy, the then shadow Attorney-General, spoke extensively on the flaws in this piece of legislation. I think it is worthwhile quoting from his reply. He said:
It is all very well for a bill or an act to contain strong powers, but they do not mean anything without the will and resources to enforce those powers. It was the hallmark of the CLP to repeatedly introduce legislation to increase penalties and powers but, despite all their rhetoric, nothing changed. They did not have the will, they did not allocate the resources, they did nothing to address the problems, and nothing at all to address the underlying causes of these problems.
The first step in the process of dealing with these problems is by repeal of this legislation. It serves no useful purpose. This government has acted quickly to bring forward legislation to tackle the most serious problem. The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill fulfils this government’s commitment to introduce legislation to reduce and eliminate the ability of dealers to do business through residential, commercial or liquor premises. It fulfils this government’s commitment to crack down on drug houses and those centres of supply which we know exist in our towns and neighbourhoods.
This government is committed to a law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance when it comes to drug manufacturers and suppliers. This bill creates new offences, gives the police new powers, and gives more options to courts to stop the traffic and trade in drugs, which is so harmful to our community. The amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act to incorporate the new division of drug premises, and the associated reforms, will address these problems. Increased resourcing to the Northern Territory police and the doubling of the Drug Squad will address these problems. The law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and distribution will address these problems. This government is serious about serious measures to combat drug abuse and drug-related crime. Our words are backed up by the action we have taken today. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Members: Hear, hear!
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the bills entitled Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002 (Serial 56), the Bail Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 57), and Parole of Prisoners Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 58): (a) being presented and read a first time together, and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage and the third reading of the bills together; and (b) the considerations of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of these bills is to amend the Criminal Code with respect to both the defence of insanity, and the want of understanding in an accused person. A defence of mental impairment will replace the defence of insanity, although the substantive law regarding the defence remains unchanged. The provision dealing with the want of understanding in an accused person will be replaced by provisions dealing with circumstances where a person is unfit to be tried for a criminal offence. The legislation will provide progressive and long overdue reform. There will be new procedures for dealing with persons being tried by the Supreme Court who are believed to be either unfit to stand trial, or whose mental competence to commit a crime is in question.
The Administrator’s pleasure system will be abolished. This system has meant that, when a mentally-ill person has been tried for an offence and found not to be criminally responsible for an offence because of their mental condition, the court had no option but to commit them to prison ‘until the Administrator’s pleasure is known’. This system was drawn from the criminal law of the 19th century; drawn from a time when people shunned the mentally ill, treated them as being incurable and needing to be locked away to protect the rest of society. Indeed, the provision of the current section 382 of the Criminal Code replicates provisions dealing with the disposition of persons under the United Kingdom Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800, which required persons found to be insane to be held in strict custody ‘until His Majesty’s pleasure be known’. The only way in which a person could be released from such custody was by the Administrator in Executive Council exercising his power of release. No wonder that a phrase was coined that ‘His Majesty is seldom pleased’. Such a system brings political pressure and influence to bear on decision making. It is a system that has been abolished in other jurisdictions.
We have moved well past the time of thinking that the mentally ill were incurable lunatics. Modern understanding of mental illness includes compassion, and we should not be punishing people for behaviour that was outside their control. The Administrator’s pleasure system did precisely that, incarcerating a person potentially for the rest of their lives for an action that was brought about by an illness. Modern views also include an understanding that mental illness may be treatable, and that the mentally ill do not have to be incarcerated indefinitely to protect the rest of society.
There are, of course, questions of public safety that arise in these circumstances, but these are not questions to be answered by politicians; these are matters of the criminal justice system itself. Courts have the role and responsibility of balancing the rights of individuals with the protection of the community. This legislation will therefore provide for the Supreme Court to determine questions of detention and release. In doing so, the need for community safety is specifically drawn to the court’s attention by this bill as an important determinant of their decision making. If the court considers that the safety of the public will be, or is likely to be, seriously at risk if a person is released, then they must not order that person’s release.
There are also problems with the provisions in the Criminal Code that provide for persons who are unfit to stand trial for the offence with which they have been charged. The basic principle of our legal system is that a person is entitled to a fair trial. The fitness provisions deal with the situation where fairness cannot be achieved because of the condition of the accused. Factors such as the inability to understand the nature of the trial, or being able to understand the substantial effect of the evidence presented, mean that a person cannot be fairly tried for an offence with which they have been charged. This inability may arise from a number of different causes. It can, obviously, arise in some instances where a person has a mental illness, although not in all cases. It may arise in the case of an intellectually disabled person. There may be cases where the accused is suffering from severe physical illnesses at the time of the trial. There are a wide range of conditions that must be taken into account in provisions of this nature, and the law must provide some means of dealing with these situations.
The problems are not new ones but they have become chronic ones for the proper administration of criminal trials and for the safety of the community. Ironically, whereas the old insanity provisions had the potential for indefinite incarceration so that people might continue to be locked away long after their illness was cured or controlled, the flaws in the unfitness provisions have resulted in a situation where potentially dangerous individuals cannot be retained in custody, and are released back into the community with no treatment and no supervision. Some of these offenders have continued to reoffend, causing serious injury and potential death to others.
The issue of the adequacy of the fitness provisions has existed since at least the 1980s. In 1983, the case of Jabanardi, the Federal Court pointed out difficulties with similar fitness provisions in the then Criminal Law Consolidation Act. Justices Woodward and Jenkinson commented:
However, no attempt was made to address this problem when the criminal law was codified. The current fitness provision, which is contained in section 357 of the Criminal Code, provides only three options for a person found to be incapable of understanding the trial proceedings - discharge, bail, or an order that a person be kept in custody in such a place and in such a manner as the court thinks fit.
The Northern Territory Supreme Court is taking the view, consistent with that of the Federal Court almost 20 years previously, that this provision is insufficient to warrant holding a person in indefinite custody where there will never be any possibility that they can answer the charge against them. Consequently, the court’s only option has been to discharge the person unconditionally. This is a highly unsatisfactory situation. Not only does it expose the community to potential risk, but it also fails to provide even a basic measure of responsibility and care for a person who has a disability.
The court is powerless to order any measures that might prevent a recurrence of offending. It is unable to provide any measures that might assist the accused person to become fit to be tried so that the charges against them can be properly tested. It cannot protect the safety of the community by providing for an accused person to be detained where the circumstances might require that step to be taken.
The Northern Territory is not the only jurisdiction to face these problems. The other jurisdictions have also had provisions in their legislation that provided for detention ‘at the Governor’s pleasure’. Other jurisdictions have also faced the difficulties associated with persons who are not fit to be tried. A committee established by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, the Model Criminal Code Offices Committee, considered these matters. In 1995, this committee developed a Model Mental Impairment and Unfitness to Stand Trial Criminal Procedure Bill, known as the Model Bill. The Model Bill provided a means of addressing the problems associated with these issues. Other jurisdictions have either adopted its terms or taken it into account in drafting their own reforming legislation.
Whilst the legislation is not uniform across the country, it does have common themes. The manner in which those suffering mental or other disabilities are treated in the criminal justice systems in this country, should be a matter in which some uniformity exists. But the Northern Territory, under the previous government, declined to act on these reforms. This government, however, took immediate steps to address these issues. In October 2001, I approved the terms of reference for a section 382 committee, a committee of Department of Justice and Health representatives tasked with reviewing the current provisions of the Criminal Code and advising on a possible reform.
Although the committee’s terms were initially to look at the questions relating to section 382 - acquittal on the grounds of insanity - the issue of fitness was quickly identified as a matter which also required consideration, and the committee moved to explore those issues. By November 2001, this issue was incorporated in a range of matters for discussion and review. In January 2001, the Department of Justice prepared a discussion paper about the legislation and procedures in place in Victoria, legislation which is based on the Model Code Mental Impairment Bill. The bill that is before the Assembly today is substantially based on the Model Bill. It will provide for humane means of dealing with persons suffering mental or other disabilities who are charged with serious offences. It will provide protection for the public where that is required. It will balance each of these interests.
We are not altering the substantive law of the old defence of insanity. We are removing a term that is archaic and offensive. We are not putting in place a reform that means that people will get off crimes, but we are making reforms that will see appropriate use of the defence of mental impairment. In the past, accused people have only raised the defence for the most serious of crimes - usually murder - because the result of the defence was indefinite incarceration in a prison.
There is little point in raising a defence that might see you incarcerated for life when pleading guilty would result in a lesser sentence. This reform will provide an appropriate recognition and dealing with people whose mental competence is an issue in the commission of a serious offence. It will allow them the opportunity to raise the defence and to be dealt with in a manner appropriate to their condition.
The bill that is now before the Legislative Assembly is primarily procedural and dispositional in nature. It alters the court procedures for dealing with questions of mental competence of persons who are alleged to have committed crimes and procedures for their disposition. It alters the procedures for dealing with an accused person who appears not to be fit to stand trial. Once again, the substantive law has not altered; the criteria by which a court is required to assess a question of fitness to stand trial is not altered. The proposed amendment, in fact, preserves the criteria for fitness that has long operated under the common law and which has received the approval of the High Court.
In general terms, the bill will achieve the following reforms: firstly, the issues of mental impairment and unfitness to be tried will be isolated from the other issues of the trial and require separate consideration. Then, both the defence of mental impairment and the issue of fitness to be tried will be matters for a jury. Where an accused person has been found unfit to be tried, the court will be required to determine whether the person will become fit within 12 months. This not only provides both an opportunity to allow a person to stand a full trial where they only have a temporary disability which may respond to treatment, but it also ensures that there will be some finalisation of the matter where an accused person will never become fit to be tried. Where it appears to the court that the person will not become fit within 12 months, the court must hold a special hearing. This could occur immediately following on from the hearing as to fitness and where the same jury moves on to consider the remainder of the issues, or it may be adjourned for a period of time. The purpose of the special hearing is to allow the evidence of the prosecution to be tested to determine whether, in the absence of any input from the accused, the accused is not guilty of the offence charged, or whether, on the limited evidence available, the accused committed the offence charged. This is an important reform because the current unfitness provisions do not require the court to give any consideration as to the factual basis of the alleged offence, or to any defences which might be available to the accused.
The decisions regarding detention and release are to be made by the court. Persons to whom these provisions apply deserve the same level of protection as others do, from an independent role of the courts within the criminal justice system. Courts have the role and responsibility of balancing the rights of an individual with the protection of the community. Where a person has been found not guilty on the grounds of mental impairment, or has been found unfit to be tried, the court must either discharge the person or declare that that person be liable to supervision. The court must then proceed to consider the nature of the supervision order that it will impose. It does so by receiving the reports of those expert in the supervised person’s condition and a treatment plan for managing the accused person’s mental impairment, condition or disability. It may be noted that the term ‘treatment’ is used in a broad sense; that is, it includes not just treatments that may effect a cure or some recovery, but also treatment in the sense of dealing with or handling the person’s condition, which may be one not susceptible to cure or improvement. Acquired brain injuries or severe intellectual disabilities are examples of conditions that cannot be treated, but may be successfully managed to improve outcomes for the person.
Supervision orders may be custodial or non-custodial. Custodial orders include provision for a person to be detained in a prison, but only where there is no other practicable alternatives available for their circumstances. There is to be an ongoing review process of persons under supervision orders. The court has the power to vary or revoke orders. This provides flexibility so a person may be transferred from a custodial to a non-custodial supervision order with conditions such as treatment, medication, accommodation and reporting imposed. They may, equally, be transferred from a non-custodial situation to a custodial situation where issues of safety arise. An emergency power of apprehension and the ability to apply to a court in urgent matters, by phone if necessary, ensures a rapid response to any situation that may arise.
The court is required to set a limiting term equivalent to the period of imprisonment or supervision that would have been appropriate had the person been found guilty of the offence. A major review must be conducted by the court at least three months before the expiration of the limiting term, and no longer than six months before that date, to determine whether the person subject to the order should be released from it. In making this determination the court is required to release the person unconditionally, unless it considers that the safety of the supervised person, or the public, is likely to be at risk if the person is released. This limits the possibility of persons being incarcerated for a period longer than they would have served had they been convicted of the offence, and removes the disincentive for the use of the defence for less serious crimes in circumstances where criminal responsibility should not be attached because of the mental impairment. It does, however, preserve the ability of the court to continue detention for those cases where safety is a serious issue.
The bill will provide for the continuance of committal proceedings where questions of competence or fitness arise, and for a procedure for the referral of those issues to a Supreme Court. This remedies a defect that currently exists which has required some matters to be dealt with by way of ex officio indictment; that is, directly to the Supreme Court.
There is a provision for expert evidence on which the court bases its decisions. The court may receive reports setting out the views of the victims, or the next of kin to a deceased victim, and the next of kin of a supervised person, when determining all matters to do with the supervision orders. Where relevant, a report may be given as to the views of the community of an Aboriginal person. Finally, there is a provision for the notification and consultation of next of kin, primary carers and victims in decisions and, where necessary, counselling of those persons where a decision has or may be made for a supervised person to be returned to the community.
Transitional provisions provide that the existing Administrator’s pleasure detainees are deemed to be subject to a custodial supervision order and, within six months of the commencement of the legislation, must be brought before the court for a major review. The ability to reindict a person discharged under the previous provisions on fitness is preserved.
The Parole of Prisoners Amendment Bill 2002 and the Bail Amendment Bill 2002 make amendments consequential to this legislation. The Parole of Prisoners Amendment Bill will add to the functions of parole officers the duty to supervise a person placed under their supervision on a non-custodial supervision order. The Bail Act amendment will allow a person who represents a person, in respect of whom questions of fitness and mental impairment arise, to enter into a bail undertaking on their behalf.
There will be many issues of a practical and administrative nature which will require consideration for the successful implementation of this legislation. It is proposed that, by the end of the first two years of operation of the legislation, a review will be conducted to consider its effectiveness. We will not allow the continuation of an ineffective and impractical regime, as has been the case in the provisions that will be replaced by this legislation.
These reforms are long overdue. The member for Araluen apparently appreciated this in introducing her private member’s bill last sitting. Unfortunately, the bill had so many flaws, its operation would immediately cause problems for the court, and result in costly appeals. Let me go through, in some detail, the defects in that bill. First of all, the Carney bill uses the terminology ‘the court’, which will mean a judge sitting alone. It will lead to the judge, and not the jury, determining the factual aspects of a charge. This is a radical departure from the criminal trial procedure as we currently know it.
The bill proposes that a court inquire into the question of whether the person ‘had a guilty mind’. The term ‘guilty mind’ could not operate within existing criminal responsibility provisions of the code, which address questions of authorisation, justification and excuse. The bill directs the court to impose the same sentence on a person incapable of understanding, as would have been imposed on a guilty person. This is entirely inconsistent with the fact that the person has not been tried or found guilty of the offence. This could lead to a person being sentenced to a substantial period of imprisonment, where they might have been able to rely on the defences under the code, such as self-defence or provocation.
The bill is arbitrary and punitive in nature, rather than focussing on the key issue: ensuring public safety while balancing the rights of the person not convicted of the crime. Finally, the bill contains no transitional provisions which permit people, such as those whom the member for Araluen refers so pointedly in a press release, to be brought back before the courts on their most recent charges.
The bill proposed by the member for Araluen purports to address the issues of concern to the community but, unfortunately, it does not contain the measures that are necessary to provide effective reforms in that area. Nevertheless, I commend the member for Araluen for at least attempting to provide some adequate legislation and I repeat my commitment to members of this House to make the making of law a matter for all members of this House. In return, I would expect that members do not run away from here and try and score political points off the carriage of legislation in this House. While indicating to the member for Araluen that we will not be supporting the bill if it lays on the books and comes forward to the House on the next General Business day, I certainly commend her for her interest in these matters and I will continue to involve anyone who wants to be involved in the development of legislation before this House.
I trust that the comprehensive reforms I am bringing forward in the form of the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002 will have the support of the opposition. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act to provide for a person who is found guilty of an offence as a 17-year-old, to be able to be treated as a juvenile for the purposes of the act regardless of when the finding of guilt was imposed. Until June 2000, a juvenile, for the purposes of criminal procedure, was a person who had not attained the age of 17 years. This meant that people who committed offences when they were 17 years old were all tried and sentenced as adults. The former Territory government was criticised, both nationally and internationally, for treating 17-year-olds as adults and there were suggestions that this policy was inconsistent with the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.
On 1 June 2000, the Sentencing of Juveniles (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2000 came into operation. This act amended a number of acts to provide that persons who had attained the age of 17 years, but were under 18 years, were to be treated as juveniles as a matter of criminal procedure. Amendments were made to a range of Northern Territory acts by the Sentencing of Juveniles (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. However, the complementary changes were not made to the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act. This resulted in an anomaly and potential unfairness for juveniles who were previously sentenced as adults for offences committed when they were 17-year-olds.
The Criminal Record (Spent Convictions) Act provides that, in certain circumstances, a person’s criminal record relating to relatively minor offences may be spent and not form part of the person’s criminal history. However, there are some convictions that will never be spent. These relate to cases of sexual offences, offences committed by the body corporate or where a person received a sentence of more than six months imprisonment regardless of whether the sentence was suspended. Under the Criminal Record (Spent Convictions) Act convictions that are capable of being spent become spent when the offender has completed the applicable crime-free period. For juveniles the period is five years and for adults the period is 10 years. This means that a person who had committed offences at 17 years of age, prior to the 2000 amendments, cannot have their convictions spent for at least 10 years.
This is particularly unfair to those persons who were convicted of offences they committed under the previous mandatory sentencing regime for property offences. As they were sentenced as adults their criminal records were not spent for 10 years, which has serious ramifications upon them when they are seeking, and being eligible for, certain types of employment and travel.
This amendment seeks to rectify the present anomaly in the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act so that a person who committed an offence as a 17-year-old, but who was sentenced other than in the juvenile court, can apply to the Commissioner of Police to have his or her criminal record spent at the expiry of the five year crime-free period. This will be granted as a matter of course, as long as the person satisfies the requirement of the act. For example, the person must not have committed any subsequent offences punishable by imprisonment, and the original conviction was not one that can never be spent, such as a sexual offence.
Northern Territory police have assured me that all applications for approval to release a criminal history will inform the person of their right to apply under these changes. The applications will be made widely available and will be simple to make. While we cannot go back and change the sentences that many juveniles had to serve under the previous mandatory sentencing regime for adult property offenders, we can at least ensure that the implications of these offences on their futures is not unnecessarily harsh.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Members will be aware that the government recently announced a 4% levy on employers workers compensation premiums to commence on 1 July 2002. This levy is to help meet the nominal insurers liability arising from the collapse of HIH Insurance. Members will also be aware that this government has already contributed $9m to that liability and will contribute further by including itself as an employer for the purposes of the levy. In this way, government will meet almost half the liability.
Following consultations with the Work Health approved insurers over implementation of the levy, it has become apparent that the enabling legislation that was enacted in May 2001 is deficient in its provision for the collection of a premium-based levy. In this regard, the legislation provides for the levy to be collected by insurers at the end of the period of insurance. This does not accord with the insurers’ normal levy transaction processes which is to charge a premium at the beginning of the period of insurance based on a wages estimate, and adjust the premium at the end of the period of insurance in accordance with the actual wages.
The insurers have advised that, if they have to comply with the current levy collection provisions, the administration of the levy will be confusing to employers, insurance brokers and insurers; it would create additional and separate business transactions for employers and insurance brokers and insurers; and would directly increase the cost of premiums due to the additional compliance and IT costs imposed on insurers through the additional transaction and the nationally unique and complex computer changes that would be required.
The purpose of the Work Health Amendment Bill is to avoid all of these problems by providing for a method of levy collection that will align the levy transaction directly with the insurance transaction, thus avoiding the confusion and additional transaction costs. It will also reduce costs by enabling insurers to utilise the computer programs and systems that are already in place for the Western Australian levy.
The commencement date of the levy will remain as announced; that is, 1 July 2002. This will enable an extra 12 month lead-in time for approximately 23% of businesses whose workers compensation policies are renewed on 30 June, thereby providing insurers, insurance brokers and the nominal insurer the opportunity to fine-tune the collection processes in time for bulk renewals.
The bill also provides for the cessation of the levy at the time that the total liability is discharged. This will ensure that the levy is not in place for a longer period than is necessary and will complement provisions that provide flexibility in enabling the levy to be reviewed at any time during its implementation. To ensure a transparent levy process, the nominal insurer will report annually on the levy, as well as the outstanding liability which will be recorded in the annual report of the Department of Employment, Education and Training.
This bill will ensure an efficient collection of the HIH levy at minimum cost to industry, but must be enacted and commenced before the introduction of the levy on 1 July 2002. For this reason, we will seek the support of members opposite for this bill to be considered on urgency on the last day of the sittings. To that end, I have advised by note the member responsible, the member for Blain, and I have offered him a copy of the second-reading speech forthwith, a copy of the explanatory memoranda and a briefing that I hope he is able to take opportunity of this week, so that the opposition has a very clear understanding of what this bill is about. Madam Speaker, I commend it to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 29 November 2001.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I wasn’t aware that the PAC report would be on right at this moment. I would like to add a few words to what the member for Johnston said at the tabling of the report. It is, indeed, a short report. In his comments to the House, the member for Johnston spoke about opening up the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, this has been done for many years, with the Public Accounts Committee taking public hearings frequently throughout the Territory. It is not something new that this government intends doing, it is something that has been done over and over again. Perhaps it was not done as well, as the intensity of the debate now seems to infer, and the reason is the current reference that we have more than anything else. Past PAC meetings have been reasonably non-partisan but, unfortunately, this current terms of reference has caused the committee to be quite split in its views.
The report spoke about the stringent review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office. I was on the committee at that time when the review was done by Mr Lee White when we sought to look at the operations of the New South Wales Auditor’s office. We have been told on several occasions now that we have a very small Auditor-General’s Office and, for that reason, we have outsourced audit field work to the private sector. Darwin is a small community, and we have a small group of auditors who are able to do this job. The more the companies amalgamate or get bought out, the smaller the pool is, and that may be of some concern. I understand that the Auditor-General’s Office is actually looking at this issue in great detail and, hopefully, some resolution can be made and the PAC can be kept abreast of what the outcome will be.
It is also interesting that, at another time, we used to bring in ministers to the PAC. As is evident in the report, the Minister for Communications, Science and Advanced Technology, the former minister Peter Adamson, and his CEO, Sarah Butterworth, were asked to come to brief the committee on several occasions. At those times, the minister himself provided a briefing and was then questioned in great detail by committee members, particularly on the outsourcing of IT and how it was progressing. This was of great interest to the committee to ensure that everything was done properly, and the committee was, in fact, quite happy with the reports that were provided by both the former minister and his CEO.
One of the other things that the PAC used to do was to contribute to the assessment of the public sector annual reports. You will recall that, several years ago, the Auditor-General used to lament that the annual reports did not provide information which could be used to assess the objectives and outcomes of government departments. Over the last three years, the PAC has been involved in the assessment of all these reports. I recall the year before, it was the member for Macdonnell who was the representative on the PAC to do the review of the reports, and last year it was the member for Blain. For two years running, I believe, the overall winner each time was the Department of Territory Housing, of which you were the minister during the first time you won it, and I was the minister when it won it the second time.
The Public Accounts Committee report was brief, and it was done at a time when there was little that the PAC could look at, in terms of activity, apart from the IT outsourcing and, consequently, we have this report here. I needed to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the comments made by the member for Johnston - the current Chairman of the PAC - about the open proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee, are nothing new. It has been done before, and that needs to be said to get it on record. Otherwise, I support the report.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to conclude the debate on the Public Accounts Committee Annual Report for 2000-01, which I tabled in October 2001. At the time I tabled the 2000-01 report, the current PAC was in its infancy and, to a large extent, I do not believe I was in a position to make informed comment on the activities of the previous committee. I take the point of the member for Greatorex about other committees having public hearings, but it is my understanding that, probably, the Dalway inquiry was the last major public inquiry that the Public Accounts Committee had embarked upon for some time. But I may stand corrected on that.
The annual report records that the Chairman of the previous committee was the former member for Araluen, Mr Eric Poole. Other members included the current member for Macdonnell, Mr Elferink, and the member for Blain, Mr Mills, as well as the current members for Stuart and Wanguri, Dr Toyne and Mr Henderson, respectively.
It is now evident from the report that the former committee met just seven times in the 12-month reporting period. My own estimate is that the current committee has met almost double that number of times in just eight months. Mostly, as can be seen from their report, the former committee appeared to adopt a watching brief on important matters like the outsourcing of government IT functions. It also deferred important and crucial matters that have been raised by the Auditor-General in his 1999 and 2000 reports, such as the lack of internal audits within departments.
Indeed, this lack of activity by successive Public Accounts Committees under the previous government was highlighted by the Auditor-General in his February 2002 report. He said, and I quote from page 13 of his report:
So, in approximately seven years, there was one matter that had been taken up by the successive Public Accounts Committee. That record speaks for itself.
It appears, from the words of the Auditor-General, that successive Public Accounts Committees, under the previous government - at least for the past seven years - had been moribund. I can guarantee this House that, under the current government and the current PAC, things will be vastly different. Indeed, I believe they already are.
Nevertheless, I believe that this annual report of the Public Accounts Committee for 2000-01 is a fair and accurate record of the committee’s activities during that period. I commend the report to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, given the abysmal performance of the Health minister over the last two days of Question Time, I seek leave to move so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving the following motion:
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Drysdale. Leader of Government Business.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): The government accepts this as the most serious motion that the opposition can bring forth and accepts it as a censure motion on the minister for health. I would ask for the cameras and transmission to cease.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. We are closing Question Time now for the media, and will continue with the censure motion as soon as the media has left the floor.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: No, wait until the media has left, because we have finished Question Time. Then we will go on with the censure motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Don’t cross-chat. We’ll have the censure motion in a moment and you can have your say then.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I believe the cameras have been decommissioned. Would you like me to commence, Madam Speaker?
Having so much of standing orders being suspended, I now formally move the motion that this House censures the Minister for Health and Community Services for:
Madam Speaker, this is new ground for this opposition …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but can we have a copy of that as soon as possible?
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, this is new ground for this opposition on the basis that, as an opposition, we have been prohibited on one occasion from mounting a censure motion and, in the short time that these people have been in government, they have censured four people on this side. It is not an action that is taken lightly by this opposition; it is seen as a very serious motion. Many of us have been recipients of such censure motions in the past and, indeed, many of us have been recipients of frivolous censure motions.
This is a matter of grave importance for this House. We are talking about a minister who has a budget approaching some $480m. She has a work force that is approaching 4000 personnel, and she dispenses services to the entire population of the Northern Territory. We had hoped that the incoming government would stand by its rhetoric of seeing this as a very important portfolio area, would elevate it up the Cabinet chain, and would at least give it to somebody with some competence. Given the vagaries of how the Labor government choose who shall be a minister, I guess they had not much choice about the fact that this person found themselves in Cabinet. But it ill behoves the leader, the Chief Minister, that she would allocate such an important portfolio area to somebody who was so devoid of any capability to manage the area, who is seemingly devoid of any enthusiasm for the area, who has exhibited great sloth in matters relating to the area, and who, it would appear, is incapable of being trained.
We have seen this minister hide behind a variety of excuses, and it should be pointed out from the outset that we believed she was on such a steep learning curve that we should give her some latitude in the early months of her stewardship in this area. We now find that several months have passed and, indeed, things are getting worse. It is demonstrable that many of the work areas in Health and Community Services - and there are some members of the government who are previous employers in that area who should be well aware, because we are, that there are areas that are fast approaching chaos; there are areas where there is a discernible fear among public servants. There is certainly a wide-spread view that is being held that, while the minister may be taken on tours and while she may enter the odd Aboriginal community or two, she seems incapable of taking messages on board. Her capacity to listen and translate that into policy, is totally and absolutely absent.
We are calling on this motion so that we can provide some evidence to the House of the total incapacity of this person. She has lied to this parliament on a number of occasions and, in lying to the parliament, we believe it is not necessarily because this person is a liar by nature, it is more due to her incompetence and her absolute incapacity to digest data. The immense amount of data that is available to her, and the fact that it gets paraded out in a variety of guises, some of which conflict with each other, would lead us to believe that we are either going to face this minister over the next few months as a person who cannot divulge facts in a way that satisfies this parliament and, perhaps, even if she learns she may still be faced with the prospect of being labelled a liar.
We think the way is clear for the Chief Minister to exercise the prerogative that is available to her to dismiss this minister from this important portfolio area, and to get somebody in …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: … and in the debate I am happy to name them, and I hope they come forward in support of this minister because, we have noticed on this side of the House, that there are occasions when interference is run when it is felt that this minister is under attack. There is a feeling that some of the people who are called on to defend her are, in fact, much more capable indeed, than the minister. There is definitely a feeling - certainly in the case of Dr Ashbridge, there was the case of the advisor being the de facto minister - of her absolute incapacity to be able to understand the details before her.
The issue that the minister has, or the fact she has used to hide behind, is her newness. I would say to the Chief Minister that this is a label that is very tatty and torn already. There is no newness about this government any more and I suggest she stops using it. In fact, she used it this morning on radio with Fred McCue when, again, she has been questioned in the media about her incapacity and she answered him - this is Wednesday Morning program 8DDD, ‘… coming in as a new government, and yes, I am a new Health minister. This is a very complex area’.
Well, we are getting tired of that mantra. We think, get the newness behind you. We don’t hear the Chief Minister standing up saying: ‘Sorry, I am a new Chief Minister’ or ‘This is all beyond me’. Get to understand it. She also hides behind her gender in a way that is offensive to many of us on this side of the House and, particularly, those female members of the opposition. She has sought to use the excuse that the attacks on her are gender, rather than performance based. She has hidden behind the fact that this is a complex area; that is well understood by this side of the House. Indeed, there are several members on this side who have a very intimate knowledge of this portfolio area. She has hidden behind due process, a label she uses to describe things that she will not explain. She has hidden behind the fact that, in other arenas, it is not an appropriate place to divulge information, and the appropriate place is this parliament. We have seen a sorry spectacle of this minister coming here on a number of occasions and trying to answer questions in an attempt to edify this side of parliament and failing dismally.
Mr Stirling: Answered every question, you goose, unlike you when you were minister.
Mr DUNHAM: We are able to demonstrate several mistruths in Hansard, and we are able to do it in such a way that, for a member who perhaps was a tad more competent, you could well and truly attach the label of liar. In the case of this minister, we think that is a bit harsh. We think that she is an inadvertent liar, and that it possibly goes to the fact that her competence is totally, totally lacking. She has made an attempt to answer some questions which - thanks for the interjection from the Deputy Leader - he said she was able to answer every one of them. In fact, you proudly proclaim how many questions had been put yesterday, and he proudly proclaimed that 17 questions had been put. What is aggravating for those members of this side, and for those interested parties on the basis of these issues we articulate, is that the answers are not forthcoming. The whole issue of ministerial Question Time - and is probably lost on the Leader of Government Business - is not how many questions there are, it is the quality of the answers. Of the 17 questions that were posed yesterday, there are some significant holes in the answers by the Health minister. The matters relating to some significant buildings projects, both the birthing suite and the hospice, were answered in such a way that it leaves either this minister misleading this parliament, or the Chief Minister and the business minister misleading the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr Henderson: They will be built.
Mr DUNHAM: Don’t give us that ‘they will be built’. We have documents that fudge the truth on these very important issues. A hospice, it should be remembered, is a place where terminally ill people are accommodated. A birthing centre is a place where expectant mothers go. For these people on this side to toy with the emotions of those two particular groups ill behoves them. I would put it to you that there is some difficulty with understanding the government’s position about the radiation oncology unit also. That is other clientele who are very keen to see the truth on these issues, and are very upset to see two radically differing points of view coming from the operational minister and those who would pretend, with glossy documents, to be caring and compassionate.
We saw the sorry spectacle last sittings where an attempt was made to have the minister address those matters in which she has the most competence, those matters where she has the most knowledge, and they are issues of government policy that fall to her portfolio area. These are not things to do with the black hole. These are not things to do with the legacy left by the previous government. These are things to do with the wonderful new initiatives bought in by electing these people opposite.
We had the sorry spectacle of taking our time, the opposition’s time, on a General Business Day, to try and elucidate the facts behind these important initiatives. We know for a fact that the minister is extremely well briefed in this area. Well, we don’t know that for a fact. We know for a fact that she has some several hundred thousand dollars worth of public servants’ time - these are public servants who have been taken out of operational areas, they have been put into the Health Gains Planning area, and there are several hundred thousand dollars worth of salaries sitting in there. We know it is a key priority area. In fact, priority area number one in the department is to analyse the promises made by those opposite, and to address how they might come to fruition. We have not heard anything. We used our precious time on a General Business Day, and it was in the early hours of the morning, which is a bit distressing for this particular minister given, as I said, she has a problem with sloth and laziness. But the issue was whether she could answer those policy initiatives that related directly to her and to her party.
The spectacle we saw was an amendment to the motion, looking backwards; another rear vision mirror trick where we saw this minister pretending that her policies were something that was probably subject to due process, or the fact that she is a woman or new or complex or something. But she hid totally behind that parade of excuses that we have gotten used to, and ran her little line of ‘this is a personal attack’ and all that sort of stuff. Let me get it clear from the start of this motion: we are not attacking this person because of her persona. We are attacking this person because of her abysmal incompetence. She is incapable. The area is too precious to be left in the hands of somebody who is going to be so cavalier in their treatment of something like this.
Some of these health services have been built up over decades and while the government may parade out this vision of 26 to 27 years of neglect or whatever it is, I am happy to have that debate. I am happy to look at the areas where we have shown advances that are marked and that have improved the quality of life and lifespan of Territorians. So, let’s get away from that and let’s talk about what we are going to do if this thing spirals into the mud.
We know we are on the verge of a calamity. This morning the minister talked about fear within the department. She talked about public servants having some degree of fear as a result of her failed communication. I have been around Health ministers for some time. I don’t think I have heard the like of it where, this morning, it was put to her by the Morning program reporter that possibly - despite all these trips into the wilderness she has undertaken and the various trips to Alice Springs – ‘… maybe there is a communication difficulty, Minister. Have you thought about that?’ She says, in response to a communication strategy - I will read this into the Parliamentary Record. This is a quote:
That is, a communication strategy, so people know what she is about.
This was this morning. The minister was on the radio telling us that she has a poor communication device, particularly with people in the bush, and that one of the resulting issues coming from that is fear in staff.
Even if we start there, even if the multitude of things that have been brought to me to bring to this parliament are paraded out, that should be significant enough to censure this minister. The unfortunate fact is every one of us on this side - and it was seen by Question Time this morning - have dozens of questions from our constituents. Every one of us has a well-beaten track to our door saying: ‘Look we can put up with Hendo; we don’t really like the Chief Minister; some of these members we have a problem with. But for God’s sake, why doesn’t anybody raise in parliament the fact that we have a person in the Health minister’s portfolio who has no capacity to do the job, ever? Not even before or after training; can’t do it’.
That is what the censure motion is about, Madam Speaker. It is about, hopefully, opening the eyes of the Chief Minister so that she is aware that this is not just Dunham exhibiting some sort of a jealousy thing, or a personal and vitriolic debate. I have been on the receiving end of several censure motions. I believe that it is a legitimate form of government to enable things that they think are issues of concern to be brought before parliament. The biggest issue of concern you would ever bring to this parliament in the health arena is the total incapacity of the minister.
We have a minister who, in Question Time yesterday said: ‘Sorry, talk to the boss. We have number two man; he is only one away. He is out of the place. He is leaving. He said: “Look, the government’s policies aren’t getting implemented. I have a problem with this so I am going”.’ Now, this particular gentleman sent out a communication device - and don’t forget this is one of the strategies the minister has admitted that she is doing wrong - but he sent out a communication device and he said: ‘I have decided to resign. The department isn’t doing what the government wants it to do’.
Within a couple of hours, another memo went out saying: ‘Don’t worry; he has gone. He is out of here’. So the question is for the minister: did you have an exit interview? Did you talk to this gentleman? Do you know why he believes the department is not doing the right thing? This is the number two man, and, on occasions, he has been the number one man. We understand that that is more and more common these days, with the more and more frequent absences of the Chief Executive Officer. When I was the minister, I took great confidence in the fact that there was a depth of talent in that executive. I took great confidence in the fact that we had some lifestyle recruits, people who could get jobs anywhere, but who chose to come here because of the great things that this government had put in place in other areas - our sport and recreation, our Hidden Valleys, our theatrical productions like Cats - all of that stuff is part of the package that brings people here to the Territory.
So, what we have found is that in making this place a good place to live, you could have a cohort of people …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: I think I should possibly pick up some of these interjections, Madam Speaker, because this is a censure motion, and your support for a liar is on the record.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr DUNHAM: We can go on forever with that Madam Speaker, but I suggest he takes a bit of quiet.
So, we had a depth of talent. Within six months, through either sniper shots because they didn’t like how people were, or discomfort for people, or this great inertia that has now hit the department, they are leaving in droves - leaving in droves. We have the CEO apparently looking for jobs elsewhere. We had the deputy secretary last week say: ‘I am out of here. What’s the point of hanging around if they are not going to put their policies in place?’. The boss of Royal Darwin Hospital - he has a massive job that is as big as most departmental heads. He has approximately $100m worth of budget under his control - about a third of the department staff, a massive job. Gone; not in his office. The minister stood up this morning and said: ‘Yes, he is going’. Not going. Gone; disappeared! A man with great talent; another lifestyle recruit.
The biggest problem is not that he has gone; it is the great planning in place. Who is the number two, and is number two sitting in the job? Is he in the job? No, he ain’t! So, you have an organisation called Royal Darwin Hospital that doesn’t shut, not even on Christmas day. It dispenses all sorts of services and its CEO has left today because - I would suggest there are a whole lot of factors, but for the minister to parade out: ‘Oh, his wife got a bit sick of living here, so they’re out of here’, I think is a bit trite. The first thing I would do if I was the minister is ring him up and have a bit of yak to him because his exit interview, like the exit interview for Haydn Lowe, might teach her something. There might be some messages comprehended, because these are people who are leaving. They owe her nothing! They don’t have to worry about the bullying that this mob do. They don’t have to worry about the Chief Minister’s coercion of people when she says: ‘We will do this, or else’. They don’t have to worry about whether their contracts are going to be due. They are out of here.
They are very good people to talk to. In not talking to them, in treating them like the enemy, it is a little like an AA problem you have: before you can solve it, you must recognise you have a problem. You have a big problem, so before you start to hide the problem, smother the problem, and say there ain’t no problem - look, even if you start here, in the interview this morning called ‘Claims the health service is on the verge of collapse’ with Fred McCue. Even if you start there with the fact that your communication’s not good, you have admitted that, and you have committed that there is a degree of fear in the department. Start with those two, because I don’t have to tell you, you told the listening audience this morning; everybody knows this is the fact. There is poor communication, there is a degree of fear in the department, start there.
I can give you some others, I can give you a check list. Why are people going? Why is it that people can’t give messages to the minister that she is capable of understanding?
Mr Kiely: You have lost your audience.
Mr DUNHAM: Why is it, why is it that - I believe this member is reflecting on the absence in the parliament, Madam Speaker, and I think if he looked, Elliot’s actually here, he has just left his chair, so he shouldn’t reflect on it.
Mr Kiely: Oh, wanker.
Mr DUNHAM: The issue is that there is a catalogue of problems.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member to repeat the comment he just made or withdraw it unconditionally.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw it, member for Sanderson.
Mr KIELY: I withdraw it unconditionally.
Madam SPEAKER: I know this is a censure motion, and I will advise members in the gallery that some of the comments made by the speaker would not be allowed in the normal forms of debate but, because a censure motion is one of the most important motions we can have, licence is often given to the speaker to do it. But, comments across the floor should not be of that type we have just heard, so I suggest you refrain from making comments such as that, and also I think …
Mr Burke: Or get out. Go on you grub, get out!
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, we will not use the word ‘grub’. I would like you to withdraw that. We will not use that word ‘goose’.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I recognise your comments but I take deep offence to a member of government calling across the Chamber that someone is a wanker …
Madam SPEAKER: I know.
Mr BURKE: … in a debate which is a serious debate on health.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, that is what we have just asked him to withdraw. So, I don’t think you should retaliate by using that word.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, returning to the topic at hand …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I didn’t hear the withdrawal. You have asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I asked you to withdraw.
Mr BURKE: For what?
Madam SPEAKER: I asked you to withdraw.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘grub’.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, returning to the topic at hand, it is interesting that interference starts to be run when people try and parade the problem out. That is why, I think, this is a very difficult motion for the minister to understand. That is why it was demonstrable today when every member on this side of the parliament has an issue of concern in her portfolio area, and it is possible that some of those issues of concern reflect and replicate, those that have come from the people.
The people are the same people she is supposed to be serving. People in our electorates are the people she is supposed to be serving as the Health minister. There are at least 10 people in this Chamber who will tell her she is not serving the people well - and it could be in our electorates or wider areas. They are not being served well by this minister. It goes directly to the fact that she has to find something else to do. No offence minister for sport, on your statement yesterday, but give her that. Give her that; it is not so much a life and death issue as Territory health.
This is an issue where, if services are allowed to collapse and erode the way they are, it can put people’s health in parlous circumstances. It is the sort of thing where, being devoid of the leadership at the ministerial level, it can have an impact on people’s health. I am not saying it is a life and death issue, I am saying: be very serious about your job. You are in a job where you are going to make decisions that will impact on people’s mortality and morbidity; so just be aware of that.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It is not a laughing matter. On two occasions … I will pick up on the chortle; it wasn’t an interjection, it was a chortle.
On two occasions, those opposite have laughed about the seriousness of this, and they have laughed about issues relating to nurses. I find that immensely offensive. The giggling that goes on when people talk about nurses is something that will stay with them because, not only has the member Port Darwin qualifications in this area, but several of us have family members who are nurses, and we do not like this type of ridicule. We do not like the profession of nurses to be treated in contempt in that way, so they are the two things I’ll tell you.
Now, government policy areas. Let’s go, in the answer, and we would hope that the media are able to listen to this debate and see a demonstrable proof that this minister has some competence. Even if she runs out two or three planks of her competence, maybe if she is salvageable, maybe we can salvage this minister to go on and be a sport and recreation minister or something. However, in terms of salvaging her career and her reputation, I think she should probably go to those areas that she is most knowledgeable, they are the closest to her heart and they are things that have been paraded before the people as matters with the brand of the ALP on it, and they are her initiatives. The ALP Health minister’s initiatives, tell us about them.
Yesterday we heard two lies from this member, when she tried to answer about the hospice, and she tried to answer about the birthing centre: two lies. Let’s start with those two, because they’re both your promises. We know, as I said, several hundred thousand dollars was spent on epidemiologists, health economists, project health workers, all of these sort of people, to advise the minister. Here is the department’s priority action areas for 2002. Right up here, what’s the big priority?
Tell us about them. Just do them. Stand up and tell us about all the stuff you have promised - a night patrol on the street to pick up kids. This is a good research topic for those students who are in the gallery - night patrol to pick up kids. We don’t know anything about it. It has a number that has been paraded out by the Attorney-General. Let’s talk about the hospice, the oncology unit, there are millions in there. Whole departments run off some of these program areas, so you have tens of millions sitting there. All we are asking, as an opposition is, can you tell us about them? Why don’t you boast about them, why don’t you do like these others have done, stand up and say: ‘Look, we have brought this policy to the Territory; aren’t you glad that you elected us?’ Well, tell us; tell us what they are.
She could continue to salvage her career if she was able to tell us why parliament is being misled in the several ways that she has. For instance, speaking of censure motions, I was censured about introducing a renal service into Barkly, and the member for Barkly’s keen on this, he asked a question. He asked the member: ‘Are we going to bring in a renal service?’ ‘Yep, don’t you worry, we are going to bring it in, $400 000 in the budget’. The CEO of Health, likewise, has told us when questioned: ‘This is not a concern because there is $400 000 in the budget’.
Unfortunately, the people who did the cost analysis that was provided to the interstate and local media, when I was censured on this thing, would be well aware that the report says that they are going to need $800 000. Maybe it is a lie, maybe it is another sign of incompetence, but these are things she has to tell us about. I would have assumed the member for Barkly would be vitally interested in this. I would have assumed he would know the names of the 10 people who will take up those chairs in Barkly. Not only do we find they have only put 50 in the $1 in, we find that the specialist in Alice Springs is not there; he has left. Another one. We understand he is not coming back. Here we are, we have a massive renal service in Alice Springs, and they’re going to run a satellite outreach service with half the cash in Tennant. These are lies, this is a falsehood, this cannot be done. These are bunnies being pulled out of a hat. We think the minister should start with some of those.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Mr DUNHAM: I would seek an extension, Madam Speaker.
Mr Stirling: You haven’t said anything yet. We may as well give him one. All he has done is call her a liar. I am waiting for something to respond to.
Madam SPEAKER: Ten minutes.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I shall be quick because I know there are several other members who would be keen to speak on this.
So, if she can demonstrate why the dialysis story is a fib, why the hospice story is a fib, why the nursing birthing story is a fib, we might be starting to get somewhere.
We now go to this story about how everybody can get to her. This is a lady who consults, everybody consults, and whenever they go they have this message: ‘Golly we are glad we got in to see you, couldn’t get to see the other bloke’. That is actually a fib - it is a fib. The reason I know it is a fib is, I have worked on the personal staffs of two Health ministers and I have been a Health minister myself. When you get a job like that you know who walks in and out of the office.
When you say in parliament - these are parliamentary debates and the other issue for those in the gallery is: you have to be aware that you are not allowed to say nasty things like the ‘W’ word and, not only that, you cannot tell lies. That is a big problem. So, when she came in and said, on 27 February in Hansard:
All of these people have said to me: ‘We have never had access to a Health minister before’. That is just a fib - that is a fib! Now, if you want to say something like that - and don’t forget, she didn’t start in such a way: ‘We have never had this much access’ or ‘This is more access’. She said: ‘We have never had access’. That can be demonstrated, merely, by next time she meets with AMA on Friday; or the next time she meets with the Nurses Federation. Next time she talks to AMA, ask them: ‘Have you ever met a Health minister before me?’, and everyone of them will say: ‘Yes’. In which case, parliament says you should do a personal explanation and withdraw that, because it reflects badly on you and also, the lie that you have perpetrated in the parliament reflects badly on those people who have held your portfolio.
The big issue for Health ministers - and it has been occupying the mind of those in the Public Accounts Committee – is, well, her communication is not real flash. You have people in the parliament living in fear, she has admitted those two things. We have all these CEOs and senior specialists going, we know that is a problem, but can she …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Within the Public Accounts Committee, to my recollection, there has never been those particular allegations made.
Mr DUNHAM: No, and it hasn’t been alleged? I suggest you read Hansard. What I am saying is that they were all on the record. Now I am coming to the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee - and I have to be careful what I say because the report has not come out …
Madam SPEAKER: If you are referring …
Mr Kiely: You want to be very careful.
Mr DUNHAM: I will be careful.
Mr Kiely: Yes, and that would be a change for you!
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you for your gratuitous advice. Sit down and take it easy. The word will come out again. I know you cannot control yourself.
Mr Kiely: It is just such an appropriate description.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I do advise you to be careful what you say, if you are referring to the PAC.
Mr DUNHAM: I shall, Madam Speaker, I shall. The question that is on everybody’s lips is: is her incompetence right across: has she got a full hand; has she got a royal flush of incompetence? If she has, she probably cannot handle the money either. She probably has no idea how to handle the money. It is interesting …
Mr Stirling: Well, we know what you did with it - you lied!
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This member is alleging …
Mr Stirling: I will withdraw that comment.
Mr DUNHAM: … that he knows what I did, and that I lied.
Mr Stirling: I will withdraw the allegation, Madam Speaker. But, we know something funny happened.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. He has withdrawn.
Mr DUNHAM: So, let’s go to this paper. Now, no black hole, nothing to do with us; this belongs to you. This is your bit of paper, you guys wrote it. In the paper, there is a great parade of issues about $34m extra. Good! We on this side say: ‘Good, extra money for health, that is wonderful’. But it is a little like throwing it away if you do not look after it, because you could put an extra $1bn in here and, if you are going to waste it, you will still waste it. So, big issues that go to the heads of Treasurers and people in departments and others - you understand what you are doing? Do you know what the money is for? Do you know if it is embedded in our base, is it recurrent, is it once off?
The minister was asked a question on this in these sittings and could not answer it. How she answered it is she said: ‘My debate is there in the mini-budget, it is in Hansard, go and read it’. Well have a read of it. You have not answered this question. You have not demonstrated the capacity to reconcile those budget numbers. We are not talking a couple of thousand here, we are talking $34m - $34m! So, if we have a Health minister who is looking to collect every baseball card or whatever, she has the money one. She has the money one, she has the incompetence with staff one, she has the doesn’t listen, lazy, all that stuff. We are starting to get the picture, I think, of something that the community has known a long time; her executives have known a long time; the clients of her department have known a long time; and I guess her family and friends even know.
What we are trying to say is: dear Chief Minister, can you get the picture too? Can you get the picture too? We have a big problem with this lady, and it is not to do with her gender, it is not to do with the fact that she is new, it is not to do with the fact that - what was the other one? - she does not understand due process; she is an economic buffoon …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think that it is important that we try to raise the standard of debate in here and, I think to hear constant misogynistic type of comments is demeaning to this parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: We are in a censure motion and you will have your turn, I am sure.
Ms Martin: It is the misogynistic that really gets me, Madam Speaker.
Mr DUNHAM: It is true, you get upset with misogyny, but I was not being misogynistic. In fact, I do not think I would know how to be one because I do not think I know what the word means. That is not the point. The point is in censure debates – and, as I said, those of us on this side have been in several of them - we have had a variety of accusations. I have had accusations that people have died because of me. That is a pretty serious accusation to make, and I have not gone that far with this minister.
What I would say is that there is the potential for that to happen. This is not an area where there is great tolerance for mistakes. Mistakes cause problems; problems cause some irretrievable issues for clients of the departments because of administerial incompetence. So, just be aware how important it is. Just be aware it is right up the top; this is not something you can toy with. What I want the Chief Minister to understand is that there is a growing clamour of voices saying what you should already know: it ain’t working, put her somewhere else, sack this person.
I know also - and I have said this once before in the House - that that view is held by those opposite …
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The shadow minister has been generously given an extension of time, and I would like to think that he should start winding it up. He is going over, round and round like a broken record.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr DUNHAM: I have only just got onto the Chief Minister. What I am saying is that the call is loud. I know the call is coming from not just our side of politics. I know the names of some of the people who have rung and tried to get the message through. I know that some of the people here think the same way as I do …
A member: Rubbish!
Mr DUNHAM: I know some of the people here think the same as I do. I am able to inform this House - as I said on another occasion - that there is a verandah that goes out over the top and when you go outside and you do that little standing on the steps of parliament trick, sometimes people above you can hear. There are at least three members - I shall not name you, because one of them would make a much better Health minister. Now, there is a clue. That could be anyone of 15, right? But, what I will say is, this is not just a singular Dunham jealousy retributional attack; it is not that. It is the parliament and all of the people we represent, unanimously - on this side at least - coming to the Chief Minister and saying: ‘You have to fix this because the exodus of people; the problems that we are seeing in our remote centres; the self-confessed problems of fear in the department; the violence against nurses. The violence against nurses was brought up by my colleague, and is something that must be addressed.
In the aggression policy which she is rewriting, there is a clause there that has violence as being unacceptable in some circumstances. Ergo, in some circumstances it is acceptable. Well, it is not! Violence against our nurses is not acceptable! And for you to say, when we bring this issue up, that you do not want it to denigrate into anti-Aboriginal statements - that was never made. So, do not hide behind that thing either. Do not use the racial thing. Violence against nurses is not to be tolerated.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: We were castigated by you people - including the bloke behind you - for pulling nurses out of Port Keats.
This Leader of the Opposition, as Health minister, actioned that and was criticised: ‘Oh, people are going to get sick, what do you do about the nurses?’. Well, we protected our nurses when we were there, and we want you to do the same.
I move that this House censures the minister.
Madam SPEAKER: I think you have already moved it.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I must say that this was fairly predictable; they just have the same kind of attack, don’t they? They have no issues, but they decide this is the kind of thing that is necessary in the Northern Territory, taking away from the importance of legislation; the things which actually matter to the people of the Northern Territory.
The four points that are put down here, that I have supposedly done which were so terrible, are absolutely ridiculous. There is nothing in these which can be justified and, certainly, that ridiculous statement made by the member opposite in this motion, did not actually substantiate anything.
Yesterday, we talked about the birthing suite and the hospice, and I said then that these things were in the mini-budget. I am afraid the members opposite do not seem to understand that there is a difference between calendar years and financial years. You can actually straddle dates, you know. Once again, I know that the opposition were apparently not able to hear this yesterday: these will be provided at the times, in the financial years, as described in the mini-budget. There is no question about that.
I was very interested to hear the comments relating to the media interview that I did this morning on Fred McCue’s program in response to Robyn Cahill who, as you would be aware, actually ran for the CLP in Wanguri. Now, I actually have no problem with Ms Cahill and she is one of the many people I see on a regular basis. I saw her last Friday; I will be seeing her this Friday. The curious thing is that the member opposite failed to actually put in this quote from her, referring to the previous government, saying about us: ‘They inherited a system which was essentially flawed to start with’. And again: ‘We have had access to the minister which has been good …’ - that is, to me - ‘… it was something that we didn’t have in the past. It was quite difficult often to get access to ministerial staff and to the minister in previous times’.
This is someone who has the same kind of political stripe as the members opposite. I wonder what kind of situation is running there, because this person then also rang my office and told my senior advisor that she was not making any kind of complaint about me; that she was concerned about issues which she had already raised with me last Friday.
Mrs AAGAARD: I am amazed …
Ms Martin: It is a shame he is leaving. He should listen to the truth here.
Mrs AAGAARD: I am simply amazed that the CLP would bother …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think the Chief Minister was referring to my movements in this parliament, which I am sure she knows to be against standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I think she said you should listen, but I did not see that she referred to anyone. But you should not draw attention to yourself, either.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Come on, give the minister a chance.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, it is amazing that the opposition would bother to put such a censure motion. It must be embarrassing for them that they have all been censured because of the situation in regard to the budget. Now, it would be very interesting to see what comes out in the Public Accounts Committee report. I have no idea what is going to be in that. We all look forward to that. But obviously they were all very, very sensitive about being censured at that particular sittings.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She has said it twice now, I let it slip the first time. We all have not been censured. The opposition ran a fruitless censure motion against a couple of members. She wants to be clear about the processes in this Chamber before she makes those sorts of comments.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a censure against government, it is a censure against a minister.
Mrs AAGAARD: I am happy to withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Or just rephrase.
Mrs AAGAARD: Certainly, the censure against the opposition spokesperson on health was what I was specifically referring to.
Mr Elferink: Get it right. There is a process here.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! You have made your point.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, on coming to government, not only did we find that there was significant underfunding in Health, we also found that we have the worst outcomes for any Australians, on every indicator. We have the worst outcomes for diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and renal disease. It seems to me that, for 27 years, there has been such inertia from previous governments, and particularly from the last three ministers who are still present in the parliament. Here we are, a new government, we have a significant reform agenda and we will be making a difference.
The suggestion - the ludicrous suggestion I might add - that nothing has been happening in this portfolio is so ridiculous as to be unbelievable. Unlike the previous government we are not into bandaiding the problems of the non-government sector. We have been working with the non-government sector to see how we can get over the very significant cost pressures occurring in that sector.
Once again, this ‘seven year’ thing keeps coming up. There are seven years of some non-government organisations who have not received any extra funding, except for CPI increases in the last couple of years. Seven years. Is it any surprise then that they are coming to me and saying: ‘There are big issues here; can you help us?’ So what did we do? We organised forums with the Northern Territory Council of Social Services to see how we can work with the sector. Also, the Northern Territory Council of Social Services has come to us and given us a special report which will be used as part of the budget process, so that we can try to work in this very important area to make sure it is adequately funded.
One of the areas which the previous government was clearly completely inadequate on - and I think they use words like ‘minuscule’ to describe it - is that of illicit drugs. Once again, absolutely nothing. It is a disgrace that, not only did they think there was no problem, but they did nothing whatsoever. One of the really significant issues in this area is services for young people from 10 to 17-year-olds - there is nothing in the Northern Territory except to go to hospitals. I moved very quickly on this. I have a task force working on this and they will be coming down with a report at the end of this month. We will be working quickly to look at those considerations that they put before me and they will be going to Cabinet for discussion and for recommendations.
We do not ignore these problems. These are significant issues about which the people of the Northern Territory have said to us: ‘Deal with this’. I must say that the response from the task force going around the Northern Territory has been very positive. They have said: ‘The other government, they never listened to us. They never came and asked us what we thought about these issues. They said: “This isn’t an issue”.’ I am very sorry to say that, in fact, illicit drugs are an issue in the Northern Territory and we will be making sure that we deal with this adequately; that there are adequate treatment, rehabilitation and withdrawal services in the Northern Territory.
One of the saddest parts of the previous government was their lack of interest in things such as tobacco legislation. We have the highest rate of smoking in Australia. One in five Territorians die as a result of smoke-related illnesses. This is an atrocious situation. And what happened? Was this legislation looked at? No, it was not; it was all too hard - too hard! Well, we have put out a draft document on this, and we have received 180 submissions. To begin with we received 120 and then, straight after the closure, in the next two weeks, we received another 60 - an indication of the interest of the people of the Northern Territory in improving legislation in relation to tobacco. I would have to say, too, that the vast majority - I believe about 97% - are in favour of making changes in this area. We move fast. We are not going to be getting, I hope, the dirty ashtray award like the previous minister got for a couple of years in a row. What a pathetic situation that was. How embarrassing!
We also had the situation that young girls between the ages of 12 and 17 in the Northern Territory, have the highest rate of smoking in Australia. This is a very, very serious issue which will actually relate to significant health outcomes for these young women in the future: fertility and other sorts of outcomes, as well. It is a very, very distressing situation. We will make a difference in this area, and we will not be so gutless as to do nothing.
One of the issues which has been very distressing to this government has been the pathetic state of the hospitals - particularly the Alice Springs Hospital - on coming to government. The people on the other side continually say: ‘You are doing nothing, you are doing nothing’. Well, how can that be? When I go down there they say: ‘Thank goodness, Minister, you have come to visit us, you have come again. No one ever listened to us before. For seven years ….’ That magic seven years again, something about sevens, that magic seven years. ‘… we have been telling the previous government there were issues in relation to this hospital in Alice Springs’.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mrs AAGAARD: Significant issues, but you never worked on them. We have in place strategic plans; we have people working very hard on this; we have special committees. This hospital is being turned around and, despite what the opposition thinks, it will be a wonderful hospital for the Northern Territory over the next few years.
The member opposite referred to renal mapping and the Tennant Creek renal unit. I can assure you that the member for Barkly is very, very pleased about the situation in relation to haemodialysis in Tennant Creek. On my visit down there, I spoke with many people in Tennant Creek, and they’re very happy about what’s happening there. They’re happy. The member for Barkly and I have had considerable conversations about this and, yes, it is all happening.
We are also doing a massive renal mapping exercise for the whole of the Northern Territory. The member opposite, the opposition spokesperson on health, in the past has made very, very disparaging remarks regarding renal disease in the Northern Territory. We know it is a significant problem, we know that we need to move on this, and we will be providing adequate services for people in the bush.
One area that is particularly badly handled by the previous government was that in regards to the unmet funding needs of disabled people. This was handled so badly that people who are disabled are up in arms about this. Last year, we decided that there was a better way to do this. So, we organised forums where people who are actually in the sector could decide what their priorities were for disability, where they wanted the money to go. The people themselves said: ‘We want these areas to be the ones where funding should go’. The feedback from that has been extraordinarily good. I think it will be a process which will be continued for the next few years - as long, of course, as the federal government continues its funding.
I have signed off on five primary health care zones. This happened fairly soon after taking government. We have also put in place things which the previous government didn’t bother to do. When you are talking about primary health care access zones, one of the things that need to be considered is: how do we provide adequate training for boards? Now, the previous government just handed this over and said: ‘Thank goodness! We will not have to have any responsibility for indigenous health anymore. Thank goodness!’ But, the Northern Territory has a significant interest in indigenous health. We are not just going to hand things over and say: ‘There you go. Thank goodness! I am not going to think about that again’. No! The primary health care access zones are the things which are very important, and we are making sure that the boards of these zones have adequate training; that they understand their roles and responsibilities. There are special staff in place to deal with that.
In relation to Palmerston, we were willing to make tough decisions in relation to the so-called 24-hour service there. The previous government put in a trial on this. Then, knowing that it was very expensive and was unlikely to be used, they said: ‘Oh yes, we will keep it going until after the election’, thinking they would win. I am sorry for them but we won, and this was an unsustainable service; an absolutely unsustainable service. In fact, I have received two significant reports which I had asked for in relation to what kind of needs people in the Palmerston and the greater Darwin area have, and we are looking at those at the moment. I have received those back this week. They are very interesting reports and we will be working on those also, because we do know that is not the kind of service that was required.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, one of the issues, of course, is ambulances. What a pitiful situation we have been left with in Darwin. Our election commitments will be that we will be increasing ambulance services in the Darwin area so that, by the end of this term of government, we will have a full-time service at Parap. We will also be starting a voluntary service at Humpty Doo, which will also increase the services for ambulances in the bush areas down there, south of Darwin, which will be a significant matter for the people in that area.
The dental area was bought up today as well. The previous government refused to do anything about the loan report but we are considering it at the moment. We are looking at things in relation to fluoridation, which we know has a significant affect on people’s health. We know that, if there is fluoridation in a community, the general health of those people improves considerably. So, that is one thing we are looking at as well. We are not going to be saying that dentistry is not important, as the previous government did. When the federal government dropped its money, the CLP government chose not to - for whatever reason - improve the services in the dental area. It is a disgrace.
One of the other areas which I have had to make decisions on, and I am very proud of, is on the needle and syringe programs. On this coming weekend, of course, is World Aids Day. There have been a lot of reports in relation to AIDS coming as an epidemic through Asia and through Australia in the next 20 years. What we do know is that, in the countries where they have had needle and syringe programs, in fact the spread of AIDS is much reduced. It is very disappointing that the people opposite feel that this is not, somehow, a big problem for them; that there are no drug users in their area. Yet we know that about a third of the users in the Darwin-Palmerston area, in fact, live in Palmerston. This is an opportunity for those people, perhaps for the first time, to actually have some education material and maybe some referral to some services in the Darwin area. This is a very significant and important reform which we are very happy to support.
We have heard a lot about nurses in the last couple of days. I have to say that, since being a minister, we granted their EBA increase immediately. recognising the inadequacy of their wages and conditions of employment. We worked very hard with nurses. I certainly have quarterly meetings with the ANF and, when there are specific issues, the ANF ring me on those and we try to work out the problems as they arise. Nurses are a very important part of the Northern Territory and they provide a wonderful service. We certainly care about nurses, and I think that the member for Port Darwin - it is a bit sad that she didn’t know it was International Nurses Day on Sunday. This is sad indeed. We, on the other hand, recognise the importance of nurses and will be working with them to improve their conditions and employment.
Ms Carter interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: You are a member of parliament, you fool.
Mrs AAGAARD: Another accomplishment that I have made is to increase resources to children in the care of the minister. This has to be one of the saddest areas of my portfolio. This has been the most underfunded area, and it is an absolute disgrace. These are children who really need the protection of society. I was very proud that we were able to increase this funding by $800 000 in the mini-budget. It is very sad, indeed, that the previous government had no recognition of the importance of these children and how we needed to protect them.
There have been conversations about how the previous minister saw people. Well, I don’t know about that; maybe he did see them occasionally. I didn’t actually say that. What I said was I am meeting with them regularly - quarterly, in fact, or more often. I am meeting with the AMA, with the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, ANSANT, the Australian Dental Association and the ANF. This is just a small group of people that I am seeing, in addition to which I have been travelling widely throughout the Northern Territory.
From memory, I have been to Gove twice, I have been to Katherine twice, I have been to Tennant Creek once, I have been to Alice Springs eight times, and I have been to various remote communities as well. I have been to about 12. In addition to which, of course, there are all the Australian Health Ministers meetings that one attends interstate, the Australian Health Ministers Conference, also the Disability Services Ministers meetings. I also took the opportunity to visit the federal Health Minister soon after she took office. I have to say that she is a very gracious woman with whom I get on very well, and who speaks very highly of me just as I do of her. Perhaps you would like to actually have a chat to her because she and I feel that we can work together very well. She has very similar dreams and visions for indigenous Australians, and I think that we will be able to make a difference, unlike the previous government who appeared not to get on very well, even with their own governments when they were in Canberra.
I would like to say that I am very proud that I have been able to attract to this portfolio $34m extra in funding. Obviously, the previous minister was not senior enough to actually manage to get any extra funding for this portfolio. We see health as a significant priority. We have a very significant reform agenda, and we have a very good department that is going to assist us to work on these things.
I would like to say something about the department. We have some excellent people there throughout the Northern Territory. Naturally, in a department as big as this, with 3800 people, there will be people who, like all other people, feel that change is difficult. Naturally, what we need to be doing is working with them to make sure they understand what a reform agenda is. We have great staff, we have great confidence in the staff. We will work with them, we know the outcomes for Territorians will be better.
This is just a piffling waste of time today. We could have been doing important legislation, which is what the people of the Northern Territory ask us to do. That is all I have to say, and I am sorry that the opposition felt the need to actually bring up such a ludicrous and pitiful censure of me.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, in starting, I would like to address some of the screeches from the member for Karama with regard to the fact that I am still a nurse, and: ‘Oh no, you are not a nurse, you are a member of parliament’. Once a nurse, always a nurse, let me tell you. A nurse works in many forums, and this just happens to be one of those forums that I am working in now. So bear that in mind. I have been a nurse in the Northern Territory for over 17 years, and much of that time was spent in the Northern Territory Public Service. During that time, I worked in many different facets; for example, working in health promotion, the Women’s Health Unit, orthopaedic …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I thought this was a censure of the Health minister, not a kind of …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What we have heard from the minister, and I am sure we will hear it from the next speaker, is a constant denigration of the CLP when we were in government, with regard to health. For many years before I became interested in politics, I can tell you from the work face that I felt very proud to be a Territorian. I could tell the difference; I have worked in other states as well. I can tell you that, when I transferred patients - let me give you an example, transferring a patient from Royal Darwin Hospital to Royal Perth Hospital …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a censure motion on the Health minister and again, the member for Port Darwin is talking about her experiences and what she used to do as a nurse. It is totally irrelevant to the question and the debate before the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: I am allowing her to have licence, but I am waiting for her to actually address the censure.
Ms CARTER: That is all right. What I am addressing is the minister’s statement. She has gone on and on about how terrible things were under the CLP government, so what I am giving you here is some information based on my experience as a member of the Northern Territory Public Service and as a nurse.
As an example, I took that patient down to Royal Perth Hospital in 1983, and he was terribly disappointed in the difference between the two wards. It is entirely different, the standards between here and Western Australia; and also between here and Queensland. We have a very good system, always demands are increasing and there is a need to keep on our toes to keep our system good. Certainly, for us here in opposition now, that is our job to keep you on your toes with regards to the provision of services.
However, let me assure you that, as a member of the public service for many years, in many different agencies, I can tell you many of us in the public service were very proud of the things that the CLP government was doing.
Now, let’s get on to our minister, specifically. I would like to talk for a few moments about violence against nurses out bush. I have just learnt this afternoon that one of the northern Arnhem Land communities, since December last year, has had to send nurses out of the bush community eight times because of threats of violence and fear of violence. I find this a very unfortunate situation. It is unsettling for the nurses; it is unsettling for the community.
Dr Burns: Why do you think that is?
Ms CARTER: Why is that? Here we get on to political correctness, don’t we? We are not, on this side of the House, allowed to address some of these concerns but you, of course, are.
Dr Burns: No, no, I am interested in what you think. Tell me.
Ms CARTER: I am certainly pleased to address this issue. The communities seem to me to be having a growing incidence of violence and a reduction of respect towards agencies and individuals such as nurses, and it is a very concerning situation. I have met today with a bush nurse who has explained to me the situation that she found herself in, where she has been twice violently attacked on remote communities, by residents of those communities. In one circumstance, she had to press and pursue charges in court and bore the cost that was associated with that She wanted to feel the support there. In November/December of last year she wrote to the CEO of Territory Health Services. She raised it specifically in that arena. She is now going to the union and various places such as that, and has been very disappointed with the level of support that she has received.
What is interesting about her is that she is also an occupational health and safety nurse, and she believes that audits are not occurring in the areas that she has worked in, even though the new policy, we are told, is such that these audits will be conducted. I know, for example, that later this week the ANF will be meeting with the minister and raising similar concerns. So there are problems out on communities with regard to the violence that nurses are experiencing, and I believe that they have to be addressed.
Whether or not the minister is going to really demonstrate any sympathy and concern for this issue, has to be raised as a concern. I read from Hansard dated 6 March 2002, a statement from the minister in response to a question with regard to violence against nurses. She makes the comment that just harassing Aboriginal people is not the answer. Now here we go into this softly, softly area where nurses, I believe, are being held to blame for the situations that they find themselves in. Yet, it is really problems, I believe …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARTER: … items such as alcohol into communities that is reducing the respect that nurses have held in those communities for many years. In the late 1980s, early 1990s, as a nurse educator in the area known as the Katherine District, I had 11 community health centres which I provided the education service to. They ranged from Lajamanu to Borroloola, Ngukurr, all of those places …
Ms Martin: This is great, the Sue Carter story.
Mr Ah Kit: The wannabe matron.
Ms CARTER: At least I have been out there, not just sitting as a reporter in a cubicle somewhere. I went out there.
For five years I was the nurse educator for that district and the issue of violence against nurses was not there - this is the early 1990s. Things are deteriorating out there, things are getting more violent, and I do applaud the department for taking steps to address those issues as they grow. We in opposition, this is our job, as it was your job a year ago - it is our job to keep you on your toes, to keep the minister on her toes. When we have people living in our community coming to us and telling us what is going on out there, it is our responsibility to report it in this House to you. So I think you should stop denigrating us for pursuing our role here.
With regard to the policy that the minister talks about - this is the policy for the management of aggression - I do have one concern in this policy, and that is in point 5 where it says:
The inference there is that there is an acceptable level of violence to which nurses can be exposed, and I personally disagree with that. I think you need to be very careful with those things. We would hardly nowadays say, for example, that there is an acceptable level of domestic violence. We have moved beyond that, and I disagree: there is no acceptable level of violence which nurses can be exposed to.
It really upset the minister earlier this afternoon when I raised the issue of this advertisement that appeared in the Northern Territory News on Sunday 12th, and I seek leave to table it.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: The advertisement does not mention International Nurses Day. The nurses who have spoken to me about it had no idea what it was meant to mean. It was stuck in the middle of a page that had nothing to do with nursing, and nurses felt that it was a gratuitous comment, given some of the concerns that those who spoke to me have with regard to safety and issues of bush nursing. In the ad, it makes the comment from the minister ‘to thank all nurses for their skill, dedication and hard work’, and thank you very much for that. Hard work is right, there is no two ways about it. We all agree that nurses work hard and it can be very stressful work that they do, as well.
In the mini-budget that the new Labor government tabled and put through last year, they put in here, for example, that they are going to give us in the Northern Territory 75 new nursing positions during their term in government …
Mr Dunham: Hospital-based.
Ms CARTER: Hospital-based nursing positions. If you read the fine print, those 75 nurses start to be whittled away within a page. They are whittled away into an oncology radiotherapy unit, a hospice and a birthing suite. We don’t really know how many of those 75 nurses are going to actually land in some of the difficult ward areas of our public hospitals.
I call on the minister to demonstrate one new permanent nursing position in one of our public hospitals that she has brought in since coming into power - because they are not there. There are plenty of casuals coming in and plenty of short-term contracts, but where are the permanent positions? I would like to put in a vote. I would like to see some new nursing positions going into the public medical wards of Royal Darwin Hospital. Let’s go to the really hard places to work, and give them on at least one shift a day, one extra permanent position and fill it, permanently; and show me the evidence that it has happened. Because by now, if you were talking about your term being four years, we should be looking at 10 – 10 of those 75 nurses. I am yet to see evidence of one. Very, very disappointing.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I think the member for Port Darwin is waiting to continue.
Ms CARTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the other concerns that the opposition has raised recently has been the provision of a number of the promises that are here in your mini-budget - and were expounded very forcefully by the Labor Party as you were coming into the election period, and when subsequently winning the election. The three areas that I would like to mention are the hospice, the birthing suite and the oncology unit. All of these areas - as the shadow minister rightly pointed out a few moments ago - are areas which have a great deal of interest from people in the community. They are things that I am sure made many people vote Labor, because they believed in the promise that these things were coming, and coming within the term of the current Labor government.
Well, now there is some confusion about that. Yesterday, for example, instead of the hospice being provided, as I note from the mini-budget, during the year 2002-03 - as we know now from the minister for business’s comments on page 11 in the Northern Territory major projects book - the hospice has moved from 2002-03 into – mmm, well it might be provided, it is only proposed now, it is not even planned. It is only proposed now. You can hardly see it. I seek leave to table this page for you edification.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: Things that are committed and planned get great big black boxing here. Things that are proposed really, you have to use your imagination on the photocopies to be able to see where it is. But, anyway, from my viewing it looks like the hospice has gone back at least a year to the year 2003-04.
When we asked the question in Question Time yesterday, the minister responded that it will not be 2003-04 thank you, in fact it is going to be next financial year. Well, that is great. Then today, of course, when she joined in the discussions here today, she gave us a bit of a serve, explaining that the mini-budget has dates which are straddled a little bit here - the word was straddled - straddled a little bit there. So, we on behalf of the community, would like to know exactly when is the hospice going to be provided?
Getting onto the birthing suite now. Yesterday, we asked the question with regard to the birthing suite based on similar sort of numbers here. The birthing suite has disappeared again into being only proposed, as opposed to committed or planned, and it has actually fallen off the edge of your current term. It has gone into ‘maybe if you are lucky’, your next term. But on the other hand, well, it is sort of proposed; also it could be for this financial year. It is all very confusing as to when is the birthing suite going to be built? When we asked the minister yesterday, the minister said it might start – it might start. So, let us have an answer on that for the people who are interested in the birthing suite: when is the birthing suite going to be built at Royal Darwin Hospital?
Here is another good one - the oncology unit. Well, really, now you see it, now you don’t. This is a huge commitment from the Labor government - $15.43m. It is a huge cost, but it is an extremely interesting service to be provided up here. That is another one that is very hard to see. We would like some answers so that we can tell people in our constituency when these very exciting proposals are going to be provided by your government, which promised to deliver them. The problem for us is that the minister is giving us such confusing information. She is incompetent, she cannot provide us with accurate information. They are very simple questions. If you decided and looked at your budget process, you have looked at millions and millions of dollars worth of promises that you made during your election campaign; you have finally looked at it and said: ‘Uh oh, uh oh, uh oh! Can’t provide them. Let’s just slide them off the edge here, these little things - these hot emotional items - let’s slide them off so that nobody notices, because we can’t afford to pay for them’. Well, as far as I am concerned, let us know about it. Let us know exactly when they are coming in or where they have fallen off, so that the people in the community can know about it.
One of the other things that we raised with the minister, and she has managed to avoid – how unusual - is in regard to her senior staffing situation with people leaving left, right and centre. I seek the liberty of course, to read into Hansard the statement from Haydn Lowe, who was the Deputy Secretary up until very recently. This man was employed by the minister as a Deputy Secretary. He is one down from the CEO. He has written to hundreds and hundreds of public service Territory Health Service members:
Mr Lowe went on to say:
That is, to my mind, a very sad e-mail. We asked the minister in parliament, I think it was yesterday, whether or not she had taken the time - given such a public farewell from Mr Lowe - to meet with him to gain a better understanding of why he supports her ideas, your government’s initiatives, but is so disappointed with the way they are being currently implemented in the department. Whether she has taken the time to meet with him and to discuss his concerns. Her telling comment was: ‘The relationship does not involve me’. How on earth is she going to know what is going on in her department if she is not prepared to meet with such a man, who appears to be extremely genuine in his support for her policies and is so disappointed in the way they are currently being implemented? It has nothing to do with her!
It has been a disappointing afternoon to hear from the minister how upset she has been with our motion of censure. She describes it as a piffling waste of time. Do you think that the issues that I have raised were a piffling waste of time? No, no comment. I am disappointed the minister thinks our issues are piffling and a waste of time. What you need to understand, minister, is what we are doing is our job. This is our job in opposition. We have been able to grasp it a whole lot quicker than you have. Our job is to keep you on your toes and to keep you accountable.
You have taken no time to address any of our concerns. As usual, you have gone on and on about how we have the worst health outcomes in the Northern Territory, constantly not reading the small print on statistics which is, of course, that our population differs vastly in many characteristics to other populations in Australia. Sure, there is room for improvement and we all hope there will be improvement …
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, what a contrast in this debate here this afternoon. As the member for Drysdale said, the most serious debate brought before this parliament - and he should know he certainly was on the receiving end of a number of them. But what a contrast between the current Health minister who showed today, in the work and the carriage that she has had of this portfolio in the last eight months in terms of being active, engaged, of having a reform agenda for the portfolio that was so desperately needed after the legacy of sloth and inaction.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not being censured here, and I don’t think you should be able to use words like ‘sloth’ against somebody who’s not being censured.
Madam SPEAKER: Look, even though it is a censure motion we should not use unparliamentary language. I have noticed that it has been used on both sides of the House.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order and the sensitivities of the member for Drysdale, I was talking about the sloth and inaction of previous CLP governments in terms of this very, very important portfolio.
We have seen more engagement with the department, the non-government sector, and professionals from this minister and a government with a reform agenda, to turn around - and what we are talking about here is a very, very important issue - the appalling health profiles that exist here in the Northern Territory amongst our indigenous population and, increasingly, amongst the non-indigenous population. That is a direct legacy of 27 years of CLP government and the three former Health ministers who are still sitting here in this parliament today.
I hardly know where to start in the 20 minutes that I have to respond to this censure motion that is before the House today. If we start with the opposition now. I have remarked on this before in the House how we have - it must be something in the air over there or there is osmosis happening or something - but all of a sudden they keep discovering these new constituencies. The new constituents that they have just discovered over the last few weeks are nurses here in the Northern Territory. This is a new constituency that previously was not even on the radar screen when these people were in government. The former Health minister - and if we are going to pick up on the comments to the Chief Minister, I will have a comment for the Leader of the Opposition. I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have wanted to shake the team up a bit; take people out of their comfort zones and give them a new challenge. The member for Drysdale, who had been probably the most appalling Health minister in the history of CLP government, should have been moved to another portfolio, in my opinion, because he delivered absolutely nothing during the period that he had, particularly for nurses.
It is absolutely no surprise to anybody here that, in opposition, as members, as shadow ministers, we did engage with the representative professional bodies who represent the work force here in the Northern Territory and the union movement, people they would never even talk about. But we did talk to the professional bodies and we did talk to the relevant unions.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The head of the ANF here in the Northern Territory could not even get into see the minister - he might have done on a couple of occasions.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is demonstrably an untruth. Unless he can tell this parliament how he has been able to mislead the parliament in such a way, I suggest he desist from that.
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t believe there is a point of order. We have had many allegations without evidence here in this censure motion this afternoon. Let’s continue, but be careful of what we do say.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, he certainly did not have a regular meeting set in place in terms of regular updates pursuing issues. However, they hardly ever get into see the minister - may have done on one or two occasions. He was banned from the hospital for a time to even talk to the work force and this was the total contempt that the previous Health minister had for nurses and their profession. We brought numerous instances before this House. This sudden experience, exposure, and empathy for nurses, and particularly violence against nurses - I had numerous conversations with the head of the ANF here in the Northern Territory about his absolute inability to get to the former Health minister, to get these concerns on the table and have the Health minister take them seriously and develop policy to address a particular issue. The only policy that the previous minister could talk about was, on one occasion, flying people out from Port Keats. That was the only policy that they had and there were real crocodile tears in this House on this particular issue.
If we look at nurses again, one of the reasons why we had such significant problems in terms of recruiting and retaining nurses here in the Northern Territory was the fact that, in terms of their payments and conditions of work, nurses were slipping behind the other states. Again, this was something that failed to be acknowledged. If we look at the lead-up to the election, and I have here a petition that I tabled in this House. They talk about this great empathy that the previous government had for the nursing profession and how the new Health minister has abdicated this. There were appalling offers put on the table by the previous government to nurses. I will just read the petition. I do not know how many hundreds of names are on here - all from Royal Darwin Hospital - and we are probably only going back nine months ago. I will read the petition and the member for Port Darwin was not here at the time or she may have …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It says:
We the undersigned deplore …
Deplore, Madam Speaker.
… the Commissioner’s appalling attitude to nurses in the Northern Territory. His apparent lack of respect for
our profession is evident in his laughable EBA offer. Nurses will not tolerate such treatment …
That was the legacy of the former government in terms of the esteem that they held the nursing profession in. Within a month of coming to office - maybe six weeks, I am not sure - we had this absolutely resolved. We had an offer on the table that took the pay and conditions of nurses in the Northern Territory up to the equal of the highest in Australia, and we will maintain that position. You know, memories fade pretty fast, but the petition that I tabled in this parliament back in July last year certainly puts paid to the issue that nurses here in the Northern Territory are somehow being ignored by the current Health minister.
If we look at the issues in regard to the smokescreen in terms of the capital works funding that we announced, again, no wonder the budget that we inherited was in such a mess. No wonder nobody could understand capital works budgets. I do not know why it is so hard for the opposition to understand that financial years and calendar years overlap. With a commitment for the 2002-03 financial year, the construction could start in the 2003 calendar year and still meet that commitment. I do not know why it is so difficult. A grade seven kid in primary school could probably understand it, but those members opposite will not.
I can say, unlike the members opposite and former CLP governments, when we have made commitments to the birthing suite, the oncology unit and the hospice, we will not be waiting 10 years. We will not be waiting 10 years, like Territorians in Alice Springs had to wait when the Alice Springs extensions to the hospital and a private wing were proposed 10 years ago when Steve Hatton was the Health minister. That particular promise was trotted out in election after election after election. It is great to see it has finally being committed. But for people opposite to say that, within eight months we do not have these new facilities and they are not rising out of the ground, well, again, I would ask them to go back and look at a bit of history. Ten years ago that was first promised.
Mr Dunham: Go back to your debates, mate. You are such a hypocrite. You had a go at me for having a go at the Palmerston Health Clinic.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, just cease for a moment. Member for Drysdale, withdraw that remark.
Mr DUNHAM: Which one?
Madam SPEAKER: Well, if you don’t know what was unparliamentary …
Mr DUNHAM: I said he had a go at me for having a go at the Palmerston Health Clinic.
Madam SPEAKER: I asked you to withdraw that word you used. Just withdraw it. ‘Hypocrite’.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw the fact that you had a go at me over the Palmerston Health Clinic.
Madam SPEAKER: And you called him a hypocrite.
Mr DUNHAM: The hypocrite. Yes, sorry. I withdraw the hypocritical comment.
Madam SPEAKER: And, member for Drysdale, you have had your say so I would like to hear the minister.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I think my interjections are fewer than the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled. I have ruled. Stop being so disorderly.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: You are!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I have not even got to the Palmerston Health Clinic yet, so obviously that has touched a raw nerve with the member for Drysdale.
We then move on. This supposed cavalcade of senior officers fleeing the department is absolutely ridiculous. I am not going to trawl individual public servants’ names - past public servants and current public servants - through this parliament, unlike these people opposite. In the last two years of the member for Drysdale’s administration, I believe we had four separate CEOs, either acting or temporary, in Territory Health Services. It will be an interesting exercise to go back and see the average tenure of the Chief Executive Officers of the hospitals over the years, but we certainly had four. I have the names. He knows who we are talking about and the last one - and I will mention Mr Fletcher because he is no longer here - lasted an inglorious couple of months or something like that. Again, in terms of this avalanche of people leaving the Northern Territory, we do not have to go very far. In the last two years, four acting and temporary CEOs of Territory Health Services. This was the great stewardship of the previous Health minister.
At the end of the day, as ministers - and I certainly accept there are people opposite who have served as ministers - there is a lot that you want to do with your portfolio but, ultimately, we are all constrained by the budget position. We take that responsibility very seriously, which is more than the members opposite.
I am going to go back - because it is absolutely indicative of the desperate financial mess that we inherited from the previous CLP administration - the collusion between senior ministers in that previous administration in terms of trying to hide the true facts of health funding in Territory Health Services. I refer to a memo that was tabled in this parliament on 25 October last year from Paul Bartholomew, Chief Executive Officer of Territory Health Services to the then minister for Health, the current shadow minister for health, dated 27 September 2001. I will quote from pieces in this memo again.
Mr Dunham: Does it warrant investigation?
Mr HENDERSON: This has already been debated in this House:
Just happens to coincide with an election year. This is from the Chief Executive Officer:
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I recognise that this particular minute has been tabled before, but I would have thought, in fairness and equity to the members who are being investigated, that the subject of that particular memo - which has already been referred to the Public Accounts Committee by this parliament - should not be referred to in this debate because the minister is giving authority to a letter, of which no authority has been determined, that is the subject of a PAC investigation.
Madam SPEAKER: I think there is a point of order. We must be careful that we do not make comments about the inquiry of the PAC that is occurring at the moment. Minister, you can refer to it in broad terms, but I prefer you not to speak to specifics. Do you understand what I mean?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I am happy to accept your ruling. We all, in this parliament, are interested to see the outcome of the current PAC inquiry. But it does go to show - and we have debated this in the House; this is a document that is available to any Territorian who may want to seek access to it - that it absolutely goes to the heart of the financial mess that the current Health minister inherited from the previous Health minister. Not only a financial mess, but a mess that was deliberately concealed. The former Health minister has absolutely no credibility at all, I believe, absolutely no credibility …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The censure motion and the tabling of that document did not demonstrate that anything was deliberately concealed. The member is either speculating or he is treading on very thin ice.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order. We have already referred to this document and how it should be treated. I am sure the minister understands exactly what I have been saying.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I will move to one final example - and this does not go to the memo. We have other evidence of the financial cover-ups that were going on in the previous department and it goes to the previous Treasurer, the member for Katherine, who had two sets of books running in regards to …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The imputation there were two sets of books libels the former Under Treasurer; it libels the entire Department of Treasury. If the member wants to make allegations that two sets of books were run on a fabricated basis, I suggest he refer it to the Public Accounts Committee where this is being investigated.
Dr LIM: Speaking further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. It appears that comments such as two sets of books and all that have been leaked by the PAC because those were things discussed …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Someone is on their feet. You haven’t been called.
Dr LIM: Hang on. Let me finish what I have to say first. These things were discussed within deliberative sessions of the committee and, if it is now out in public then I think there is a problem.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Those comments about two sets of books were actually given in public session and it is publicly available as Hansard to members of the public. It is on the public record.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The allegation was made by the Chairman and was strenuously refuted so it cannot be raised again here …
Madam SPEAKER: This is not the Public Accounts Committee. You people continue your debate in the session. We have the minister on his feet. Minister, continue.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, this was all on the public record and the documents are there about the Treasury quarterly financial statements. Again, I will read from the question I asked the previous Health minister in appropriation debate last year:
Here we have a set of budget papers coming down in the parliament. Nine days before that, the Treasurer’s quarterly financial statement showed that, to come in on budget, you would have had to take a cut of $26m in the last quarter.
I am not going to bother to read the rubbish that the previous Health minister replied in trying to answer for this. He talked about incidences of water-borne disease, whatever it was, in Alice Springs that hadn’t even started when the budget papers were proven. But we knew then from opposition, before the Bartholomew minute, that there was something very, very iffy about the budget figures that had been tabled in the parliament. We will wait to see where the Public Accounts Committee finally gets with that.
I would certainly stand here and say, without any fear or favour, that the person who has led the charge in terms of this censure debate here this afternoon, has absolutely no credibility in terms of his stewardship of the department over his tenure. We can have absolute certainty that the budget figures that will be tabled by this minister will be the accurate budget figures before the parliament.
If we look at outcomes - this is what we should be debating here, outcomes. As the Health minister said, we are a government with a reform agenda for health, and a reform agenda focused on outcomes, about better quality of services and about better health profiles in the Northern Territory.
Again, if we look at the legacy of mortality rates in the Northern Territory …
Dr Burns: Madam Speaker, I move …
Mr Burke: Have you got a problem over there, have you?
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is all right, his time has not expired, you are interrupting him.
Mr Burke: There are more important things than jumping at the time expiry.
Members interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: Madam Speaker, I move that there be an extension of time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: No, time has not expired yet! Let the minister finish his speech. Go on, Minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I hope I will be granted an extension of time.
We certainly have seen, as my colleague, the member for Johnston has stated, that we did inherit deadly territory where health profiles of Aboriginal and non-indigenous people in the Northern Territory are far worse than those of the broader Australian community. If we look at some numbers here - diabetes, we have Aboriginal males and Aboriginal females between six and 11 times higher than the average of the Australian population; heart disease, two times higher; stroke 2.6 times higher for men, 90% higher for women; respiratory disease …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired now.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the speaker be granted so much time as it takes him to complete his speech.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, no, we don’t give him that much time, but we will have an extension of time. Is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Respiratory disease is between five and 10 times higher for Aboriginal males and females; renal disease four to 11 times higher; and the indications amongst the non-indigenous population across those profiles are starting to trend upwards.
Certainly, there was no legacy that we inherited in government - that this Health minister has inherited - in terms of a healthy populace here in the Northern Territory, but a requirement to look to more money for the budget to deal with this appalling health profile that we have.
The other allegation that was made, that people can’t get to the Health minister, how somehow she has barricaded herself behind a wall of advisors and will not meet. Well, again, if we go back to the interview of the other day with Robyn Cahill, the secretary or chief - or whatever her position is with the AMA - I don’t have the quotes here with me. She certainly indicated in that radio interview that the AMA have a much greater level of access to the Health minister than they previously had under the previous minister. I am aware of the ANF, Allied Health, a number of non-government organisations - in my time as the shadow minister - all complaining about how they couldn’t get anywhere near the previous Health minister.
There were ridiculous comments that were made that somehow the Health minister should not have good, competent people from a health background advising her in her position, and the ludicrous comments from the member for Drysdale who said: ‘Look, I only had one advisor’. Well, no wonder we inherited such a mess! No wonder we have inherited such a mess, when the previous minister was so arrogant to assume that not having a professional health background himself, that he knew it all: ‘I know it all, I can sit up here on the fifth floor, I don’t need anybody to advise me, I only need one advisor and everything is going to be hunky-dory. I can back my judgment; I can back my instincts and deliver the outcomes for Territorians with only one person advising me’. Well, I wouldn’t think there would be another Health minister in the country, in the western world, who would only have one advisor on such a vital area and portfolio responsibility. Maybe if the previous Health minister had had more than one advisor, we wouldn’t have inherited such an absolute mess.
Moving through to the points of the motion …
Mr Stirling: None of which they addressed.
Mr HENDERSON: None of which they addressed, but I will address them here. ‘The abject failure to understand or administer the most important portfolio, unable to answer questions’. Certainly, the Health minister has had more questions in the last two sittings than all of us put together. Members opposite could not prove one instance where the Health minister could not answer the question put to her - not one. Absolutely no substance.
‘Inability to ensure the government’s policies are implemented by the department’. Well, there has been a raft of policy initiatives that have been promoted during this minister’s term in this portfolio. I am not going to go through all of them but, particularly in the smoking related area, a very important public health policy had to be addressed. The professional health sector was beating the previous minister’s doors down begging for something to be done in this area, given the appalling health profiles in the Northern Territory. There was an enormous amount of public comment on this leading up to the election. These are health professionals - there was only one advisor in the minister’s office who probably didn’t come from a health background either, so no wonder the previous minister didn’t hear this. We have moved on that. We recognise it is tricky, we recognise that it is politically going to be difficult, but we are a government about improving health outcomes, and we are not going to improve health outcomes unless we tackle some sensitive issues.
There has been a lot spoken about drugs and the availability of narcotics in our community - the health consequences, the crime consequences and the previous administration’s absolute failure - absolute failure, there is no other word for it - to even acknowledge that there was a problem, let alone have public policy reform and a reform agenda to deal with it. The testament is all there. It is all in the Hansard; it is all there for people down the years to look at the absolute difference in terms of responsible public policy looking to improved outcomes for Territorians, from this Health minister compared to previous Health ministers. They can also compare them moving on the very important issues about sustainable recruitment and retention, not only for nursing staff but also for professional staff. Yes, it is difficult, but we have made the hard yards in the budget in terms of making nurses amongst the best paid with the best conditions here in Australia. The previous government failed to do that.
I have notes that the department has an additional five-and-a-half clinical nurse education positions across the Northern Territory - very important positions. Let’s grow our own nurses here. Four of these have been appointed and the second round of advertisements will see all positions filled by June 2002. The re-entry program for nurses that the minister has implemented will provide opportunities for nurses across the NT to re-enter the nursing work force - responsible public policy that is delivery the goods. The government is offering 75% of base salary for up to three months supervised practice in the work force, to get those nurses back in the work force. If all was so bad and we were having this mass exodus of professional staff, nobody wanted to work for THS - recruitment into the nursing program at the Northern Territory University has seen a record intake in 2002. In the Bachelor of Nursing Program, 240 new starters commenced in 2002; in excess of 100 of these being Northern Territory residents. So again, public policy, reform agenda being implemented by this minister is starting to deliver the long-term goods that we need here in the Northern Territory.
Government policies are being implemented through the department and we will see those outcomes as the term of our government progresses.
The third point of the censure motion was ‘failure to take responsibility for the actions of the department and cuts to services’. Well, the only cuts to services that could be identified was the dental position in Katherine. As the Health minister said, this isn’t an issue, in terms of the budget no longer available; it is an issue of trying to recruit dentists to the Northern Territory - a major problem. Look at the genesis of this problem, and not a word from members opposite when it occurred. One of the first actions of the new Howard government was to cut the additional funding that Paul Keating, as Prime Minister, put in to the dental services here in Australia. The direct consequence of that cut - not a peep at the time - not topped up by the previous governments, have been it is increasingly harder to recruit, not only dentists, but other health professionals. We are dealing with that. It is not an issue in terms of budget or responsibility; it is a recruitment issue that we have inherited, and we’ll move on it.
‘The disregard for the concerns and wellbeing of Territorians’. Well, I would have to say that this Health minister has more drive, compassion, sensitivity and zeal for this portfolio, than the three former Health ministers on the other side put together who, at the end of the day, can only look back on what was achieved during that period of office. What was actually achieved in the period of office? That is what we can all do here, as government, as ministers, as members, to look back and say: ‘Well, what did we achieve?’. I would have to say what the previous CLP administrations, previous Health ministers, have achieved were: declining health outcomes for Territorians. That is their legacy. That is what this Health minister, this government, is absolutely committed to turning around. The reform agenda has started and this minister will see it through.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I find it curious that the member for Wanguri stood up and, for 20 minutes, lashed out at my colleague the member for Drysdale, and said nothing - absolutely nothing in defence of his own minister! Then, at the last 10 minutes of the extension, he started to get into the thick of things. When he then tried to suggest that the member for Drysdale, as the minister for health, was very arrogant ...
Mr Ah Kit: Tell us what happened in Alice Springs Hospital some years ago!
Dr LIM: I will take on that interjection from the member for Arnhem. He hides in his coward’s castle and tries to imply that I had something to do with a person’s death.
Mr Ah Kit: Tell us what happened!
Dr LIM: Let me say categorically - and I will explain that in the adjournment later on - that in my 30 years of professional life I have never, ever lost a patient. If you have any problems, go outside and say it and see what happens.
Now coming back to the issue …
Mr Ah Kit: You probably never had many going to you! You probably never had many going to see you, that is why you are here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, order! Member for Arnhem, I find your remarks to be out of order. I think you are completely out of order. Refrain from it. I am not quite sure what you said, but it sounded to me as though it was the wrong comment to make in this House.
Dr LIM: I have already challenged him, Madam Speaker, I have challenged him. It is up to him now to try and prove it outside. I have spoken to the member for Nhulunbuy previously at another session of this parliament, and he had the decency to come and apologise to me, and has left it alone ever since. So, I challenge all you members to try and raise it outside this coward’s castle.
Coming back to this issue of the member for Wanguri attacking my colleague, the member for Drysdale, about his arrogance of having only one ministerial advisor. Let’s take this ministry for example. The member for Casuarina has six key portfolios, and six ministerial advisors - one for each portfolio. Well done, well done. The member for Arnhem has five portfolios, and three ministerial advisors. The Deputy Chief Minister himself has three ministerial advisors for three portfolios, and he carries the key portfolios of Education, Police, Fire and Emergency services, and also the responsibility of Leader of Government Business. The member for Wanguri himself has eight portfolios. He takes up the crucial portfolios of economy, development, and all he needs is one advisor per portfolio. Yet, the minister for health needs to have three, four, five.
So, what is she doing? She is incompetent, which is what we are trying to develop a case for. I believe this supports totally that she is incompetent, and unable to deal with health issues; that is why the department has fallen around its ears. For months now, Territorians have been saying: ‘The health departments are falling apart’, and she hasn’t heard. She might be accessible to everybody, but it goes in one ear and out the other, and that is the problem.
At the last sittings of parliament, the members for Macdonnell and Araluen and myself, explained in this House that we went for a briefing given by the Acting Medical Superintendent or Acting Director of Medical Services, the Acting General Manager of the hospital, and the Acting Director for Nursing. All three said to us that the Alice Springs Hospital was in a diabolical state.
Mr Elferink: A state of continual crisis.
Dr LIM: I take up on the interjection - a state of continual crisis. The intensive care area was dangerous and they were constantly at least 50 nurses short in their complement.
Let me come now to the minister and what she has done or not done about things. We tried to ask questions about the Hermannsburg medical service, and she gave us a beat-around-the-bush answer. In an article published in the Centralian Advocate of 14 May, the leading headline was: ‘Funding threat to remote docs job’. The first paragraph says:
And it goes on, in a couple of a paragraphs later on:
That is the problem. This minister, without thinking, has deprived a community of 1400 people of the full-time services of a general practitioner: somebody who will have volunteered to go out there with the funding - with the assistance of the federal government that provided $50 000 top-up money - and the ability to bulk bill Medicare. But that pool of money is insufficient to maintain a viable practice. For three years, the CLP government had continued to support her presence out in the area with $25 000 top-up plus the use of a vehicle and nursing support. That is what is required to assist Aboriginal people out in the Western Arrernte region. What has this minister done about it? Nothing! And she has nothing in place to ensure that the people of the Western Arrernte region have a continuing service after this funding finishes on 30 June. There is a gap that the minister is not able to guarantee to fill.
If the minister can stand up tomorrow morning and say that the Western Arrernte people will continue to have medical services from 1 July this year, then I will have no quarrel with her. But until she says that, there is nothing available and that is not right, not for 1400 people.
A question on the nursing numbers was asked of the minister this morning, and she told us that Alice Springs Hospital has two more nurses than full complement. It is interesting that she did not tell us that the majority of these extra nurses she had found to work at the Alice Springs Hospital in the last weeks or so, are 68 agency nurses. Sixty-eight out of a compliment of about 250 is more than 25%. Many of these nurses have short-term contracts which will end in about 10 days time. Suddenly, there is more than a full complement in the hospital at the time of the sittings, so that she can come in here and tell us the truth. But, in 10 days time, the Alice Springs Hospital is going to once more be back to the same situation: they are going to be many nurses short.
Patients are still waiting for two or three months before they can get elective surgery. They are not fulfilling the promises that this minister made. I will come to the Tennant Creek renal unit in a minute, but what has happened in the Alice Springs unit is that the specialist, Dr Kirubakaran has been on long service leave for two months now. He, I am told, is on an eight month long service leave. He has gone back to India, and it is very unlikely that he is going to return to Alice Springs, so we do not have a renal specialist in Alice Springs. But what’s going to happen? Tennant Creek is going to have a renal service for 10 patients. The member for Barkly earlier this afternoon indicated across the Chamber that he was going to get a renal physician sent from Darwin to Tennant Creek to service that unit. It does not matter about Alice Springs, with more than 10 patients. More than 40 patients are on renal dialysis, and it does not matter if they do not have a renal specialist, as long as the Top End and Tennant Creek is covered. Central Australia is represented by CLP members. Is that why it is that this minister and this ministry does not support Central Australia? They do not. The paediatric specialist is another …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Dr LIM: This member from Sanderson - I have said to this Chamber before - is like an empty vessel. He rattles around all day with an intellect as deep as the puddle of piddle that the member for Millner created on the football oval. It is about time he shut his mouth and stopped rattling around like an empty vessel that he is.
Coming back to the paediatric specialist at the Alice Springs Hospital, we are losing one of the most qualified I think …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Can we have some order so that the member can continue without being disturbed.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I congratulate the member for Nhulunbuy, the Leader of Government Business, for heeding your reprimand.
Coming back to the paediatric specialist at the Alice Springs Hospital; we are losing one of the most qualified, valued paediatric specialists this month. She is leaving out of pure frustration, because of the poor management of the Alice Springs Hospital. She was recruited at great cost from Sydney to look after paediatric pulmonary diseases. Just in case you do not understand pulmonary diseases, it is diseases of the lung. She has done a lot of research into Aboriginal children suffering from pulmonary diseases. But now, out of frustration, she is leaving town. Then there will be another hole in our paediatric complement once more. Is the minister doing anything about? Not as far I know. There has been no recruiting process put in place to find somebody to replace her. I suggest that they are not going to find somebody of equal qualification.
Does the minister know what the full complement of District Medical Officers in Alice Springs is? I suggest she might not. Let me tell her that we normally have six DMOs in Alice Springs servicing Central Australia, using the services of the RFDS. Right now, there are only three DMOs. Again, I do not see any activity from the minister. What is she doing about it? If they are three DMOs short, that is half the numbers that are required to service Central Australia. If there is no doctor at Hermannsburg then Central Australian Aboriginal people are going to miss out. All the cattle breeders in Central Australia on the stations are also going to miss out on medical care. Is this minister doing the right thing? Is this minister doing any work at all? I suggest to you, definitely not.
I am using Alice Springs Hospital and the Alice Springs community as an example; I am not even talking about the whole of the Territory yet. I have rattled off to you some six shortfalls already. The emergency department of the Alice Springs Hospital is one senior doctor short, and it is very likely that they are going to be short for quite some time. What has she done about it? Nothing! All she says is: ‘This is operational’, nothing to do with her. Yet she dares to tell us that she has been to Alice Springs six or eight times just recently. Isn’t it curious though that, until she was chastised by the Central Australian members of parliament, she had only been down there twice? Suddenly, in the flurry over the last five weeks, she has made five further visits. Well, thank you for doing that, Minister. I think that is great that you are now at least prepared to expose yourself to the issues in Central Australia and get some first-hand information.
The Night Patrol has been struggling in Alice Springs to provide services every day of the week. At the moment, they have enough funding to only do five nights of the week from 5 pm to 1.30 am. That is it - Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. There is no Night Patrol on Sunday and Monday. The Minister for Central Australia assured us that complementary measures were going to be put in place to back up the alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs. Yet, Night Patrol has not been funded. What has the Minister for Health and Community Services done about it? A big zero! That is what she has done, a big zero.
A member interjecting.
Dr LIM: I will not pick up on the interjection because it is going to distract me.
Let me come to the Territory in general. We heard the member for Port Darwin speak about the radio-oncology service and what it was going to cost, some $15.4m. I have worked in an oncology service during my training and I know what it costs. This is going to be a pie in the sky; it is not going to be enough. The minister needs to come to some sort of reality check to make sure that adequate funding is put in place.
Don’t lead Territorians up the garden path, particularly Territorians who are suffering terminal illnesses who would grasp at any straw they possibly can to ensure that they get some positive outcomes for their illnesses. If you are going to this; do it properly, do it right. The confusion between the minister for development and the minister for Health is a classical example of the ministers not knowing what each other is doing. There is huge confusion and your own publication demonstrates that. One minister says: ‘Yes, we are going to have this done in this term of office, and another minister says: ‘No, it is not, it is going to happen in the next term of office if we win’. That is a big difference. You are all leading Territorians …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex has just made an allegation that one minister has stated that the project will commence within this term of office and another minister has said no, it will be in the next term. I would like him to quote specifically from the Hansard because that is not accurate. It is totally a misrepresentation of what has been said here in the parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: This is a censure motion and there have been allegations made with evidence to back up the allegations. But members are aware that they should be careful in what they say. So, member for Greatorex, if you can substantiate what you have claimed, then do so.
Dr LIM: The planning of the project is the development; it is part of the whole development. You can’t have bricks and mortar coming up without plans. That whole thing is called a development. Yes or no? Therefore, I say to you that the minister for Health was adamant, yesterday and this morning, that the development was going ahead during this term of office. This other minister has a publication that says it is proposed for the next term of office. That next term of office is not a sure thing for them. So, here goes another rattle from the empty vessel.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Dr LIM: Here he goes again.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Dr LIM: And again.
We talked earlier about the management of the department and whether the minister takes responsibility for it. She obviously needs to have a Chief Executive Officer who is managing the department with her, side by side. She provides government policy, the CEO implements the policy and should be there. I hear now that the CEO is travelling out of the Northern Territory for purposes other than Territory Health matters. Now, what’s he doing? Why is he not here managing the department? What is he doing, when the minister is in difficulties and he is not here to assist? I hear that he is actually interstate looking for jobs elsewhere. Now, that is a problem. When you have a CEO who is now tuning himself out of the Territory to look for a job elsewhere, it is a problem. This CEO is not with the minister to run the department and that is a major problem.
The General Manager of the Royal Darwin Hospital has left today. This is a major hospital; it is considered a tertiary hospital for the Territory where very ill patients are referred to the Royal Darwin. This hospital has to be managed properly and we don’t have anybody at the helm. Is the minister concerned about it? She hasn’t said so. I suppose she will give us the excuse that it is just another operational matter and she’ll stay at arm’s length from it.
The Deputy Secretary of the department also resigned several days ago and was literally frogmarched out of the department the same day. This is definitely showing that the top level management, starting from the minister, has fallen apart completely and things are not being looked after as they should be. It is important that the minister starts looking at health issues closely, doesn’t wait for us to tell her what she has to do, gets across the issues quickly, gets doctors in to explain what needs to happen, gets nurses in to explain what needs to happen, and gets on with the job, or else step down.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether it was a wise move or not, suggesting that we might take three speakers each side in this debate this afternoon, when the normal protocol is two each side. I certainly didn’t want to be accused of gagging, and hence we were able to give the opposition spokesman for health an extra 10 minutes to try to substantiate his case for the censure motion that he tabled. We allowed an extra speaker each side which, from the opposition point of view, got us absolutely nowhere, and has burned up well over two hours of valuable parliamentary time.
That aside, I hope the opposition has learned something today in the ways of prosecuting a censure motion. The first rule they have to learn is that you don’t make up your mind to censure a minister just because you think it is a good idea. You have to prepare the groundwork and you have to substantiate your case. In this case, not one of them went to the first point that they were trying to prosecute. The last speaker tried to. The shadow minister’s first point in censuring the minister for health was ‘her abject failure to understand or administer this most important of portfolios as constantly revealed by her inability to answer questions’.
I know why they were so sensitive about Question Time being closed on the dot of 3 pm yesterday and not seven or eight minutes past as they wanted. They wanted to censure the minister for health yesterday. The game plan was in place 24 hours early, so it didn’t matter what, and how many questions the minister for health answered over however many days, she was going to be censured. It would have been yesterday, but they are so careless. When we were preparing for a censure we would lead in and keep an eye on the clock so that, at about the last 10 minutes - we never took the risk of going past the last 10 minutes because you couldn’t be sure you were going to get the question back. We always wanted to lead into the censure on our question. Now, they learnt a little last time, and today they gave themselves five or 10 minutes. They didn’t learn yesterday; they got cut off at the gong.
If we go back over yesterday, there were 17 questions asked in parliament - far more than ever used to occur in this Chamber - of which 10 were directed to the minister for Health. The first question from Mr Dunham to the minister for Health was in relation to the hospice at the Royal Darwin Hospital, and whether or not it had been postponed. Well, I’ll tell you how long it has been postponed. When we had the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill debated and passed in here in 1994 or 1995 by former Chief Minister Marshall Perron, part of the debate, negotiation and discussion that went with the passage of that bill - given that it was not an easy bill, it didn’t get an easy passage through this House, and there was a lot of emotion on both sides of the House - part of the consensus in the end was that they would commit to a hospice. The Leader of the Opposition would well remember this because he was on the same side of the debate as I was. He would remember that a commitment was made that a hospice and palliative care measures would be put in place to satisfy those of us who were bitterly opposed to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill. It is now 2002 and they are asking us - we have been in government for eight months - where this hospice is. Not only that, the minister’s answered the question. There is no suggestion it has been postponed.
The next question comes from Mr Dunham, again on the hospice, and the minister says: ‘It is in the mini-budget and will be built in the next financial year’. She has answered the question twice. In 10 of these 17 questions, she has the same question twice.
The next question from Ms Carter to the minister for Health is about the birthing centre. Very clear: it is part of our election commitment and will be provided.
Next question, Ms Carter to minister for Health, again on the birthing centre. The minister again gives that time; that it is in the mini-budget. She gets cut off, but this project might start at the beginning of the year 2005.
The very next question, Ms Carney to minister for Health. ‘How much of the budget has your office expended?’ She gives a detailed answer right through her budget and what is happening there.
Mr McAdam, one of our own to minister for Health, on the Alice Springs Hospital. So there we had 10 out of 17 questions and she has answered every one. I don’t intend to go through the 14 questions asked today before we were cut off by the censure motion; seven of them to the minister for Health. The answers are in there; you can look at them as easily and as well as I can.
Her abject failure to answer questions put to her in this Chamber, was dot point 1 of the censure motion. If you are going to prosecute a censure motion in here, you address the points - you address the points of the censure motion as you put it down. Now, you don’t say: ‘Yes we are going to censure the minister for Health. Let’s think up a few things, whack them down on a bit of paper, that is it’, and fail to address them.
Mr Ah Kit: But they are still learning.
Mr STIRLING: Jack, I understand they’re still learning, but I don’t want this to be a training centre for politicians. I don’t want it to be a learning centre for the opposition. You ought to be hitting your straps by now; you shouldn’t have to hear it from me as to how to run opposition or how to run a censure motion. Rule number one is, get your points down as to why you are going to censure this minister, and then have the decency to address the points and substantiate your arguments. It is no good for the opposition shadow minister for Health saying: ‘Answer’s not forthcoming, no capacity to do the job, inadvertent liar’. These just flow regularly out of his mouth over the space of 20 minutes – then we gave him an extension - 30, 40 minutes, however long he had. He failed to substantiate any single allegation, despite the fact that he had the four points down there. There was no prosecution of point one.
The second point was ‘her inability to ensure the government’s policies are implemented by a department has been revealed by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health’. Where on earth this came from, I know not, but we have …
Ms Scrymgour: E-mail.
Mr STIRLING: Oh, I have it here:
They’re being implemented though. It is very clear they’re being implemented. This man supports the directions, but he doesn’t support the manner in which they’re being implemented. He doesn’t question that they’re implementing the very policies of this government that he supports. Yet we find here the minister for Health is being censured because they are misquoting one senior public servant. If that is inaccurate, well, you have missed your chance. I am sorry, I am going to close debate after this; you have had your chance. I take it from that, that point two here just fails on its own accord.
Here is a beauty here too, point three. I waited and waited through 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes, and that is why I was keen for the opposition shadow minister to get another 10 minutes because point three was: ‘Her failure to take responsibility for the actions of her department such as the cutbacks and services across the Territory’. Well, where are these cutbacks? Where are the cutbacks? Where is this list of cutbacks that the department has implemented across the Territory for which the minister should be censured?
Today, we had a question on dental services in Katherine, and it seemed to be the only service. The member for Katherine prefaced that by saying: ‘Oh, there are cutbacks across the Northern Territory being experienced by thousands of people’. One example is - in fact it is the only example we heard, and yet it appears in the censure motion - failure to take responsibility for the actions such as the cutbacks in services across the Territory. We have one example of cutbacks in services, and that came from Katherine. I understand the minister for Health dealt with that inside her response to the censure motion. There is a fair bit lacking here in terms of fully prosecuting and substantiating each of the points.
The fourth point - well, how do you prosecute it; how do you defend it: ‘Her total disregard for the concerns and welfare of both Territorians in need of health care and those who provide such care’. It is a value judgment, it is an opinion, it is not worth the paper it is written on. A concerted attempt could have been made to prosecute points one, two and three. But it wouldn’t matter what you put on the table in respect of point four, it is just something that you can’t prosecute in here; you can’t prove one way or the other. It is not worth the paper it is written on in terms of a substantive motion, that the shadow minister for Health is trying to convince the Chief Minister that she is not up to the job. Well, he has failed, I am sorry to say. He has failed on all points.
In itself, they had the potential there, in the sense that they could be prosecuted if you had the ammunition, if you had the evidence and you were able to stack it up one by one. We gave your lead spokesman extra time to try and put the information on the record, and it simply didn’t happen.
Robyn Cahill and the AMA were mentioned in despatches at a couple of points in the debate. There was an interview this morning between Fred McCue and Robyn Cahill, 8.30 am on the 8DDD program, and if I just go to a couple of points here. The reporter says:
Ms Cahill:
In some issues we will be taking quite drastic steps to address this issue of safety for public servants in communities. To suggest and to put it on the record that it is all the fault of this minister and it all started on 28 August last year - it was happening before you were elected and it was happening when you were a nurse, I suggest, back in 1983.
I don’t intend to take too much longer of the time of the House. I have demonstrated to the opposition how they should go about a censure motion: get the points down, get your information together to substantiate the points. If you don’t have the evidence, you can’t back up the points, rub them out. Rub them out and start again; do it on the whiteboard so you don’t waste a lot of paper. Then get your senior staff around, your advisors, and you can have a bit of a think: ‘Can we prosecute that point? What am I going to say to prosecute that point before I move on to the next?’.
The opposition spokesman for health dropped this on the table, and then failed to address it. He failed to even look at it, forgot what he said, forgot why he was moving this substantive motion of censure against the minister for Health. It just seemed like a good idea. He said: ‘Let’s get in the minister for Health’. So right from the start, day one of the sittings, bang: ‘Oh, we missed day one. Let’s go, plan two: let’s censure the minister for Health on the second day of parliament’.
Okay, you have done it, but you have a long way to go. If you want a little advice, I am probably available at different times to take you through the process, and establish a case question by question. You would have seen us do it - you saw us do it - effectively censure you guys from the other side. I don’t know why you didn’t learn at the time. So effective, in fact, that you didn’t want to hear them in the end. When we wanted to censure you on the Darwin to Katherine transmission line, you didn’t want to hear it. We were getting too clever by then. They decided: ‘No, no, no, you are too good for us. We are not going to take you on’. So, you have a fair way to go, but that is all right. I am happy to assist along the way, but I don’t want to see the parliament’s time used up as a training room for a novice opposition. Madam Speaker, I move the question be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be supported.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mr Mills Ms Martin
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
Continued from 7 March 2001.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the Ombudsman’s 23rd Annual Report, which is the financial year 2000-01. Honourable members will be immediately aware that this covers the period before the Labour government gained office. With this in mind, the areas which I will highlight today will concentrate on how the public sector, under the Labor administration, is addressing the concerns raised by the Ombudsman, and doing that in a very positive manner.
Firstly, I think it is important to remind ourselves why we have an Ombudsman. The modern concept of the Ombudsman evolved from a Swedish model established in the early 1800s, and has since spread world-wide and been adopted in some 84 countries. In Australia today, the basic objective of an Ombudsman is to try to provide an accessible and effective means of dealing with complaints arising from defective administration by government agencies. The Ombudsman is independent of government and is responsible to parliament.
The purpose of the annual report, as noted in the forward, is threefold: to assure the Legislative Assembly that the Ombudsman has carried out his or her functions and responsibilities in a proper and accountable manner; to provide feedback to the community about issues which have arisen in relation to the provision of services by the public sector, as highlighted by the complaints received; and to demonstrate to the public that the office of the Ombudsman has operated efficiently and provides an effective complaint resolution mechanism.
The role of the Ombudsman is continuously evolving to meet the expectations of the public and the parliament. The Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act commenced at self-government in 1978 and, although it has been subject to a number of amendments, it has yet to be thoroughly reviewed. To ensure the legislation of the Territory’s Ombudsman meets the current and future expectations of Territorians, I have commissioned a full review of the act. The review panel is currently developing a public consultation process, and I am looking forward to providing more detailed information to honourable members in the near future.
Turning now to consider the Ombudsman’s annual report in more detail, I note that the Ombudsman has raised concerns regarding the resources available to him, that the perceived under-resourcing has, to quote him: ‘eroded the independence of the office’. I am pleased to announce that my government has recognised a potential shortfall in the resources available to the Ombudsman, and has made an increased allocation to the office of $114 000 per year for personnel costs, commencing in 2001-02, and a one-off allocation this financial year of $55 000 for information technology.
It is reassuring to know that Territorians are not afraid to voice their concerns if they feel they have been unfairly done by. In 2000-01, there was some 1900 approaches to the Ombudsman, an increase of 13% on the previous year. After removing the approaches which were outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, the increase was 6%, or 1100 approaches. It is also reassuring to know that the vast majority of the initial queries did not require action or investigation.
Take, for example, the police force, which was the area of government that received the highest number of approaches - some 360. Of these, only 23%, or 85, required investigation. While 85 complaints represents 85 possible instances of defective actions, let’s put this figure into perspective. Every year, there are tens of thousands of contacts between members of the police and Territorians, sometimes in the most difficult of circumstances. Only a very small number of these result in complaints, and of those investigated, only a very small number are actually substantiated. This indicates to me - and should indicate to other honourable members - that generally speaking, we are well served by our police force. To further ensure that these processes meet contemporary requirements, the Commissioner of Police is actively involved in the review of the Ombudsman Act. The review will address a number of issues that have arisen from judicial interpretation, such as the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, the subpoena of complaint documents, and disciplinary time limits.
The area of government which received the second highest level of complaints was Correctional Services, with almost 130 matters. Of these, 74% were found by the Ombudsman to be unsubstantiated. Of the 26% which were found to be proven against the agency, Correctional Services has taken positive steps to address the concerns raised by both the Ombudsman and the complainants. The Ombudsman has identified access to telephones by prisoners as an area of ongoing complaint. To address this, a new telephone system is to be installed before the end of the current financial year. This prison telephone system will address the Ombudsman’s concern regarding prisoner access to relatives and friends. It will also give direct access to the Ombudsman’s Office and legal practitioners.
A further example of Correctional Services successfully examining its systems in response to issues raised by the Ombudsman is in relation to prisoner property. The property holding facilities at Darwin Correctional Centre have been redesigned and the development of a new standardised prisoners property manual is underway.
Whilst, understandably, the majority of the Ombudsman’s annual report is concerned with complaints against agencies - that after all is the nature of the exercise - there are also accolades awarded to various agencies and their staff. The Ombudsman notes that he has generally had a good relationship with agencies, and singled out the Power and Water Authority, Territory Housing and the then Territory Health Services for their commitment to cooperating with the Ombudsman in improving client outcomes.
One area where the Ombudsman should soon be receiving fewer complaints is in regards to access to government documents and information. The Ombudsman notes and I quote from his report: ‘There is a need to introduce legislation so as to ensure the public have a clearly defined right of access to government held information’. My government’s Information Act will address these needs and, after its implementation, Territorians will enjoy a more open and accessible government than has been the case in the past year.
Another area that I wish to bring to your attention is the self-certification process in regard to the building industry that has been identified as an area of concern for some time. The government is currently considering proposals for the introduction of both a mandatory builders’ indemnity insurance scheme and builders’ licensing. My government is committed to ensuring that all participants in the building industry are held accountable, and that public confidence in the industry is high.
Whilst there are many issues in the Ombudsman’s 2000-01 Annual Report that deserve highlighting to honourable members, the final area that I wish to bring to your attention concerns land planning. The government recently endorsed a further development of a consolidated, integrated and rationalised planning scheme to apply to the whole of the Territory, replacing a multitude of separate control plans. I am confident that, combined with other proposed reforms to the planning process - for example, the introduction of limited third party appeal rights - the planning scheme and process will meet the expectations of the community in a balanced and equitable manner.
The Ombudsman provides one of the essential checks and balances within our bureaucracy by offering an accessible and effective means of dealing with complaints arising from administrative decisions by government agencies. The role of the Ombudsman is not an easy one. It is carried out expeditiously and to a high professional standard by the Ombudsman and staff in the Darwin and Alice Springs offices. I certainly thank them for their efforts. Also, let us not forget the public servants in all agencies who respond to requests for information and who participate in investigations and inquiries.
Honorable members, I commend the annual report to you.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was listening carefully to the Chief Minister’s response because she did raise a couple of issues that were of concern to the Ombudsman in his report. I am not quite sure if I heard her correctly, but in any case, in my comments I will pick up on those first.
With regard to the funding issue, I recognise that the Ombudsman’s office and this report, as the Chief Minister said, was under my period as Chief Minister. She did point to the fact that, with regard to funding issues, there has been $114 000 additional allocation this financial year. If that is the case, I simply ask the question is that on top of the $62 000 or $72 000 I recall was one-off funding in the mini-budget, or is that new monies on top of that? I am not quite sure what the answer is there. As I said, I was trying to listen to what she said.
She states also that she has commissioned a full review of the Ombudsman’s Act. It is certainly not pointed to as a need in that report. However, that aside, if that review does look at the relationship between the Police Commissioner, complaints against police, and the jurisdictional issues by the Ombudsman into police complaints, that has been an ongoing problem. In this report it states, and I understood, that those demarcation areas were resolved with the agreement of the Police Commissioner. If there are ongoing problems that a review and a change to the act will achieve, I am certainly pleased to hear that. We will be looking to see what those changes are. If they are constructive and positive, we will certainly support them. I have always felt that the demarcation issues between the Ombudsman and the police are wrong. Notwithstanding the good efforts of the Ombudsman, I certainly believe the police themselves should be given greater autonomy in terms of dealing directly with complaints against them, providing there is sufficient oversight.
The other thing the Chief Minister mentioned was the fact that there would be a telephone system installed, so that prisoners had a direct line to the Ombudsman. Interesting concept. That is all I can say: interesting concept. It seems to me that, obviously, some thought has gone into it. I would like some explanation as to why there is a necessity for a direct line to the Ombudsman. I would have thought that, in that particular process, there would be some authority whereby the corrections officers themselves could become involved, if for no other reason than to protect the Ombudsman and the workload that could be placed on his own office. It wouldn’t be to stifle the opportunity for a legitimate complaint to be put. I do wonder what and how this particular initiative would work whereby, as I understand the Chief Minister, a prisoner finds the right phone and directly rings the Ombudsman’s office. This would be a privilege, I would have thought, that is not even provided to the average law-abiding Territorian.
She also mentioned the self-certification process and talked about changes to the Planning Act that will assist in those areas. I am not quite sure if that was what the Ombudsman himself was pointing to. He is really talking about the self-certification by certifiers on builders themselves. Building registration and changes to the Planning Act are two totally separate issues. He is talking about the people who come in there and actually certify whether or not the construction has been done appropriately, and whether there has been sufficient audit within the department itself on those particular processes. On that issue alone, I agree. There is a great deal of concern, not only in the self-certification in that particular area, but self-certification across the board. Up until the change of government, I can tell you that I, for one, was becoming more and more concerned about this whole business of self-certification. There is a place for adequate inspection and I believe, in that regard, much more effort is needed.
As I said, in general terms the report covers the period of the previous government. The main issues pointed to in the report are really ones that come down to funding for the Ombudsman’s office. That is an issue for the new government to decide and something that, there is no doubt, the Ombudsman continually put to my government: the work within the resources that he was allocated. If the Chief Minister, in this new budget coming forward, believes that the Ombudsman’s office needs further additional funding, we would be interested to hear the reasons for that particular funding.
I thought it was an excellent report, actually. It is a very good report in terms of a small organisation reporting against outcomes. On page 15 of the report, the Ombudsman states very clearly the corporate plan: the vision to have a Northern Territory public sector that is recognised and respected as providing a fair, efficient and quality administrative service to the public; and the Office of the Ombudsman evidencing best practice in the provision of its services. It lays down its mission clearly: to resolve complaints in an appropriate, fair, just, and independent manner in respect of administrative actions by government agencies and local government councils; actions in the conduct of police; to assist parliament in safeguarding the public interest; and to work in cooperation with the Northern Territory public sector agencies for improvement of the quality of service to the public. It then goes on to list the goals of the Ombudsman’s office which are: complaints are examined and resolved in a timely and effective manner; agencies to improve and deliver services in a fair, equitable and impartial manner; the public is aware of and can access services provided by the Ombudsman; and the office is well managed, resourced and accountable.
For many departments, particularly larger departments in the Northern Territory, they can get that far pretty easily. It is when they then report against those particular goals that the Auditor-General has been continually critical. If one wants to see what I believe, on my reading of this report, is a very good example of a small department reporting very appropriately and clearly against each of the goals - and reporting against those goals begins on page 48. He goes through each of those goals and reports on his own performance against them. I found that to be not only very pleasing but easy to read and, I thought, a very good example of how an agency should report to parliament. It is certainly an indication of how some other agencies need to lift their own performance.
In page 35, he goes through general key areas of complaint. The Chief Minister said that the new freedom of information bill that her government will bring forward will fix all of his issues. We know from what the Ombudsman has already said, that the current draft freedom of information legislation doesn’t go near that. I have said in this parliament before that I believe that his comments are probably the most interesting and best comments I have heard in regard to FOI overall. The challenge for the government is to see how far they can meet those requirements as laid down …
Ms Martin: Anything we do is better than you did, mate.
Mr BURKE: Well, the Chief Minister says that ‘they will do better than we will, mate’. Doing better than we did, mate, so far has meant that she has rolled out only what we did, mate! With a new heading, mate! What you have to do now, is really come forward with FOI in the manner that you have promised Territorians. Surely the Chief Minister’s memory can go back far enough to say: ‘Let’s get rid of all exemptions, then we will be at the forefront of all FOI right around Australia’. She seems to have forgotten that particular call now she has experienced the difficulties of government and the requirements that governments have to meet in ensuring that there are some things that are appropriately exempt from the public but, at the same time, meeting a growing expectation that government is more free with the information. The areas that the Ombudsman points to are interesting examples for her to address.
I was surprised about the comment on the provision of services to Aboriginal people, and also surprised the Chief Minister didn’t make reference to that. I am surprised by the level of complaint and the amount of time that the Ombudsman took in this report in addressing that complaint from the Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee, where he believes that he has been unfairly targeted and unfairly criticised for his efforts in regard to ensuring that Aboriginal people have access to his own services. Again, that is something for the new government to address. I am sure they will be doing that when they are looking at the operational funding issues for that particular department.
As I said, the Chief Minister’s and my comments pretty well cover the thrust of this report. In essence, it is a good report. It points very clearly to the efforts of the Ombudsman and his staff. It lays out very clearly for everyone to see, the level of complaints that the Ombudsman deals with, and the performance areas where they have managed to deal with those complaints. It is worth noting that an initiative of my government, fair or unfair in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was to put the Health Services Complaint Commission with the Ombudsman. That was a decision and a task load that he has managed extremely well. In the report, it shows very clearly that the level of complaints in the Health Services Complaint Commission has increased by 60% since 1998-99. In his own office there has been a 34% increase in approaches to the office over the last five years. So, the level of workload is clearly increasing. That is a good thing in many regards, that people have confidence in the Ombudsman and in being able to approach his office and get a fair hearing on areas where they believe that they have a complaint. I can only say that, from my experience, I applaud his efforts, with the one proviso that he has had problems with the police and those jurisdictional issues, and the sooner that they are resolved permanently, the better.
With those few comments, I thank the Ombudsman for his report. For those who are interested in reading the report, I would say that, as I said, it is a very good report for those members to peruse, particularly in the performance areas and how he reports on those performance areas. I thank the Ombudsman not only for the report, but for the continuing dedication of both him and his staff to that particular role.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 29 November 2001.
Mr REED (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to contribute to this debate. History, of course, will record the deceitfulness of the mini-budget that was brought down by the Labor party within a few months of them gaining government. I think it is already legendary across the Territory, that people have become aware of just what the Labor Party was all about with their mini-budget, in terms of it really being directed at funding Labor Party promises leading up to the election, which were excessive. Some means had to be found to be able to meet those excessive promises.
In addition to that, of course, people have twigged to the fact that the alleged $107m black hole and the measures that were put in place by the government to address it, add up to something in the order of $160m. People are aware of the fact that, if you have a problem of a certain size, then you don’t find a solution that is almost twice as big. People will quickly be alerted to the fact that they are being got at, and that is precisely what they think about the particular measures that were put in place.
Another point that Territorians are raising regularly in relation to the revenue raising measures that were put in place by the government to meet the so-called black hole, are that they are not one-off issues that will last a couple of years to be able to meet that perceived need. For example, the $90 on vehicle registration which was put in place and said to have a sunset clause but, of course, is an ongoing imposition on the Territory taxpayer. I would very much doubt if we are going to see a sunset clause in relation to the 5% increase in water and sewerage tariffs. I would ask the Chief Minister and Treasurer to explain to us tonight whether or not the water and sewerage charges will, in fact, be reduced after the so-called black hole has been filled? If she doesn’t do that, she will be again demonstrating the deceitfulness of these revenue raising measures. That one, in particular, will go on forever, well beyond any need to raise funding to fill the black hole.
One that industry and business is just coming to terms with, and I suspect will also be here forever notwithstanding - and I quote from the Hansard what the Chief Minister and Treasurer said on page 376 of Tuesday 27th November:
To bring the Territory’s fiscal position under control, a deficit reduction strategy is an essential component.
And then she goes on to say:
The revenue raising measures are:
One was the $90 improvement levy on vehicles, and that is said to have a sunset clause; another was increase in vehicle and driver licence fees. I hope that they too will disappear at the end of the day, at some appropriate time. Another was an increase on the rate imposed on pastoral rents: 1% to 2%. I would like to hear from the Chief Minister and Treasurer if, when the alleged black hole is filled, if those rates will be reduced by the same amount to reflect some decency and honesty in relation to this process. I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer to tell us if the 5% increase in water and sewerage tariffs that were imposed solely to fill the black hole - in her words in the mini-budget - will be reduced by 5% when the alleged black hole is filled. These are questions that are being asked by the Territory taxpayer. Most importantly, of course, is the waste charges for the disposal of non-domestic strength sewage.
This last item is an imposition that business is now having to tackle. Those charges have been put in place and the Power and Water Authority is now getting around to businesses and explaining to them the extent of the imposition. I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer - given that some seven months has passed since she advised the house and Territorians of the imposition of that charge – to explain what the structure of it is. Will there be a minimum charge in relation to that particular imposition? No doubt she would have the ability to respond to this tonight if she was across her job. If so, what is that minimum charge? If it varies across different categories of business, types of waste and quantities of waste, then at least give us some examples so that businesses may have some idea of the level of that imposition.
She might also demonstrate to us whether she has been purely deceitful in terms of saying that this is just a revenue measure for the alleged black hole, or if this cost is, indeed, going to be with us forever. Territory businesses needs to know. Territory businesses have suffered very severely, as have other Territorians in relation to the mini-budget, and it is time for the government to come clean in terms of the extent of this particular charge. I think that it is going to be quite extensive and it is going to be a large impost on business.
I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer to explain whether there is a sliding scale of charges; if the charges are graduated across a range of users; and just what the base charge is. The Chief Minister and Treasurer, if she is across her job, will be able to give that answer tonight, and that will be of some elucidation to the business community in relation to the extent of those charges. There is a great level of suspicion in relation to whether or not that charge will disappear at the end of the filling of the black hole. I fear that it will not, because there has been a bit of duplicity there by the Chief Minister. What she and the government has done, is try to cobble a fee that will last forever, and blame it on the former government. People are now a wake-up to that ploy and they don’t accept it. In not accepting it, what they are looking for is an explanation in relation to the structure of the fee and how it is going to be applied. If the Chief Minister could give us a couple of examples in relation to quantities and type of waste, or the type of businesses it is going to be structured towards.
Further, the imposition on, and the money that has been ripped out of the public service, has created unprecedented disruption across the public sector in the Northern Territory. We have seen some very sad results in relation to the impact of the mini-budget, in that some very good professional and long experienced employees have left. They just weren’t prepared to take this nonsense in relation to the impost that it placed upon them, and the fact that they were doing the government’s work, or expected to do the government’s work. Many of them decided that they weren’t going to be part of that. If the government wasn’t courageous enough to take the flack for this, then they were going to wear it on their behalf. That has, in itself, a very long-term cost in relation to the loss of that experience and the knowledge that those people take out the door with them. It will take a long time to recover, because some of those people had been in the public service a very long time and the corporate knowledge that they had, for example, was valuable in itself. Most of that corporate knowledge has been lost and that is very sad.
The other impact is that, for those people left in the public service, there are fewer of them to do the work. We heard the nonsensical answer in the last sittings from the minister for Public Employment when he stated quite proudly that over 200 public servants are no longer with us. The figure is no doubt much more, and the Chief Minister and Treasurer might give us that information tonight in her response: in relation to the extent of the reduction of public servants in the public service as a result of the cutbacks, and what impost that has had to public service employment numbers. That is very important and it reflects directly on this mini-budget statement, the matter of this debate. It is another impact that has been created. Those people who are left in the public service are now required to do more with less, and they have less people to do the work, and as a consequence …
Dr Burns: What about the good news of building activity increasing? What about the good news of increased tourism?
Mr Elferink: That is why they are going broke; why builders are shutting their doors.
Mr REED: What about the bad news of the building company that has just left the Northern Territory because of the dramatic downturn in the building activity?
I pick up the interjection. The company hasn’t left because it has gone broke, it has left because it doesn’t see a future here. It is Glenwood Homes, a large company based in Cairns. They have said: ‘This place, since the Labor government’s come into place, is not for me and we see no future in relation to the domestic building future in the Northern Territory’. They are packing up and going home. So, don’t hold those examples up in relation to how good you think the economy is.
In relation to the economy, it is interesting that the government has been crowing over the last few days about how strong it has been. If you go to the business community and ask them how good it is, you will get quite a different story. Indeed, I visited a couple of businesses yesterday at lunch time, and they were not crowing in the same way that the minister was crowing about the strength of the economy in the paper on Monday. The businessman I spoke to yesterday at lunchtime whose house and business had been broken into seven times this year wasn’t a happy chap either, and wasn’t speaking at all in glowing terms about the current Labor government. So, it is not all as rosy as you have been portraying in relation to many of the circumstances that people across the community are experiencing.
In addition to the disruption across the public service, I would like the Chief Minister to also indicate to the House the costs of establishing the mega-departments that the mini-budget was instrumental in introducing. I refer to things like the changes of stationery. I know information brochures and posters in some agencies have had to be scrapped because they had old logos on them. They received directions to shred them. That, in fact, was quite distressing to some of the people in some agencies who had been directly involved in the design and the production of those posters, which were very informative for the community. The orders to trash those and to reprint under the new regime demonstrates an enormous level of childishness in relation to the attitudes of the new government; that anything old had to be scrapped because it had something to do with the former government. They are overlooking the work that individuals had put into those sorts of things. If the Chief Minister could give us some advice in relation to that, I am sure it would be appreciated - if by no other people than those who worked hard to prepare that work.
The statement also made a particular number of references to things that were going to be done this financial year. It is reporting time for the Chief Minister and Treasurer in relation to how she is going with regards to the implementation of the commitments that she, as head of government, made in this statement on 27 November. In particular, I refer to the recruitment of an additional 10 nurses in 2001-02, increasing to 75 by the end of this term of government. I am not interested in the 75, but I am very interested in the 10.
Ms Martin: Two more in Alice Springs Hospital. We have established that today.
Mr REED: Well, there are two. Okay, even if you take that - and, of course we can’t, because that just demonstrates the deceitfulness of the Chief Minister in that those additional two are short-term employees. What the Chief Minister has to understand is that, if she is recruiting additional nurses, they have to be additional to the establishment. They don’t have to be over and above the establishment but they have to be permanent new positions. For example, to make it clear to the Chief Minister, if the establishment is 502, then is has to go up to 512 to meet her extra 10 that she has promised Territorians for this financial year. There are only a matter of weeks left to the end of the financial year, so I will not accept any answer from the Chief Minister in relation to ‘the year is not over yet so I can’t give you an answer’. Whilst the year isn’t over, if these positions are to be filled by the end of the year, recruitment action must now be in place. The Chief Minister has no way out of answering what the position of that commitment is. She has to tell us the situation in relation to the promise of the additional 10 nurses this financial year, and she has to tell us what hospital or hospitals those 10 nurses have been allocated to.
There is also reference to the recruitment of additional regional health care teams commencing in 2001-02, with an additional 25 nurses being employed by the end of 2002-03. That implementation was to be commenced this financial year. Again, there are only a matter of weeks before the financial year ends. If they are not in place, that is not such a big deal. But if action has not been taken to recruit those additional staff and have them in place before the end of the financial year, that is a big deal, because it is another promise that will have been broken by this government within its first year in office.
Another commitment I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer to give Territorians is about the renal dialysis services for Tennant Creek. Much crowing was done in relation to this initiative - and I think that it is a good initiative – when the announcement was made regarding the introduction of this service. It was for 10 patients to be treated. The honourable member for Barkly would, I expect, be very familiar with this promise. As I recall, the basis for the announcement for this service was a report by the Menzies School of Health. That was held up by the government as: ‘This is what the report says and this is what we are going to do’. What you were going to do in relation to and in accordance with that report, was provide a service for 10 people. You made a commitment to meet the funding amounts of $800 000 that were identified in that report, yet I note that only $400 000 was allocated. Again, that needs explanation by the Chief Minister and Treasurer in relation to what was promised - $800 000 and 10 positions - and what, in fact, they are now going to do - $400 000. Why the difference?
In addition, and I quote again from Hansard:
How many have been recruited? I point out to the Chief Minister that it says ‘from the 2002 year’, not ‘after the 2002 year’. There is an expectation across the teaching service that the 20 teachers will be forthcoming. Has recruitment action commenced for those additional 20 teachers? If not, why not, and when will that commitment be met by the government?
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you can see from my remarks that there are numerous issues that the government now has to report on. They will find time goes quickly in government, from the day that the commitment is made to the day that the answer has to be given; and they have reached that stage. Today is the day that the answers have to be given in relation to those particular items. Can I say before the Chief Minister and Treasurer gets to her feet, that Territorians are thoroughly sick and tired - and they will not want to hear it repeated parrot fashion tonight again by the Chief Minister – of all the waxing lyrical about how terrible the CLP was. All of that has been run through, people are sick of it. Everywhere you go, particularly in the public service, the jokes are increasing on a daily basis about how the government blames everyone else, and is doing nothing and making no decisions on their own account.
These are the questions raised in relation to the promises made in November last year by the Chief Minister and the government. They probably thought, at the time, that the answer time was going to be a long way into the future. Well, it is here already. In relation to those particular issues that I have raised, people are waiting for the answers. They will not accept any more burblings about former governments, it is too hard, and all of the other excuses that have been coming forward. In the eyes of the public and those people who work in the public service and private enterprise across the Northern Territory, there is no alternative now but for the Chief Minister to knuckle down to the job and start giving answers. She can demonstrate that tonight by giving answers to those specific issues that I have raised regarding the specific promises that she made and said she would undertake this financial year. It is now time for her to be honest with Territorians and give a report card on the progress. I would appreciate it if the Chief Minister could proceed to do that in her response.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I preface my remarks on Labor’s responsible, fair and honest mini-budget introduced to this Assembly in the November sittings, with the advice to members that all figures contained within my speech are gross outlays and receipts as contained within mini-budget Paper No 2. The mini-budget strips away the waste in opulence of previous CLP governments - particularly the Burke government – while improving core essential community services of health, education and law and order. This is a mini-budget that has at its core a debt reduction strategy, while maintaining public service jobs and the essential services our public servants provide to Territorians.
We are spending, in an environment of inheriting a flat economy, an essential tool supporting growth. The latest economic indicators vindicate the wisdom of this strategy. There has been a drop in unemployment rates ahead of the national average. Yet, we are also addressing the outrageous budget fiddling undertaken by the discredited member for Katherine and his sidekick leader, by taking on the painful task of revenue raising through a temporary budget levy, because of inheriting an unsustainable budget outlook. I repeat, an unsustainable budget outlook. We are a tough but fair government that understands and listens to the needs of Territorians. Our mini-budget is proof of such, and I commend our Cabinet and their staff for their tireless efforts in bedding down a mini-budget within months of taking government for the first time in Territory history.
The Office of the Chief Minister will achieve savings of $4.4m. Our Labor Chief Minister does not squander the privilege of her office, unlike CLP predecessors. Indeed, the Chief Minister has shown the personal fortitude required to belt tighten where sometimes it is the hardest: close to home. The Legislative Assembly budget is reduced by $356 000, a reduction that I am aware has not been without its critics, but we are about leading by example. The good news is that this government is not into a quick cash grab through asset stripping; we have protected out assets and will not sell off NT Fleet.
A quick look at the key elements in our mini-budget shows a $1.7m improvement to the finances of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. This department is now dynamic, with sectors of the community embracing DBIRD initiatives in pursuing, in particular, oil and gas agreements, tourism and mining. Health and Community Services was the big mini-budget winner, with a massive increase of $34.4m. This was funding identified by the department as essential to delivering vital services this financial year. We listened and we acted, and I’ll move to more specific comments later.
Infrastructure, planning and environment benefited to the tune of $14.3m. Our minister has already announced improvements to the minor new capital works program and has delivered environment initiatives including the solar hot water system rebate scheme, infrastructure corridors for the railway, oil and gas; and an action long overdue: land use objectives that can go out for public consultation.
This mini-budget establishes the basis for our future planning and growth with the Office of Territory Development. The Office of Territory Development will be a centre to gather knowledge and pursue innovation, seeking the projects and investment the Territory needs to become the economic powerhouse of Australia’s north. It is already operational, staffed, and providing a pivotal role in our pursuit of oil and gas agreements.
It is with delight that I outline initiatives in the Department of Employment, Education and Training that, importantly, create a greater nexus between school education and training, establishing the pathways we need to employment. Crucially the mini-budget provides for an additional $1.2m fit-out and establishment costs for schools; a $5m increase in base operational funding for the new teachers’ EBA; and $1.1m towards the progressive employment of 100 additional teachers over the next four years. This is, indeed, very welcome news for our school communities that have been crying out for an increase in the number of teachers for years, yet their pleas had previously fallen on the deaf ears of a CLP government.
The mini-budget has provided for the long awaited implementation of the Collins Learning Lessons report recommendations, that addressed the inequity faced by our young in remote and regional areas of the Northern Territory. This mini-budget clearly aims to focus on nurturing a safe and skilled workforce. It brings together core services of education, employment and training and also doubles the Work Health budget from $4.1m in the May budget to more than $10m in our mini-budget. Along with improved safety at work, Territorians will benefit from community safety initiatives in this mini-budget.
Importantly, community support and crime prevention services receive a $915 000 injection of funds. Crime investigation and prosecution gains an additional $768 000, while road safety benefits from an additional $230 000 and, crucially, emergency management gains close to $400 000.
Ours was a mini-budget that clearly promotes and resources Labor’s recognition of the importance of law and order to our society, specifically in relation to improving community safety. This is a good news budget for our northern suburbs residents. Residents in Karama and Malak are welcoming the progressive employment of 50 extra police, seven support staff, and six additional vehicles over the next four years.
This mini-budget bottom line is about improving the planning and provision of government measures that will improve the lifestyle of Territorians. We are about making communities safer. We are tackling the crime that we saw spiral out of control under CLP neglect. Importantly for those who suffer the impact of crime - and unfortunately, in any society this is inevitable - they will finally receive much needed, long overdue assistance through a victim support boost of an additional $118 000.
This government is also clearly committed to encouraging the economic development of our industries. This is crucial in a jurisdiction the size of the Northern Territory. Our mini-budget provides for injections of $905 000 into development of the pastoral industry, $404 000 into development of the agricultural industry, $155 000 into the development of a fishing industry, and $180 000 into the development of the horticultural industry.
Dear to my heart, we will also deliver a $411 000 increase to ecologically sustainable development of primary industry. This is the way forward for our rural communities, and we have recognised its importance through a mini-budget increase. At the same time, we boosted business and industry development funding by $254 000, taking it to $10.4m. This provides for government initiatives that include the establishment of short course business skills workshops funding of $130 000, and the establishment of business case managers funding of $250 000. This is truly welcome news to our often unsung heroes: the small and medium sized businesses. These are the men and women of the Territory with drive and initiative - incredibly hard workers whom government must support, and our government is supporting - that provide the growth in both jobs and our economy, and bless them.
I now move to comment on the Department of Health and Community Services, the undoubted biggest winner in our mini-budget with a funding injection of $34.4m. This heralds across-the-board increases that include an additional $16.5m for hospital services, $7.1m for community health, $2.3m for family and children’s services, with importantly, $1.1m additional going to crisis support. This government is about supporting families, particularly families in crisis. Our response through the mini-budget to community needs is a thread woven throughout government’s actions and is highly commendable.
However, it is the Territory’s shame that a generation in our remote communities is being decimated by petrol sniffing and other substance abuse. Former Health ministers who sat here in the Chamber today attacking our Health minister - who is taking action - chose to ignore Territory youths in dire need of help. They failed to address their needs and consequently condemned them and their families to a living hell. The opposition is constantly whining: ‘What is our government doing?’ The mental health services budget gained a major injection of $1.043m in the new budget.
In addition, we provided an additional $939 000 for collaborative partnerships in program and service. ‘Collaborative partnerships’ is a new terminology, I guess, for the opposition. They have never ventured down those paths, hence the crises we have inherited. Collaboration is essential in tackling the mental health crisis in our bush communities. Instead of burying our heads in the sand while communities bury their young, we will strive in a cooperative, multifaceted fashion to tackle this crisis head on. The budget initiatives ensure that our government begins to address the crisis while the parliamentary Substance Abuse in the Community Committee investigates the crisis and, hopefully, identifies further initiatives. I wish my parliamentary colleagues godspeed and strength in their critical endeavours.
The Health promotion will receive an additional $159 000, bringing the crucial preventative budget to $2.2m. I am delighted to say that, in concert with our emphasis on prevention, we have increased funding to the Menzies School of Health Research by $231 000, to bring the Northern Territory government portion of funding to this nationally respected and august research school to $3.2m.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the Minister for Health and Community Services and her fellow Cabinet ministers for substantially boosting government spending on health. This, indeed, is a just and fair mini-budget adhering to fiscal responsibility while improving core essential community services that improve the lifestyle of all - and I emphasise all - Territorians.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their comments in the debate that we started some six months ago, and thank them for their contributions - some more gracious than others, let me put it that way.
The mini-budget was an early achievement of this government to put the Territory’s finances back on a sound footing. The culture of delivering and managing budgets had been severely undermined by the former Chief Minister and former Treasurer. I think that is something that we need to keep to the forefronts of our minds in here; that the importance that we now, as a government, place on having budgets where you can trust the figures is absolutely critical. It does worry me that we have had a debate that has included the former Treasurer, whose only words in analysing what has happened and his part in it, is to accuse this government of deceit and duplicity. I find that an extraordinary response from a man who was the Treasurer for a long time - many years - and had an enormous responsibility. When it was uncovered - and I think substantially so - that he did fudge figures and he wrote the bottom line of budgets in his office outside Treasury advice, it is important that we are changing that culture. I believe that we are doing it effectively. In this parliament, you have to be able to trust the bottom figures of the budget; you have to be able to say that the line that you see at the bottom is real rather than a fantasy.
Remember why we had the mini-budget. We shouldn’t have needed this mini-budget. We should have been able to come into office and say that the budgets that were delivered last May in this House actually were honest budgets and were ones that we could work forward with. We had used the figures put into this House by the former administration with our financial statement and costed our promises against those. Our costings were done honestly. They were ticked off by very hard task masters in Access Economics. Yet I found out in the first week of taking office that those figures were rubbery; they were rubbish and they could not be trusted. Not only were we not in a position that we could manage, but we were in an unsustainable financial position.
‘Unsustainable’ is not said lightly by our Treasury. Everyone in this House knows our Treasury. To be told that the position was unsustainable was a substantial shock, not only to the new government, but to our community. There comes a bottom line that you have to trust something; and if you can’t trust the bottom line of the budget figures, then what do you trust? That really was a culture that developed and one that was a real indictment on the previous administration. It would have been good in this debate on the mini-budget if we could have had the former Treasurer come in here and tackle the issues, rather than just go back to his fall-back position, his default position. This seems to be when he doesn’t like what’s happening, or doesn’t want to admit to what is happening, he simply turns around and calls the current Treasurer or Chief Minister deceitful, and the current government full of duplicity. It is a shallow argument. It is one that he has relied on for many years now, but it is sad to see. It undermines every contribution he makes when his first point of responding to any argument is: you must be deceitful.
It is very important to remember that part of the mini-budget was the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act which now says that kind of behaviour will not happen again. This is a very important part and a real hallmark, I believe, of this new government. It represents and an historic shift for the Territory. From the mini-budget on, budgets in the Territory will not be able to be manipulated in the way that they were under the CLP. While government will set the policies, quite appropriately, it is Treasury that will cost them. The Under Treasurer will have to sign off on those figures, both in the budget as well as the mid-year reports.
I would like to go to some of the comments made by the Opposition Leader in his response to this mini-budget back in November. Referring back to those comments, the Opposition Leader predicted gloom and doom for the Territory as a result of the mini-budget. I would say to this parliament and the Opposition Leader that the turnaround that we have seen in the economy in the past six months, certainly undermine the prediction you gave then of gloom and doom.
Part of that turnaround has been the money that this government put into the capital works program and into minor new works. There is no doubt about it; it was in a disgraceful state. We had considerable funds into the capital works area, but none of it was in the area that was picking up on the small subcontractors. The $21m that was found and put into that important area of capital works has made a difference. We have seen residential construction start to pick up after very tough times. Certainly, QuickStart II - and I recognise the success of QuickStart I; when you see a good thing, why not repeat it? - had an impact over that low time of the Christmas season. We have seen a number of major constructions. Only yesterday, TIO announced $24m for construction of their new TIO building just across the road here. They have carefully looked at the market and have said: ‘We have confidence in this market; it is turning around’. With the other indicators that we see of unemployment now dropping down below the national average and participation rates growing in our economy, it is a really healthy sign.
I don’t have to say the railway, of course, is not our project. I recognise the work done by the current Opposition Leader, the previous Chief Minister, and the work done by so many public servants and the business community in getting that railway up and running. It is good to see that we have hundreds of jobs now in the railway. As I pointed out yesterday, those 508 jobs to the end of March represents 15% of the increase in the gross participation rate in the job market. A lot of other areas are growing, and this does represent a substantial turnaround in our market, which has been struggling now for two years.
The predictions this year from Treasury are of 5% growth. We have Access Economics saying about 4.5% and BIS Shrapnel about the same as Treasury. So we have excellent growth figures for this year. Put that together with what is happening in other jurisdictions and we are looking healthy here in the Territory. But I wouldn’t deny that there are still tough times for Territorians, and there are still some businesses that are doing it tough. We are very concerned that we can identify those areas, and work with businesses to create the frameworks so that those businesses can have better times.
There is no doubt about it, that the impact of 11 September and then, a few days later, the collapse of Ansett had an enormous impact. If you look at the tourism figures that we are facing for the coming Dry Season they are looking good. The work that was done to build up the domestic drive market - not only the domestic drive market but the domestic tourism market generally - is starting to pay off for Territory businesses involved in tourism. Of course, all the flow-on across other businesses as well, will have an impact over this Dry Season.
The work has had to be put in and I would say that we have, as a government, put that work in. We have worked closely with the business sector, but it still does not mean that the tough times are gone; they are still there for many businesses. But it is good to see the turnaround, and that it is underpinned consecutively, month by month, by the figures we have seen.
To go specifically to the mini-budget, no one is denying that the measures we introduced in that mini-budget back in November as a direct result of the former CLP government’s mismanagement, were tough ones and that some level of short-term pain was inevitable for the long-term gain. We couldn’t sit there with a deficit of the size that we were inheriting, along with the ones that had gone on the previous year, and the highest level of net debt in the country - the second highest after Tasmania, I believe now. It was a high level of debt that couldn’t be sustained; it had to be tackled.
I believe that the measures we introduced were reasonable and fair, ensuring that key services were properly funded while delivering on fiscal sustainability. When you go through the mini-budget, we recognised the core areas for Territorians, the ones that we said, going into the election last year, were our priorities. We funded an additional $34m for health to make it sustainable; additional funds for education, police and core areas of the Territory environment and community. These were being dramatically under-funded by the previous administration. We have funded those key areas while delivering on fiscal sustainability.
In his contribution to the debate, the Opposition Leader seemed to think that there was some mystery as to why the Percy Allan report revealed a $107m black hole in his government’s last budget. Yet, a $126m deficit was predicted for 2001-02 in the mini-budget. If the Opposition Leader had taken the time to read mini-budget Paper No 3, page 11, he would have seen that by the time we got to November, the estimates of the black hole had increased from $107m at the time of Percy Allan’s report, to $139m. Our savings and revenue measures are, therefore, winding back the deficit that would have occurred if the previous CLP policies had been carried on unchanged.
The Opposition Leader also raised the issue of funding of the HIH liabilities, claiming that, somehow, there was a shortfall in what he had committed from Consolidated Revenue to meet the emerging costs of the nominal insurer versus the need to impose a levy. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the CLP that first introduced legislation to impose a levy; that was passed in May of last year.
Mr Burke: I’ll knock it on the head. I’ll knock it on the head if you like. Don’t feel constrained by it.
Ms MARTIN: What Labor promised before the election, and what we have delivered on, is a commitment to fund, from Consolidated Revenue, all of the emerging liabilities for the calendar year of 2001; and that we have done. The $9m put towards the HIH liabilities and the costs that would have been carried by Territory businesses across that year have made a substantial difference. Despite the fact that the CLP was planning to impose such a levy …
Mr Burke: No, we weren’t.
Ms MARTIN: What were you going to do? $3m as a loan that you didn’t even say was a loan.
Mr Burke: No we weren’t, don’t tell lies.
Ms MARTIN: You were going to recover that. You were going to recover even that $3m loan. It is all very well for the Opposition Leader to sit there and say: ‘Don’t put a levy on’. What kind of amazing way were you going to come up with it? What kind of amazing way? Nobody is saying we welcomed the HIH collapse; no jurisdiction did. It had had a direct impact, particularly in the jurisdictions where there were a lot of premiums taken out with HIH. Tasmania, Western Australia and the Territory were those areas.
Mr Burke: There would be no levy with $150m extra from the Commonwealth. That is the factor.
Ms MARTIN: The fact that we have responsibly dealt with that; we have picked up the first year and have responsibly dealt now with the levy, I think is a real sign of a mature government. Nobody wanted HIH to collapse. Now, with hindsight, there is a lot of anecdotals about how low the premiums were and this could have been expected. But when we are dealing with that wider issue of public liabilities and how they have also grown, HIH is a considerable part of that. HIH has had a very severe and substantial impact on Territory businesses, in the west and Tasmania as well, but also on that wider issue of public liabilities. We are dealing with that in a very responsible way. It is all very well to sit there in opposition now and say: ‘I would do it a different way’. Well, you weren’t going to do it a different way in government so don’t try and reinvent history.
To finish with the HIH, we picked up all the emerging liabilities for calendar year 2001 and in the event, that funding of $6m is now likely to extend through to the end of this month. Between then and the end of the financial year, any increased outlays will be funded by a loan to the nominal insurer, that will mean no impact on the budget bottom line.
The Opposition Leader has also highlighted differences between estimates contained within Labor’s financial statement, issued prior to the last election, and the figures adopted in the mini-budget regarding the government’s new initiatives. I am very proud, along with this side of the House, of Labor’s financial statement. It was an extremely comprehensive document, in contrast with the pathetic effort supplied by the CLP. Waving around this very flimsy bit of paper with a few numbers added up, was the then government’s response to our very substantial and detailed Access Economics approved financial statement. It was an extremely comprehensive document, and it was prepared using the best estimates from publicly available information, much of which came from the previous government’s budget papers. Access Economics agreed with our methodology and our estimates on that basis. It provided a detailed breakdown of a comprehensive range of initiatives broken down over the entire forward estimates period, year by year.
Given the resources available to my office as Opposition Leader, compared to the resources available to the CLP at the time, this was, I believe, an admirable achievement. It was entirely appropriate however, that on achieving government, the statement was re-examined by Treasury and other agencies, and we welcomed this. This ensured the costings, many of which were based on whole-of-government averages for personnel and operating costs, were reviewed to take account of the information available within agencies.
On the whole, Labor’s financial statement was remarkably close to estimates agencies came up with. There were some ups and some downs. There was also acceptance that a number of initiatives could be funded from within existing departmental resources. Unlike the previous government who believed it could set the policies and set the costings too, at the political level, this government acknowledges the rightful role of Treasury and the agencies to properly cost the policy decisions of governments. Hence, that review was undertaken and Treasury’s figures, quite responsibly, were adopted in the mini-budget, not those of Labor’s financial statement.
Considering the wide range of costings that were included in that document, I believe that, by and large, we were pretty accurate. In some areas we costed too high, and were very pleased to see when Treasury said the costings were too high but they could be reduced. In others, and a very few others, they were under. Access Economics congratulated us on our methodology, and on the whole, the work was very thoroughly done. I believe it underpins, very successfully, where this Labor government will take the Territory, and the promises we will keep over our period of government.
I will respond to a few issues that were raised by the member for Katherine, the opposition’s Treasury spokesperson, in this debate. I do have problems responding to issues raised by the opposition’s spokesperson on this, because I believe that his credibility on this issue is remarkably undermined. As I said before, the only kind of response he has is to accuse the government of deceit, which is an extraordinary response from a man who has been Treasurer and, I believe, is a fairly intelligent man.
To listen to him in this debate simply trying to reinvent history, was a very poor performance. I will pick up the point of the budget improvement levy that we did introduce. We introduced the levy with a sunset clause. That sunset clause is written into legislation, so there is no point in someone like the Treasury spokesman from the opposition coming in here and saying ‘the supposed sunset clause’. Let me be very clear, it is a sunset clause. That levy - the CLP’s contribution because of the debt that was run up and the deceit that was run through the deficit - will go in three years.
Mr Burke: I think I said ‘as your war chest actually’.
Ms MARTIN: It is unfortunate. Nobody likes to impose taxes or charges, or anything like that. I saw the CLP come in here year after year, imposing new taxes, raising charges, raising taxes …
Mr Burke: Not a lot.
Ms MARTIN: … with no apology. You were not around long enough to see it.
This levy was imposed very reluctantly, but we had to tackle the black hole in the budget. We simply could not walk away, as a new government, from an unsustainable budget situation.
There are a few other issues that I could deal with. I will deal with them over time. I certainly would like to thank all the hard-working Treasury officials, and those from other agencies who contributed to this mini-budget, for the help that they gave us.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 5 March 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the opposition has examined the bill and I can indicate will be supporting it. It is not a bill of enormous impact apart from this.
The main purpose of the Penalties Amendment Bill, as the Attorney-General quite properly pointed out, is to amend the Penalties Act, so the value of the penalty in it changes from $100 to $110. The second reading speech which the Attorney-General gave went through some of the history of the amending act. The upshot of it is that there is a slight increase in the basic penalty unit; a change in some of the terminologies; and it corrects and changes the name of the act. It changes the name to the Penalty Unit Act. I can say that the opposition do not oppose this bill, and will support it.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker …
Dr Lim: Our aspiring Health minister.
Dr BURNS: I am happy where I am.
I rise to speak in favour of the Penalties Amendment Bill 2002 and the Interpretation Amendment Bill 2002. As the member for Goyder said, this is not a very substantial piece of legislation. So, I will keep my offerings short, particularly in view of the inordinate time that was taken this afternoon over the censure motion.
This legislation is an initiative of the previous government. I commend this initiative, particularly the conversion of monetary penalties in the penalty units. Whilst crime and punishment are eternal themes so, it seems, is inflation. However, whilst not wanting to be punitive, it is essential that punishments keep pace with the real value of things. The consumer price index is a well recognised measure of inflation. Sensibly, the policy framework of the previous government also included a regular review of the value of the penalty unit. Once again, the review sensibly uses the consumer price index to calculate the increase.
I must digress to tell honourable members that I recently learned of a novel international economic index: the Mac index. That is, the value of a McDonald’s burger in different countries compared to the value of other things. Apparently, it is quite widely used by a number of economists throughout the world. However, for my part, I prefer the CPI.
Using the CPI, the value of the penalty unit rises from $100 to $110. Further amendments have been undertaken to clarify terminology within the act. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank both the members who contributed to the debate. I will certainly give the member for Johnston an undertaking that we will look at having to eat a McDonald burger as a possible system of punishment. There may be some virtue in that with some parts of the population. I cannot promise anything on that.
I think the members have accepted that this is a sensible renovation, if you like, of what is a very effective part of our punitive arrangements within the justice system. This is simply bringing the value of a penalty unit up to current day values of money, to retain the seriousness or the impact of the punishment that the fine or penalty is going to carry to an offender. So, without further ado, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this evening I would like to bring the parliament up to date with the various levels of activity in which the government is engaged to try to ensure Timor gas is brought onshore, for the benefits of Territorians and in Australia’s national interests.
I would like to say, at the outset, how heartening it has been to receive strong levels of support from Territorians on this issue. Territorians well understand that bringing this gas onshore will provide a quantum leap in the Territory’s economic fortunes. If we can get both Bayu-Undan and the Sunrise gas onshore, there will be nearly 5000 new jobs; there will be a great increase in industrial development and business opportunities; and a subsequent boost to Territory revenues. Gas onshore will lead to significantly more financial independence for the Territory, decreasing our dependence on the Commonwealth and giving us more flexibility in our financial management.
We all know the reasons why we are pursuing this campaign but just to quickly recap, we are concerned that the floating LNG option put forward by Shell and Woodside would see the Sunrise gas reserves turned into liquified natural gas onsite and shipped directly to the American markets. There will be no opportunity for Sunrise gas to fuel industrial developments in the Territory or to help meet Australia’s energy needs in the south and east, and there would be minimal jobs for Australians. Let us not forget who owns this resource: it is the people of Australia.
I want to outline today some of the work that we, as a government, have been engaged in as we try to bring the gas onshore in the national interest. Honourable members will be aware of my report yesterday about my weekend meeting with the East Timorese Chief Minister, Dr Mari Alkatiri, to seek reassurances that Bayu-Undan would soon get the go-ahead. We have been reassured on that point. There are some outstanding arrangements in the joint petroleum development area between our two countries, involving the so-called unitisation of the Sunrise field. But, we believe these can be resolved with the goodwill of East Timorese and Australian leaders. I am looking forward to travelling to East Timor next weekend for the Independence Day celebrations of that nation, and the opportunity of further discussions on these and other matters to do with Timor Sea gas.
Members will recall that the government has been engaged in a multi-layered campaign of attracting the attention of federal ministers, business leaders, the media, and the public to win support for our case for bringing the Sunrise gas onshore. On 3 April, I addressed the National Press Club in Canberra in a nationally broadcast speech to outline the Territory’s case for gas onshore. On that visit, I spoke to the Prime Minister, John Howard; the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer; the Treasurer, Peter Costello; the Resource Minister, Ian Macfarlane; and outlined our case and disseminated our report from the respected consultant ACIL. Following these meetings, our officials were able to brief Invest Australia, the federal government’s investment arm and the body that may be able to assist any major developer to get gas onshore, should this assistance be necessary.
On 24 April, we launched Team NT, which showed Australia just how seriously Territorians are taking this issue. Team NT is a bipartisan group including the Leader of the Opposition, Independent MPs, business, community, trade union and Aboriginal leadership. We were able to hold valuable discussions about where to take the campaign and how to enlist support from other groups around the nation. At this meeting, potential customers for onshore gas pledged their support and confirmed to us the importance of Sunrise gas to their commercial developments. With the full endorsement of this group, we took out full-page advertisements in The Australian and The Australian Financial Review on 30 April, appealing to Woodside shareholders to consider our case to bring Sunrise gas onshore in the national interest. The letter said that we understood that Woodside has a commitment to its shareholders - quite importantly, of course - but that we also have a commitment to our stakeholders, the people of the Territory.
On 29 April, Federal Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane, visited the Territory. By the time the minister left Darwin he had been thoroughly briefed by government officials and business leaders on the robustness of our domestic gas case and our doubts about the floating LNG option. Minister Macfarlane was far more positive about our case by the time he returned to Canberra, and last week sent a team of federal officials and one of his staff members to further investigate the matter.
From 29 April to 1 May, I visited Sydney and Melbourne to talk to state Premiers, and business and union groups to enlist more support for our case and our cause. My discussions with the Australian Industry Group, one of Australia’s largest industry representative bodies, were particularly helpful, with CEO Bob Herbert pledging support and writing to his member groups on our behalf. Both Premier Bob Carr of New South Wales and Premier Steve Bracks of Victoria were interested in our case, particularly in the context of Australia’s overall energy needs. The Premiers supported my call for a special meeting of the Council of Australian Governments to consider increased gas production as part of a national energy strategy. I am working hard at getting such a meeting and will report further on progress over the coming days. I should also mention I met briefly with South Australian Premier, Mike Rann and Tasmanian Premier, Jim Bacon in the margins of the Cultural Ministers’ meeting in Melbourne on 1 May, and enlisted their support for a COAG meeting as well.
During my visit to Sydney and Melbourne, I undertook a wide range of public and media appointments. I addressed the Sydney Institute on 29 April, and was able to engage a representative of Shell in a public debate on the Sunrise gas issue in the question and answer period following my address; and at the subsequent business dinner. The speech to the Sydney Institute and the full-page advertisement in the national newspapers sparked media attention and I was interviewed by several ABC programs, by the Network Nine Today show, and senior journalists and editors from the Sydney Morning Herald, the Financial Review and the Melbourne Age. As a result of these visits, the interstate media are much better acquainted with the Territory’s case and are reporting more accurately and extensively on our affairs. This is one of the best ways of enlisting further support for our cause in government and business circles. I should also mention that our advertisements provoked a strong response from ordinary Australians seeking more information.
We have not neglected Territorians in this campaign. We believe it is vitally important to fully keep our own people on top of the Timor gas issue. People want information about issues governing their future livelihood, business opportunities and jobs for their children. Our Office of Territory Development has distributed a gas update newsletter to every house in the Territory with factual information on the Bayu-Undan and Sunrise projects. Many Territorians were confused about the issues and wanted factual information. Informed Territorians are our best allies in this fight. An Internet site has been set up with reports, fact sheets, speeches and media releases to ensure easy access for members of the public seeking more information.
A Team NT stand was set up at the opening of the Mindil Beach Markets and it was good to see our friends from the business community assisting us there, talking to passers-by and helping to keep the community informed. I spent several hours at the booth and can report there is overwhelming support for getting gas onshore. We will be setting up a similar booth at the Freds Pass Show on 26 and 27 May. I would encourage anyone in this House who’s at the Freds Pass Show to come and spend some time on the booth talking to Territorians about gas onshore.
We are continuing to talk to businesses involved in the gas developments, as well as engaging federal government officials in talks. We have more projects planned for the coming weeks, and I look forward to keeping this parliament up to date with those and enlisting further bipartisan support. I would like to acknowledge the support of the Leader of the Opposition on this issue; it has been valuable. I would like to acknowledge the critical support of the Territory’s business leaders who invested their own money in commissioning the report by Professor Peter Brain into Timor Sea gas. They have been involved in intensive lobbying of industry groups around the country. We need all the support we can get to win this campaign and I have been impressed with the resources we have been able to muster so far.
At this stage, we are asking the Commonwealth to vigorously test the commercial cases presented to us by each of the parties. We have been encouraged to see federal ministers now starting to question the case Shell and Woodside have presented, arguing that floating LNG is the only option. We know that the federal government, like all Australians, wants to see gas onshore if it can be done commercially. Phillips Petroleum has presented a good alternative model for the federal government to consider in this regard.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that there are many potential customers of onshore gas. We have a proposal by a major investor to build a $3.6m aluminium smelter and power station, which will provide the Territory with a key foundation customer for gas. Alcan wants to expand its Gove alumina smelter with a pipeline from Mataranka to Gove. MIM announced recently that it wants to expand its major McArthur River activities, but its plans are also reliant on gas. Gas supplies in the Amadeus Basin used to generate the Territory’s power are running down and getting more expensive. Sunrise gas will provide certainty of future supplies for our Power and Water Authority. The proposal to link Timor Sea gas to the national gas grid with a pipeline to Moomba will create construction jobs in the Territory. It is not a commercial proposition without Sunrise gas. A major component of negotiations with our East Timorese neighbours included a commitment to jobs and training associated with Timor Sea gas developments. Offshore development erodes the chance of delivery on this very important commitment, and onshore gas will boost research and skills development in the Territory. For all these reasons, we will forge ahead with this campaign to get Timor Sea gas onshore in the national and Territory interest.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members present today for their support of the Team NT approach. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing forward a ministerial statement on gas. Notwithstanding that many of the issues raised in the statements themselves are already known to the opposition, it is essentially a report on the efforts that the Chief Minister has done in bringing the issue to national attention. I thank her for bringing it forward as a statement because it does give the opposition a chance to contribute to the debate, and also to put very clearly on the record that we do support the government’s efforts in ensuring that we get the optimum outcome for Timor Sea gas.
Obviously, the Chief Minister has not been appraised of the latest information, but I am sure her minister has by now; and that is that Woodside and Shell have just announced that they are re-examining the domestic gas case for Greater Sunrise. They will do that examination between now and October to reassess all the figuring that they have done and, in October, they will make a decision one way or the other as to where they move from that point onwards. So, it is fortuitous that the statement itself falls on the same day as, I would think, the government should rightly claim as a great success at this stage. Obviously, Woodside and Shell will make their own decisions in October, but the position has been reached whereby Woodside and Shell are putting out an olive branch and saying that they will reassess all their figuring. I would hope that in the same way some of the relationships have been a bit strained, particularly with Woodside, based on the government strategy in that intervening period we can work cooperatively together to get the best result, not only for Greater Sunrise but for the whole Timor Sea Basin.
It is interesting when we look at where we are with the gas situation and how gas fits into the history of the Northern Territory. Probably the whole history of the drive for self-government in the Territory was a drive for Territorians to overcome what they perceived was the benign neglect that successive federal governments had towards Territorians, the future of this great part of Australia and its potential. Territorians themselves, in their wish to get self-government, essentially wanted to get control of their own affairs so that they themselves could confidently drive the Territory forward into the future, as an economy and also a community
I believe, to a large extent, that has been done. If you put aside a lot of the petty politics that goes on in this Chamber, and look at the opportunity that was provided by self-government and the grasping of that opportunity by successive CLP governments from that time, you will see they first of all positioned the Northern Territory, if in name only, as the gateway to South East Asia. This was begun by Everingham as one of his early initiatives; that our future lay in Asia. We had to see Darwin and the Northern Territory as the rightful gateway to, not only Asia, but the world. That was a fundamental strategy in terms of how the Northern Territory promoted and positioned itself nationally and internationally.
The railway was the enduring dream of Territorians since 1911, but it was since self-government that that real drive for the railway occurred. One can equally say that maybe there were a couple of opportunities lost in that time. But that drive for the railway never stopped because the lack of transportation in the Northern Territory was such that a good transportation system - a railway that linked Darwin and Alice Springs right through to our southern capitals - was something that was long overdue. I have said on many occasions, as an aside that, during that time, when many people put forward the commercial argument about the value of the railway, I always reflected on the strategic argument. That was that, in all my time in the Defence Force, whenever we did an assessment of the threat to the sovereignty of Australia with an assault on our coastline from the north, it was an automatic assumption of the Defence Force in their planning, that a railway existed so that we could logistically support the force that was deployed.
That strategic assumption has always been there, right through from World War II. Unless and until that railway infrastructure was in place, the defence strategy was essentially to fall back on closer lines of communication, so that they could support you. So, strategically and commercially, the case has always been put, and more and more the successive CLP governments developed that commercial case for the railway. We now see the fruition of all of those efforts.
There were some great and big risk projects to develop the tourist infrastructure throughout the Northern Territory. Again, some risks cost the government and Territorians money. If one looks at the Sheratons, the Yularas and the Beauforts and thinks where the Territory’s tourist industry would be now without those projects, one would have to wonder if we could have ever established the tourism industry to the extent that it has been established. With regard to the development of our Territory Parks - even though we can always talk about the national parks – let us not forget the Territory Parks that we developed ourselves and are still free for Territorians, Australians and international tourists to enjoy.
We have lobbied and supported a strong defence presence in the Northern Territory. As the Minister for Defence Support said, quite rightly, that was a Federal Labor initiative as a result of the white paper that was produced at the time. Certainly from a defence position at that time, and now later as a Territorian, I am very pleased that the government of the time saw the need for that strong defence presence in the north that has resulted in the mechanised brigade and associated infrastructure now being lodged in Darwin. If I can put in an aside that when we talk about the federal budget that came down last night - notwithstanding the dollars - the fact that 1 Aviation Regiment has been located at Robertson Barracks with, eventually, state of the art helicopters to support that brigade, is a tremendous force multiplier to be located in Darwin and really does position that brigade and its capability for the future.
We developed ourselves and fought for or supported a whole range of infrastructure over that time, that we all know about. We began the development of the new port and the associated infrastructure to accommodate that port because, again, adequate transportation needs good, modern port infrastructure facilities. That was the only way that we could see ourselves competitive with the rest of Australia.
Despite all of those achievements - and the railway is arguably the latest and greatest of those achievements - we always did, and still lack a strong industrial base. The reason why we lack that industrial base is because we do have a small population. We still have limited, but improving, transportation and associated infrastructure and links to other markets and hub locations. We do have a high cost of living and doing business in the Northern Territory because of that remoteness, because of that small population, and because of that small industrial base.
The potential of the railway and the port to overcome some of these factors is absolutely clear. I am sure that, over time we will do that. The thing that has always been missing as the last piece of the jigsaw, as I have said on many occasions, is the fact that we had to get low-cost energy so that we could attract the business investment; so that we could get the cost of living down; and so that we could use the revenue and opportunities from such an industrial base to grow our own population. That opportunity is provided for the Northern Territory by Timor Sea gas and, like the railway, it is not a new issue. It is an issue that has to be fought for, like the railway. Where we have a situation in which either the national interest argument, the Territory argument, or the strategic argument is being put, on the one hand, and on the other, the commercial argument, to say that these sorts of things are either not commercially viable, before their time, or not the best use of that particular resource, there is another option.
It falls now to the current Labor government to not only get gas onshore, but to get Sunrise gas onshore. I do hope that the Labor government does keep focussed on that particular challenge because I believe gas onshore from the Timor Sea is assured. With few misgivings, gas onshore will come from Bayu-Undan and I have few concerns in that regard. Certainly, the challenge that the Labor government has taken up is the challenge of getting the Greater Sunrise gas project onshore, and it is a very large challenge indeed.
Prior to the change of government, I can say, proudly, that much was achieved in terms of getting Timor Sea gas and Greater Sunrise gas developed. One can go back as long as you like, I suppose, but during my term as Chief Minister, I only have to go back to what was then called the North Australian Gas Venture. This was, essentially, a loose coalition of the producers of gas - not only in the Timor Sea but also in the North-West Shelf - who saw the opportunity to develop Timor Sea gas by linking markets that the North-West Shelf gas could initially supply, and then growing those markets and moving that demand across as we developed green field sites in the Timor Sea. That was the North Australian Gas Venture, and I might also say that that gas venture did look, very seriously, at the domestic gas case and many potential customers were chased down at that time.
During that period, I visited China with the then Premier of Western Australia, Richard Court. We went with the Chief Executive Officers of both Shell and Woodside, and others. It was the first time that I met Dr Iain Paisley from Shell and John Akehurst of Woodside, and had an opportunity to see and understand from them the immense difficulties there are in getting these sorts of provinces developed. It is interesting that the visit was primarily focussed on North-West Shelf with, essentially, a pitch from the Northern Territory that not only was there abundant gas in the North-West Shelf, we had all this Timor Sea gas over here. If China was looking for long-term contracts, and a dependable provider, you only have to look at the Timor Sea for adequate gas; these same producers could move across and get it.
To a large extent, I believe the Prime Minister’s visit to China shortly will be successful and secure a Chinese market for North-West Shelf LNG. In some ways, one has to see that, perhaps, as a threat to our argument in the future for getting Sunrise gas onshore. The arguments in terms of where there is long-term supply for China’s growing markets is well and truly there from producers such as Woodside and Shell.
Also during that time was a recognition by us that, when it came to developing Timor Sea gas, a true joint venture arrangement was necessary. In that regard, I brokered a meeting between the Prime Minister, Minister Minchin, the CEO of Phillips, the CEO of Shell, and CEO of Woodside. At the table with the Prime Minister, they laid the case for developing a new gas province for Australia. I can clearly recall the Prime Minister’s eyes lighting up as these chief executive officers laid out for him the potential of the Timor Sea gas development. I can tell you that, at that time, they were not talking LNG; they were talking domestic gas primarily, and LNG for Bayu-Undan particularly. Out of that meeting came, essentially, the recognition that the way that the Timor Sea gas could best be developed was with a true joint venture arrangement. At the time, I met Jim Mulva. I was very impressed by the persuasiveness and the bona fides, in terms of the integrity, of that particular individual. I was very pleased to see the result of that meeting very shortly afterwards, when it came to be called the Sunrise Joint Venture. That joint venture then provided Phillips with equity in the Sunrise field along with Woodside and Shell and some smaller players. They all then, the real players in the team, were seen to became truly wedded together to Sunrise in particular, rather than competing against each other. At the time, Sunrise was to be the feeder, along with Bayu-Undan, for the gas markets that would be developed.
Also around that time I visited Japan, spoke to the potential customers that Phillips were looking for at the time: Tokyo Electric and Osaka Gas, large buyers. There were some sensitive arrangements put in place. These things were held very closely in terms of what Phillips’ strategy was but, there was no doubt in my mind at the time that Phillips were looking to sell Bayu-Undan gas to those particular customers; notwithstanding the fact that, publicly, the El Paso case was the one that was put forward in the public arena by Phillips. Certainly, Osaka Gas and Tokyo Electric were always there.
At the time, I also went to Houston. If you want to go to Houston, Minister, and you want to go to any of those technical conferences in Houston, the largest one that I went to - the name escapes me now, and I should remember it but I can’t - I would urge you to go. I would support you to go because it is an opportunity to not only get to talk to some of the largest players in the business world-wide; to understand the issues associated with oil and gas worldwide; but also to be part of a number of forums I was privileged to attend where it was striking to hear the discussions that were raised. Whilst in Houston you can walk around to some of the head offices of some of the largest companies in the world, including Haliburton, and talk about the way they see the world and how they see the way Timor Sea gas fits in to that particular profile.
All of this was happening at the time when the political climate in East Timor was changing. The political landscape was changing quite dramatically and, in that context, I don’t mind if the Chief Minister says publicly: ‘It was only when the Labor government came to power that we fixed relations with East Timor. They were terribly strained and it took us to get into government to fix it’. I don’t mind if she says that in the context of my relationship with Dr Alkatiri, because there is no doubt that that relationship was strained during the course of some very difficult negotiations with regards to the treaty arrangements.
The reality is that I think the East Timorese people haven’t forgotten that, at that time, we took 3000 refugees over a few days out of dreadful circumstances. Territorians banded together to accommodate them. It was an effort that we should be proud of, and East Timorese would be grateful for. I couldn’t believe that my strained relationship with one particular individual could overcome the immense gratitude that the East Timorese people, and their politicians generally, would have for the Northern Territory. I wouldn’t have thought that anything could have been done to have the East Timorese work against the Territory because of a couple of spats between politicians. At the time, I might recount that, notwithstanding the relationship with Alkatiri, our relationship with Horta was extremely good. I remember on one occasion when Jim Mulva of Phillips needed to talk to Jose Ramos Horta very quickly, it was Daryl Manzie, one of our ministers, who chased him down and got him quickly to the ear of Phillips. Phillips were very grateful for that.
Also at that period, not probably commonly known, it was the Territory government and one Mike Reed who actually provided safe haven for Xanana Gusmao. We took him out and hid him at …
Mr Reed: Somewhere.
Mr BURKE: Somewhere. I was very privileged to attend the meeting with him in the early days of that period whilst the siege of the UN facility was on, when we were trying to sort out exactly how we could accommodate safe haven, not only for the East Timorese that were in the UN facility, but also to try and provide some sort of mechanism and safety for those East Timorese students threatened in Indonesia proper. Again, we can criticise politicians in this House, but let’s not forget when you talk about someone like the ex-Treasurer, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the enormous effort he made in that time on behalf of the East Timorese as Deputy Chief Minister and Police minister. I believe he has developed a warm and personal relationship with Xanana Gusmao that will not be threatened.
Unfortunately, in that changing political landscape, the treaty arrangements that had been sorted out with regards to the Bayu-Undan gas arrangements as part of this offer, were thrown into disarray. We all know the arguments that were put, but there was no way in the world that Bayu-Undan itself as a project was going to get up. Because 20% of Sunrise was involved in these treaty arrangements, we had to get something resolved in order to move forward on either or both of those projects. The focus was very much on Bayu-Undan at the time, but the focus was also on the whole project. As you recall, Bayu-Undan was going to be the feeder for a large LNG market including Sunrise gas, which would be part of that LNG market more to feed a domestic market. The issue was urgent; Phillips needed a resolution of the treaty within a certain time. The markets were sensitive and waiting. We were attracting customers such as Methanex that were time sensitive.
We went to the federal government. We urged, in particular, Minister Alexander Downer to get directly involved in resolving that treaty. He did so and, again, when the time comes to lay out accolades as to how we got Bayu-Undan onshore - and, I hope, Greater Sunrise onshore - let’s not forget the personal efforts of Alexander Downer in getting that project moving and getting that treaty resolved. He made an extremely generous contribution from the Commonwealth to the East Timorese. It was most unfortunate and sad that, at the 11th hour - in fact it was the 13th hour, just after we had signed the treaty - urgings were made to the East Timorese that they should be able to gain a greater tax revenue from those fuels. Because of that, the treaty arrangements were put in flux, and that was, essentially, the situation that I had when we left government.
Bayu-Undan was uncertain because the fiscal arrangements hadn’t been settled; Sunrise definitely uncertain because it was to follow on from Bayu-Undan. There were markets that were time sensitive and waiting for confirmation as to what would happen with gas. The project had essentially came to, not so much a standstill, but at least a hiatus. Unless those fiscal issues had been resolved they weren’t moving forward. In that time as well, Methanex then left; they couldn’t gain a secure supply. The federal government and the new Labor government, in one sense I believe, refocussed on the Bayu-Undan project, and that is good.
On 20 May, we will see the culmination of the treaty arrangements being settled. Whilst there are some outstanding issues which the Chief Minister has alluded to, they will not affect the clarity that Phillips needs with regard to Bayu-Undan. That treaty will be settled and a major impediment to the development of Bayu-Undan will have been removed. It will then be up to the Phillips producers to decide and secure their own customers, and decide when they are actually going to build a pipeline and bring Bayu-Undan onshore.
Can I say to you, in some respects, since this project first came directly into my lap - and notwithstanding the change in government - my bona fides, my enthusiasm for the importance of gas in the Northern Territory has not waned one bit. The enthusiasm of the now opposition has not waned at all. As opposition, I have tried to help where possible. I have twice been to Canberra to see ministers, including Downer and Macfarlane. In that first meeting, I was reassured by Alexander Downer that the treaty would be resolved by 20 May. As I said, that will be a fact in a few days.
At the Federal Liberal Council Conference, in a wider sense I also facilitated the delivery of the government and the business community’s case for bringing Sunrise gas onshore, to the federal Liberal Party. I have been continually briefed by officers of the Office of Territory Development, and I thank the minister and Chief Minister for those briefings. They keep me up-to-date on exactly what the government’s position is, and the latest information they have on the project. I have also attended business meetings at the Institute of Northern Territory Economic Development, essentially the coalition of business people who are working alongside government to develop not only the business case, but also to lobby business leaders throughout Australia for bringing Sunrise gas onshore.
Can I say to the Chief Minister that I am pleased to be part of Team NT. I see myself as a contributor - and I say this quite seriously - not just one who is wearing a T-shirt for the photograph. I think that Team NT can achieve a lot together; each of us has an appropriate role to play. I am the first to acknowledge the rightful and dominant role that government should play but, certainly, where the opposition can assist - and also through our federal members - we want to do so and will do so. We will do everything to help, but we will also be concerned that the government’s approach is the best way to get a successful outcome for the Northern Territory. In that regard, it will not simply be blind following under the term Team NT; it will be watching the government’s approach, where possible. It is helped by the briefings that I am getting, to not misunderstand the government’s strategy, to be given the opportunity to raise our own questions on some of the issues we may be concerned about. In that vein, we can proceed forward together.
I would sound a cautionary note and that is that, if the securing of Timor gas onshore is the objective, then that objective has been achieved. Timor Sea gas will flow onshore with the successful outcome of Bayu-Undan. That, in itself, is a fantastic project and we shouldn’t lose sight of that. In construction costs alone, it is a far bigger project than the railway and, notwithstanding the fact that it is a LNG project, it is a massive project. It will provide great and long-term benefit for Territorians, and we should see it as a great success story.
If we put Sunrise gas aside for a moment, let us not forget the Bonaparte Basin. When we think about the gas reserves for Australia’s needs, the Bonaparte Basin’s Petrel, Tern, and Blacktip provide about 20% of Australia’s future reserves. I believe that issues such as Blacktip should be weaved into these statements, because they are real projects. The Bonaparte Basin is a real opportunity for the Northern Territory. Plans are well advanced in terms of securing pipeline access. Woodside are quite determined to develop the Blacktip field, and along with other producers, conduct greater exploration in that area. That is a very prospective field to feed the Northern Territory’s needs into the future. Also, let’s not forget that Blacktip can feed PAWA and Nabalco. It has enough gas to achieve that. That, in itself, would be of great advantage to the Northern Territory.
Sunrise is the problem; Sunrise is the challenge. We all know where we are with Sunrise at the moment. As I said, it is good news today to hear that Woodside and Shell are going to reassess the domestic markets. It is a sign that the government’s strategy and efforts to date are successful. There is no doubt that the federal ministers, particularly, are reassessing the figures that were presented before them. I am sure that Minister Macfarlane has done his utmost, and has been part of the decision by Woodside and Shell to come forward with this particular position today.
I applaud the energy meeting that the Chief Minister intends to organise with the Premiers. I believe it has the opportunity to be a major catalyst to put aside a lot of the arguments that have been put forward about domestic gas markets. It is an opportunity for the Premiers of those southern states to be fully engaged in the issue and to do more than simply give support with words to the Sunrise gas project. It is an opportunity for them to talk to and get the information from their own state-owned entities and government corporations, and also from the private suppliers that will supply their gas needs in the future - the pipeline owners - as to just what will be the demand in their own states; where that demand will come from; how secure is that demand from areas other than Sunrise, so that Sunrise figures very much in their thinking.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, time has expired.
Mr BURKE: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, my time has run out. I simply end up by saying I thank again the Chief Minister for her statement, and give a commit opposition support to getting Sunrise gas onshore in the future.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution and support in reference to the Chief Minister’s statement here this evening.
I suppose one of the most penetrating comments that I have seen in regard to Timor Sea gas in the media was quite some months ago when there was a headline - I think it was in the Sydney Morning Herald - that talked about the ‘Timor Sea gas puzzle’. That is exactly what we are facing. We have no shortage of gas reserves identified in the Timor Sea. We have no shortage of developers seeking to exploit those reserves commercially. We have a number of customers for the gas, both overseas and also onshore here in Australia, and we have a puzzle in terms of how we bring those opportunities to fruition. As I have said, the Timor Sea gas puzzle certainly has stuck in my mind as to how we move forward.
In regards to Sunrise gas and what we are talking about tonight, essentially the campaign that government has been running has had three phases. I have coined these phases. The first was the ‘hearts and minds’ components when we inherited government, and it wasn’t long after Shell had announced their floating LNG option. From opposition you don’t have the research and the resources available that government does but, it was obviously very significant in terms of that ‘hearts and minds’ components of the argument to establish very firmly, nationally and also in the minds of the developers and Territorians that - as the Chief Minister said - this resource belongs to the people of Australia; it does not belong to the companies. We, as Australian governments, have every responsibility on behalf of the people who elect us, to ensure that those resources developed are consistent with developing opportunities within Australia - opportunities for investment, capital construction activity, ongoing jobs, ongoing revenues, as well as opportunities commercially for the companies and their shareholders. We did appeal for the gas reserves to be developed in the nation’s interests.
Here in the Northern Territory - as the Leader of the Opposition said - we need to bring energy costs down. It is the greatest impediment that we have to the development of our economic base and to developing a manufacturing and industrial base in the Territory. The only opportunity that we have to do that lies in those significant gas reserves in the Timor Sea, and it is one that we should not give up without a huge fight.
Next, the government commissioned ACIL Consulting to provide independent advice to government on the economic case to bring gas onshore. The ‘hearts and minds’ argument was very firmly there, but we needed an economic case to understand the difference between the two projects that were proposed: the floating LNG project and the onshore LNG plus domestic gas project. We had to understand economically what was the difference in those two projects to the Northern Territory and the Australian economy. As the Chief Minister has outlined, we then developed a very strong economic case to support the hearts and minds arguments. That was supported, as well, by the business community here in the Northern Territory, who also determined their own economic analysis and funded it. That, again, provided two sources of economic advice to governments that showed that bringing this gas onshore was in the interests of the nation’s economy far more than floating LNG.
Finally, about three weeks to a month ago, Phillips Petroleum confirmed the third component of that campaign, which was a commercial case. That was the missing link in the argument that Shell and Woodside were running, that the only economically feasible way of developing this resource commercially for them was to produce LNG on the barge and float it off overseas. They were saying that the commercial components did not stack up for bringing gas onshore. Phillips Petroleum, who have 30% joint venture in Sunrise, came along and provided a very solid commercial case to bring that gas onshore. Those three elements together certainly proved that Sunrise gas is worth fighting for.
It is very heartening to see Woodside and Shell make the announcements today that they are now reconsidering the domestic gas case. That is an absolutely mammoth turnaround from where they were only as little as four to six weeks ago; where they were absolutely sticking to the line that, commercially, there was no way in the world that you could bring this gas onshore. Their position had changed very significantly. From August last year, there has been $200m worth of investment at least by the joint venture; two years worth of work running around the country signing up a customer base through heads of agreement memorandums of understanding,; and saying that the only way to develop Sunrise was to bring it onshore. We then had Shell come out in August with their floating LNG proposal and discussion about a $500m difference in the two projects. That went out to $1bn in about November last year and then $2bn in February of this year.
At that time, it was looking pretty bleak, given the arguments that Woodside and Shell were putting to the public. They also gave briefings to senior federal ministers from Canberra that there was a $2bn hole in the onshore argument. That was a number that obviously could not be breached by Commonwealth investment. Therefore, onshore gas from Sunrise was dead in the water.
We were not to be deterred from that. We believed that we had every responsibility as government in the Northern Territory to, as robustly as possible, challenge that assumption from the developers. With all the industrial development that would follow, we absolutely could not allow this opportunity to bring the Sunrise field gas onshore without testing those numbers very, very thoroughly. The announcement from Woodside and Shell today shows that we have been successful in doing that, and we are now back in the hunt. That is very, very reassuring.
Some people have described our campaign as David and Goliath: a small economy like the Territory taking on a multinational like Shell. But, as I said, we have been extremely encouraged by the strong support from our Territory business community, which has put its own money into its own report. There are a number of people to pay tribute to, all of whom have been part of Team NT and put money into that report. In particular, Bruce Fadellie from the Chamber of Commerce has been very active in terms of making sure that the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce uses its very substantial national links to take Team NT’s argument, that this really is a national interest argument, into boardrooms and financial institutions around Australia. The business community here in the Northern Territory has done an absolutely magnificent job of raising awareness interstate amongst the business community of how important an initiative this is. We urge the developers to work with us cooperatively so that we can all win. They can serve not only their shareholders’ but also Australia’s national interests.
I ask honourable members to cast their minds back to only a few short years ago when BHP Petroleum was proposing a floating LNG option for Bayu-Undan gas, a development option opposed by the Territory at the time. As we all know, Phillips is now proposing LNG production from onshore facility in Darwin, and that is a most welcome outcome. Again, we have seen that floating option come onshore. Phillips are still proving absolutely that they can get a return on that investment.
There was a further irony in this campaign in that, only a couple of weeks ago, I attended the Australian Petroleum Producers and Explorers Association Conference in Adelaide, where the issue of Australia’s oil and gas reserves was a major topic of discussion. By way of background, the APPEA Conference is the premier upstream and downstream petroleum conference in Australia, and this year attracted over a thousand delegates. Typically, 20% to 30% of APPEA delegates come from overseas. The theme of this year’s conference was Breaking Through to Our Future - Find More Oil, Use More Gas. I am sure I do not need to explain to honourable members how relevant that theme is to the Territory and to its future. We will certainly be making greater use of this argument.
Before the conference had even started, APPEA issued a statement calling on the federal government to address a rapid decline in Australia’s oil self-sufficiency. This peak organisation for the oil and gas industry outlined a five-point strategy covering the economic, military and diplomatic risks associated with Australia’s increased reliance on imported fuel. APPEA Chairman, Agu Kantsler said Australia needed to reduce its energy consumption in order to reduce the risk of supply disruption, and that the country needed a gas development strategy. He then said:
Virtually all countries’ international mandates benefit resource developments nationally, either through legislative or fiscal vehicles. We are one of the few countries in the world, and possibly the only one - we have not been able to find any - where the actual outcome in terms of how our natural resources are developed and to what use they are put, is entirely determined by the free market economy. All other developed and underdeveloped economies that we have looked at, have many vehicles by which they ensure that their resources are developed in the national interest. That really is the essence of our argument: that we should be using all avenues and opportunities to ensure that the companies get a commercial return that satisfies their shareholders but, also, we as a nation benefit from the development of our resources.
The APPEA Conference was accompanied by a large exhibition, and the Territory continued its excellent representation through a stand staffed by Territory government experts. I was most impressed by the professional manner in which the display was put together. I can say that, from the time that I spent on the stand and talking to delegates of the conference who came to our stand, the Northern Territory is very much on the international petroleum industry’s radar screen. Everybody I spoke to at the conference was following our campaign with a great deal of interest.
Interestingly, directly opposite the Territory’s stand was the Shell stand with a model of the floating LNG plant. There was some discussion about connecting up a garden hose from the model to bring gas across the corridor to the Territory stand. There were other discussions about possibly scuttling that LNG plant overnight, but we did behave ourselves, and the floating LNG plant stayed there for the duration of the conference.
The conference is traditionally accompanied by a new acreage release by the Federal Resource Minister, and this year was no exception. I sat in on the acreage release whilst it was being discussed. We have released new acreage here in the Northern Territory, and it is going to be very keenly bid on.
Perhaps the best way I can encapsulate the NT’s involvement in this year’s conference is to refer to APPEA Executive Director, Barry Jones - not the former Federal Science Minister, I hasten to add - words used in his post conference wrap up for the media. Mr Jones described the Territory’s APPEA performance such as a headmaster might be representing a report card. For its overall performance, the Territory rated a B+ verging on an A. This was based, not only on its excellent presence at APPEA, but because of its constructive and productive working relationship with the industry. Only Western Australia achieved an equal rating with the Northern Territory, with New South Wales and Queensland each rating an F. So, I think that we did a pretty good job.
The high regard with which the Territory is held by the petroleum industry at both the political and bureaucratic levels, reflects on the importance the Territory places on that industry to our future development. APPEA and, particularly its annual conference, provide an ideal opportunity to showcase our exploration and development potential. I expect that we will participate actively in APPEA conferences in the future.
Finally, I would like to note some more positive developments on the oil and gas scene in the Territory. Phillips Petroleum has started work on its liquid stripping phase of the Bayu-Undan project. The Bayu-Undan field, which was discovered in 1995, will eventually have 26 wells and will provide condensate and liquid petroleum gas for about 20 years. About 200 workers are already placed in the Timor Sea, putting together drilling platforms and extraction equipment. Jackets have been floated to the site from Singapore and drilling starts this month. Once the wells are in place later this year, Phillips will start the liquid stripping phase in which the condensate and LPG are removed and the gas is recycled back into reservoirs in the sea bed, awaiting its transfer to Darwin via a 500 km subsea pipeline. Condensate production is due to start in 2004. About $15m to $20m a year is expected to flow into the Territory economy from this project over the next three years. Toll Energy has established a $1m supply base in Darwin, and supply boats began calling at East Arm Port earlier this month. All subcontracts have been awarded to local companies. Oil and gas service provider Baker Hughes Inteq is building a $2.3m drilling fluid plant at East Arm Port which was opened on 16 May. Again, 80% of the subcontracts have been awarded locally with Darwin fabrication company E.C. & E. doing most of the structural work. As I said, the next phase for the Bayu-Undan project is to bring gas onshore for processing at Phillips’ Wickham Point LNG plant. Again, this will bring significant benefits to Territory companies that are prepared and competitive.
All that remains for this project to start is the final negotiations between the federal government, Phillips and East Timor. I am very much looking forward to accompanying the Chief Minister to the East Timorese Independence celebrations on 20 May, a very proud day for all of us here in the Northern Territory, given the very close relationships that have existed between Territorians, particularly Darwin people, and the East Timorese community who exited East Timor as a result of the Indonesian invasion back in 1974. Very strong links have been built with these people over many, many years and there are going to be a lot of very proud East Timorese Territorians on 20 May. We look forward, as the new government here in the Northern Territory, to working very cooperatively with the new government in East Timor to do all we can to help them rebuild a very shattered country, both economically and socially. With those words, I strongly endorse the Chief Minister’s statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that gas onshore to the Northern Territory will bring great benefits. I attended the NT Gas Team meeting held recently and I would like to thank the Chief Minister for her invitation. I was impressed by the input from Alcan, McArthur River Mines, Mount Grace Mine and the Power and Water Authority. Representatives spoke about the advantages for them in lowering energy costs. In a competitive global economy, this is most important if our industries want to stay viable. Cheaper energy gives the Territory the chance to develop a manufacturing base; a manufacturing base will give the Territory a more stable economy and better chances for stable employment.
We know that gas will come onshore at Wickham Point and we know that this project by Phillips Petroleum is to supply gas to Tokyo Gas. In the short term, this will provide jobs in the construction phase and a smaller, but important, number of jobs in the long-term operation.
Whilst I strongly support the moves to get gas to Darwin, I think we should not lose sight of other issues, and I would like to highlight those. I feel it is dangerous for government to get lost in the glitter, the hype, the grand schemes, and forget the issues that are still of concern to others, especially those who live here. Please remember the number of people who signed the petitions to protect Darwin Harbour. Those petitions wanted the harbour protected through the concept of a national conservation park. Chief Minister, whilst the government is out convincing Australia about the benefits of gas, you should also be developing the best options for those who live here. This government has said that it will produce a Darwin Harbour management plan. This needs to be out now so that the public has a chance to have a say. The community needs plenty of time to analyse and comment. The community does not want to be pressured into agreeing with plans because it might be seen that they are opposing the gas development. I know the feeling, having been put in that same position myself.
The government must allow more open and transparent debate about all siting options for industrial development, including gas-associated development. It is no good saying that the middle of the harbour was identified in the 1990 Darwin Regional Land Use Objectives or even further back in 1982. This argument was used by some members of the previous government to argue the case for Methanex and GTL to be established in the middle of the harbour. It is the argument that has allowed extractive mining to occur on the Middle Arm Peninsula.
But the argument does not hold water. The only people who identified this land were the government and the planners. There was no public consultation about the use of the centre of the harbour as industrial, because there was simply a big rush to get the planning documents drawn up so that the government could put its case in relation to the Kenbi Land Claim. The use of land in the centre of the harbour for industry is purely a concept; the same concept that applied for four estuarine dams in Darwin harbour and two in Bynoe. The public were not involved in discussions about the dams, nor the industrial sites. The Lichfield Land Use Objectives were the first that people could have a real say in the future use of that part of the harbour. When asked about that at the recent meetings of the Development Consent Authority, they all said: ‘No’.
Chief Minister, whilst I have no doubt that Phillips will go ahead on Wickham Point, I ask that all options be looked at by the government to look for other suitable sites for industrial development. That process must be open and transparent, not ‘Trust me, I am from the planning department’. As an aside regarding Wickham Point, there is a proposal that most of Wickham Point, including Peak Hill, be sold off to Phillips. There is some confusion over how much land Phillips want on Wickham Point. Wickham Point is an island at the tip of the Ware Peninsula or Middle Arm Peninsula. In the preliminary environmental report on page 13, they said that the area of ground disturbance, which was originally to be 66.8 ha under the $3m tonne per annum facility, will now be expanded to 88.3 ha. But further on when, looking at reasons why it should be Wickham Point instead of other areas, it said that it required 150 ha of land - that is on page 227 of the preliminary environmental report - because they needed to expand to three LNG trains. If we go further on in the PER, we find out that the proposal for actual land tenure is 215.5 ha, as shown in Figure 3.11 in the preliminary environmental report.
The latter option of 215.5 ha takes in a small hill called Peak Hill which is 32 m high and can be seen from Parliament House. I would ask that the government leave this area as public land because I believe that it could make a good tourist destination if developed sensitively. What a place to sit and watch the sun set in the middle of the harbour! As people might not know, there is a road to be built to the LNG plant, and that will be a public road. If we are gong to develop Wickham Point, here’s an opportunity to develop it in a sensitive manner, where the public can get an opportunity to view the centre of the harbour, so Peak Hill is not locked up entirely by one large industrial development.
Chief Minister, I would also like to raise two other issues. The first one is in the form of a question: could the minister inform the House what is the latest on the negotiations regarding the territorial boundary between Australia and East Timor? Has this matter been resolved and does it have any potential problems that could affect the development of gas, either now or in the future, in the region?
My last comment is regarding our attitude to East Timor in the matter of gas development. I take on the comments of the Opposition Leader about the work the Northern Territory did when the refugee crisis was on. I think we have a good relationship with the East Timorese. However, I also know that East Timor will receive a substantial amount of the royalties from the gas. I do have some concerns about whether some gas should be flowing to East Timor. I gather East Timor uses oil for power generation, and wood is also often used for cooking. I have been told that when gas comes into production, in some parts of East Timor people will be able to see the flares at night. Yet East Timor will not receive the gas - gas which could reduce the polluting oil fuel they use and reduce the reliance on firewood.
A member: 450 km, mate.
Mr WOOD: Well, that is what I have been told by people, yes.
Ms Carter: On a clear night.
Mr WOOD: Or maybe from the mountains.
Mr Dunham: Flares? The flares would have to be about 500 m high. And even then you would not see it.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Drysdale. I was told that by somebody who knows. I digress.
East Timor is a developing nation, and is certainly much poorer than Australia. East Timor is a third world country. East Timor is our neighbour and, I hope, our friend, even though that friendship has, at times, been shaky over the last 25 years. Chief Minister, Australia needs gas. The Northern Territory needs gas. What will happen to East Timor? As I said before, I support the gas onshore, but please do not let the euphoria blind our judgment in the way we treat the environment, our fellow Territorians and our neighbours.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all contributors to this debate. It is an important one and probably more than anything, reporting to the House and to Territorians what has been happening in the campaign to get gas onshore from both Bayu-Undan and Sunrise fields in the Timor Sea.
The bipartisan support in this has been very important. The way we have worked as a government - and I mean government and opposition together - with the business community, the way that Territorians are on side, has all been very important. When it comes to arguing our case effectively on the national level, and to the companies involved, it is important that there is just one voice and a strong message coming from the Territory. I think we are achieving that. I certainly would like to thank everyone who has been part of that.
The announcement today from Woodside and Shell that they are reviewing their Domgas case is a terrific one. I was very pleased when I heard it earlier today. We were not certain when they were going to make it public so we were respecting their request that we were just informed. We were very pleased that it has received television airing tonight. It says that we have argued our case well, and that Woodside and Shell are prepared to revisit the arguments they were putting forward so forcefully just 18 months ago. We will certainly be part of arguing that very strongly with them. It is great news for the Territory that Woodside and Shell have said they will review their domestic gas case. It does not necessarily mean that the floating option has been put on hold, but it means our arguments and theirs - that were being so loudly put only 12 to 18 months ago - are being revisited and that the federal government will play a very strong part in that. In my speech, I outlined some of the domestic gas customers we believe are here. We believe that there is a strong case for commercial viability in bringing Sunrise gas onshore, and it is the one that we, as a Territory, will continue to argue very strongly.
To pick up the points raised by the member for Nelson. I do not think there is a discrepancy between being passionate and wanting to get gas onshore - which really does provide a change in step in the Territory’s economy, especially with Sunrise gas - and also properly protecting our environment and our lifestyle. The challenge for government and parliament is to balance that. The current environmental impact process that is going on at Wickham Point, I believe, will be a very open and transparent one, and the interests of our environment will be well argued and well protected. I believe that it is not an either/or case. In your comments I thought maybe you were leaning towards this either/or case. But let me tell you it is possible to walk and chew gum, and in this case I believe our environment and the economic future of the Territory can both be balanced.
As far as Territorial boundaries go, the East Timorese view is that the Sunrise and Bayu-Undan projects are being followed through on current boundaries. I believe that in the future they would like to take a look at the boundaries. What that means in terms of how and where they will argue this case, I don’t know. But I know that some time in the future - but not at all to affect Bayu-Undan and Sunrise - that case will be looked at by the East Timorese. That is all the information I can give you at this stage.
I know that Phillips and Timor have a good relationship now, and are certainly talking about what opportunities there might be in the context of gas going to Timor. It is our luck and Timor’s unlucky position, I suppose, that there is the trench that makes it, in an engineering sense, very expensive to take pipelines across to Timor. Gas is coming onshore to Darwin from Bayu-Undan because that is the only economically possible option for Phillips. The Territory and, I believe, companies like Phillips want to ensure that the Timorese get the most benefit they can from this resource. The Territory and Australia believes it is a shared resource, and we should be seeing those benefits go to Australians, to Territorians, but also to the East Timorese.
For the Territory, gas and its opportunities represents an expansion of what we do here. For the East Timorese, the royalties they get from gas really underpin their survival. So, it is a very critical issue for them. As far as being able to replace their current fuel with gas, I can’t add any more to that at this stage. I am sure that the current East Timorese government is very concerned about their environment as well as finding a balanced position. It is certainly an issue that I will pursue to see what the possibilities are.
Thank you for the contributions in here. I will not say any more. We are getting to the end of a long day. This campaign that we have taken to the national media, national industry groups, the political arena right around the country, is a very important one for the Territory. I have been pleased at the response we have had so far, as I said in my contribution to the debate. Even though it is something of a David and Goliath campaign, we are being listened to and are arguing our case well. The work we have done by getting consultants and having a major player like Phillips on our side, has certainly seen what happened initially - that there was no way we could support these arguments of bringing gas onshore - certainly turned. The announcement from Woodside and Shell today underpins that.
We are going to continue. This is an ongoing campaign, and a lot more work is being done. I have outlined the campaign so far and, hopefully, when we return to this House in June, I will be able to outline what has happened between now and then and the successes we have had. We have marched some way in this, but I must say there is a long way to go. I am glad of the support in this House for this statement, and I would like to reinforce that it is not gas or the environment; it is both.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly now do adjourn.
I would like to talk about a few things that are relevant to my electorate tonight in this adjournment debate, and the first one is the Cool Communities Project. Cool Communities is an Australian Greenhouse Office project, and the primary aim of the program is to reduce greenhouse gas omissions at the household level. Global warming is an issue that each of us must address, and no contribution to reducing the problem can be regarded as too small. It requires a community approach, which is exactly what the Cool Communities initiative is all about.
Cool Communities is an important step in acknowledging that individual householders can make a difference in the level of carbon dioxide that is released into the environment. The program will help households to make supportive changes that can reduce not only the amount of pollution produced, but also can save money. These changes do not have to be drastic and will be changes that we hope whole families can live with. In my Fannie Bay electorate, a grant of $50 000 has been made available to a steering group comprising members of Ludmilla Landcare and the Parap Residents Association. Steering Group members Johanna Kieboom, Monica van den Nieuwenhof, Gary Scott, Denise Goodfellow and Fiona Douglas, have been working tirelessly on their action plan which has been accepted by the project sponsors, the Australian Greenhouse Office. The group will establish cool houses and audit volunteer households. The cool houses will be supported to make various changes to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced by energy use. Not only will these households benefit by helping the environment, but also by a reduction in power costs. The power usage of the houses will be monitored to examine how successful the project has been. It really is a fabulous project that is targeting the Ludmilla, Parap, Fannie Bay and Narrows areas. The group will establish an education program that they hope will reach beyond those areas, and will continue after the completion of the project in 2003.
I am supporting the Cool Communities project throughout my electorate, and my own home is a volunteer household. I congratulate the steering group, all the volunteer householders and all those associated with this important program. I suppose the particular challenge for my household is - as I have teenage children who now have decided that airconditioning is the only way to go - is to simply fight them and get them turned off. It has been interesting as, when children are a little younger they are happy to get into a pool when they got hot. As they get older, they forget about swimming and all they can see is the airconditioner switch. I have shared this information with others who have teenage children, and they say it is part of the growing-up process; that the airconditioner becomes this icon that has to be turned on; regardless of what the temperature is. The temperature can be in the low 20s outside, and they still turn the airconditioner on. Then overnight, they will turn the control down to 18 and drag out the doonas. So, in my household, the Cool Communities project will have a direct and immediate effect and, I am hoping one that will certainly tell in my power bill.
Turning to another important issue in the electorate, and that is the Wirrina Housing Commission complex, which is in Parap. On 23 April, I attended a barbecue at the Wirrina complex at which many of the tenants were also present. We had a great roll-up, with about 40 tenants attending. My colleague, John Ah Kit, who is responsible for Housing, was also there, and some of his staff from Housing as well, and I thank them for their time. It was an ideal opportunity to discuss issues with the tenants, particularly those arising from trespass and antisocial behaviour, which has been an ongoing issue for my public housing constituents, particularly at Wirrina flats because they are so well positioned in the heart of Parap. Antisocial behaviour and drunkenness are, I suppose, a daily issue there.
The contribution of the residents was invaluable, and I am pleased to confirm that the government will proceed with a number of initiatives to address the concerns that have been raised over a number of years by the residents. Details of the proposed works are as follows: we will be replacing the existing 1.2 m Chainmesh fence with a 1.8 m heavy duty security fence, incorporating the existing mailbox facility. The proposed new fence will only have one pedestrian access point. Currently, there are three of those, and we have had to do a trade with the residents that there will be less ways of getting out of the complex. Having only one access point will certainly make it a lot easier to manage those who are coming into the complex. There will be a gate at the front of the complex complete with swipe card facility for access by tenants, and to be able to facilitate a remote opening function. On everyone’s keys, we are hoping there will be a card that can swipe the gate and, again, limit those who come in. Also, from the residents point of view, they will have to be responsible for who they let in.
There are two vehicle entrances to the complex which will have electric powered access gates at entry points from Gregory and Drysdale Streets on either side of the complex. These will also have a swipe card access facility. For any of the residents in their cars, they will have that kind of access facility. There will be an intercom system between the front access gate to each individual unit, complete with remote gate opening device, and an on and off switch that can be operated from within each unit. When you look at units in private complexes at the moment, those are the kind of facilities they have. I believe that Territorians living in those large complexes - and the Wirrina flats are fairly large, there are about 70 units there - should have access to that kind of security arrangement.
It is also proposed to landscape the Parap Road/Drysdale Street corner of the complex to make it look better, and to make the area less conducive to use by non-tenants. Currently, it is an area where people sit and drink. Despite the fact that the police come quite regularly because it is within 2 km, it is still a problem area, so we think that doing some landscaping there and changing some of the vegetation will actually help.
So it is very pleasing, after being the member for Fannie Bay for seven years now, that being in government has meant I can put in place initiatives for one of the areas that has been a constant issue for me. We have had a lot of trouble with some residents over the years, but also a more serious problem with non-residents causing a problem - and these initiatives will be welcome by the tenants. They will be discussed with them further before we actually introduce them. I believe they are not going to solve the problem entirely, but will go some way towards doing that. I believe that the amenity for the residents living at the Wirrina complex will actually be enhanced. As local member, I feel very proud of that.
I was also delighted to launch the first exhibition of the Fannie Bay History and Heritage Association at the Fannie Bay Gaol last month on 26 April. Fannie Bay has a fascinating history, from being home to most of Australia’s pioneer aviators; to having some of the Territory’s prime World War II heritage; to providing some of our major recreational pastimes; to being the prime place of residence of some of our most interesting citizens. I noted that this is Law Week, and one of the guided tours during Law Week is around the Parap area, because not only do we have some of the most interesting citizens, we have had some of those who have committed some interesting crimes as well. Our Solicitor General is proudly taking groups of people around the Parap area showing them sites of past infamy.
The Fannie Bay History and Heritage Society was officially formed at a public meeting at the Railway Club in March 2001. The enthusiasm of those attending, including a broad cross-section of interests and ages, demonstrated clearly that there is a real interest in the history and heritage of the Fannie Bay/Parap area, and that there is a community desire to celebrate and protect it. Two Territory historians and residents in the area, Barbara James and Eve Gibson, were elected co-convenors, and have been busy organising both meetings and projects.
Eve Gibson, who is currently doing a PhD on the history of Fannie Bay, has been the driving force behind the workers. She has been ably assisted by Annette Millikins, Wendy MacDonald, Beth Hogan, Ray and Glen Shepherd, Barbara James and Barry Kapert, whom she says has been a particularly dedicated worker. Historian Bob Alford has also helped in supplying photos and historical material, along with several other members such as long time residents such as Hilda Muir and Jean Vickery.
The exhibition at the Fannie Bay Gaol is the first stage of what will become a real attraction to the local community and tourists, and the catalyst for lots more photos and memories. The support of Anna Malgorzewicz and Mickey Dewar from the Museum and Art Gallery is greatly appreciated by the History and Heritage Society. It is an exciting group of people who have got together to support this. They have a vast knowledge of the history of the Fannie Bay and Parap areas. I am very confident this will be a most active society and one that will keep this exhibition at the Fannie Bay Gaol dynamic and constantly turning over, in terms of what is shown there. In talking to those involved with the society, I hear there is a wealth of historical material around and it just needs somewhere to be displayed.
On a totally different topic, I recently had the pleasure of presenting awards at the presentation night for the 2002 NT Barramundi Classic. This year’s event, the Darwin Game Fishing Club’s 21st NT Barramundi Classic, was a huge success and much credit is due to the tournament coordinators Kevin Bochow, Ron Bochow and Bill Brown and the tournament committee, Scott Coutts, Michael Dickinson, Peter Fisher, Julie Fisher and Lynne Dowling. Time will not permit me to acknowledge all the prize winners - and there were quite numbers of those - but we should note some special achievements. The champion team was Team Predator, the champion angler was Ron Bochow, and champion lady angler was Marion Washington. My government recognises the importance that Territorians place on the quality of recreational fishing and its contribution to the economy. I congratulate all the entrants in this year’s Barramundi Classic, the organisers, prize winners, and the very generous sponsors who support the event. I want to thank the regular entrant in the Barramundi Classic who has invited me to join them for at least a day or two next year, something that I would love to be able to take up.
Finally, I was delighted recently to accept an invitation from Asad Mohsin, the President of the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory, to present awards at the society’s inaugural awareness and open day. Honourable members will be aware of the vital contribution the Islamic community makes to the multicultural fabric of the Territory. The Islamic community is committed to maintaining its contribution to our harmonious multicultural society, and the open day was an ideal opportunity for sharing information on current issues and Islamic faith. I found their display most fascinating. At a time when there has been a lot of uninformed comment and criticism of their faith around the world, our Islamic Society chose to be proactive in terms of explaining what their faith is about and how, in many ways, it is complementary to and mirrors many other religions. It was a very good display presented by the community, and I want to congratulate them. It was an excellent evening and the food, particularly, was fantastic. I sincerely thank the Islamic community for its hospitality and generosity.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to make a few comments in tonight’s adjournment debate. The first issue that I wish to raise was an issue that came through e-mail to me from a gentleman by the name of Sean Casey from Weipa in far north Queensland. I believe that many people may have received this e-mail. I did take the time to ring Mr Casey and discuss with him the issue that he raises in the letter that he sent, to at least me, if not the rest of us. The issue, quite simply, deals with the sex lines available through 1900 numbers. He raises the issue that this particular matter came up not that long ago in Australia’s history, when these 1900 numbers were services available through Telstra by private companies, to provide telephonic sex services. These 1900 numbers had the spotlight drawn onto them by virtue of the fact that the companies that provided telephonic sex services had no bar or protection built into them. This meant that any Tom, Dick or Harry - or more to the point, anybody’s children - were able to access these particular 1900 numbers, and receive services that were entirely inappropriate for children to receive. There was some concern amongst parents that not enough protection was being afforded children by these services.
It turns out that, for the 1900 numbers that were provided, there was an agreement, as I understand it, between the companies or the service provider, so that anybody who telephoned a 1900 number for a sexual service had to provide a pin number or some sort of identifying code to demonstrate that they were the authorised person. The response from these companies appears to be that they have simply changed over to the 1901 or 1902 numbers where, once again, they are operating these services without any form of code or pin number or identification being required. Mr Casey is, once again, concerned that such access is freely available. He tells me that he is advised by Telstra that there is nothing that they can do about it and that they are merely the carrier of these services.
However, while talking, we came across an idea which I think is worth mentioning; consequently I mention it in the House tonight. When Telstra or Optus decides to provide a service of a similar nature, irrespective of the number that they are going to provide to the service provider, they should be asking some simple questions of the people who are going to provide this telephonic service: ‘Are you going to be providing a service of an adult or explicit nature?’. That may not be a sexual service; it may be some other service. I think that is a fair comment, because if you do ask a provider of a particular service these sorts of questions, you are very quickly going to be able to identify whether or not they are going to be dealing with material of a sexually explicit nature. As a consequence, I would urge telephone companies who provide these lines to, indeed, ask some of these questions of people who want to use the telephone carriers as a means by which they could ply their trade. They should ask those questions so that, irrespective of the number supplied, the person will be required to give some information once the service provider is aware that the company is going to be providing such an explicit service.
I do not think it would be impossible, and would be something that that Telstra and other telephone companies, I hope, would look at for the sake of helping Mr Casey and other parents in the community maintain an environment of a certain amount of control of what their kids can and cannot do. Certainly, when we were a lot younger ourselves, our parents were able to exert quite a lot of control because such services were not available on telephones . The Internet was not as available and material of a sexually explicit nature was generally more controlled, even in newsagencies and other places.
I am certainly not being a wowser. I am not saying that we should wind up all of this stuff. I am just saying that there should be a right of parental control. Certainly, the tools to get to those type of 1900 numbers are available in most people’s lounge rooms, and often in people’s bedrooms. I would like to reassure Mr Casey that there are members of parliament who do feel that there are, or there should be, some controls provided to those parents so that they can have some further say as to what their kids are exposed to. I am certain that members on both sides of the Chamber would feel the same way.
I also noticed on the news this evening some good news in relation to the Arrernte Corporation, which has finally become an incorporated body. The Arrernte Corporation is an Aboriginal corporation which has carriage of the native title decision that was handed down some two years ago, I think, over the township of Alice Springs. I am grateful to see that it has happened. It has, in my opinion, been a long time coming, but it is here and that is what is necessary. The question is of course is: what happens now? Justice Olney, I think it was, did make a native title determination over the township of Alice Springs. He clearly and, in quite a bit of detail, went over the native title issues that covered Alice Springs within - and in a couple of instances outside - the town boundary. As a consequence of that detail, it is quite clearly delineated and there is absolutely no doubt as to where native title exists and where it has been extinguished inside the Alice Springs town boundary.
That the corporation of this group has been completed is very important. The reason it is important is it gives legal standing to the body which ultimately will hold the trust interests over whatever benefit might flow out of the native title determination. I now urge the corporation to cautiously, but expeditiously, make haste in relation to a negotiated process. The new government of the day has committed itself to a new negotiated process and has said so in this Chamber already. I have said: ‘All right, we will see how you go. You guys have the imprimatur of the people to do so’.
I certainly hope that the process happens very quickly because there are very, very few blocks of land left in Alice Springs which can be purchased. In fact, I think I read in the paper the other day that there are only some 20 left and one of the local real estate agents was hardly complimentary about the quality of those blocks.
This has the unfortunate effect, whilst there is land under question which is subject to native title and still subject to negotiation, of creating a situation where, whilst that land is not being freed up, land prices around the Alice Springs area and within the town boundary - those little bits of land that are left over – are being pushed up and up. I believe it is not unusual to see a price tag of some $80 000 on a vacant block of land, which is of great concern to me because there are lot of young families trying to set up in towns like Alice Springs. There is a great deal of pressure on those people to spend a lot of money that they can ill afford on land. We are not talking about people with a huge amount of wealth being asked to pay $80 000 for a block of land, and that is of great concern to me.
Nevertheless, the native title holders do have the rights which have been granted to them under the Native Title Act. I do urge an expeditious resolution to the native title issues over the Alice Springs area for the mutual benefit of all concerned.
I make the point, however, that the legislation that was passed by the former government in this House and supported by the then Labor opposition - in fact it was passed unanimously by this House - would have sorted out the problem quite some time ago in Alice Springs. It would have put in place, well over a year ago, a mechanism which would have dealt with issues like compensation very effectively. However, the Senate chose not to pursue the unanimous decision of this House and decided to go its own way, which is a shame.
We have seen a lot of families not being able to purchase land and houses in Alice Springs, partly because of availability, and that which is available, is just out of the reach of so many people. It has a serious affect on growth inside the township of Alice Springs. I hope that an expeditious and quick resolution is now available to the Northern Territory government, especially in terms of areas such as Larapinta Stage III. Perhaps the former government’s Bellamack resolution may be a way to go: That makes it up to the native title holders themselves to negotiate with the government of the day. But I hope it is sooner rather than later, because there are many areas that could be developed which are outstanding in relation to hold-ups over native title. It is time for hysteria to go away and some real results to flow through to people who simply want to build a hope for themselves and their kids. That may be people of Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal descent. I just want to see this place develop. It is as simple as that.
I also make comment in relation to something I have observed going on in this House over recent times,. I have listened carefully and cautiously to a lot of the debate back and forth in this House. It is funny; I sit on the opposition side of the House and hear comments from here which I heard, while in government in the last parliamentary term, from the then opposition side of the House and vice versa. I am amused to see certain things such as the almost total silence of the government on issues of GST over recent times since their little windfall of, I think when the calculation was done, some $150m advantage to the government. I have heard barely a whisper. I heard only once, I think, the member for Karama squeak something about the GST, but otherwise it has been dolefully silent out there. And well may they be silent, of course, because they have come to realise what so many of their Labor state colleagues have realised over time during the GST debate: that it wasn’t bad for the states at all.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: It wasn’t bad for the states at all, and that is why the other Labor and Coalition states remain so deathly quiet about it during this great GST fracas.
I have also noticed the good news on the 6.2% unemployment rate. I am happy that the government is saying that the unemployment rate is going down because I take no joy out of people’s unemployment. But where were the calls, the loud and vocal calls about CDEP being counted in with the unemployment rate that we used to hear so regularly from this side of the House? It is amusing to me that what is happening across the other side of the Chamber is that the members opposite are learning that there is the real politic of government involved, and some of the hysteria that they used to peddle …
Mr Ah Kit: Adopt our position. Call on us.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I pick up on the interjection from the good minister. Minister, I am curious. Why aren’t you insisting that CDEP gets counted in the unemployment rate?
Finally, I have to close on this observation: today we heard from the Health minister and we have heard over recent times the problems and the troubles of being a new Health minister and ‘I am learning my job’. Tonight, I hear that she is the Placido Domingo of Health ministers in the Northern Territory’s history. She is the best Health minister that the Northern Territory has ever had, that is what she said on the news. Placido Domingo: she is the best Health minister. This morning she was learning her job. I am just wondering what initiation process was held upstairs - the swallowing of a live goldfish, perhaps - that suddenly turns her from a learning Health minister to the best Health minister the Northern Territory has ever had. We shall see.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Oh, gosh! God, how am I going to beat that one?
Mr Deputy Speaker, since the last sittings I have spent a considerable time travelling around my electorate visiting schools, councils and local organisations. On 21 March, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and I held meetings at Nguiu and Pirlangimpi to discuss the proposed development of a Tiwi education board. While visiting the two schools at Nguiu, we were entertained by school students and learned about the novel ideas at Xavier CEC for combating absenteeism, which is a big problem over on the island and everywhere else.
The school has established a centre where the students can play musical instruments or work on the computers. The absentee rates, we were told and were shown the figures, have been lowered considerably since the establishment of the centre. In fact, we were told students are now arriving at school before the teachers, so that is a good sign. I will be watching this innovative idea with much interest to see whether the improvements are sustainable over long periods of time.
Still on the Tiwi Islands, Skretting Australia, which is quite a big international company, has just completed their first harvest of barramundi. I have reported before in this Chamber on the fish farm on the Tiwi Islands. They have just completed the first harvest of their barramundi from the Barra Base. The fish will be packed on 30 May and sent to interstate markets for sale. It is through this first sale that the company will be able to ascertain and determine the commercial viability of the project. I know that my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries and I, were impressed by what we were shown when we visited the project site on the island. In terms of the technology it took to put that type of project together and also to sustain it, shows the commitment of this company in trialling this level of project, because the project is in two separate sites. The breeding of these fish are done in Darwin and the cages which, of course, hold the fingerlings, are then put in a tank and transported by container. These are then put into those cages on the Tiwi Islands.
Since the last sittings, there have been more cannabis busts. I keep highlighting these in my adjournment speeches. They occurred both at the Maningrida airstrip and on the road between Gunbalunya and Maningrida. A further two people were caught at Darwin Airport attempting to take quite considerable amounts of cannabis onto Bathurst Island. Last week, a young Tiwi male committed suicide at Bathurst. He was a known heavy drug user and the reason given for the suicide was that he was refused money to buy more drugs. These incidents are an indicator that drug use and the supply of drugs to communities is reaching endemic proportions throughout my electorate and, unquestionably in others, and should be a major concern to all.
On 24 March, I was privileged to be able to go over and watch, as I do every year, the Tiwi football grand final, which was also attended by the Chief Minister and the Minister for Sport and Recreation. It would have been the first time in Tiwi history that they had a female MC - myself, the local member.
The Tiwi football grand final was held at Nguiu and played between Tapalinga and Tuyu, and anyone who was there or who has gone to see a Tiwi football grand final, can testify that this is an entertaining and enjoyable occasion. It was particularly so for me this year as I had a brother coaching on one side and another brother managing the other. I had to take a diplomatic approach, of course, as to who I cheered for. One can only marvel at the level of fitness and skills displayed by these fine young Tiwis. I wish to put on record and congratulate all players and the organisers for this truly spectacular, uniquely Tiwi event.
On 30 April, I travelled to Maningrida with the Minister for Health and Community Services. Whilst there, we visited various community organisations and held a series of meetings with various health stakeholders, including staff at the clinic and the board members of Maningrida Health Board. In the evening, we were entertained with a community barbecue organised by the Bawinanga Aboriginal Resource Corporation, which was run very well. To the women from the resource centre, a big thank you for the meal that was provided. The community turned up in full force to meet the Health minister and talk about a lot of issues and she was certainly well received, especially by the nurses and the doctors in that community. We received the same reception from Gunbalunya and Jabiru as well. I was proud to help sponsor a local program at Gunbalunya run by the health centre issuing showering bags to all students containing soap, shampoos, toothbrushes and deodorant. The program was aimed at students taking responsibility for their personal hygiene, and by all accounts it was quite successful.
I attended the Batchelor College graduation ceremony a couple of weeks ago. I note that it was well attended by members in this House. Although outside my electorate, it was certainly well attended by graduating students from my electorate. I could read through all the names and the certificates of those students but could I get this placed on record?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just interrupt for a moment, member for Arafura. I have been informed that technically, you have to seek leave.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I would like to congratulate the Director of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, Veronica Arbon and the Chairperson, Gatjil Djerrkura, council members and staff on the afternoon events enjoyed by all.
Now that I have dealt with most of my electorate matters, there was a tribute to Daisy Ruddick which I wanted to do last night but, of course, the House was shut down. I would like to now do this tribute to Daisy Ruddick.
Yesterday morning, previous speakers articulated better than I could what a treasure the Territory has lost with the passing of Daisy Ruddick. When I gave my maiden speech in this House, and then again on the occasion of the debate on the resolution recognising the senior Territorians who were removed under the racially discriminatory Aboriginal Ordinance, I stressed the pressing urgency of seeking a specific apology from the Commonwealth government to those surviving men and women of the Territory who are its casualties. In the most important part of our resolution on 24 October 2001, this Assembly called upon the Commonwealth government to make a formal and specific apology to all those persons removed pursuant to the Aboriginal Ordinance, acknowledging that the Commonwealth failed in discharging its moral obligations towards them. I spelt out the nature of that failure in my maiden speech. It is a bitter reminder of how little time we have left to act, that Daisy should have died after the passing of this resolution, but before we had put arrangements in place to press home the demand that the Commonwealth government acknowledge blame and responsibility for what it did.
We have heard the rationalisations given by John Howard for the position he has adopted in relation to making a national apology. Indeed, there is force in the argument that the Commonwealth was neither constitutionally nor morally responsible for what happened to Aboriginal people anywhere or everywhere, going back to the beginning of colonial settlement in Australia. But the necessary flip side of that argument is that the Commonwealth is directly responsible for what happened in its own backyard, under its own laws and in its own institutions. The Aboriginal Ordinance was Commonwealth legislation. Kahlin Compound, where Daisy and others were sent, was a Commonwealth established and operated institution. Whatever policy changes might have emerged by the mid-1950s, the pre-World War II removal of children like Daisy Ruddick were exercises not in welfare, but in racist population control.
I know from talking to Daisy’s daughters that she sought an apology from John Howard right to the very end, but despaired of living to receive it. I know that Daisy’s family and other surviving legends who are Daisy’s friends and contemporaries - people like Aunty Hilda Muir - want this fight taken to the doors of the responsible entity: the Commonwealth government in Canberra. It is hoped that one day, maybe a bipartisan approach will be forthcoming from representatives and elected members of this House to seek the implementation of our resolution in the very near future. Daisy Ruddick deserves nothing less.
To her daughters, Roseanne, Josie and Esther and their families, and to my colleague, Matthew Bonson, Daisy’s grandson, I echo the recent words of my husband when he offered our heartfelt thoughts on her passing:
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, some weeks ago Darwin was subject to a visit by the leading Hong Kong Cable Channel TVB. In the few days they were here they produced two programs that will be viewed by around three million people in Hong Kong, and more than 70 million people on the mainland and beyond. I have been informed that the first broadcast will be on the 5 June.
Given the recent projections of dramatic growth in Chinese tourism to Australia over the rest of this decade, it was a good opportunity for the many people interviewed by TVB’s Suet Yee Cheung to tell the story of Darwin from a different perspective. She was not looking for a ‘throw another prawn on the barbie’ Paul Hogan-type travelogue of crocodiles, Kadadu and other outback stereotypes. What she was looking for was an account of the Chinese and Aboriginal heritage of Darwin. I was glad to be asked to help out. TVB visited and spoke with a number of Darwin’s Chinese citizens, including people from the Chung Wah Society and the Hakka Association. In this way, they were able to go beyond the clichs about Darwin and tell a narrative that is often hidden from general view and knowledge.
It is little known that in the late 19th century there were far more people with Chinese heritage living in the Top End than there were of Anglo heritage. Today’s vibrant Chinese community are the descendants of this presence. Similarly, little is known about the relationship between Aboriginal people and the Chinese diaspora. I have told this House how my family’s history forms a small part of this narrative, and it is this I was able to give an insight into for such a large overseas audience. The TVB crew were particularly interested in the story of the Larrakia, as well as the story of the Stolen Generation. They were interested to learn of the Asian heritage that is shared by many members of Darwin’s Aboriginal community. They learnt that many things are shared in the histories of the two communities. Both groups - Aboriginal and Chinese - experienced discrimination. Both groups were excluded from many activities in old Darwin - social, cultural and sporting. It is for this reason that both Aboriginal and Chinese people found themselves sharing experiences in sport - especially football and basketball - and in many ways also with marriage.
For the film crew, I visited a number of businesses in Darwin, including the Raintree Gallery, Delaney’s and Sue Wah Chin. The proprietors of all of them are to be congratulated for the welcome they gave to our visitors from TVB. I also spoke at the site of the Chinese Cemetery above Dinah Beach, as well as - just up the hill - the last remaining building of the old Parap Camp, the Christodoulou store. Anyone who lived at the Parap Camp has vivid memories of this old building. There is still the old cheeky plum tree along the front fence. Its current owner, Richard Luxton, is to be congratulated for preserving the fabric of the old store while, at the same time, building a wonderful Troppo Architects house alongside it. It is a wonderful juxtaposition of old and new tropical architecture, with a Sydney Williams structure linked by corrugated iron to Troppo. I thank him for being so generous, not just in hosting myself and the film crew on that day, but in preserving such an important part of Northern Territory heritage.
Then, I guess, I had some fun for the TVB crew - I took over the kitchen here at Parliament House to prepare an Aboriginal Chinese influenced banquet. For the best part of the last 70 years - certainly since the time of the Rondalla Bands of the 1930s - there has been an interplay of many cultures in Darwin, particularly between our Asian neighbours and indigenous peoples living in and around Darwin. Not least of this has been with cooking. Local ingredients and cooking methods, known for thousands of years to Aboriginal people, have combined with ingredients and cooking methods and styles of those near neighbours from what is now known as the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as the Chinese diaspora. So, on the menu we had curried magpie goose, chicken and vegies, cabbage and beef stew, chicken vermicelli - all with plenty of rice, of course. We had some of Patrick Dodson’s famous Broome honey - known better as Blatjan here in Darwin - a chilli and fish paste sauce to die for.
It was a great evening, with members of many important local families with both Chinese and Aboriginal heritage being invited. It was great to see people like Mary Lee, Terry, Dennis and Ian Lewfatt, various members of the Chin and Lowe families, enjoying plenty of food and good yarns as the sun went down over the harbour. In all this, I was ably assisted in the kitchen by Cedric Suradi, Maurice Kurnoth, Vernon Lee, Dee O’Brien from my office, and my son Jonathon.
What the evening achieved for the 60-odd guests was a great get together here in Parliament House, of two groups of Darwinites who have a largely unrecognised common history. It was a history in which many of the elements of reconciliation in this country between indigenous Australians and those who have arrived later, was achieved a number of generations ago. It is my hope that they are lessons that are taken up by younger people, as well as people from other cultural backgrounds who now call Darwin home.
I was very happy to welcome the Chinese film crew here, just as I was in promoting part of the Top End story to such a big audience. I would also like to thank the many members of the local Darwin Chinese community who also gave of their time to promote Darwin.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to draw from the comments by my colleague and good friend, John Ah Kit, about Darwin being a cosmopolitan town. Actually, he said there were only two different groups of people on the balcony that night. Actually, there were three – there were the Chinese, the Aboriginal people, and a sole Greek, myself. That indicates the ethnic mixture of Darwin and how we can be an example for other cities in Australia. This is the only place that a Greek migrant will marry an Aboriginal women, and have two sons who are crazy about soccer. This is the only place that I will go down the city and a Chinese fellow will come and speak to me in fluent Greek because his mother is Chinese and his father is Greek. This is the only place that a Greek migrant married to a Tiwi woman runs an Aboriginal art shop in Palmerston. This is Darwin.
It was very interesting when I took my son to Melbourne once and we walked to one of the biggest shopping centres. I explained to him that Melbourne is one of the biggest Greek cities. He looked around and he saw these old ladies with the black hankies and everything. He turned around to me and said: ‘Are there any Australians around?’ So, I explained to him yes, there are only 300 000 Greeks. On the way down, he said to me: ‘You know, there is something strange here’. I said: ‘What?’ ‘There aren’t any Aboriginal people’. Because he grew up in Darwin, he does not know any different. For us to be with a Chinese, an Aboriginal, a Scottish, a Filipino, is something natural. Down there, it is something strange. I think that we are very, very lucky to have shared cultures here, not only to be friends with Aboriginal and Chinese people and other nationalities, but we also have the fortune to taste the cuisine. I know quite a few Aboriginal people from when I worked at Danila Dilba who were crazy about moussaka. They grew up in Parap Camp and were living together in very tough conditions and they used to share their food with each other. That is very important.
Apart from that today, I would like to focus upon two items regarding education. One of the things I do, is strongly support the schools in my electorate. I have spoken to the teachers and principals at these schools and I ask them every month to give me the names of two children - not the best student all the time - the best student or somebody who achieved something; a person who was not very good before but tried very hard and he achieved something. I present them every assembly, every month, with a voucher for $25 for a book. For a young child, nine or 10 years old, that is significant. At the same time, it promotes knowledge, it make them think that buying a book and reading it is very important. Actually, one of the teachers commented to me that the kids really like it and wait for the end of the month assembly, because they want to see who is going to get the books that week.
I attended the final school assemblies of the months of February, March and April at Alawa and Nakara Primary Schools, two different schools in my electorate. Nakara school is a very large school, Alawa is a very small school, but both of them have the ethnic mix of Darwin. Going to Nakara, I say: ‘Hello’ in Greek to some of the Greek kids; I wave to some of the Aboriginal kids who used to come to Danila Dilba with their parents; and some of the Chinese kids know who I am and wave to me. So, it is very important to meet all these children and be there and see what a good job the teachers are doing with their education.
I presented some of the awards and I would like to mention some of the children who got the awards. I will hand this list of names to Hansard so that it will be easier for them to record it. Kevin Howard and Nissa Ryan in February in Alawa; Cindy Chan and Thanh-Thanh Thai in March, and Jonathon Lim and Patrick Thomson in April. In Nakara: Alice Cotton and Rachael Chatterton in February, Sarah Patch and Luke Logan in March, and Kalilah Pianta and Samuel Yick in April.
I also attended Dripstone High School quarterly All of School Assembly in April and met with the principal and teachers. I presented a secondary student from each year level with a special achievement award. These students were Ben Anderson from Year 8, Chloe Lehman, Year 9; Meghann Ripper, Year 10; and Kalipi Hourdas from Year 11/12. I also had two tickets for the V8s which I handed to the principal and asked her to either put them out as an award for the best student or to draw them so some of the children who cannot afford to go to the V8s would be able to go.
Another matter of education is the Northern Territory University Classical Studies Appeal. Before the election, I attended a function at the university and a number of students from the Law School approached me and discussed two elective units, Ancient Greek History and Ancient Roman History. The students were very disappointed that, because of funding constraints the university had withdrawn those two units. It is considered these units are fundamental for legal studies. The words of the one of the students was: ‘If you don’t know the ancient Greek history and answers on history, how can you learn about our legal system, about legal history? How can we learn about the western civilisation? Our western civilisation relies upon ancient Greece and ancient Rome’.
Later I was approached by the Dean of Law, Business and Arts, Professor David Carment, and we discussed the same subject and several solutions. One of them was to approach the Greek Embassy in Canberra or the Greek Consulate in Adelaide and seek assistance. I am aware the Greek government provides funding for schools and universities all over the world in order to promote Greek language and Greek history. That was a solution, but that would take a lot of time.
What I decided to do was approach members of the Greek and the Italian communities. I wrote to them and expressed that it was a request by the students that they would like the elective units to be reinstated. That was also very important for the two communities because these groups of people came to Australia from somewhere else and most of them came in the 1950s and 1960s to find a better life. A lot of them have made a real good life in Australia, and I thought it was appropriate to give back something to the community, especially at the university. A number of our children have attended university. We have a number of doctors, lawyers, and engineers who came out of the Northern Territory University.
I was surprised by the response. Two days after the letter, the first cheques started arriving. I am very pleased to say that I have now collected $20 700. I advised the Dean of this amount and he was equally surprised. I have had people asking me how much money I needed per semester, and they were prepared to cover the whole year from their pocket. I asked them not to give me the money. I wanted a contribution from a large number of the community because I did not want it to be a donation by one person, I want it to be a donation by the community. The Greek community contributed around $17 000 and the Italian community, which is much smaller, about $4000. I would like to name the people who donated the money: Mr George Tsirbas, Mr John Alexopolous, Mr John Vrodos, Nick Paspaley, Andrew Liveris, Nick Mitaros, Paul Pantazis, Chris and Nick Mellios, Leo Cleanthous and the Cypriot community of the Northern Territory, the Greek Orthodox community, and me. From the Italian community: Joe Randazzo, Benny Finnochiario, Rocky Pollifrone, Michael Spadaccini, and Carlo, Tony and Paolo Randazzo.
I was very pleased at the amount of money which was collected, which I am going to hand to the university very soon. All the cheques were made to the NTU Foundation so they could be presented to the university. The only request placed upon them is that they are used for the restitution of the electives. My understanding is that they required about $6500 per year for those electives to be reinstated, so we have nearly reinstated these elective units for approximately two years. This will give us enough time now to approach either the Greek and Italian Embassies or the Consulates and find out if there is any funding available to continue with these electives at the NTU.
I think it is very important and a very valid point made by the students: if you do not know the ancient Greek and Roman history, well, you don’t know much about the basis of our western civilisation. I understand some of my colleagues and members from both sides have a legal background and they know very well what I mean.
Education is very important to me. I will do anything to support schools: primary schools, high schools, and certainly the Northern Territory University. Some people would like to donate money, plaques, a statue or a building; in this case people decided to donate money because sometimes you gain more by giving other people the opportunity to find out about and understand your history and culture, rather than giving a statue or a lake or a building.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to publicly congratulate the Alice Springs Memorial Club for winning the Northern Territory Australian Hotels Association awards for excellence in February of this year, in the categories of Best Overall Club in the Northern Territory and Best Renovated Venue.
The Memorial Club, known to members and locals as ‘The Memo’, is located on Gap Road in my electorate and is certainly deserving of the awards it received. The extensive renovations included the installation of a new roof, new reverse cycle airconditioning and some significant internal structural changes, including a new bar and refurbished and extended bistro. One of the most striking changes to the bistro is the opening up to the bowling greens. This means that, as the sun is going down, members can have their dinner and overlook the well-lit bowling greens and watch bowlers in their games. I note in passing that the Memorial Men’s Bowling Club was the first bowling club in the Territory and the first club affiliated with the Memo Club.
The renovations cost something in the order of $1.4m. The club membership and board knew, when it embarked on its venture, that its membership would increase if the club met the challenge of providing a high standard of bar and bistro facilities aimed towards families in Alice Springs. Consequently, after the decision was made to improve the Memo Club, a building committee was formed and it began work, which included a fact-finding trip interstate to see how other similar clubs went about their business and what they did to increase their membership.
The Memo Club is a sporting and family club. Sporting-wise it has a gymnasium, sauna and spa, and in addition to these it has a social and sporting club which draws its members from all around the town. It also has a bottleshop. The builder who performed the renovation works, Mr Peter Walsh, was also on the building and development committee. He was, and is to this day, a member of the club. It is noteworthy that the entire development of the Memo Club was driven by its members, and a vision of how it could improve the club to attract members throughout all of the areas of Alice Springs. The club has done this with great success since its renovations have been completed. Indeed, I am told that membership is up by approximately one-third as a result of the renovations, and is now just over 3000 members. That means that about 100 Alice Springs people have joined the club each month.
This is a significant increase in membership and one which the members and the committee can be very proud. I am proud to say that I am also a new member of the Memo Club and, in very recent times I took my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, to the Memo Club for dinner followed by numerous games of eight ball pool into the early hours of the morning. The club’s facilities are outstanding, and I commend them to anyone who wishes to go in to see what a superb sporting and social club is all about.
The future of the Memo Club is a very good one. Now that the renovations have been finished, and having its work rewarded by the AHA, the Memo Club and its community can get on with providing excellent facilities to its members and maintaining an ambition to continue to attract new members. In 2002, the club has arranged a fantastic line-up of bands and singers, many of whom they have booked. Those bands will appeal to a wide range of age groups and, obviously, that will further attract new members.
The Memo Club is considered by some, and I agree, to be the heart of Alice Springs. I offer the invitation to the Darwin members of this parliament to join me as my guests in the future, when they travel to Alice Springs. It is truly outstanding. I note that the member for Millner is nodding, and I look forward to taking him to the Memo Club in due course. We may well have different views in a political sense, but I am sure the member for Millner and I can have a very pleasant evening wandering around this very impressive club, which I am very proud to say is in the heart of my electorate.
In conclusion, I, on behalf of my Alice Springs colleagues, the member for Macdonnell and member for Greatorex, congratulate the Memorial Club and its committee members on receiving its awards, Best Overall Club in the NT and Best Redeveloped Venue. I wish the club the very best for the years ahead.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about a number of issues, but first I would like to take this opportunity to speak briefly about my grandmother, Daisy Ruddick. In particular, I was quite touched by the members of parliament who spoke in the condolence motion. In particular, of course, the Chief Minister and Hon John Ah Kit, who obviously knew my grandmother for a very long time. His story of how she scolded him when he played up with his resignation at the hospital was quite interesting, actually. I didn’t know that one. Of course, there was the Opposition Leader who, again, I haven’t had the opportunity to thank for his kind words. He basically described my grandmother through and through with the way that she approached all persons of any background; she treated everyone with respect and kindness. Also, my grandmother knew the member for Daly’s parents quite well for a very long period of time. As well, Delia Lawrie, the member for Karama, of course, grew up with my sister and basically knocked around our household all her life. I would like to thank the member for Arafura for her kind words tonight.
There was just one thing that I wanted to add. There was a person who spoke at my grandmother’s funeral. He was a dear friend of hers. They would have known each other 75 years, and that is a long time to know a human being. That was Austin Asche. He spoke at my grandmother’s funeral with a tear in his eye and a lump in his throat, as he described a friend and a family member. Effectively, His Honour said that some people are in the public eye and make a contribution to the country while others less publicised leave a mark on the country so fundamental and so strong that they become representative of their family, community and country. It goes without saying that, coming from Austin Asche, it had great meaning for my family.
There was one story, in particular, that I wanted just to add tonight. Unfortunately, yesterday I was unable to because of the emotion of the situation. That is a story about our idols. I was very lucky when I grew up, that the person who was my biggest idol was in my family. But one of the other idols that I had was Muhammed Ali - and we will not go into that!
Dr BURNS: Don’t go there!
Mr BONSON: No. Anyway, it is a fantastic story that a reporter approached Muhammed Ali one time and said: ‘Muhammed, how do you become great?’. Muhammed was sitting down and he stood up and he towered over this reporter dramatically. He looked down at the reporter and said: ‘Don’t look down on those who look up to you’. That basically summarises my grandmother. She never looked down on people who looked up to her.
Dr Burns: Hear, hear!
Mr BONSON: Now to matters that I want to mention within my electorate.
My electorate of Millner is in an unusual position of arguably being completely surrounded and dissected by major roads. The suburb of Millner is bordered on three sides by Bagot Road, McMillans Road and Trower Road. Coconut Grove and Ludmilla are bordered on two sides by Bagot Road and Dick Ward Drive. If we had the Stuart Highway in my electorate, then I think I could safely say that 90% of the Territory population and 99% of the visitors to the Territory pass through my electorate at some time. Of course, that is tongue in cheek.
All these major roads come under the responsibility of either Darwin City Council or Transport and Infrastructure. To date, there has never really been a plan in place for the two groups to work together on road improvements. In fact, in the past, relationships between government and council have been, at times, less than amicable. This is the type of approach or relationship I don’t want to exist between myself, as the member for Millner, and the Darwin City Council. To this end, I will be holding regular meetings with Aldermen Christine Tilley, Bob Elix, Kerry Moir, Ian Fraser, Robyn Lesley, Carole Miller and Darwin City Council CEO, Alan McGill, to ensure that the lines of communication between us remain open. To explain to members, the electorate of Millner actually crosses between two wards, so that is why there has been a number of aldermen named.
Darwin City Council plays an important part within the community and deserves to be treated as an equal partner. An example of this is an initiative of mine which, I hope, will set a new standard in cooperation between government and council. I have written to the Darwin City Council CEO Alan McGill asking them to join me in forming a partnership comprising Darwin City Council, Minister Vatskalis’ office and myself. This particular partnership would be to look into Dick Ward Drive. The number of vehicles using Dick Ward Drive has steadily increased over the years. This is the result of new residential developments in the area and the Woolworths shopping complex. It not only caters to residents within the area, but also for people heading home from Darwin to the northern suburbs.
Even though Dick Ward Drive goes through a very densely populated residential area it is, in fact, a very pedestrian unfriendly road. The Darwin City Council have installed roundabouts and improved intersections where required, but at no stage has there ever been a long-term plan for Dick Ward Drive. If the council agree to this partnership forming - and I think they will - some of the suggestions that I’ll bring to it are:
I am hopeful that these and other improvements will turn this road into a pedestrian friendly road.
I would also like to take this opportunity to flag to all residents in Millner that I’ll be looking at the intersection of Sabine and McMillans Roads; a bicycle track down Bagot Road; and relocating the McMillans/Bagot Road intersection. I have been approached by several members of the public and I can assure them that I will be taking this matter up.
The Water Gardens are in my electorate, and being the age I am, I was there when it was first formed, the water was clear and didn’t have any algae. All the neighbourhood kids spent their whole time swimming in it. It was not amusing to authorities at the time, but when you have 400 or 500 kids swimming in the lake they couldn’t do much about it.
My colleague, Chris Burns and myself, have talked about how we can provide an outlook for youth in our area. I will be endeavouring to investigate one of my suggestions - and certainly will not be promising anything, but I will be attempting to make sure it is viable - that of the installation of basketball courts with lights next to the current skate park.
Ms Carney: I reckon you will get them, Matt. $10 says you will get them.
Mr BONSON: We’ll, try our best. I hope you are right. I sincerely hope you are right, member for Araluen, picking up on the interjection. I hope I do get that. I think it would be a magnificent preventative scheme for youth in the area. I suppose I am one of these people who is sick and tired of complaining about youth congregating in all parts of the Northern Territory - Alice Springs included, I suppose; you would be getting that, member for Araluen. I want to offer them something. If a basketball court was there, you can imagine the member for Millner down there, 15 kg lighter - the backboard about three inches shorter than a normal backboard - and there I am ducking around with the young fellows in the neighbourhood, younger men and women and, hopefully, providing a good role model.
When I visited Minmarama Park during the election campaign - and I might say that I was the first candidate who ever ran for election that anyone can remember actually doorknocking in Minmarama Park and the Bagot Community in Darwin. When I say doorknocking, I mean door to door. No doubt someone probably had done something like that before, but it definitely was a long time ago. I went door to door in those areas and there were a number of things that were of concern to me. In particular, the fact that, at Minmarama Park they never had any postal service. It seemed quite strange to me, in the middle of Darwin, that a community of about 80 people never had their post delivered. I have been in general discussions with Julianna Horgan of Australia Post, who has been most helpful. We got word today from the member for Arnhem that we will be getting a post box put there. Next in line is to continue negotiations with Australia Post and hope that a normal delivery service can be delivered to 60 or so residents.
The other issue, of course, particularly important to Minmarama, is the crossing of Dick Ward Drive. Right now, between Ludmilla School and Minmarama Park there is no crossing that is adequate. I will definitely be pushing that issue, but again, it will be in negotiation with the Darwin City Council.
I would also like to take this opportunity to wish Mr Phil Baban a happy birthday. He was born on 26 May 1929, and will be turning 73 this Sunday. He is a long time Darwinite and definitely well known throughout the community. I wish him the best of luck and I hope he does very well.
Finally, I would like to mention the Millner Primary School swimming carnival that I attended last month. I watched Jabiru team claim first place just ahead of the teams Dingo and Crocodile. The three houses Jabiru, Dingo and Crocodile, certainly set a great example on how to barrack for their teams. I suggest anyone wanting to learn how to barrack correctly attend the next swimming carnival. Congratulations to all those staff and parents who made that morning a great event. I recommend to all members to look in on Ron Argoon, who is the current principal at Millner School, and his fantastic programs for education there. He has done a magnificent job since he has taken over, and he has a combination of indigenous and non-indigenous programs which are very effective in an urban environment.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am addressing the House tonight about a school in my electorate, Wulagi Primary School. It is just up the road from where I live. I have connections with the school; my daughter went there seven years ago, and I actually sponsor a few encouragement awards there. Whenever I can I like to go to the school for their assemblies. The school has a philosophy: ‘To Be the Best You Can’. Wulagi Primary School, in keeping with this philosophy, has developed three exciting and innovative programs with a strong community interest, as, I might say, a lot of our schools in the Territory have done. Number one of these is spelling. The school believes strongly in the importance of spelling. As a result, in semester 1, the school has a whole school focus on spelling. This includes programs to teach spelling as well as special events such as a community spellathon.
Also in keeping with the philosophy of being the best you can, it has reflections rooms. In response to the growing general public concerns of student behaviour, the school has instigated an innovative mediation program. Called the Reflection Room, the process involves specially trained teachers in providing dispute mediation to students. The program is designed to teach children to be responsible citizens in the future, who are able to deal with their own conflicts without violence.
The third leg of their Be The Best You Can strategy is twilight school. This is quite innovative and is something that I will take up with the minister for Education, because it is something which he might wish to consider. The school believes that children’s learning is best served when parents see themselves as partners of teachers in the education process. To this end, the school has organised an evening during which parents will become students in order to learn what it is like to be a student in the year 2002. For this philosophy, and for the strategy to Be The Best You Can, I commend this school.
During the past three months the following students have been awarded Being The Best You Can. These are: Ryan Straughair for completing the whole of his CPPT project, Joseph Mu for excellent high level extension mathematics, and Shanhan Mullins who has been the best for consistently completing her work to a very good standard. Congratulations to the transition students and Year 1 students, especially Broday Cook, Hartley Bonson - a second cousin of the member for Millner - and Isobel Cammarano for their excellent stories and illustrations.
The school, while looking at these academic achievements, also addresses the issue of sport. To this end, the school has had a team entered in the local AFL competition. In line with their philosophy of Being The Best You Can, Wulagi Primary School played Leanyer Primary School. I am pleased to announce that, during the final game of the season on Thursday, 28 March 2002, when the game took place at Leanyer Oval against Leanyer Primary School, Wulagi played well as a team and restricted Leanyer’s scoring opportunities. They didn’t win but they restricted their scoring opportunities, which is in line with their philosophy. I would like to extend my congratulations to Max Browne, Ben Palmer and James Wray for achieving their best. And also a special thanks should go to Bradley Roe for his excellent coaching.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I rise to speak in respect to the Nyingkka Nyunyu Cultural Centre in Tennant Creek. I have spoken about this issue in the past, but on this occasion tonight I would like to speak in respect to some recent developments, and also its economic impact that, I believe, will impact upon the Barkly over at least the next two years.
As I previously mentioned, Nyingkka Nyunyu is a significant regional development project in Tennant Creek. It incorporates both a cultural centre and a community centre, and is next to a Warumungu sacred site. In 1995, the principal custodians of the site gave permission for Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation to develop land, conditional upon the following: that the development recognised that it was indeed Warumungu land; that the project must respect the site; that the development must benefit Aboriginal people by providing jobs, especially for our youth; and significantly, that the area remain a grog-free area.
The principal custodians, or traditional owners, have directed every stage of the design and development, including buildings, landscaping and exhibition design, in an extensive participatory planning process over the last five years. This has involved more than 125 principal custodians of the Warumungu people and the wider community of Tennant Creek. It is interesting to note that Nyingkka Nyunyu also has the support of the whole community, and community organisations including ATSIC, the Yapakurlangu Regional Council, Anyinginyi Congress Aboriginal Corporation, Central Land Council, Papulu Apparr-kari Language Centre, the Tennant Creek Town Council, and also the Regional Tourist Association.
The Nyingkka Nyunyu project has the capacity to be the hub of indigenous economic development in the Barkly. The operations of the centre, which will open in April 2003, will incorporate the following: a caf with a capacity for small conventions and functions; a gallery showcasing and selling Tennant Creek art; and a retail shop selling traditional objects, screen printed clothing, fabrics, books, CDs, and high quality art souvenirs. It will also incorporate an exhibition of the Warumungu history and social structure as told by the Warumungu people themselves; and there will also be area for the performance of dance and singing by men and women. It will have a bush tucker and an indigenous plant garden which will explain Aboriginal plant usage within the Barkly area.
The project has been made possible by funding received from the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Commission, both at a national and regional level; the Department of Transport and Regional Solutions provided a grant of $550 000; and other monies have been received from the Department of Industry, Science and Business and regional online tourist programs; along with a commitment by the Northern Territory government of $1.5m.
Nyingkka Nyunyu will make an important contribution to the regional economy by introducing Aboriginal cultural tourism to the region. Tourism in Tenant Creek and the Barkly region is currently based on the history of the Overland Telegraph Station, the mining industry, some 4-wheel-drive experience, and, of course, the Devil’s Marbles. Nyingkka Nyunyu will meet an express desire of many tourists to interact with Aboriginal people, without leaving the Stuart Highway. It will work with other regional tourist attractions to attract numbers of visitors to the area, and to encourage them to stay an extra night - identified as critical to tourism in the region.
The project, as mentioned previously, has a depth of community consultation and community support that other projects might find hard to equal. The participatory planning progress, which has involved some 125 members over the last 5 years, has been welded to a commercial construction time line by the project coordinator, Liz Tregenza, who incidentally lives in Alice Springs and is a partner in Kutjara Consultants. Her partner, John Tregenza, wrote the brief in respect to assisting the local community with specific issues, including the return of museum objects from the Museum of South Australia and the museum in Victoria. The architects are Alice Springs-based Tangentyere Design, and building construction management is being carried out by Bill Lawson, a principal of Sinclair Knight Merz. Sinclair Knight Merz will also carry out the engineering design development for the major stage 2 building.
The interpretive exhibition will be a strong drawcard. It is being designed by Jisuk Han, who has several major museum projects to her credit, including the ground floor of the new Aboriginal cultural wing of the South Australian Museum. She will be assisted by Gary Warner of CDP Media, who is acting as an audio-visual consultant. The community has a major input into the display, and Aboriginal community members and artists are actually making the nine dioramas that feature in the map wall, working with Tennant Creek local artist, Alison Alder, whose work is known nationally.
Community members are working as consultants and in management roles in the process. Trish Frank, Mark Johnny and Michael Jones are organising community input into the project, as well as bush tucker collection for the interpretive exhibition; taping consultations in respect to the map wall and museum objects; and confirming the set out of the dance area and other landscaping. Artplan, a local design company, is designing the Aboriginal cultural tourism web site through, as I mentioned, the grant that is being provided by the Regional Online Tourism Program.
The economic impact of construction activities is based on $3.4m capital cost. It is assumed that the total amount of money will be new to the Territory, coming from a range of Territory and Commonwealth grants previously mentioned. Of the total amount spent, due to the innovative nature and use of local fabrics and materials in the construction of the building, as well as the building being designed in a low-rise style, there will be very minimal leakage out of the Territory economy. Based upon past experiences, where local labour and materials have been actively sourced for a construction project, an estimated 30% to 40% leakage can be expected. This will equate to approximately $2.2m, which will be injected into the Territory economy. Using standard construction multipliers, it is estimated that some 16 full-time equivalent positions are employed for every $1m spent in construction. It is understood that there may be local variances, but an estimate for the number of Territory jobs created for the construction of the centre will be some 35 people.
The ongoing economic impact of the centre is estimated by the extra amount that tourists will spend in the local community. To estimate increased expenditure, it has been assumed that the total number of tourists who visit the centre - approximately 60 000 per year – will be due to the wide range of activities and information provided about the local area. One third of them will stay an extra night. This means that there will be a further 20 000 tourist nights spent in Tennant Creek annually and, based upon earlier calculations, it has been estimated that the tourists spend approximately $98 per night. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, an additional 20 000 nights equates to an additional expenditure of $1.96m annually into the regional area, which will equate to 25 full-time jobs on an ongoing basis.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Nursing Home Accommodation for the Aged
Nursing Home Accommodation for the Aged
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I rise today to report to the Assembly on the way this government is building a better future for aged Territorians through the provision of land for nursing homes.
Since coming to power, this Labor government has worked hard to ensure that aged Territorians and their families can stay in the Northern Territory. One major impediment to that has been the lack of nursing home accommodation. Whilst in opposition, Labor promised that we would ensure that land was available for a nursing homes to expand their services. The federal government has now made provision to increase the number of nursing home beds in the Territory.
The first proposal we dealt with was from Masonic Homes. They received an allocation of land within the former Tiwi Primary School site on which to develop a nursing home facility. I made an offer of a Crown lease to Masonic Homes over approximately 9900 m of Lot 9489, Town of Nightcliff, on 24 January 2002. This Dry Season, Masonic Homes intend to commence the construction of a 50-bed facility to a value in excess of $4m. I believe that this construction is happening at the moment.
As an aside to this, I am pleased to say that this government has also moved quickly to resolve problems related to the Territory Kidz Childcare Centre. The operator of Territory Kidz Childcare and Education Centres, Ms Louise Fitzmaurice, who leases part of the former Tiwi Primary School, raised various concerns about the condition of the school buildings, especially the section she occupies. Negotiations with Ms Fitzmaurice have culminated in an agreement to house the childcare facility in a demountable building for the duration of her lease. An offer to purchase part of the school site will also be made to Ms Fitzmaurice to enable the construction of a new childcare facility.
The decision to proceed with the Masonic Homes development has necessitated consideration of the future of the school buildings. To improve the amenity of the site and to remove what has become a liability, given the age and condition of the buildings, the school is to be demolished in the near future.
The Salvation Army has also received an allocation of nursing home beds from the Commonwealth government. Following receipt of its allocation the Salvation Army approached the government to help identify a green fields site on which to establish a 75-bed nursing home facility. The Salvation Army’s requirement was for a site no further out than Nightcliff to replace its Mirambeena Street facility. My Department of Infrastructure, Lands and Planning and Environment has completed a detailed site assessment in consultation with the Salvation Army. Crown land, as well as private land options within the Darwin and Nightcliff areas, are very limited. The former Waratah Sports Club is the preferred site. The work done by my department with the Salvation Army in respect of a site for a nursing home has resulted in the Salvation Army developing a strategy to rationalise its Darwin land holdings. My department, in conjunction with the Salvation Army, is currently looking at site options to accommodate the Salvation Army’s planning objective.
In just eight months, this government has moved rapidly to resolve the long-term nursing home needs of our ageing population, through the provision of land. It is a sign of how this government intends to target our needs as a community, and how we are prepared to contribute land - that could otherwise be sold off at a profit to government - towards building a better Territory.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, the Minister for Lands and Planning ended by saying that, in just eight months, this government has resolved the issues to do with nursing home beds. That is a little simplistic given that, when we were in government, we were working with both of those agencies - that is Masonic Homes and Salvation Army - to provide land for the expansion of nursing home facilities in the Darwin area.
I gave a letter of ‘in principle approval’ for the construction of a nursing home on the Tiwi campus site to Masonic Homes quite some time ago - in fact, probably about a year ago - so that they could proceed to make their application to the Commonwealth for funding for nursing home beds, for which they were successful. You forgot to tell the House and Territorians that this is the culmination of work that had been going on for quite some time; in fact, quite a number of years.
I am glad that has culminated in the location of a nursing home at the Tiwi campus site - a good site chosen well back, as I said - and that you have also resolved the issue of the Territory Kidz Childcare Centre and Ms Fitzmaurice’s issues. I gave her every reassurance that her five-year lease with the former owners of that site from the Northern Territory University would be upheld, and that her facility would be taken care of in the scheme of things.
It is good news about the Salvation Army. The Waratah site that has been chosen can only be considered because of the moves that we took in moving the Waratahs, at some cost to the public of $750 000, to their new site and facility at the Gardens Oval. That is good community land and a site that - in consultation with the community - can be used effectively for such a nursing home facility.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for his comments. This government has no problem identifying and recognising the efforts made by the other side. The provision of aged care facilities and these kind of services is not a matter for politics; it is a matter for consideration by both sides. At the same time, this government moves quickly why it has to provide these kind of services, and we try at the same time to avoid mistakes that were made by the previous government - let’s say, for example, the Moran facility at Myilly Point.
At the same time, we are prepared to provide land or to make a decision to also consider other players in the area and the people who are going to be affected. Ms Fitzmaurice was certainly going to be affected by the development of the Masonic Homes facility. Her argument was that, despite the assurance by the previous government that she was going to stay there for the duration of her lease, the previous government would not assure her that they were going to relocate her if the school had to be demolished to make space for the Masonic Homes development. We have a solution now that will provide us with a new aged care facility and, at the same time, will accommodate a change of premises for Ms Fitzmaurice to avoid any dangers to the kids.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS: My apologies, Madam Speaker.
AustralAsia Railway – Update on Works
Mr HENDERSON (AustralAsia Railway): Madam Speaker, I made the commitment in the previous sittings to bring regular reports back to this House in terms of the progress of the Darwin-Alice Springs railway. In what has been a project full of milestones, the commencement of track laying stands alone. For many Territorians it will represent the true start of this long anticipated railway. Track laying commenced in Katherine on 8 April, and in Tennant Creek on 15 April. To date, 31 km of track has been laid; 36 000 tonnes of steel has been delivered to the Katherine and Tennant Creek railway yards; 690 km of corridor has been cleared; 432 km of embankment has been completed; 386 km of the capping layer for the final preparation before actual track laying has been completed; and 14 of the 97 bridges have been completed, and work is underway on the major bridges at both the Katherine River and the Elizabeth River.
A bridge that will not be built is the bridge which crosses the Ferguson River. As a testimony to the philosophy of building things to last, the bridge which the North Australia Railway used to cross the Ferguson River, after the new track is laid, will be used to carry trains on the Alice to Darwin railway being constructed today. We believe this bridge was built in 1915.
Mr Stirling: A bit better than the Adelaide River bridge, isn’t it?
Mr HENDERSON: I will table a current photo of the Ferguson River Bridge. As members can see, it is not a particularly edifying looking structure, but I have been advised by the ADrail engineers who have determined that, after minor repairs and alterations, it will be used …
Mr Reed: Probably as close as you have ever been to it.
Mr HENDERSON: No, I have been. I pick up on the member for Katherine’s interjection. He has not said much in these sittings so far, and it would be interesting to get a contribution. Given that a lot of this is work actually happening in his electorate, I would think he would be a bit more supportive of it. I move on.
The engineers have advised me that this bridge will be able to serve the new railway as faithfully as the old railway.
The member for Barkly, who is a lot more supportive of this project than the member for Katherine, was there when residents had the chance to watch the mammoth track laying operation in action as the railroad tracks passed the Warrego Road. The crossing, about 35 km north-west of Tennant Creek, is the first major road crossed by the fast-growing railway project. Locals say 75% of the town turned out for the event, which gave residents their first chance to watch the track layer in action. Buses were busy all morning ferrying local school children and the elderly to the site to watch the action and enjoy a sausage sizzle.
The construction of the railway is having a major impact on Northern Territory business. More than $650m in contracts have been let since the construction of the railway began, and more than half of these have gone to Territory businesses. The benefits of the project are being felt across a range of industries. 5000 small field orders have been placed with Northern Territory companies and another 10 000 are up for grabs between now and the end of construction in early 2004. I urge anybody with an interest in the railway and upcoming work to ensure they are registered with the local ISO.
During the last sittings, the Leader of the Opposition asked for detailed information about contracts let on the project, and I would like to table here for members a list of contracts that have been let to date on the project. The information is also available on the ADrail web site: www.adrail.com.au. I urge honourable members to keep an eye on that web site. It is updated every couple of weeks and provides all of the information on the project that members would require. ADrail’s web site also includes information on tenders forecast for the next three months.
Some businesses have raised concerns regarding the late payment of invoices by ADrail. In most cases, late payments are caused by insufficient information on the invoices. ADrail have prepared an information kit for contractors to ensure invoices meet standard practices. The information kit has been sent to every contractor conducting business with ADrail, and this initiative has resulted in a reduction of the number of complaints.
Employment and training on the railway project is reaching its peak, with 814 people presently employed, 508 from the Northern Territory. Picking up on comments yesterday, since October last year we have seen job growth in the Northern Territory of about 3600, 15% created directly from this project. It is a very important 15%, but other government initiatives such as QuickStart, an additional $15m to capital minor new works spending, and the increasing number of tourists coming to the Northern Territory, have certainly generated a lot of the additional jobs. A total of 400 Territorians have undertaken some form of training for the project, 140 of these indigenous Territorians; that is over 33%, which is a great effort. Employment and Training has also agreed to fund an access program in hospitality, which will be conducted in Tennant Creek and Katherine, and feature 30 participants, again sourced from the NLC and the CLC.
In conclusion, the railway has provided a huge shot in the arm for Northern Territory and South Australian economies and, combined with the East Arm Port development, it is crucial in terms of linking us with our lucrative Asian markets. With track laying now officially started, the enormity of this project and the massive economic potential that comes with it is closer than ever to being realised. I know that all members of this House are watching the project with interest.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Thank you, minister. Madam Speaker, I appreciate that update and, unlike some members of the House, I will not be critical or picky.
There are few occasions when I feel a great deal of envy of your position in government, and one of them is when you can stand here and applaud the success of the railway project. It is a wonderful project for the Northern Territory, it will be of great benefit for, not only the Northern Territory, but for Australia. There have been many people who have had a role in that project, and you are fortunate now, in government, that you can reap many of the benefits from that wonderful project, including the employment benefits that have come.
I might add - and this is, I know, a little personal - but it has disappointed me that, on not one occasion, has the Chief Minister been able to mention my name in relation to the railway project. It was quite disappointing to see the new Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, fly John Olsen up to that track laying ceremony, recognise his commitment and his part in that railway project personally, and the Chief Minister could not even bring herself to mention my name once. I think that is really unfortunate.
Ms Martin: You refused to go initially. You turned down the offer to attend.
Mr BURKE: But, that aside, I thank the minister for his information.
Can I raise two points, very quickly?
Ms Martin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: When it comes to the progress of the railway, it is astounding, not only the work that is occurring in Katherine and Tennant Creek, but as close as Marlow’s Lagoon. I was out walking the dog the other day and I got a hell of a shock. I thought it was the new road to the BMX Club, but it was the railway corridor running straight down to the Elizabeth River Bridge. If anyone wants to see what’s happening directly with the railway, go and look at the progress that is there with the corridor going through to the Elizabeth River Bridge and the work on that bridge.
Can I pick up on one of the issues that has been raised by the member for Blain? A very important issue, I believe, and that is, let’s get a fishing platform on that bridge; it really is needed. This is the sort of nitty gritty stuff for Territorians, that we’ll reap a tremendous benefit for recreational fishermen who fish on the current Elizabeth River Bridge. It is very dangerous, you can’t stop them from fishing there. A platform on the new bridge as part of that construction project would be a wonderful initiative of government.
Secondly, can we get a decision on where these railway stations are going to be? If we look at the tourist growth on the railway alone, Great Southern have a plan for the future. Territorians want to know where the railways will be. They know the design and scope will need to be of such a standard that provides a great tourist facility. Palmerston people and Darwin people want to know where the railway station is going to be …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr BURKE: … as do the Katherine people, want to know exactly the scope and design of that railway station and where that locality will be.
Madam SPEAKER: I would make the comment that the Independent members were also disappointed they did not receive an invitation to that particular event. So, I will allow the Independent member to make a comment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker, I was not going to comment on that. I also, like many other Territorians, welcome the railway and I have two points to raise.
One is, I would like to thank ADrail for their concern about preserving the Livingstone Airstrip. I gather the corridor at that point is the narrowest on the whole route, 40 m wide. If anyone goes past that area now they will notice that they haven’t destroyed the airstrip. I hope maybe Transport and Works or Infrastructure people might also take note of that when they are designing a road close to the Strauss Airstrip.
I also would like to raise an issue with the minister - and I think the member for Daly would also be concerned about what is happening …
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I’ll do it for you. I think trying to maintain and save the Adelaide River Historical route is important. It may not be that significant in the bigger picture, but to have that as a future tourist operation is something we should be trying to save.
Lastly, I would also support the Opposition Leader, who talked about the fishing platform. The idea has come from the member for Blain. I think it is a great idea, and at least a fishing platform gives the fish a bit of a chance.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, it is great to see that you can get fishing into virtually every debate in this parliament, if you try hard enough.
I can say to the House that the issue of the Elizabeth River Bridge and the fishing platform is being considered by government. We are into a budget process and that will certainly be considered.
Picking up on the Leader of the Opposition’s comments, it is not this government, or me as minister, reaping the benefits of this project; it is Territorians; it is Australians. It will serve the future of the Territory absolutely magnificently when this project is completed. It is a great Territory project. The Leader of the Opposition certainly had a large role to play, as did the previous minister, Barry Coulter. Lots of people have had a role to play in terms of bringing this great Territory project to fruition. We look forward to the opening of the railway in 2004.
Land Use Objectives
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I rise today to report to the House on the progress this government has made in establishing land use objectives for key areas, and in progressing the development of the Territorial-wide planning scheme.
The Finniss/Marrakai land use objectives were exhibited together in 1999. The work was subsequently separated and that relating to the Finniss subregion is now before government for determination. It is my intention to deal with these matters in a very speedy fashion, as further development in this area has been frozen pending final decisions on some critical issues. This was a policy decision of the previous government, and has been maintained by this government. Further development of the land use objectives for the Marrakai subregion requires additional consultation with land owners and other stakeholders, and will progress independently.
The Litchfield land use objectives and planning concepts have been on public exhibition once more, and the Development Consent Authority heard submissions on 2 April 2002. I have received the authority’s report on the hearing, and expect a report from my department in the near future. In addition, my officers met with the member for Nelson to discuss issues raised by him. We will be preparing a report to Cabinet to make a final decision in the near future. I am particularly pleased to advise members that, in the case of public comments on the draft land use objectives, my department advised all respondents of the consideration of the issues they raised. It is this responsiveness to the public that I intend to make my hallmark approach to planning matters.
The previous government promised the delivery of land use objectives for southern suburbs in 1997, prior to the elections, but they never delivered. I am very pleased to announce that in eight months in government, I now have land use objectives for southern suburbs. We also have land use objectives for Darwin Central 2 and Nightcliff. My office has briefed the opposition shadow minister and the member for Port Darwin; the Chief Minister, in her capacity as member for Fannie Bay; the member for Nightcliff; the member for Millner; and the Parap Residents Association. The Darwin City Council has received advanced copies and arrangements are being made to brief the relevant aldermen. We will also brief the Stuart Park Residents Association in the near future. Once those briefings are completed, the government will be placing these land use objectives on public display for two months. The act requires only one month, but in the interest of public consultation, we are committing the extra month. The documents that will be displayed are draft documents. We will take all public comments seriously, and each person or group who makes a submission will be advised of our consideration of their view.
Finally, work is continuing on the Territory-wide planning scheme; a critical document for the future development of the Territory. Cabinet has given the go-ahead for further development of the scheme, which will provide a consistent planning framework across the Territory. The next stage will be public display of the issues of the planning scheme, which we will be doing in the next couple of months. I am very pleased with the progress this government is making in setting into place key elements of our planning framework. It is critical for the future of the Territory.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, isn’t it just incredible that nothing changes but everything changes? The brand new Planning Act that I brought in, was bagged by this mob, especially by the Chief Minister who was then the opposition planning minister. Now we have a process that we started from that date, to bring in a Territory-wide consistent scheme. You would remember that, Madam Speaker, because you were part of that. They claim that this is their project.
The Planning Department has been working on the planning scheme with agencies and councils all around the place, and is receiving very good feedback on making it a consistent scheme. The other item that the minister mentioned was the Central Darwin LUOs that we put out in 1999. Once again, bagged by the opposition; and on process, I might say. Now we have the southern suburbs which began from that point; it was the next extension of central Darwin. Once again, they bagged the process. In fact, the now Chief Minister who was the planning shadow spokesperson at the time, said of the central Darwin process:
- But the process is wrong. The process is wrong, wrong, wrong and, to tell the community that their only role
now is to comment on these finalised plans, is not the way to go about it. We have seen the process before.
We, the community, have seen what happens here, exactly what happens.
Those are her words: And the process has not changed. What a great process, what an endorsement for the way that we did business. I congratulate the minister, particularly for giving me a briefing prior to the release of the southern suburbs which …
Ms Martin: Did you understand it?
Mr BALDWIN: Did I understand it? I created them and you bagged them, and now you are in here saying: ‘This is a great process’. What a deceitful person. She is on record - there are reams of it. They carry on with that great process. I congratulate the department that is doing this work because they have carried on the same work that we implemented. It is a great process and Territorians should be proud of the planning processes that they have.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, regarding the LUOs for Marrakai and Finniss, I congratulate the government for at least bringing those forward. But, I would make the point that for many years we have been promoting the concept, especially local government that, at the moment those areas only have a development consent authority where the minister has the final say. If the government is serious about community consultation it will make a development consent authority similar to other parts of the Territory where people who live in those areas can have a real say.
I would also ask the government to try and make the Litchfield, Marrakai and Finniss land use objectives compatible. It seems strange to me that you can subdivide a block of land in Litchfield where you are required to have one hectare of dry land and you also must have domestic water supply; you go to other parts like Marrakai and Finniss and that particular regulation does not apply. I do not know why people who buy land in one part of the Top End have different rules from other parts. I think the two should be compatible.
The other area I would like the government to look at is that the East Arm and the TDZ zone should also have a development consent authority where the public can have a say. There should be land use objectives for that area because it is one area which is developing fast, yet the public does not seem to have a say in the matter. In keeping with the government’s policy of openness and transparency, especially with planning, I would like them to take up that issue as well.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I noticed that the previous government started a lot of this process, but I am very critical of the time it took to actually be finalised. It was the member for Nelson who drew to my attention to the face that land use objectives for Litchfield took enormous time to be finalised. I instructed my department that they will process, immediately, the land use objectives for Litchfield and the southern suburbs. On 28 April 1999, the member for Daly, then minister for planning, promised that the Litchfield Shire land use objective would be delivered in the coming year. He came back again, on 20 June 2000, and promised ‘the southern suburbs, with the CBD this year’. He then came back again one year later and promised that the southern suburbs will be delivered this year.
Promises, promises, promises but we never see the draft document. Well, now he has an opportunity to see the draft document. He was briefed by my office, by my department and, certainly, we will brief every minister, every shadow minister, every member who’s going to be affected by the action of my department.
On the matter that the member for Nelson raised, I am already considering that some of these land use objectives will not be considered by the minister only, but may involve advice from the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority to the minister. So, it is not going to be only the minister as the consent authority for Marrakai and Finniss area. That will be part of a review of the Planning Act.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MESSAGE FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table Message No 5 from His Honour the Administrator recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act authorising the issuing and expending of the public monies of the Territory in respect of the year 30 June 2003.
SUPPLY BILL 2002-03
(Serial 52)
(Serial 52)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill, the subject of Message No 5 from the Administrator read earlier this day, be now read a second time.
Authority to spend monies under the 2001-02 Appropriation Act lapses on 30 June 2002. This year, the budget will be presented to the parliament in August, and legislative authority is required to enable government expenditure to continue from 1 July 2002 until the 2002-03 Appropriation Bill is debated and passed by the Assembly.
This interim authority is effected through the Supply Bill 2002-03. August budgets were the norm until only eight years ago and government expenditure was authorised by supply legislation every year. This is not an unusual situation. As the purpose of the Supply Bill is to enable expenditure of public monies until the budget is actually passed, the objective is that the total amount of funds authorised in the Supply Bill should be sufficient to cover prospective expenditure until passage of the Appropriation Bill. However, agencies cannot assume that particular appropriations from 2002-03 are inferred from supply provisions.
The Supply Bill provides funds for the first five months of the financial year, based on 50% of the 2001-02 current year outlays adjusted for 2002-03 special needs. This amounts to an appropriation of $1 604 100. This includes an allocation of $24m for the Treasurer’s advance, from which the Treasurer may allocate funds for the purposes specified in the bill including allocations to activities which have no allocation in the Supply Bill, and other unforeseen expenditures.
The Supply Bill provides sufficient funds to ensure the continuation of capital works programs, road works, grant programs, and normal services of government. There is no reason for the machinery of government to slow down or come to a halt on the premise the budget will not be passed until September sittings. I want to make that assurance very clear.
The Supply Bill provides sufficient funds for normal government business to continue until the 2002-03 Appropriation Bill is passed. The Supply Bill schedule details allocation at agency levels and reflects the administrative arrangements of 4 March 2002.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take three bills together
Take three bills together
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 53), Misuse of Drugs (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 (Serial 54), and the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act Repeal Bill 2002 (Serial 50): (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings of the bills together; and (b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
PUBLIC ORDER AND ANTI-SOCIAL CONDUCT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 50)
MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 53)
MISUSE OF DRUGS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 54)
(Serial 50)
MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 53)
MISUSE OF DRUGS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 54)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
There are two major parts of the Misuse of Drugs Act to be dealt with by these amendments. The first part is to provide for a ‘drug premises’ division in the Misuse of Drugs Act, along with necessary consequential amendments to the Residential and Commercial Tenancies Act and to the Liquor Act.
The second part deals with amendments to provide for both technical and substantive improvements to the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act to facilitate police practices and prosecutions of drug cases in the courts. The purpose of this bill is to implement major parts of the government’s three-point plan on drugs and drug-related crime.
The ‘drug premises’ division contains new powers designed to protect the community against drug dealers and manufacturers. For this government, the issue is simple. If we as a community want to combat crime, particularly property crime, we must introduce measures to prevent and deter the manufacture and distribution of dangerous drugs. The link between drug dealers and manufacturers and organised crime is well known. Police intelligence data indicates that some drug premises operators in the Northern Territory supply drugs in exchange for stolen property, forcing those who are addicted to these drugs to steal or deal in stolen property to maintain their habit.
The traffic and trade in dangerous drugs also has a significant impact on community health. The 2001 report into illicit drug use in the Northern Territory identified that amphetamine and methamphetamine use is increasing, particularly amongst young people. It has further identified that intravenous use is the most common form of administration. This carries associated risks of harm from infection and the transmission of disease by shared needle contact. Of utmost concern is that those who took part in the study identified that amphetamines were relatively easy to obtain, and the number of local suppliers and manufacturers had increased.
This government has always been clear on the link between drugs and crime. While in opposition, my colleagues and I consistently brought information to the House regarding the Territory and the rest of Australia, to demonstrate that link. While the then Chief Minister and Attorney-General dismissed the problem as minuscule, we listened to what people were saying and brought forward a range of strategies to deliver the outcomes that Territorians want; and that is, a safer community.
Dealing with drug premises orders. The bill provides for a new division 1A of the Misuse of Drugs Act: drug premises orders. The drug premises order target a particular type of drug supplier. It targets those suppliers who are able to sustain a drug business network primarily through rented premises. Police advise that dealers in these premises usually operate by having possession of small amounts of prohibited drug at one time so that they can deliberately avoid being caught with a trafficable amount. Consequently, it is unlikely they can be found guilty of an intent to supply these drugs. These dealers set up sales which allow the purchaser and other dealers to attend at the house briefly, purchase the drug and leave. If police attend the premises and charge a person, that person leaves the premises, but the business of dealing is simply taken over by the next person. The premises themselves continue by the strength of their reputation to be the drug premises. The staff of the drug premises simply turn over as they come to the attention of police. Consequently, police have been left with an operational problem concerning proper enforcement on these premises.
Advice from police indicates that the same conduct occurs at certain commercial premises where the only significant commerce taking part is drug dealing. On many occasions, police also attend to drug incidents on licensed premises. The bill recognises that a manager or landlord in these circumstances cannot control the type of clientele who visit the premises. However, the bill provides that some disciplinary control can and should be exercised over employees and agents by the management of the licensed premises.
The new division targets suppliers, those whose occupation or business it is to provide dangerous drugs. It does not target users and persons in simple possession who can be dealt with under the existing laws. The new division does not alter any of the existing powers of the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed against offenders of any type.
The bill provides that, if police reasonably suspect premises are being used for the supply of drugs, police can make an application to the local court to have the premises declared drug premises. The division applies to all types of dangerous drugs. The trend nationally, and in the Territory, is that a range of drugs is available from drug premises, not just cannabis, speed or heroin. Drawing on the operational experience of the NT police, the bill also provides that the quantity of the drug is irrelevant to the proceedings for a drug premises order. It is the activity of supply which is targeted. There are two ways in which police may make an application. First, if there are indicators that the premises are drug premises, police may rely on these indications to form the basis of an application. Those indicators are listed in section 11C and include such things as whether police have been obstructed in their duties on the premises; whether persons are acting as lookouts around the premises; whether things found on the premises indicate manufacture, supply or use of a drug; or the presence of documents, cash, persons under the influence of drugs, and the presence of drugs. If these indicators exist in a 12 month or lesser time period, the Police Commissioner may apply to the local court to have the premises declared drug premises.
The other way that premises may be declared drug premises is if police reasonably suspect that the supply of drugs is taking place from or at the premises, and the police find dangerous drugs on the premises on three separate occasions within a 12-month period. In these circumstances, police may also make the application. There is some modification for commercial or licensed premises in the sense that the three seizures must relate to employees or agents of the management, or the landlord or owner themselves. In relation to this second type of application, police must make a record of each seizure and give each affected person a warning that, after three seizures, an application may be made for a drug premises declaration. This is one of the safeguards built into the act. Individuals are on notice, and managers may take action in relation to their agents or employees, before any further adverse action is taken.
The application made to the local court is made ex parte and on affidavit evidence. Before the court can make an order, the court must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises has been used for the supply of drugs. If the court makes the declaration under section 11M, police must make all reasonable attempts to ensure that a copy of the order is served on the owner, landlord or tenant within seven days. A drug premises order has no effect until it has been served on all affected persons, and police have affixed a notice to an entrance door advising persons about to enter, that the premises are a declared drug premises.
It is the view of the police that a number of drug houses will cease operation once steps towards the making of an order are made. It is certainly our intention that, in addition to the serious criminal consequences that flow for drug dealers and manufacturers, the operation of this legislation will have the effect of making the business of drug supply extremely unprofitable and uncomfortable for these people. It will take a truly resilient drug dealer to continue business once drug premises orders are made but, if they are resilient enough to have had an order made against the premises, a number of adverse consequences flow. First is the notice itself. Second, police may utilise all their search and seizure powers under the Police Administration Act without the need for a warrant.
A series of new offences apply to attempts by persons to interfere with police executing their duties under this path. The bill will, by clause 11S, also provide police with the power to obtain a restraining order against a person who has committed a breach of the peace on a declared drug premises. This has been included to deal with problems identified by police; namely, that the fights and noise associated with drug premises can be difficult to deal with by those whose properties neighbor drug premises. Further, if police do find drugs in a common area of a declared drug house, the existence of the drug premises order is something the court can take into account in determining whether the person was themselves exercising control over the drug. That is, it provides an ease of proof mechanism. Anyone convicted of possession of a drug in a declared drug premises will face an aggravated penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Under consequential amendments to the Liquor Act, police may apply to the NT Licensing Commission in relation to licensed premises declared to be drug premises, to suspend the liquor licence for a period of up to 14 days. Further, eviction may be made easier under consequential amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act and the Commercial Tenancies Act.
The bill does provide for persons affected by the order, such as the owner, landlord, licensee or tenant of the premises, to apply to the court for the order to be revoked. The court may take into account the fact that the landlord has evicted or served a notice to quit on the tenants, in deciding whether to revoke the declaration. The court is empowered to revoke the order if it is satisfied that the premises are no longer being used as drug premises.
To implement our law enforcement strategy, we must be prepared to resource and provide the necessary tools to those in the front line - the police and our court system. The laws must allow the police to act with confidence to do the job the community requires of them, and to result in successful prosecutions. This bill contains further amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act to streamline police operational responsibilities and provide the tools police require to carry out their duties. It operates by:
- inserting a new definition of ‘analyst’ to allow interstate analysts’ certificates to be tendered in the
Northern Territory proceedings;
broadening the definition of ‘a dangerous drug’ to include admixtures - which are mixtures which contain
legal and illegal substances together - but further expanding the definition from ‘admixtures’ to a ‘preparation
or mixture of that dangerous drug’ which may include a substance that is not a dangerous drug that contains any
proportion of that dangerous drug;
dealing appropriately with a preparation or mixture of substances which are of trafficable or commercial quantity;
creating new offences relating to the possession of precursors which are used in the manufacture or production of
dangerous drugs;
creating a new offence relating to the possession of documents containing instructions for the manufacture or
production of a dangerous drug, or precursor along with equipment, implements or an article used or about to be
used for manufacture or production of dangerous drug or precursor;
creating a new offence that provides an offence to possess equipment, implement or an article which has been or
may be used in the production of a dangerous drug or precursor;
providing for pre-trail destruction of dangerous drugs, precursors and dangerous substances and equipment; and
providing for new police powers relating to detention of individuals suspected of concealing drugs on or in their
body for the purpose of medical examination.
I now turn to explain each of these amendments.
Dealing with the amendment of definition of ‘analyst’. The first amendment is of a minor change to the definition of ‘analyst’. This change allows for the tendering of analysts’ certificates from interstate in Territory proceedings. In recent years, there has been a increase in the number of cases where drugs have been seized in one jurisdiction and the prosecution takes place in another. Recognising the certificate supplied by the qualified analysts from any other Australian jurisdiction reduces costs by eliminating the need for re-analysis in this jurisdiction for the purposes of prosecution. It also saves significant costs in relation to air fares, accommodation expenses and appearance fees of an interstate analyst having to come to the Northern Territory to give evidence.
Dealing with admixtures: the bill amends the act to provide a more realistic and effective approach to the prosecution of drug dealers. The act currently provides for prosecutions to occur based on the quantity of pure, prohibited substance in a person’s possession. It is a well known fact that people who deal commercially in drugs cut the pure drug with other substances. This increases the profit from a minimal amount of the drug many times. We have brought some reality into the situation by recognising that a dealer does not sell pure drugs for profit, and a buyer does not expect to receive pure drugs in a deal. This bill amends the act to provide that a reference to a dangerous drug includes a preparation or mixture of that dangerous drug, which may include a substance which is not a dangerous drug, but contains any proportion of that dangerous drug.
Initially, the definition was based on the ‘admixture’ definition section 4 of the New South Wales Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 which provided:
- … a reference to a prohibited drug includes a reference to any preparation, admixture, extract or other
substance containing any proportion of the prohibited drug.
However, after further examination it was decided that the current definition gave a far broader definition than that of the admixture definition in the New South Wales legislation.
The result of this amendment is that it is not necessary that a prosecution prove the actual amount of the particular prohibited drug contained in any substance which is the subject of the charge. Where there are two or more prohibited drugs in any substance, the charge is laid upon the more serious drug. The bill provides a stronger approach to prosecutions for possession of, or dealing in quantities of prohibited substances, and is consistent with my government’s strong stance against illicit drug dealing.
On the matter of precursors, documents and the equipment of manufacture: this amendment captures a person who has in their possession precursors commonly used in the manufacture or production of a dangerous drug. A precursor is a substance that is specified in the regulations. It will be an offence for a person to have in their possession documents which contain instructions on the preparation or manufacture of a precursor or a dangerous drug, when these documents are found in combination with other equipment used or about to be used in the manufacture or production of a precursor or a dangerous drug. There is also a separate offence created for a person to possess equipment, an implement or an article which may be used, or has been used, in the production or manufacture of a dangerous drug or precursor.
These provisions have been drafted to allow a court to use the proven fact of possession of a precursor, document or equipment as evidence indicative of an intention to use the precursor, document or equipment in the manufacture or production of a dangerous drug or precursor.
It is also important to note that the quantity of drugs involved in the manufacture process is irrelevant. The whole point of this amendment is to target all levels of manufacture, whether it involves a small amount or a very large quantity of a prohibited drug. It is the act of manufacturing or preparing to manufacture which attracts the penalty.
Dealing with pre-trial destruction of dangerous drugs and precursors: the main aim of the pre-trial destruction amendment is to act as a safety measure. There is concern that the requirement for police to hold large quantities of dangerous and decomposing drugs constitutes a danger to security and health. The amendments are also regarded as an effective anti-corruption prevention measure.
Currently, Part IIA of the Misuse of Drugs Act provides for pre-trial destruction of exhibits that are dangerous drugs in three ways. Firstly, police can make an application to a magistrate for an order to destroy the drug. Secondly, a police officer of the rank of commander or above can order the destruction if he or she is satisfied that there is no lawful owner, and no one is to be charged in relation to the offence. Thirdly, an officer of or above the rank of commander may order the destruction if he or she is of the opinion that a dangerous drug could not reasonably be securely retained pending a magistrate’s order.
Police have estimated that applications for pre-trial destruction of drugs cost $10 000 per year. The power of police officers to order destruction is generally only used in relation to the destruction of cannabis plantations. In the case of other drugs, police are required to secure the whole quantity of the drug prior to the application to court for destruction.
Northern Territory police have, at times, held up to 1100 drug exhibits at one time. Some exhibits of drugs have been held for more than five years. The storage of decomposing cannabis and other drugs is a considerable health risk and requires extensive storage space. The amendments provide that the Commissioner of Police can order the destruction of a dangerous drug or precursor, providing that steps are taken to ensure that the defendant is afforded natural justice. Firstly, a minimum of three samples are taken of the property seized; the samples must provide a true representation of the nature of the property taken. Secondly, a person who has been charged or will be charged with an offence has been notified of his or her right to have the sample independently analysed. Further, there are the normal chain of evidence requirements in place to ensure that evidence is properly documented by the police.
Section 29 of the Misuse of Drugs Act already provides that the production of an analyst’s certificate is prima facie evidence of the results of the analysis, and the identity and the quantity of the drug. Therefore, if there is any dispute regarding these matters, the analyst’s certificate can be conclusive evidence, especially if no evidence is offered to the contrary. Ultimately, it will be for the court to decide whether the analyst’s certificate is conclusive evidence of the facts alleged.
On the matter or pre-trial destruction of dangerous substances and equipment, these amendments are aimed primarily at decreasing the risk to police of exposure to dangerous chemicals used in the manufacture of drugs. Although these substances are not generally drugs or illegal substances in themselves, they may still pose a risk to safety when stored or handled. The provisions have also been extended to cover equipment contaminated with such substances. Similar safeguards have been put in place to ensure a defendant is afforded procedural fairness. A sample of the dangerous substance, if practicable, is taken to enable the defendant to independently analyse the sample. All reasonable steps are taken to notify the defendant of this right.
The amendments contained in this bill assist in controlling the health and security risks associated with the storage of large quantities of perishable and dangerous goods, while ensuring that defendants are provided with procedural fairness. They will result in more efficient court procedures for drug offences, and provide for uniformity of legislation with regard to prosecutions for commercial dealing in illicit drugs.
Regarding the medical examination of detainees: the Northern Territory police already have extensive powers of examination and search under section 145 of the Police Administration Act. This existing power allows a member of the police force to arrange a medical examination on a person in custody on a charge if the member believes that, on reasonable grounds, the procedure may provide evidence relating to an offence. This amendment will provide police with the power to detain a suspect if they reasonably suspect that the person may be concealing a suspicious substance on or in their body. The detention is to enable police to arrange for a medical and dental examination of the person within a reasonable time, by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner. The amendment allows use of the most modern technology available, providing that the examination may be carried out as unobtrusively as possible, by X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound or scan.
Moving now to the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act Repeal Bill 2002. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Act 2001. Members will recall the debate which occurred in this House on 4 July 2001. On that date, the standing orders were suspended. During the debate, a number of my colleagues, then members of the opposition, expressed concern about the legislation. We were concerned that it was vague, and we were concerned that it duplicated, as a purely political exercise, powers that already existed within the Summary Offences Act. We were concerned that it would not address the underlying problems leading to antisocial conduct, and that Territorians were not generally agreed that this was the right thing to do. My former colleagues, the members for Barkly and Arafura, both identified the fact that, rather than deal with the symptoms, we should deal with the underlying social problems. The member for Nhulunbuy, the then shadow Attorney-General, spoke extensively on the flaws in this piece of legislation. I think it is worthwhile quoting from his reply. He said:
- … it is well known in this community that there are places located throughout the Territory and particularly in the
suburbs of Darwin where the distribution of hard and dangerous drugs is a common occurrence. Hard drugs lead to
crime. Hard drug habits lead to addicts committing crimes to feed their habit. Drug houses are magnets for
illegal behaviour. Labor wants new measures to assist police to deal with drug houses.
Labor believes a court should be able to declare a place known for drug distribution. Once a residence has been
declared through a court process, police would have widened powers to act, particularly in relation to searching
the premises. We need action on drug houses and we want and expect our police to have powers to meet this challenge.
Under the existing words in this government bill, drug houses are not included because they may often conduct their
business peacefully and without commotion and will not necessarily come under notice under the provisions of this bill
as it stands. Now, both the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister say that we do not have a drug problem in
the Territory but the facts speak for themselves. There is a problem and it is a problem which leads to many other
problems.
It is all very well for a bill or an act to contain strong powers, but they do not mean anything without the will and resources to enforce those powers. It was the hallmark of the CLP to repeatedly introduce legislation to increase penalties and powers but, despite all their rhetoric, nothing changed. They did not have the will, they did not allocate the resources, they did nothing to address the problems, and nothing at all to address the underlying causes of these problems.
The first step in the process of dealing with these problems is by repeal of this legislation. It serves no useful purpose. This government has acted quickly to bring forward legislation to tackle the most serious problem. The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill fulfils this government’s commitment to introduce legislation to reduce and eliminate the ability of dealers to do business through residential, commercial or liquor premises. It fulfils this government’s commitment to crack down on drug houses and those centres of supply which we know exist in our towns and neighbourhoods.
This government is committed to a law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance when it comes to drug manufacturers and suppliers. This bill creates new offences, gives the police new powers, and gives more options to courts to stop the traffic and trade in drugs, which is so harmful to our community. The amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act to incorporate the new division of drug premises, and the associated reforms, will address these problems. Increased resourcing to the Northern Territory police and the doubling of the Drug Squad will address these problems. The law enforcement strategy of zero tolerance on drug production and distribution will address these problems. This government is serious about serious measures to combat drug abuse and drug-related crime. Our words are backed up by the action we have taken today. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Members: Hear, hear!
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take three bills together
Take three bills together
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the bills entitled Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002 (Serial 56), the Bail Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 57), and Parole of Prisoners Amendment Bill 2002 (Serial 58): (a) being presented and read a first time together, and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage and the third reading of the bills together; and (b) the considerations of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (MENTAL IMPAIRMENT AND UNFITNESS TO BE TRIED) BILL
(Serial 56)
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 57)
PAROLE OF PRISONERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 58)
(Serial 56)
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 57)
PAROLE OF PRISONERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 58)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of these bills is to amend the Criminal Code with respect to both the defence of insanity, and the want of understanding in an accused person. A defence of mental impairment will replace the defence of insanity, although the substantive law regarding the defence remains unchanged. The provision dealing with the want of understanding in an accused person will be replaced by provisions dealing with circumstances where a person is unfit to be tried for a criminal offence. The legislation will provide progressive and long overdue reform. There will be new procedures for dealing with persons being tried by the Supreme Court who are believed to be either unfit to stand trial, or whose mental competence to commit a crime is in question.
The Administrator’s pleasure system will be abolished. This system has meant that, when a mentally-ill person has been tried for an offence and found not to be criminally responsible for an offence because of their mental condition, the court had no option but to commit them to prison ‘until the Administrator’s pleasure is known’. This system was drawn from the criminal law of the 19th century; drawn from a time when people shunned the mentally ill, treated them as being incurable and needing to be locked away to protect the rest of society. Indeed, the provision of the current section 382 of the Criminal Code replicates provisions dealing with the disposition of persons under the United Kingdom Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800, which required persons found to be insane to be held in strict custody ‘until His Majesty’s pleasure be known’. The only way in which a person could be released from such custody was by the Administrator in Executive Council exercising his power of release. No wonder that a phrase was coined that ‘His Majesty is seldom pleased’. Such a system brings political pressure and influence to bear on decision making. It is a system that has been abolished in other jurisdictions.
We have moved well past the time of thinking that the mentally ill were incurable lunatics. Modern understanding of mental illness includes compassion, and we should not be punishing people for behaviour that was outside their control. The Administrator’s pleasure system did precisely that, incarcerating a person potentially for the rest of their lives for an action that was brought about by an illness. Modern views also include an understanding that mental illness may be treatable, and that the mentally ill do not have to be incarcerated indefinitely to protect the rest of society.
There are, of course, questions of public safety that arise in these circumstances, but these are not questions to be answered by politicians; these are matters of the criminal justice system itself. Courts have the role and responsibility of balancing the rights of individuals with the protection of the community. This legislation will therefore provide for the Supreme Court to determine questions of detention and release. In doing so, the need for community safety is specifically drawn to the court’s attention by this bill as an important determinant of their decision making. If the court considers that the safety of the public will be, or is likely to be, seriously at risk if a person is released, then they must not order that person’s release.
There are also problems with the provisions in the Criminal Code that provide for persons who are unfit to stand trial for the offence with which they have been charged. The basic principle of our legal system is that a person is entitled to a fair trial. The fitness provisions deal with the situation where fairness cannot be achieved because of the condition of the accused. Factors such as the inability to understand the nature of the trial, or being able to understand the substantial effect of the evidence presented, mean that a person cannot be fairly tried for an offence with which they have been charged. This inability may arise from a number of different causes. It can, obviously, arise in some instances where a person has a mental illness, although not in all cases. It may arise in the case of an intellectually disabled person. There may be cases where the accused is suffering from severe physical illnesses at the time of the trial. There are a wide range of conditions that must be taken into account in provisions of this nature, and the law must provide some means of dealing with these situations.
The problems are not new ones but they have become chronic ones for the proper administration of criminal trials and for the safety of the community. Ironically, whereas the old insanity provisions had the potential for indefinite incarceration so that people might continue to be locked away long after their illness was cured or controlled, the flaws in the unfitness provisions have resulted in a situation where potentially dangerous individuals cannot be retained in custody, and are released back into the community with no treatment and no supervision. Some of these offenders have continued to reoffend, causing serious injury and potential death to others.
The issue of the adequacy of the fitness provisions has existed since at least the 1980s. In 1983, the case of Jabanardi, the Federal Court pointed out difficulties with similar fitness provisions in the then Criminal Law Consolidation Act. Justices Woodward and Jenkinson commented:
- Any suggestion that a person could be held in custody for many years without trial or any possibility of a trial
simply because the charges being laid against him, which he will never be well enough to answer, is so repugnant
to our legal system’s protection of the right to freedom that it would require clear evidence of legislative intention
before it could be accepted.
However, no attempt was made to address this problem when the criminal law was codified. The current fitness provision, which is contained in section 357 of the Criminal Code, provides only three options for a person found to be incapable of understanding the trial proceedings - discharge, bail, or an order that a person be kept in custody in such a place and in such a manner as the court thinks fit.
The Northern Territory Supreme Court is taking the view, consistent with that of the Federal Court almost 20 years previously, that this provision is insufficient to warrant holding a person in indefinite custody where there will never be any possibility that they can answer the charge against them. Consequently, the court’s only option has been to discharge the person unconditionally. This is a highly unsatisfactory situation. Not only does it expose the community to potential risk, but it also fails to provide even a basic measure of responsibility and care for a person who has a disability.
The court is powerless to order any measures that might prevent a recurrence of offending. It is unable to provide any measures that might assist the accused person to become fit to be tried so that the charges against them can be properly tested. It cannot protect the safety of the community by providing for an accused person to be detained where the circumstances might require that step to be taken.
The Northern Territory is not the only jurisdiction to face these problems. The other jurisdictions have also had provisions in their legislation that provided for detention ‘at the Governor’s pleasure’. Other jurisdictions have also faced the difficulties associated with persons who are not fit to be tried. A committee established by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, the Model Criminal Code Offices Committee, considered these matters. In 1995, this committee developed a Model Mental Impairment and Unfitness to Stand Trial Criminal Procedure Bill, known as the Model Bill. The Model Bill provided a means of addressing the problems associated with these issues. Other jurisdictions have either adopted its terms or taken it into account in drafting their own reforming legislation.
Whilst the legislation is not uniform across the country, it does have common themes. The manner in which those suffering mental or other disabilities are treated in the criminal justice systems in this country, should be a matter in which some uniformity exists. But the Northern Territory, under the previous government, declined to act on these reforms. This government, however, took immediate steps to address these issues. In October 2001, I approved the terms of reference for a section 382 committee, a committee of Department of Justice and Health representatives tasked with reviewing the current provisions of the Criminal Code and advising on a possible reform.
Although the committee’s terms were initially to look at the questions relating to section 382 - acquittal on the grounds of insanity - the issue of fitness was quickly identified as a matter which also required consideration, and the committee moved to explore those issues. By November 2001, this issue was incorporated in a range of matters for discussion and review. In January 2001, the Department of Justice prepared a discussion paper about the legislation and procedures in place in Victoria, legislation which is based on the Model Code Mental Impairment Bill. The bill that is before the Assembly today is substantially based on the Model Bill. It will provide for humane means of dealing with persons suffering mental or other disabilities who are charged with serious offences. It will provide protection for the public where that is required. It will balance each of these interests.
We are not altering the substantive law of the old defence of insanity. We are removing a term that is archaic and offensive. We are not putting in place a reform that means that people will get off crimes, but we are making reforms that will see appropriate use of the defence of mental impairment. In the past, accused people have only raised the defence for the most serious of crimes - usually murder - because the result of the defence was indefinite incarceration in a prison.
There is little point in raising a defence that might see you incarcerated for life when pleading guilty would result in a lesser sentence. This reform will provide an appropriate recognition and dealing with people whose mental competence is an issue in the commission of a serious offence. It will allow them the opportunity to raise the defence and to be dealt with in a manner appropriate to their condition.
The bill that is now before the Legislative Assembly is primarily procedural and dispositional in nature. It alters the court procedures for dealing with questions of mental competence of persons who are alleged to have committed crimes and procedures for their disposition. It alters the procedures for dealing with an accused person who appears not to be fit to stand trial. Once again, the substantive law has not altered; the criteria by which a court is required to assess a question of fitness to stand trial is not altered. The proposed amendment, in fact, preserves the criteria for fitness that has long operated under the common law and which has received the approval of the High Court.
In general terms, the bill will achieve the following reforms: firstly, the issues of mental impairment and unfitness to be tried will be isolated from the other issues of the trial and require separate consideration. Then, both the defence of mental impairment and the issue of fitness to be tried will be matters for a jury. Where an accused person has been found unfit to be tried, the court will be required to determine whether the person will become fit within 12 months. This not only provides both an opportunity to allow a person to stand a full trial where they only have a temporary disability which may respond to treatment, but it also ensures that there will be some finalisation of the matter where an accused person will never become fit to be tried. Where it appears to the court that the person will not become fit within 12 months, the court must hold a special hearing. This could occur immediately following on from the hearing as to fitness and where the same jury moves on to consider the remainder of the issues, or it may be adjourned for a period of time. The purpose of the special hearing is to allow the evidence of the prosecution to be tested to determine whether, in the absence of any input from the accused, the accused is not guilty of the offence charged, or whether, on the limited evidence available, the accused committed the offence charged. This is an important reform because the current unfitness provisions do not require the court to give any consideration as to the factual basis of the alleged offence, or to any defences which might be available to the accused.
The decisions regarding detention and release are to be made by the court. Persons to whom these provisions apply deserve the same level of protection as others do, from an independent role of the courts within the criminal justice system. Courts have the role and responsibility of balancing the rights of an individual with the protection of the community. Where a person has been found not guilty on the grounds of mental impairment, or has been found unfit to be tried, the court must either discharge the person or declare that that person be liable to supervision. The court must then proceed to consider the nature of the supervision order that it will impose. It does so by receiving the reports of those expert in the supervised person’s condition and a treatment plan for managing the accused person’s mental impairment, condition or disability. It may be noted that the term ‘treatment’ is used in a broad sense; that is, it includes not just treatments that may effect a cure or some recovery, but also treatment in the sense of dealing with or handling the person’s condition, which may be one not susceptible to cure or improvement. Acquired brain injuries or severe intellectual disabilities are examples of conditions that cannot be treated, but may be successfully managed to improve outcomes for the person.
Supervision orders may be custodial or non-custodial. Custodial orders include provision for a person to be detained in a prison, but only where there is no other practicable alternatives available for their circumstances. There is to be an ongoing review process of persons under supervision orders. The court has the power to vary or revoke orders. This provides flexibility so a person may be transferred from a custodial to a non-custodial supervision order with conditions such as treatment, medication, accommodation and reporting imposed. They may, equally, be transferred from a non-custodial situation to a custodial situation where issues of safety arise. An emergency power of apprehension and the ability to apply to a court in urgent matters, by phone if necessary, ensures a rapid response to any situation that may arise.
The court is required to set a limiting term equivalent to the period of imprisonment or supervision that would have been appropriate had the person been found guilty of the offence. A major review must be conducted by the court at least three months before the expiration of the limiting term, and no longer than six months before that date, to determine whether the person subject to the order should be released from it. In making this determination the court is required to release the person unconditionally, unless it considers that the safety of the supervised person, or the public, is likely to be at risk if the person is released. This limits the possibility of persons being incarcerated for a period longer than they would have served had they been convicted of the offence, and removes the disincentive for the use of the defence for less serious crimes in circumstances where criminal responsibility should not be attached because of the mental impairment. It does, however, preserve the ability of the court to continue detention for those cases where safety is a serious issue.
The bill will provide for the continuance of committal proceedings where questions of competence or fitness arise, and for a procedure for the referral of those issues to a Supreme Court. This remedies a defect that currently exists which has required some matters to be dealt with by way of ex officio indictment; that is, directly to the Supreme Court.
There is a provision for expert evidence on which the court bases its decisions. The court may receive reports setting out the views of the victims, or the next of kin to a deceased victim, and the next of kin of a supervised person, when determining all matters to do with the supervision orders. Where relevant, a report may be given as to the views of the community of an Aboriginal person. Finally, there is a provision for the notification and consultation of next of kin, primary carers and victims in decisions and, where necessary, counselling of those persons where a decision has or may be made for a supervised person to be returned to the community.
Transitional provisions provide that the existing Administrator’s pleasure detainees are deemed to be subject to a custodial supervision order and, within six months of the commencement of the legislation, must be brought before the court for a major review. The ability to reindict a person discharged under the previous provisions on fitness is preserved.
The Parole of Prisoners Amendment Bill 2002 and the Bail Amendment Bill 2002 make amendments consequential to this legislation. The Parole of Prisoners Amendment Bill will add to the functions of parole officers the duty to supervise a person placed under their supervision on a non-custodial supervision order. The Bail Act amendment will allow a person who represents a person, in respect of whom questions of fitness and mental impairment arise, to enter into a bail undertaking on their behalf.
There will be many issues of a practical and administrative nature which will require consideration for the successful implementation of this legislation. It is proposed that, by the end of the first two years of operation of the legislation, a review will be conducted to consider its effectiveness. We will not allow the continuation of an ineffective and impractical regime, as has been the case in the provisions that will be replaced by this legislation.
These reforms are long overdue. The member for Araluen apparently appreciated this in introducing her private member’s bill last sitting. Unfortunately, the bill had so many flaws, its operation would immediately cause problems for the court, and result in costly appeals. Let me go through, in some detail, the defects in that bill. First of all, the Carney bill uses the terminology ‘the court’, which will mean a judge sitting alone. It will lead to the judge, and not the jury, determining the factual aspects of a charge. This is a radical departure from the criminal trial procedure as we currently know it.
The bill proposes that a court inquire into the question of whether the person ‘had a guilty mind’. The term ‘guilty mind’ could not operate within existing criminal responsibility provisions of the code, which address questions of authorisation, justification and excuse. The bill directs the court to impose the same sentence on a person incapable of understanding, as would have been imposed on a guilty person. This is entirely inconsistent with the fact that the person has not been tried or found guilty of the offence. This could lead to a person being sentenced to a substantial period of imprisonment, where they might have been able to rely on the defences under the code, such as self-defence or provocation.
The bill is arbitrary and punitive in nature, rather than focussing on the key issue: ensuring public safety while balancing the rights of the person not convicted of the crime. Finally, the bill contains no transitional provisions which permit people, such as those whom the member for Araluen refers so pointedly in a press release, to be brought back before the courts on their most recent charges.
The bill proposed by the member for Araluen purports to address the issues of concern to the community but, unfortunately, it does not contain the measures that are necessary to provide effective reforms in that area. Nevertheless, I commend the member for Araluen for at least attempting to provide some adequate legislation and I repeat my commitment to members of this House to make the making of law a matter for all members of this House. In return, I would expect that members do not run away from here and try and score political points off the carriage of legislation in this House. While indicating to the member for Araluen that we will not be supporting the bill if it lays on the books and comes forward to the House on the next General Business day, I certainly commend her for her interest in these matters and I will continue to involve anyone who wants to be involved in the development of legislation before this House.
I trust that the comprehensive reforms I am bringing forward in the form of the Criminal Code Amendment (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Bill 2002 will have the support of the opposition. I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL RECORDS (SPENT CONVICTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 49)
(Serial 49)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act to provide for a person who is found guilty of an offence as a 17-year-old, to be able to be treated as a juvenile for the purposes of the act regardless of when the finding of guilt was imposed. Until June 2000, a juvenile, for the purposes of criminal procedure, was a person who had not attained the age of 17 years. This meant that people who committed offences when they were 17 years old were all tried and sentenced as adults. The former Territory government was criticised, both nationally and internationally, for treating 17-year-olds as adults and there were suggestions that this policy was inconsistent with the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.
On 1 June 2000, the Sentencing of Juveniles (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2000 came into operation. This act amended a number of acts to provide that persons who had attained the age of 17 years, but were under 18 years, were to be treated as juveniles as a matter of criminal procedure. Amendments were made to a range of Northern Territory acts by the Sentencing of Juveniles (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. However, the complementary changes were not made to the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act. This resulted in an anomaly and potential unfairness for juveniles who were previously sentenced as adults for offences committed when they were 17-year-olds.
The Criminal Record (Spent Convictions) Act provides that, in certain circumstances, a person’s criminal record relating to relatively minor offences may be spent and not form part of the person’s criminal history. However, there are some convictions that will never be spent. These relate to cases of sexual offences, offences committed by the body corporate or where a person received a sentence of more than six months imprisonment regardless of whether the sentence was suspended. Under the Criminal Record (Spent Convictions) Act convictions that are capable of being spent become spent when the offender has completed the applicable crime-free period. For juveniles the period is five years and for adults the period is 10 years. This means that a person who had committed offences at 17 years of age, prior to the 2000 amendments, cannot have their convictions spent for at least 10 years.
This is particularly unfair to those persons who were convicted of offences they committed under the previous mandatory sentencing regime for property offences. As they were sentenced as adults their criminal records were not spent for 10 years, which has serious ramifications upon them when they are seeking, and being eligible for, certain types of employment and travel.
This amendment seeks to rectify the present anomaly in the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act so that a person who committed an offence as a 17-year-old, but who was sentenced other than in the juvenile court, can apply to the Commissioner of Police to have his or her criminal record spent at the expiry of the five year crime-free period. This will be granted as a matter of course, as long as the person satisfies the requirement of the act. For example, the person must not have committed any subsequent offences punishable by imprisonment, and the original conviction was not one that can never be spent, such as a sexual offence.
Northern Territory police have assured me that all applications for approval to release a criminal history will inform the person of their right to apply under these changes. The applications will be made widely available and will be simple to make. While we cannot go back and change the sentences that many juveniles had to serve under the previous mandatory sentencing regime for adult property offenders, we can at least ensure that the implications of these offences on their futures is not unnecessarily harsh.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
WORK HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 55)
(Serial 55)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Members will be aware that the government recently announced a 4% levy on employers workers compensation premiums to commence on 1 July 2002. This levy is to help meet the nominal insurers liability arising from the collapse of HIH Insurance. Members will also be aware that this government has already contributed $9m to that liability and will contribute further by including itself as an employer for the purposes of the levy. In this way, government will meet almost half the liability.
Following consultations with the Work Health approved insurers over implementation of the levy, it has become apparent that the enabling legislation that was enacted in May 2001 is deficient in its provision for the collection of a premium-based levy. In this regard, the legislation provides for the levy to be collected by insurers at the end of the period of insurance. This does not accord with the insurers’ normal levy transaction processes which is to charge a premium at the beginning of the period of insurance based on a wages estimate, and adjust the premium at the end of the period of insurance in accordance with the actual wages.
The insurers have advised that, if they have to comply with the current levy collection provisions, the administration of the levy will be confusing to employers, insurance brokers and insurers; it would create additional and separate business transactions for employers and insurance brokers and insurers; and would directly increase the cost of premiums due to the additional compliance and IT costs imposed on insurers through the additional transaction and the nationally unique and complex computer changes that would be required.
The purpose of the Work Health Amendment Bill is to avoid all of these problems by providing for a method of levy collection that will align the levy transaction directly with the insurance transaction, thus avoiding the confusion and additional transaction costs. It will also reduce costs by enabling insurers to utilise the computer programs and systems that are already in place for the Western Australian levy.
The commencement date of the levy will remain as announced; that is, 1 July 2002. This will enable an extra 12 month lead-in time for approximately 23% of businesses whose workers compensation policies are renewed on 30 June, thereby providing insurers, insurance brokers and the nominal insurer the opportunity to fine-tune the collection processes in time for bulk renewals.
The bill also provides for the cessation of the levy at the time that the total liability is discharged. This will ensure that the levy is not in place for a longer period than is necessary and will complement provisions that provide flexibility in enabling the levy to be reviewed at any time during its implementation. To ensure a transparent levy process, the nominal insurer will report annually on the levy, as well as the outstanding liability which will be recorded in the annual report of the Department of Employment, Education and Training.
This bill will ensure an efficient collection of the HIH levy at minimum cost to industry, but must be enacted and commenced before the introduction of the levy on 1 July 2002. For this reason, we will seek the support of members opposite for this bill to be considered on urgency on the last day of the sittings. To that end, I have advised by note the member responsible, the member for Blain, and I have offered him a copy of the second-reading speech forthwith, a copy of the explanatory memoranda and a briefing that I hope he is able to take opportunity of this week, so that the opposition has a very clear understanding of what this bill is about. Madam Speaker, I commend it to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2000-01
Note Paper - Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2000-01
Continued from 29 November 2001.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I wasn’t aware that the PAC report would be on right at this moment. I would like to add a few words to what the member for Johnston said at the tabling of the report. It is, indeed, a short report. In his comments to the House, the member for Johnston spoke about opening up the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, this has been done for many years, with the Public Accounts Committee taking public hearings frequently throughout the Territory. It is not something new that this government intends doing, it is something that has been done over and over again. Perhaps it was not done as well, as the intensity of the debate now seems to infer, and the reason is the current reference that we have more than anything else. Past PAC meetings have been reasonably non-partisan but, unfortunately, this current terms of reference has caused the committee to be quite split in its views.
The report spoke about the stringent review of the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office. I was on the committee at that time when the review was done by Mr Lee White when we sought to look at the operations of the New South Wales Auditor’s office. We have been told on several occasions now that we have a very small Auditor-General’s Office and, for that reason, we have outsourced audit field work to the private sector. Darwin is a small community, and we have a small group of auditors who are able to do this job. The more the companies amalgamate or get bought out, the smaller the pool is, and that may be of some concern. I understand that the Auditor-General’s Office is actually looking at this issue in great detail and, hopefully, some resolution can be made and the PAC can be kept abreast of what the outcome will be.
It is also interesting that, at another time, we used to bring in ministers to the PAC. As is evident in the report, the Minister for Communications, Science and Advanced Technology, the former minister Peter Adamson, and his CEO, Sarah Butterworth, were asked to come to brief the committee on several occasions. At those times, the minister himself provided a briefing and was then questioned in great detail by committee members, particularly on the outsourcing of IT and how it was progressing. This was of great interest to the committee to ensure that everything was done properly, and the committee was, in fact, quite happy with the reports that were provided by both the former minister and his CEO.
One of the other things that the PAC used to do was to contribute to the assessment of the public sector annual reports. You will recall that, several years ago, the Auditor-General used to lament that the annual reports did not provide information which could be used to assess the objectives and outcomes of government departments. Over the last three years, the PAC has been involved in the assessment of all these reports. I recall the year before, it was the member for Macdonnell who was the representative on the PAC to do the review of the reports, and last year it was the member for Blain. For two years running, I believe, the overall winner each time was the Department of Territory Housing, of which you were the minister during the first time you won it, and I was the minister when it won it the second time.
The Public Accounts Committee report was brief, and it was done at a time when there was little that the PAC could look at, in terms of activity, apart from the IT outsourcing and, consequently, we have this report here. I needed to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the comments made by the member for Johnston - the current Chairman of the PAC - about the open proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee, are nothing new. It has been done before, and that needs to be said to get it on record. Otherwise, I support the report.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to conclude the debate on the Public Accounts Committee Annual Report for 2000-01, which I tabled in October 2001. At the time I tabled the 2000-01 report, the current PAC was in its infancy and, to a large extent, I do not believe I was in a position to make informed comment on the activities of the previous committee. I take the point of the member for Greatorex about other committees having public hearings, but it is my understanding that, probably, the Dalway inquiry was the last major public inquiry that the Public Accounts Committee had embarked upon for some time. But I may stand corrected on that.
The annual report records that the Chairman of the previous committee was the former member for Araluen, Mr Eric Poole. Other members included the current member for Macdonnell, Mr Elferink, and the member for Blain, Mr Mills, as well as the current members for Stuart and Wanguri, Dr Toyne and Mr Henderson, respectively.
It is now evident from the report that the former committee met just seven times in the 12-month reporting period. My own estimate is that the current committee has met almost double that number of times in just eight months. Mostly, as can be seen from their report, the former committee appeared to adopt a watching brief on important matters like the outsourcing of government IT functions. It also deferred important and crucial matters that have been raised by the Auditor-General in his 1999 and 2000 reports, such as the lack of internal audits within departments.
Indeed, this lack of activity by successive Public Accounts Committees under the previous government was highlighted by the Auditor-General in his February 2002 report. He said, and I quote from page 13 of his report:
- While I have provided briefings to Public Accounts Committees about my reports to the Legislative Assembly since
my first report in February 1995, there has been only one matter raised from my audit findings which has been
investigated and reported upon by committee.
So, in approximately seven years, there was one matter that had been taken up by the successive Public Accounts Committee. That record speaks for itself.
It appears, from the words of the Auditor-General, that successive Public Accounts Committees, under the previous government - at least for the past seven years - had been moribund. I can guarantee this House that, under the current government and the current PAC, things will be vastly different. Indeed, I believe they already are.
Nevertheless, I believe that this annual report of the Public Accounts Committee for 2000-01 is a fair and accurate record of the committee’s activities during that period. I commend the report to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Censure – Minister for Health and Community Services
Move Motion of Censure – Minister for Health and Community Services
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, given the abysmal performance of the Health minister over the last two days of Question Time, I seek leave to move so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving the following motion:
- 1. This House censures the Minister for Health and Community Services for her abject failure to understand
or administer this most important of portfolios as is constantly revealed by her inability to answer questions
put to her in this Chamber by MLAs, and outside this Chamber by members of the media.
2. Her inability to ensure that the government’s policies …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Drysdale. Leader of Government Business.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): The government accepts this as the most serious motion that the opposition can bring forth and accepts it as a censure motion on the minister for health. I would ask for the cameras and transmission to cease.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay. We are closing Question Time now for the media, and will continue with the censure motion as soon as the media has left the floor.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: No, wait until the media has left, because we have finished Question Time. Then we will go on with the censure motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Don’t cross-chat. We’ll have the censure motion in a moment and you can have your say then.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Minister for
Health and Community Services
Proposed Censure of Minister for
Health and Community Services
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I believe the cameras have been decommissioned. Would you like me to commence, Madam Speaker?
Having so much of standing orders being suspended, I now formally move the motion that this House censures the Minister for Health and Community Services for:
- 1. her abject failure to understand or administer this most important of portfolios as is constantly revealed
by her inability to answer questions put to her in this Chamber by MLAs, and outside this Chamber by
members of the media;
revealed by the previous Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Community Services;
3. her failure to take responsibility for the actions of her department, such as the cutbacks in services across
the Territory; and
4. her total disregard for the concerns and welfare of both Territorians in need of health care and those who
provide such care.
Madam Speaker, this is new ground for this opposition …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but can we have a copy of that as soon as possible?
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, this is new ground for this opposition on the basis that, as an opposition, we have been prohibited on one occasion from mounting a censure motion and, in the short time that these people have been in government, they have censured four people on this side. It is not an action that is taken lightly by this opposition; it is seen as a very serious motion. Many of us have been recipients of such censure motions in the past and, indeed, many of us have been recipients of frivolous censure motions.
This is a matter of grave importance for this House. We are talking about a minister who has a budget approaching some $480m. She has a work force that is approaching 4000 personnel, and she dispenses services to the entire population of the Northern Territory. We had hoped that the incoming government would stand by its rhetoric of seeing this as a very important portfolio area, would elevate it up the Cabinet chain, and would at least give it to somebody with some competence. Given the vagaries of how the Labor government choose who shall be a minister, I guess they had not much choice about the fact that this person found themselves in Cabinet. But it ill behoves the leader, the Chief Minister, that she would allocate such an important portfolio area to somebody who was so devoid of any capability to manage the area, who is seemingly devoid of any enthusiasm for the area, who has exhibited great sloth in matters relating to the area, and who, it would appear, is incapable of being trained.
We have seen this minister hide behind a variety of excuses, and it should be pointed out from the outset that we believed she was on such a steep learning curve that we should give her some latitude in the early months of her stewardship in this area. We now find that several months have passed and, indeed, things are getting worse. It is demonstrable that many of the work areas in Health and Community Services - and there are some members of the government who are previous employers in that area who should be well aware, because we are, that there are areas that are fast approaching chaos; there are areas where there is a discernible fear among public servants. There is certainly a wide-spread view that is being held that, while the minister may be taken on tours and while she may enter the odd Aboriginal community or two, she seems incapable of taking messages on board. Her capacity to listen and translate that into policy, is totally and absolutely absent.
We are calling on this motion so that we can provide some evidence to the House of the total incapacity of this person. She has lied to this parliament on a number of occasions and, in lying to the parliament, we believe it is not necessarily because this person is a liar by nature, it is more due to her incompetence and her absolute incapacity to digest data. The immense amount of data that is available to her, and the fact that it gets paraded out in a variety of guises, some of which conflict with each other, would lead us to believe that we are either going to face this minister over the next few months as a person who cannot divulge facts in a way that satisfies this parliament and, perhaps, even if she learns she may still be faced with the prospect of being labelled a liar.
We think the way is clear for the Chief Minister to exercise the prerogative that is available to her to dismiss this minister from this important portfolio area, and to get somebody in …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: … and in the debate I am happy to name them, and I hope they come forward in support of this minister because, we have noticed on this side of the House, that there are occasions when interference is run when it is felt that this minister is under attack. There is a feeling that some of the people who are called on to defend her are, in fact, much more capable indeed, than the minister. There is definitely a feeling - certainly in the case of Dr Ashbridge, there was the case of the advisor being the de facto minister - of her absolute incapacity to be able to understand the details before her.
The issue that the minister has, or the fact she has used to hide behind, is her newness. I would say to the Chief Minister that this is a label that is very tatty and torn already. There is no newness about this government any more and I suggest she stops using it. In fact, she used it this morning on radio with Fred McCue when, again, she has been questioned in the media about her incapacity and she answered him - this is Wednesday Morning program 8DDD, ‘… coming in as a new government, and yes, I am a new Health minister. This is a very complex area’.
Well, we are getting tired of that mantra. We think, get the newness behind you. We don’t hear the Chief Minister standing up saying: ‘Sorry, I am a new Chief Minister’ or ‘This is all beyond me’. Get to understand it. She also hides behind her gender in a way that is offensive to many of us on this side of the House and, particularly, those female members of the opposition. She has sought to use the excuse that the attacks on her are gender, rather than performance based. She has hidden behind the fact that this is a complex area; that is well understood by this side of the House. Indeed, there are several members on this side who have a very intimate knowledge of this portfolio area. She has hidden behind due process, a label she uses to describe things that she will not explain. She has hidden behind the fact that, in other arenas, it is not an appropriate place to divulge information, and the appropriate place is this parliament. We have seen a sorry spectacle of this minister coming here on a number of occasions and trying to answer questions in an attempt to edify this side of parliament and failing dismally.
Mr Stirling: Answered every question, you goose, unlike you when you were minister.
Mr DUNHAM: We are able to demonstrate several mistruths in Hansard, and we are able to do it in such a way that, for a member who perhaps was a tad more competent, you could well and truly attach the label of liar. In the case of this minister, we think that is a bit harsh. We think that she is an inadvertent liar, and that it possibly goes to the fact that her competence is totally, totally lacking. She has made an attempt to answer some questions which - thanks for the interjection from the Deputy Leader - he said she was able to answer every one of them. In fact, you proudly proclaim how many questions had been put yesterday, and he proudly proclaimed that 17 questions had been put. What is aggravating for those members of this side, and for those interested parties on the basis of these issues we articulate, is that the answers are not forthcoming. The whole issue of ministerial Question Time - and is probably lost on the Leader of Government Business - is not how many questions there are, it is the quality of the answers. Of the 17 questions that were posed yesterday, there are some significant holes in the answers by the Health minister. The matters relating to some significant buildings projects, both the birthing suite and the hospice, were answered in such a way that it leaves either this minister misleading this parliament, or the Chief Minister and the business minister misleading the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr Henderson: They will be built.
Mr DUNHAM: Don’t give us that ‘they will be built’. We have documents that fudge the truth on these very important issues. A hospice, it should be remembered, is a place where terminally ill people are accommodated. A birthing centre is a place where expectant mothers go. For these people on this side to toy with the emotions of those two particular groups ill behoves them. I would put it to you that there is some difficulty with understanding the government’s position about the radiation oncology unit also. That is other clientele who are very keen to see the truth on these issues, and are very upset to see two radically differing points of view coming from the operational minister and those who would pretend, with glossy documents, to be caring and compassionate.
We saw the sorry spectacle last sittings where an attempt was made to have the minister address those matters in which she has the most competence, those matters where she has the most knowledge, and they are issues of government policy that fall to her portfolio area. These are not things to do with the black hole. These are not things to do with the legacy left by the previous government. These are things to do with the wonderful new initiatives bought in by electing these people opposite.
We had the sorry spectacle of taking our time, the opposition’s time, on a General Business Day, to try and elucidate the facts behind these important initiatives. We know for a fact that the minister is extremely well briefed in this area. Well, we don’t know that for a fact. We know for a fact that she has some several hundred thousand dollars worth of public servants’ time - these are public servants who have been taken out of operational areas, they have been put into the Health Gains Planning area, and there are several hundred thousand dollars worth of salaries sitting in there. We know it is a key priority area. In fact, priority area number one in the department is to analyse the promises made by those opposite, and to address how they might come to fruition. We have not heard anything. We used our precious time on a General Business Day, and it was in the early hours of the morning, which is a bit distressing for this particular minister given, as I said, she has a problem with sloth and laziness. But the issue was whether she could answer those policy initiatives that related directly to her and to her party.
The spectacle we saw was an amendment to the motion, looking backwards; another rear vision mirror trick where we saw this minister pretending that her policies were something that was probably subject to due process, or the fact that she is a woman or new or complex or something. But she hid totally behind that parade of excuses that we have gotten used to, and ran her little line of ‘this is a personal attack’ and all that sort of stuff. Let me get it clear from the start of this motion: we are not attacking this person because of her persona. We are attacking this person because of her abysmal incompetence. She is incapable. The area is too precious to be left in the hands of somebody who is going to be so cavalier in their treatment of something like this.
Some of these health services have been built up over decades and while the government may parade out this vision of 26 to 27 years of neglect or whatever it is, I am happy to have that debate. I am happy to look at the areas where we have shown advances that are marked and that have improved the quality of life and lifespan of Territorians. So, let’s get away from that and let’s talk about what we are going to do if this thing spirals into the mud.
We know we are on the verge of a calamity. This morning the minister talked about fear within the department. She talked about public servants having some degree of fear as a result of her failed communication. I have been around Health ministers for some time. I don’t think I have heard the like of it where, this morning, it was put to her by the Morning program reporter that possibly - despite all these trips into the wilderness she has undertaken and the various trips to Alice Springs – ‘… maybe there is a communication difficulty, Minister. Have you thought about that?’ She says, in response to a communication strategy - I will read this into the Parliamentary Record. This is a quote:
- I have been asking my department to make sure that there is a much more improved strategy in place ...
That is, a communication strategy, so people know what she is about.
- … but I’d have to say it is not very good at the moment, and there has been a degree of fear, I’d put, particularly
among staff in this area.
This was this morning. The minister was on the radio telling us that she has a poor communication device, particularly with people in the bush, and that one of the resulting issues coming from that is fear in staff.
Even if we start there, even if the multitude of things that have been brought to me to bring to this parliament are paraded out, that should be significant enough to censure this minister. The unfortunate fact is every one of us on this side - and it was seen by Question Time this morning - have dozens of questions from our constituents. Every one of us has a well-beaten track to our door saying: ‘Look we can put up with Hendo; we don’t really like the Chief Minister; some of these members we have a problem with. But for God’s sake, why doesn’t anybody raise in parliament the fact that we have a person in the Health minister’s portfolio who has no capacity to do the job, ever? Not even before or after training; can’t do it’.
That is what the censure motion is about, Madam Speaker. It is about, hopefully, opening the eyes of the Chief Minister so that she is aware that this is not just Dunham exhibiting some sort of a jealousy thing, or a personal and vitriolic debate. I have been on the receiving end of several censure motions. I believe that it is a legitimate form of government to enable things that they think are issues of concern to be brought before parliament. The biggest issue of concern you would ever bring to this parliament in the health arena is the total incapacity of the minister.
We have a minister who, in Question Time yesterday said: ‘Sorry, talk to the boss. We have number two man; he is only one away. He is out of the place. He is leaving. He said: “Look, the government’s policies aren’t getting implemented. I have a problem with this so I am going”.’ Now, this particular gentleman sent out a communication device - and don’t forget this is one of the strategies the minister has admitted that she is doing wrong - but he sent out a communication device and he said: ‘I have decided to resign. The department isn’t doing what the government wants it to do’.
Within a couple of hours, another memo went out saying: ‘Don’t worry; he has gone. He is out of here’. So the question is for the minister: did you have an exit interview? Did you talk to this gentleman? Do you know why he believes the department is not doing the right thing? This is the number two man, and, on occasions, he has been the number one man. We understand that that is more and more common these days, with the more and more frequent absences of the Chief Executive Officer. When I was the minister, I took great confidence in the fact that there was a depth of talent in that executive. I took great confidence in the fact that we had some lifestyle recruits, people who could get jobs anywhere, but who chose to come here because of the great things that this government had put in place in other areas - our sport and recreation, our Hidden Valleys, our theatrical productions like Cats - all of that stuff is part of the package that brings people here to the Territory.
So, what we have found is that in making this place a good place to live, you could have a cohort of people …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: I think I should possibly pick up some of these interjections, Madam Speaker, because this is a censure motion, and your support for a liar is on the record.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr DUNHAM: We can go on forever with that Madam Speaker, but I suggest he takes a bit of quiet.
So, we had a depth of talent. Within six months, through either sniper shots because they didn’t like how people were, or discomfort for people, or this great inertia that has now hit the department, they are leaving in droves - leaving in droves. We have the CEO apparently looking for jobs elsewhere. We had the deputy secretary last week say: ‘I am out of here. What’s the point of hanging around if they are not going to put their policies in place?’. The boss of Royal Darwin Hospital - he has a massive job that is as big as most departmental heads. He has approximately $100m worth of budget under his control - about a third of the department staff, a massive job. Gone; not in his office. The minister stood up this morning and said: ‘Yes, he is going’. Not going. Gone; disappeared! A man with great talent; another lifestyle recruit.
The biggest problem is not that he has gone; it is the great planning in place. Who is the number two, and is number two sitting in the job? Is he in the job? No, he ain’t! So, you have an organisation called Royal Darwin Hospital that doesn’t shut, not even on Christmas day. It dispenses all sorts of services and its CEO has left today because - I would suggest there are a whole lot of factors, but for the minister to parade out: ‘Oh, his wife got a bit sick of living here, so they’re out of here’, I think is a bit trite. The first thing I would do if I was the minister is ring him up and have a bit of yak to him because his exit interview, like the exit interview for Haydn Lowe, might teach her something. There might be some messages comprehended, because these are people who are leaving. They owe her nothing! They don’t have to worry about the bullying that this mob do. They don’t have to worry about the Chief Minister’s coercion of people when she says: ‘We will do this, or else’. They don’t have to worry about whether their contracts are going to be due. They are out of here.
They are very good people to talk to. In not talking to them, in treating them like the enemy, it is a little like an AA problem you have: before you can solve it, you must recognise you have a problem. You have a big problem, so before you start to hide the problem, smother the problem, and say there ain’t no problem - look, even if you start here, in the interview this morning called ‘Claims the health service is on the verge of collapse’ with Fred McCue. Even if you start there with the fact that your communication’s not good, you have admitted that, and you have committed that there is a degree of fear in the department. Start with those two, because I don’t have to tell you, you told the listening audience this morning; everybody knows this is the fact. There is poor communication, there is a degree of fear in the department, start there.
I can give you some others, I can give you a check list. Why are people going? Why is it that people can’t give messages to the minister that she is capable of understanding?
Mr Kiely: You have lost your audience.
Mr DUNHAM: Why is it, why is it that - I believe this member is reflecting on the absence in the parliament, Madam Speaker, and I think if he looked, Elliot’s actually here, he has just left his chair, so he shouldn’t reflect on it.
Mr Kiely: Oh, wanker.
Mr DUNHAM: The issue is that there is a catalogue of problems.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member to repeat the comment he just made or withdraw it unconditionally.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw it, member for Sanderson.
Mr KIELY: I withdraw it unconditionally.
Madam SPEAKER: I know this is a censure motion, and I will advise members in the gallery that some of the comments made by the speaker would not be allowed in the normal forms of debate but, because a censure motion is one of the most important motions we can have, licence is often given to the speaker to do it. But, comments across the floor should not be of that type we have just heard, so I suggest you refrain from making comments such as that, and also I think …
Mr Burke: Or get out. Go on you grub, get out!
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, we will not use the word ‘grub’. I would like you to withdraw that. We will not use that word ‘goose’.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I recognise your comments but I take deep offence to a member of government calling across the Chamber that someone is a wanker …
Madam SPEAKER: I know.
Mr BURKE: … in a debate which is a serious debate on health.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, that is what we have just asked him to withdraw. So, I don’t think you should retaliate by using that word.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, returning to the topic at hand …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I didn’t hear the withdrawal. You have asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I asked you to withdraw.
Mr BURKE: For what?
Madam SPEAKER: I asked you to withdraw.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘grub’.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, returning to the topic at hand, it is interesting that interference starts to be run when people try and parade the problem out. That is why, I think, this is a very difficult motion for the minister to understand. That is why it was demonstrable today when every member on this side of the parliament has an issue of concern in her portfolio area, and it is possible that some of those issues of concern reflect and replicate, those that have come from the people.
The people are the same people she is supposed to be serving. People in our electorates are the people she is supposed to be serving as the Health minister. There are at least 10 people in this Chamber who will tell her she is not serving the people well - and it could be in our electorates or wider areas. They are not being served well by this minister. It goes directly to the fact that she has to find something else to do. No offence minister for sport, on your statement yesterday, but give her that. Give her that; it is not so much a life and death issue as Territory health.
This is an issue where, if services are allowed to collapse and erode the way they are, it can put people’s health in parlous circumstances. It is the sort of thing where, being devoid of the leadership at the ministerial level, it can have an impact on people’s health. I am not saying it is a life and death issue, I am saying: be very serious about your job. You are in a job where you are going to make decisions that will impact on people’s mortality and morbidity; so just be aware of that.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It is not a laughing matter. On two occasions … I will pick up on the chortle; it wasn’t an interjection, it was a chortle.
On two occasions, those opposite have laughed about the seriousness of this, and they have laughed about issues relating to nurses. I find that immensely offensive. The giggling that goes on when people talk about nurses is something that will stay with them because, not only has the member Port Darwin qualifications in this area, but several of us have family members who are nurses, and we do not like this type of ridicule. We do not like the profession of nurses to be treated in contempt in that way, so they are the two things I’ll tell you.
Now, government policy areas. Let’s go, in the answer, and we would hope that the media are able to listen to this debate and see a demonstrable proof that this minister has some competence. Even if she runs out two or three planks of her competence, maybe if she is salvageable, maybe we can salvage this minister to go on and be a sport and recreation minister or something. However, in terms of salvaging her career and her reputation, I think she should probably go to those areas that she is most knowledgeable, they are the closest to her heart and they are things that have been paraded before the people as matters with the brand of the ALP on it, and they are her initiatives. The ALP Health minister’s initiatives, tell us about them.
Yesterday we heard two lies from this member, when she tried to answer about the hospice, and she tried to answer about the birthing centre: two lies. Let’s start with those two, because they’re both your promises. We know, as I said, several hundred thousand dollars was spent on epidemiologists, health economists, project health workers, all of these sort of people, to advise the minister. Here is the department’s priority action areas for 2002. Right up here, what’s the big priority?
- Policy formulation and service development to ensure commencement of government policy initiatives (as per
election policy commitment and November mini-budget) on time and within budget.
Tell us about them. Just do them. Stand up and tell us about all the stuff you have promised - a night patrol on the street to pick up kids. This is a good research topic for those students who are in the gallery - night patrol to pick up kids. We don’t know anything about it. It has a number that has been paraded out by the Attorney-General. Let’s talk about the hospice, the oncology unit, there are millions in there. Whole departments run off some of these program areas, so you have tens of millions sitting there. All we are asking, as an opposition is, can you tell us about them? Why don’t you boast about them, why don’t you do like these others have done, stand up and say: ‘Look, we have brought this policy to the Territory; aren’t you glad that you elected us?’ Well, tell us; tell us what they are.
She could continue to salvage her career if she was able to tell us why parliament is being misled in the several ways that she has. For instance, speaking of censure motions, I was censured about introducing a renal service into Barkly, and the member for Barkly’s keen on this, he asked a question. He asked the member: ‘Are we going to bring in a renal service?’ ‘Yep, don’t you worry, we are going to bring it in, $400 000 in the budget’. The CEO of Health, likewise, has told us when questioned: ‘This is not a concern because there is $400 000 in the budget’.
Unfortunately, the people who did the cost analysis that was provided to the interstate and local media, when I was censured on this thing, would be well aware that the report says that they are going to need $800 000. Maybe it is a lie, maybe it is another sign of incompetence, but these are things she has to tell us about. I would have assumed the member for Barkly would be vitally interested in this. I would have assumed he would know the names of the 10 people who will take up those chairs in Barkly. Not only do we find they have only put 50 in the $1 in, we find that the specialist in Alice Springs is not there; he has left. Another one. We understand he is not coming back. Here we are, we have a massive renal service in Alice Springs, and they’re going to run a satellite outreach service with half the cash in Tennant. These are lies, this is a falsehood, this cannot be done. These are bunnies being pulled out of a hat. We think the minister should start with some of those.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Mr DUNHAM: I would seek an extension, Madam Speaker.
Mr Stirling: You haven’t said anything yet. We may as well give him one. All he has done is call her a liar. I am waiting for something to respond to.
Madam SPEAKER: Ten minutes.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I shall be quick because I know there are several other members who would be keen to speak on this.
So, if she can demonstrate why the dialysis story is a fib, why the hospice story is a fib, why the nursing birthing story is a fib, we might be starting to get somewhere.
We now go to this story about how everybody can get to her. This is a lady who consults, everybody consults, and whenever they go they have this message: ‘Golly we are glad we got in to see you, couldn’t get to see the other bloke’. That is actually a fib - it is a fib. The reason I know it is a fib is, I have worked on the personal staffs of two Health ministers and I have been a Health minister myself. When you get a job like that you know who walks in and out of the office.
When you say in parliament - these are parliamentary debates and the other issue for those in the gallery is: you have to be aware that you are not allowed to say nasty things like the ‘W’ word and, not only that, you cannot tell lies. That is a big problem. So, when she came in and said, on 27 February in Hansard:
- I have already established quarterly meetings with the Nurses Federation, the AMA, the Division of General
Practice, Dental Association, also various unions who are involved with the health sector.
All of these people have said to me: ‘We have never had access to a Health minister before’. That is just a fib - that is a fib! Now, if you want to say something like that - and don’t forget, she didn’t start in such a way: ‘We have never had this much access’ or ‘This is more access’. She said: ‘We have never had access’. That can be demonstrated, merely, by next time she meets with AMA on Friday; or the next time she meets with the Nurses Federation. Next time she talks to AMA, ask them: ‘Have you ever met a Health minister before me?’, and everyone of them will say: ‘Yes’. In which case, parliament says you should do a personal explanation and withdraw that, because it reflects badly on you and also, the lie that you have perpetrated in the parliament reflects badly on those people who have held your portfolio.
The big issue for Health ministers - and it has been occupying the mind of those in the Public Accounts Committee – is, well, her communication is not real flash. You have people in the parliament living in fear, she has admitted those two things. We have all these CEOs and senior specialists going, we know that is a problem, but can she …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Within the Public Accounts Committee, to my recollection, there has never been those particular allegations made.
Mr DUNHAM: No, and it hasn’t been alleged? I suggest you read Hansard. What I am saying is that they were all on the record. Now I am coming to the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee - and I have to be careful what I say because the report has not come out …
Madam SPEAKER: If you are referring …
Mr Kiely: You want to be very careful.
Mr DUNHAM: I will be careful.
Mr Kiely: Yes, and that would be a change for you!
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you for your gratuitous advice. Sit down and take it easy. The word will come out again. I know you cannot control yourself.
Mr Kiely: It is just such an appropriate description.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I do advise you to be careful what you say, if you are referring to the PAC.
Mr DUNHAM: I shall, Madam Speaker, I shall. The question that is on everybody’s lips is: is her incompetence right across: has she got a full hand; has she got a royal flush of incompetence? If she has, she probably cannot handle the money either. She probably has no idea how to handle the money. It is interesting …
Mr Stirling: Well, we know what you did with it - you lied!
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This member is alleging …
Mr Stirling: I will withdraw that comment.
Mr DUNHAM: … that he knows what I did, and that I lied.
Mr Stirling: I will withdraw the allegation, Madam Speaker. But, we know something funny happened.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. He has withdrawn.
Mr DUNHAM: So, let’s go to this paper. Now, no black hole, nothing to do with us; this belongs to you. This is your bit of paper, you guys wrote it. In the paper, there is a great parade of issues about $34m extra. Good! We on this side say: ‘Good, extra money for health, that is wonderful’. But it is a little like throwing it away if you do not look after it, because you could put an extra $1bn in here and, if you are going to waste it, you will still waste it. So, big issues that go to the heads of Treasurers and people in departments and others - you understand what you are doing? Do you know what the money is for? Do you know if it is embedded in our base, is it recurrent, is it once off?
The minister was asked a question on this in these sittings and could not answer it. How she answered it is she said: ‘My debate is there in the mini-budget, it is in Hansard, go and read it’. Well have a read of it. You have not answered this question. You have not demonstrated the capacity to reconcile those budget numbers. We are not talking a couple of thousand here, we are talking $34m - $34m! So, if we have a Health minister who is looking to collect every baseball card or whatever, she has the money one. She has the money one, she has the incompetence with staff one, she has the doesn’t listen, lazy, all that stuff. We are starting to get the picture, I think, of something that the community has known a long time; her executives have known a long time; the clients of her department have known a long time; and I guess her family and friends even know.
What we are trying to say is: dear Chief Minister, can you get the picture too? Can you get the picture too? We have a big problem with this lady, and it is not to do with her gender, it is not to do with the fact that she is new, it is not to do with the fact that - what was the other one? - she does not understand due process; she is an economic buffoon …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think that it is important that we try to raise the standard of debate in here and, I think to hear constant misogynistic type of comments is demeaning to this parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: We are in a censure motion and you will have your turn, I am sure.
Ms Martin: It is the misogynistic that really gets me, Madam Speaker.
Mr DUNHAM: It is true, you get upset with misogyny, but I was not being misogynistic. In fact, I do not think I would know how to be one because I do not think I know what the word means. That is not the point. The point is in censure debates – and, as I said, those of us on this side have been in several of them - we have had a variety of accusations. I have had accusations that people have died because of me. That is a pretty serious accusation to make, and I have not gone that far with this minister.
What I would say is that there is the potential for that to happen. This is not an area where there is great tolerance for mistakes. Mistakes cause problems; problems cause some irretrievable issues for clients of the departments because of administerial incompetence. So, just be aware how important it is. Just be aware it is right up the top; this is not something you can toy with. What I want the Chief Minister to understand is that there is a growing clamour of voices saying what you should already know: it ain’t working, put her somewhere else, sack this person.
I know also - and I have said this once before in the House - that that view is held by those opposite …
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The shadow minister has been generously given an extension of time, and I would like to think that he should start winding it up. He is going over, round and round like a broken record.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr DUNHAM: I have only just got onto the Chief Minister. What I am saying is that the call is loud. I know the call is coming from not just our side of politics. I know the names of some of the people who have rung and tried to get the message through. I know that some of the people here think the same way as I do …
A member: Rubbish!
Mr DUNHAM: I know some of the people here think the same as I do. I am able to inform this House - as I said on another occasion - that there is a verandah that goes out over the top and when you go outside and you do that little standing on the steps of parliament trick, sometimes people above you can hear. There are at least three members - I shall not name you, because one of them would make a much better Health minister. Now, there is a clue. That could be anyone of 15, right? But, what I will say is, this is not just a singular Dunham jealousy retributional attack; it is not that. It is the parliament and all of the people we represent, unanimously - on this side at least - coming to the Chief Minister and saying: ‘You have to fix this because the exodus of people; the problems that we are seeing in our remote centres; the self-confessed problems of fear in the department; the violence against nurses. The violence against nurses was brought up by my colleague, and is something that must be addressed.
In the aggression policy which she is rewriting, there is a clause there that has violence as being unacceptable in some circumstances. Ergo, in some circumstances it is acceptable. Well, it is not! Violence against our nurses is not acceptable! And for you to say, when we bring this issue up, that you do not want it to denigrate into anti-Aboriginal statements - that was never made. So, do not hide behind that thing either. Do not use the racial thing. Violence against nurses is not to be tolerated.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: We were castigated by you people - including the bloke behind you - for pulling nurses out of Port Keats.
This Leader of the Opposition, as Health minister, actioned that and was criticised: ‘Oh, people are going to get sick, what do you do about the nurses?’. Well, we protected our nurses when we were there, and we want you to do the same.
I move that this House censures the minister.
Madam SPEAKER: I think you have already moved it.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I must say that this was fairly predictable; they just have the same kind of attack, don’t they? They have no issues, but they decide this is the kind of thing that is necessary in the Northern Territory, taking away from the importance of legislation; the things which actually matter to the people of the Northern Territory.
The four points that are put down here, that I have supposedly done which were so terrible, are absolutely ridiculous. There is nothing in these which can be justified and, certainly, that ridiculous statement made by the member opposite in this motion, did not actually substantiate anything.
Yesterday, we talked about the birthing suite and the hospice, and I said then that these things were in the mini-budget. I am afraid the members opposite do not seem to understand that there is a difference between calendar years and financial years. You can actually straddle dates, you know. Once again, I know that the opposition were apparently not able to hear this yesterday: these will be provided at the times, in the financial years, as described in the mini-budget. There is no question about that.
I was very interested to hear the comments relating to the media interview that I did this morning on Fred McCue’s program in response to Robyn Cahill who, as you would be aware, actually ran for the CLP in Wanguri. Now, I actually have no problem with Ms Cahill and she is one of the many people I see on a regular basis. I saw her last Friday; I will be seeing her this Friday. The curious thing is that the member opposite failed to actually put in this quote from her, referring to the previous government, saying about us: ‘They inherited a system which was essentially flawed to start with’. And again: ‘We have had access to the minister which has been good …’ - that is, to me - ‘… it was something that we didn’t have in the past. It was quite difficult often to get access to ministerial staff and to the minister in previous times’.
This is someone who has the same kind of political stripe as the members opposite. I wonder what kind of situation is running there, because this person then also rang my office and told my senior advisor that she was not making any kind of complaint about me; that she was concerned about issues which she had already raised with me last Friday.
- Mr Henderson: Didn’t have access to Steve.
Mrs AAGAARD: I am amazed …
Ms Martin: It is a shame he is leaving. He should listen to the truth here.
Mrs AAGAARD: I am simply amazed that the CLP would bother …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think the Chief Minister was referring to my movements in this parliament, which I am sure she knows to be against standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I think she said you should listen, but I did not see that she referred to anyone. But you should not draw attention to yourself, either.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Come on, give the minister a chance.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, it is amazing that the opposition would bother to put such a censure motion. It must be embarrassing for them that they have all been censured because of the situation in regard to the budget. Now, it would be very interesting to see what comes out in the Public Accounts Committee report. I have no idea what is going to be in that. We all look forward to that. But obviously they were all very, very sensitive about being censured at that particular sittings.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She has said it twice now, I let it slip the first time. We all have not been censured. The opposition ran a fruitless censure motion against a couple of members. She wants to be clear about the processes in this Chamber before she makes those sorts of comments.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a censure against government, it is a censure against a minister.
Mrs AAGAARD: I am happy to withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Or just rephrase.
Mrs AAGAARD: Certainly, the censure against the opposition spokesperson on health was what I was specifically referring to.
Mr Elferink: Get it right. There is a process here.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! You have made your point.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, on coming to government, not only did we find that there was significant underfunding in Health, we also found that we have the worst outcomes for any Australians, on every indicator. We have the worst outcomes for diabetes, stroke, respiratory disease and renal disease. It seems to me that, for 27 years, there has been such inertia from previous governments, and particularly from the last three ministers who are still present in the parliament. Here we are, a new government, we have a significant reform agenda and we will be making a difference.
The suggestion - the ludicrous suggestion I might add - that nothing has been happening in this portfolio is so ridiculous as to be unbelievable. Unlike the previous government we are not into bandaiding the problems of the non-government sector. We have been working with the non-government sector to see how we can get over the very significant cost pressures occurring in that sector.
Once again, this ‘seven year’ thing keeps coming up. There are seven years of some non-government organisations who have not received any extra funding, except for CPI increases in the last couple of years. Seven years. Is it any surprise then that they are coming to me and saying: ‘There are big issues here; can you help us?’ So what did we do? We organised forums with the Northern Territory Council of Social Services to see how we can work with the sector. Also, the Northern Territory Council of Social Services has come to us and given us a special report which will be used as part of the budget process, so that we can try to work in this very important area to make sure it is adequately funded.
One of the areas which the previous government was clearly completely inadequate on - and I think they use words like ‘minuscule’ to describe it - is that of illicit drugs. Once again, absolutely nothing. It is a disgrace that, not only did they think there was no problem, but they did nothing whatsoever. One of the really significant issues in this area is services for young people from 10 to 17-year-olds - there is nothing in the Northern Territory except to go to hospitals. I moved very quickly on this. I have a task force working on this and they will be coming down with a report at the end of this month. We will be working quickly to look at those considerations that they put before me and they will be going to Cabinet for discussion and for recommendations.
We do not ignore these problems. These are significant issues about which the people of the Northern Territory have said to us: ‘Deal with this’. I must say that the response from the task force going around the Northern Territory has been very positive. They have said: ‘The other government, they never listened to us. They never came and asked us what we thought about these issues. They said: “This isn’t an issue”.’ I am very sorry to say that, in fact, illicit drugs are an issue in the Northern Territory and we will be making sure that we deal with this adequately; that there are adequate treatment, rehabilitation and withdrawal services in the Northern Territory.
One of the saddest parts of the previous government was their lack of interest in things such as tobacco legislation. We have the highest rate of smoking in Australia. One in five Territorians die as a result of smoke-related illnesses. This is an atrocious situation. And what happened? Was this legislation looked at? No, it was not; it was all too hard - too hard! Well, we have put out a draft document on this, and we have received 180 submissions. To begin with we received 120 and then, straight after the closure, in the next two weeks, we received another 60 - an indication of the interest of the people of the Northern Territory in improving legislation in relation to tobacco. I would have to say, too, that the vast majority - I believe about 97% - are in favour of making changes in this area. We move fast. We are not going to be getting, I hope, the dirty ashtray award like the previous minister got for a couple of years in a row. What a pathetic situation that was. How embarrassing!
We also had the situation that young girls between the ages of 12 and 17 in the Northern Territory, have the highest rate of smoking in Australia. This is a very, very serious issue which will actually relate to significant health outcomes for these young women in the future: fertility and other sorts of outcomes, as well. It is a very, very distressing situation. We will make a difference in this area, and we will not be so gutless as to do nothing.
One of the issues which has been very distressing to this government has been the pathetic state of the hospitals - particularly the Alice Springs Hospital - on coming to government. The people on the other side continually say: ‘You are doing nothing, you are doing nothing’. Well, how can that be? When I go down there they say: ‘Thank goodness, Minister, you have come to visit us, you have come again. No one ever listened to us before. For seven years ….’ That magic seven years again, something about sevens, that magic seven years. ‘… we have been telling the previous government there were issues in relation to this hospital in Alice Springs’.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Mrs AAGAARD: Significant issues, but you never worked on them. We have in place strategic plans; we have people working very hard on this; we have special committees. This hospital is being turned around and, despite what the opposition thinks, it will be a wonderful hospital for the Northern Territory over the next few years.
The member opposite referred to renal mapping and the Tennant Creek renal unit. I can assure you that the member for Barkly is very, very pleased about the situation in relation to haemodialysis in Tennant Creek. On my visit down there, I spoke with many people in Tennant Creek, and they’re very happy about what’s happening there. They’re happy. The member for Barkly and I have had considerable conversations about this and, yes, it is all happening.
We are also doing a massive renal mapping exercise for the whole of the Northern Territory. The member opposite, the opposition spokesperson on health, in the past has made very, very disparaging remarks regarding renal disease in the Northern Territory. We know it is a significant problem, we know that we need to move on this, and we will be providing adequate services for people in the bush.
One area that is particularly badly handled by the previous government was that in regards to the unmet funding needs of disabled people. This was handled so badly that people who are disabled are up in arms about this. Last year, we decided that there was a better way to do this. So, we organised forums where people who are actually in the sector could decide what their priorities were for disability, where they wanted the money to go. The people themselves said: ‘We want these areas to be the ones where funding should go’. The feedback from that has been extraordinarily good. I think it will be a process which will be continued for the next few years - as long, of course, as the federal government continues its funding.
I have signed off on five primary health care zones. This happened fairly soon after taking government. We have also put in place things which the previous government didn’t bother to do. When you are talking about primary health care access zones, one of the things that need to be considered is: how do we provide adequate training for boards? Now, the previous government just handed this over and said: ‘Thank goodness! We will not have to have any responsibility for indigenous health anymore. Thank goodness!’ But, the Northern Territory has a significant interest in indigenous health. We are not just going to hand things over and say: ‘There you go. Thank goodness! I am not going to think about that again’. No! The primary health care access zones are the things which are very important, and we are making sure that the boards of these zones have adequate training; that they understand their roles and responsibilities. There are special staff in place to deal with that.
In relation to Palmerston, we were willing to make tough decisions in relation to the so-called 24-hour service there. The previous government put in a trial on this. Then, knowing that it was very expensive and was unlikely to be used, they said: ‘Oh yes, we will keep it going until after the election’, thinking they would win. I am sorry for them but we won, and this was an unsustainable service; an absolutely unsustainable service. In fact, I have received two significant reports which I had asked for in relation to what kind of needs people in the Palmerston and the greater Darwin area have, and we are looking at those at the moment. I have received those back this week. They are very interesting reports and we will be working on those also, because we do know that is not the kind of service that was required.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, one of the issues, of course, is ambulances. What a pitiful situation we have been left with in Darwin. Our election commitments will be that we will be increasing ambulance services in the Darwin area so that, by the end of this term of government, we will have a full-time service at Parap. We will also be starting a voluntary service at Humpty Doo, which will also increase the services for ambulances in the bush areas down there, south of Darwin, which will be a significant matter for the people in that area.
The dental area was bought up today as well. The previous government refused to do anything about the loan report but we are considering it at the moment. We are looking at things in relation to fluoridation, which we know has a significant affect on people’s health. We know that, if there is fluoridation in a community, the general health of those people improves considerably. So, that is one thing we are looking at as well. We are not going to be saying that dentistry is not important, as the previous government did. When the federal government dropped its money, the CLP government chose not to - for whatever reason - improve the services in the dental area. It is a disgrace.
One of the other areas which I have had to make decisions on, and I am very proud of, is on the needle and syringe programs. On this coming weekend, of course, is World Aids Day. There have been a lot of reports in relation to AIDS coming as an epidemic through Asia and through Australia in the next 20 years. What we do know is that, in the countries where they have had needle and syringe programs, in fact the spread of AIDS is much reduced. It is very disappointing that the people opposite feel that this is not, somehow, a big problem for them; that there are no drug users in their area. Yet we know that about a third of the users in the Darwin-Palmerston area, in fact, live in Palmerston. This is an opportunity for those people, perhaps for the first time, to actually have some education material and maybe some referral to some services in the Darwin area. This is a very significant and important reform which we are very happy to support.
We have heard a lot about nurses in the last couple of days. I have to say that, since being a minister, we granted their EBA increase immediately. recognising the inadequacy of their wages and conditions of employment. We worked very hard with nurses. I certainly have quarterly meetings with the ANF and, when there are specific issues, the ANF ring me on those and we try to work out the problems as they arise. Nurses are a very important part of the Northern Territory and they provide a wonderful service. We certainly care about nurses, and I think that the member for Port Darwin - it is a bit sad that she didn’t know it was International Nurses Day on Sunday. This is sad indeed. We, on the other hand, recognise the importance of nurses and will be working with them to improve their conditions and employment.
Ms Carter interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: You are a member of parliament, you fool.
Mrs AAGAARD: Another accomplishment that I have made is to increase resources to children in the care of the minister. This has to be one of the saddest areas of my portfolio. This has been the most underfunded area, and it is an absolute disgrace. These are children who really need the protection of society. I was very proud that we were able to increase this funding by $800 000 in the mini-budget. It is very sad, indeed, that the previous government had no recognition of the importance of these children and how we needed to protect them.
There have been conversations about how the previous minister saw people. Well, I don’t know about that; maybe he did see them occasionally. I didn’t actually say that. What I said was I am meeting with them regularly - quarterly, in fact, or more often. I am meeting with the AMA, with the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, ANSANT, the Australian Dental Association and the ANF. This is just a small group of people that I am seeing, in addition to which I have been travelling widely throughout the Northern Territory.
From memory, I have been to Gove twice, I have been to Katherine twice, I have been to Tennant Creek once, I have been to Alice Springs eight times, and I have been to various remote communities as well. I have been to about 12. In addition to which, of course, there are all the Australian Health Ministers meetings that one attends interstate, the Australian Health Ministers Conference, also the Disability Services Ministers meetings. I also took the opportunity to visit the federal Health Minister soon after she took office. I have to say that she is a very gracious woman with whom I get on very well, and who speaks very highly of me just as I do of her. Perhaps you would like to actually have a chat to her because she and I feel that we can work together very well. She has very similar dreams and visions for indigenous Australians, and I think that we will be able to make a difference, unlike the previous government who appeared not to get on very well, even with their own governments when they were in Canberra.
I would like to say that I am very proud that I have been able to attract to this portfolio $34m extra in funding. Obviously, the previous minister was not senior enough to actually manage to get any extra funding for this portfolio. We see health as a significant priority. We have a very significant reform agenda, and we have a very good department that is going to assist us to work on these things.
I would like to say something about the department. We have some excellent people there throughout the Northern Territory. Naturally, in a department as big as this, with 3800 people, there will be people who, like all other people, feel that change is difficult. Naturally, what we need to be doing is working with them to make sure they understand what a reform agenda is. We have great staff, we have great confidence in the staff. We will work with them, we know the outcomes for Territorians will be better.
This is just a piffling waste of time today. We could have been doing important legislation, which is what the people of the Northern Territory ask us to do. That is all I have to say, and I am sorry that the opposition felt the need to actually bring up such a ludicrous and pitiful censure of me.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, in starting, I would like to address some of the screeches from the member for Karama with regard to the fact that I am still a nurse, and: ‘Oh no, you are not a nurse, you are a member of parliament’. Once a nurse, always a nurse, let me tell you. A nurse works in many forums, and this just happens to be one of those forums that I am working in now. So bear that in mind. I have been a nurse in the Northern Territory for over 17 years, and much of that time was spent in the Northern Territory Public Service. During that time, I worked in many different facets; for example, working in health promotion, the Women’s Health Unit, orthopaedic …
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I thought this was a censure of the Health minister, not a kind of …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms CARTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What we have heard from the minister, and I am sure we will hear it from the next speaker, is a constant denigration of the CLP when we were in government, with regard to health. For many years before I became interested in politics, I can tell you from the work face that I felt very proud to be a Territorian. I could tell the difference; I have worked in other states as well. I can tell you that, when I transferred patients - let me give you an example, transferring a patient from Royal Darwin Hospital to Royal Perth Hospital …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a censure motion on the Health minister and again, the member for Port Darwin is talking about her experiences and what she used to do as a nurse. It is totally irrelevant to the question and the debate before the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: I am allowing her to have licence, but I am waiting for her to actually address the censure.
Ms CARTER: That is all right. What I am addressing is the minister’s statement. She has gone on and on about how terrible things were under the CLP government, so what I am giving you here is some information based on my experience as a member of the Northern Territory Public Service and as a nurse.
As an example, I took that patient down to Royal Perth Hospital in 1983, and he was terribly disappointed in the difference between the two wards. It is entirely different, the standards between here and Western Australia; and also between here and Queensland. We have a very good system, always demands are increasing and there is a need to keep on our toes to keep our system good. Certainly, for us here in opposition now, that is our job to keep you on your toes with regards to the provision of services.
However, let me assure you that, as a member of the public service for many years, in many different agencies, I can tell you many of us in the public service were very proud of the things that the CLP government was doing.
Now, let’s get on to our minister, specifically. I would like to talk for a few moments about violence against nurses out bush. I have just learnt this afternoon that one of the northern Arnhem Land communities, since December last year, has had to send nurses out of the bush community eight times because of threats of violence and fear of violence. I find this a very unfortunate situation. It is unsettling for the nurses; it is unsettling for the community.
Dr Burns: Why do you think that is?
Ms CARTER: Why is that? Here we get on to political correctness, don’t we? We are not, on this side of the House, allowed to address some of these concerns but you, of course, are.
Dr Burns: No, no, I am interested in what you think. Tell me.
Ms CARTER: I am certainly pleased to address this issue. The communities seem to me to be having a growing incidence of violence and a reduction of respect towards agencies and individuals such as nurses, and it is a very concerning situation. I have met today with a bush nurse who has explained to me the situation that she found herself in, where she has been twice violently attacked on remote communities, by residents of those communities. In one circumstance, she had to press and pursue charges in court and bore the cost that was associated with that She wanted to feel the support there. In November/December of last year she wrote to the CEO of Territory Health Services. She raised it specifically in that arena. She is now going to the union and various places such as that, and has been very disappointed with the level of support that she has received.
What is interesting about her is that she is also an occupational health and safety nurse, and she believes that audits are not occurring in the areas that she has worked in, even though the new policy, we are told, is such that these audits will be conducted. I know, for example, that later this week the ANF will be meeting with the minister and raising similar concerns. So there are problems out on communities with regard to the violence that nurses are experiencing, and I believe that they have to be addressed.
Whether or not the minister is going to really demonstrate any sympathy and concern for this issue, has to be raised as a concern. I read from Hansard dated 6 March 2002, a statement from the minister in response to a question with regard to violence against nurses. She makes the comment that just harassing Aboriginal people is not the answer. Now here we go into this softly, softly area where nurses, I believe, are being held to blame for the situations that they find themselves in. Yet, it is really problems, I believe …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARTER: … items such as alcohol into communities that is reducing the respect that nurses have held in those communities for many years. In the late 1980s, early 1990s, as a nurse educator in the area known as the Katherine District, I had 11 community health centres which I provided the education service to. They ranged from Lajamanu to Borroloola, Ngukurr, all of those places …
Ms Martin: This is great, the Sue Carter story.
Mr Ah Kit: The wannabe matron.
Ms CARTER: At least I have been out there, not just sitting as a reporter in a cubicle somewhere. I went out there.
For five years I was the nurse educator for that district and the issue of violence against nurses was not there - this is the early 1990s. Things are deteriorating out there, things are getting more violent, and I do applaud the department for taking steps to address those issues as they grow. We in opposition, this is our job, as it was your job a year ago - it is our job to keep you on your toes, to keep the minister on her toes. When we have people living in our community coming to us and telling us what is going on out there, it is our responsibility to report it in this House to you. So I think you should stop denigrating us for pursuing our role here.
With regard to the policy that the minister talks about - this is the policy for the management of aggression - I do have one concern in this policy, and that is in point 5 where it says:
- Where there is continued violence and where violence reaches an unacceptable level, employees should
be withdrawn.
The inference there is that there is an acceptable level of violence to which nurses can be exposed, and I personally disagree with that. I think you need to be very careful with those things. We would hardly nowadays say, for example, that there is an acceptable level of domestic violence. We have moved beyond that, and I disagree: there is no acceptable level of violence which nurses can be exposed to.
It really upset the minister earlier this afternoon when I raised the issue of this advertisement that appeared in the Northern Territory News on Sunday 12th, and I seek leave to table it.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: The advertisement does not mention International Nurses Day. The nurses who have spoken to me about it had no idea what it was meant to mean. It was stuck in the middle of a page that had nothing to do with nursing, and nurses felt that it was a gratuitous comment, given some of the concerns that those who spoke to me have with regard to safety and issues of bush nursing. In the ad, it makes the comment from the minister ‘to thank all nurses for their skill, dedication and hard work’, and thank you very much for that. Hard work is right, there is no two ways about it. We all agree that nurses work hard and it can be very stressful work that they do, as well.
In the mini-budget that the new Labor government tabled and put through last year, they put in here, for example, that they are going to give us in the Northern Territory 75 new nursing positions during their term in government …
Mr Dunham: Hospital-based.
Ms CARTER: Hospital-based nursing positions. If you read the fine print, those 75 nurses start to be whittled away within a page. They are whittled away into an oncology radiotherapy unit, a hospice and a birthing suite. We don’t really know how many of those 75 nurses are going to actually land in some of the difficult ward areas of our public hospitals.
I call on the minister to demonstrate one new permanent nursing position in one of our public hospitals that she has brought in since coming into power - because they are not there. There are plenty of casuals coming in and plenty of short-term contracts, but where are the permanent positions? I would like to put in a vote. I would like to see some new nursing positions going into the public medical wards of Royal Darwin Hospital. Let’s go to the really hard places to work, and give them on at least one shift a day, one extra permanent position and fill it, permanently; and show me the evidence that it has happened. Because by now, if you were talking about your term being four years, we should be looking at 10 – 10 of those 75 nurses. I am yet to see evidence of one. Very, very disappointing.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I think the member for Port Darwin is waiting to continue.
Ms CARTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the other concerns that the opposition has raised recently has been the provision of a number of the promises that are here in your mini-budget - and were expounded very forcefully by the Labor Party as you were coming into the election period, and when subsequently winning the election. The three areas that I would like to mention are the hospice, the birthing suite and the oncology unit. All of these areas - as the shadow minister rightly pointed out a few moments ago - are areas which have a great deal of interest from people in the community. They are things that I am sure made many people vote Labor, because they believed in the promise that these things were coming, and coming within the term of the current Labor government.
Well, now there is some confusion about that. Yesterday, for example, instead of the hospice being provided, as I note from the mini-budget, during the year 2002-03 - as we know now from the minister for business’s comments on page 11 in the Northern Territory major projects book - the hospice has moved from 2002-03 into – mmm, well it might be provided, it is only proposed now, it is not even planned. It is only proposed now. You can hardly see it. I seek leave to table this page for you edification.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: Things that are committed and planned get great big black boxing here. Things that are proposed really, you have to use your imagination on the photocopies to be able to see where it is. But, anyway, from my viewing it looks like the hospice has gone back at least a year to the year 2003-04.
When we asked the question in Question Time yesterday, the minister responded that it will not be 2003-04 thank you, in fact it is going to be next financial year. Well, that is great. Then today, of course, when she joined in the discussions here today, she gave us a bit of a serve, explaining that the mini-budget has dates which are straddled a little bit here - the word was straddled - straddled a little bit there. So, we on behalf of the community, would like to know exactly when is the hospice going to be provided?
Getting onto the birthing suite now. Yesterday, we asked the question with regard to the birthing suite based on similar sort of numbers here. The birthing suite has disappeared again into being only proposed, as opposed to committed or planned, and it has actually fallen off the edge of your current term. It has gone into ‘maybe if you are lucky’, your next term. But on the other hand, well, it is sort of proposed; also it could be for this financial year. It is all very confusing as to when is the birthing suite going to be built? When we asked the minister yesterday, the minister said it might start – it might start. So, let us have an answer on that for the people who are interested in the birthing suite: when is the birthing suite going to be built at Royal Darwin Hospital?
Here is another good one - the oncology unit. Well, really, now you see it, now you don’t. This is a huge commitment from the Labor government - $15.43m. It is a huge cost, but it is an extremely interesting service to be provided up here. That is another one that is very hard to see. We would like some answers so that we can tell people in our constituency when these very exciting proposals are going to be provided by your government, which promised to deliver them. The problem for us is that the minister is giving us such confusing information. She is incompetent, she cannot provide us with accurate information. They are very simple questions. If you decided and looked at your budget process, you have looked at millions and millions of dollars worth of promises that you made during your election campaign; you have finally looked at it and said: ‘Uh oh, uh oh, uh oh! Can’t provide them. Let’s just slide them off the edge here, these little things - these hot emotional items - let’s slide them off so that nobody notices, because we can’t afford to pay for them’. Well, as far as I am concerned, let us know about it. Let us know exactly when they are coming in or where they have fallen off, so that the people in the community can know about it.
One of the other things that we raised with the minister, and she has managed to avoid – how unusual - is in regard to her senior staffing situation with people leaving left, right and centre. I seek the liberty of course, to read into Hansard the statement from Haydn Lowe, who was the Deputy Secretary up until very recently. This man was employed by the minister as a Deputy Secretary. He is one down from the CEO. He has written to hundreds and hundreds of public service Territory Health Service members:
I would like you to know that I endorse wholeheartedly the directions set for the department by government, and
that I believe the agency has many dedicated and competent staff. Unfortunately, I disagree in a major way with
the manner in which the department is implementing some of these strategies, and have expressed these concerns
to the Chief Executive Officer and other members of the executive.
Mr Lowe went on to say:
- Given my views are not shared, the most sensible thing to do is to agree to disagree and move on. It is not an
outcome I would have chosen but is probably, under the circumstances, for the best. Thank you for the support
and friendship you have given me.
That is, to my mind, a very sad e-mail. We asked the minister in parliament, I think it was yesterday, whether or not she had taken the time - given such a public farewell from Mr Lowe - to meet with him to gain a better understanding of why he supports her ideas, your government’s initiatives, but is so disappointed with the way they are being currently implemented in the department. Whether she has taken the time to meet with him and to discuss his concerns. Her telling comment was: ‘The relationship does not involve me’. How on earth is she going to know what is going on in her department if she is not prepared to meet with such a man, who appears to be extremely genuine in his support for her policies and is so disappointed in the way they are currently being implemented? It has nothing to do with her!
It has been a disappointing afternoon to hear from the minister how upset she has been with our motion of censure. She describes it as a piffling waste of time. Do you think that the issues that I have raised were a piffling waste of time? No, no comment. I am disappointed the minister thinks our issues are piffling and a waste of time. What you need to understand, minister, is what we are doing is our job. This is our job in opposition. We have been able to grasp it a whole lot quicker than you have. Our job is to keep you on your toes and to keep you accountable.
You have taken no time to address any of our concerns. As usual, you have gone on and on about how we have the worst health outcomes in the Northern Territory, constantly not reading the small print on statistics which is, of course, that our population differs vastly in many characteristics to other populations in Australia. Sure, there is room for improvement and we all hope there will be improvement …
Madam SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, what a contrast in this debate here this afternoon. As the member for Drysdale said, the most serious debate brought before this parliament - and he should know he certainly was on the receiving end of a number of them. But what a contrast between the current Health minister who showed today, in the work and the carriage that she has had of this portfolio in the last eight months in terms of being active, engaged, of having a reform agenda for the portfolio that was so desperately needed after the legacy of sloth and inaction.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not being censured here, and I don’t think you should be able to use words like ‘sloth’ against somebody who’s not being censured.
Madam SPEAKER: Look, even though it is a censure motion we should not use unparliamentary language. I have noticed that it has been used on both sides of the House.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order and the sensitivities of the member for Drysdale, I was talking about the sloth and inaction of previous CLP governments in terms of this very, very important portfolio.
We have seen more engagement with the department, the non-government sector, and professionals from this minister and a government with a reform agenda, to turn around - and what we are talking about here is a very, very important issue - the appalling health profiles that exist here in the Northern Territory amongst our indigenous population and, increasingly, amongst the non-indigenous population. That is a direct legacy of 27 years of CLP government and the three former Health ministers who are still sitting here in this parliament today.
I hardly know where to start in the 20 minutes that I have to respond to this censure motion that is before the House today. If we start with the opposition now. I have remarked on this before in the House how we have - it must be something in the air over there or there is osmosis happening or something - but all of a sudden they keep discovering these new constituencies. The new constituents that they have just discovered over the last few weeks are nurses here in the Northern Territory. This is a new constituency that previously was not even on the radar screen when these people were in government. The former Health minister - and if we are going to pick up on the comments to the Chief Minister, I will have a comment for the Leader of the Opposition. I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have wanted to shake the team up a bit; take people out of their comfort zones and give them a new challenge. The member for Drysdale, who had been probably the most appalling Health minister in the history of CLP government, should have been moved to another portfolio, in my opinion, because he delivered absolutely nothing during the period that he had, particularly for nurses.
It is absolutely no surprise to anybody here that, in opposition, as members, as shadow ministers, we did engage with the representative professional bodies who represent the work force here in the Northern Territory and the union movement, people they would never even talk about. But we did talk to the professional bodies and we did talk to the relevant unions.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The head of the ANF here in the Northern Territory could not even get into see the minister - he might have done on a couple of occasions.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is demonstrably an untruth. Unless he can tell this parliament how he has been able to mislead the parliament in such a way, I suggest he desist from that.
Madam SPEAKER: I don’t believe there is a point of order. We have had many allegations without evidence here in this censure motion this afternoon. Let’s continue, but be careful of what we do say.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, he certainly did not have a regular meeting set in place in terms of regular updates pursuing issues. However, they hardly ever get into see the minister - may have done on one or two occasions. He was banned from the hospital for a time to even talk to the work force and this was the total contempt that the previous Health minister had for nurses and their profession. We brought numerous instances before this House. This sudden experience, exposure, and empathy for nurses, and particularly violence against nurses - I had numerous conversations with the head of the ANF here in the Northern Territory about his absolute inability to get to the former Health minister, to get these concerns on the table and have the Health minister take them seriously and develop policy to address a particular issue. The only policy that the previous minister could talk about was, on one occasion, flying people out from Port Keats. That was the only policy that they had and there were real crocodile tears in this House on this particular issue.
If we look at nurses again, one of the reasons why we had such significant problems in terms of recruiting and retaining nurses here in the Northern Territory was the fact that, in terms of their payments and conditions of work, nurses were slipping behind the other states. Again, this was something that failed to be acknowledged. If we look at the lead-up to the election, and I have here a petition that I tabled in this House. They talk about this great empathy that the previous government had for the nursing profession and how the new Health minister has abdicated this. There were appalling offers put on the table by the previous government to nurses. I will just read the petition. I do not know how many hundreds of names are on here - all from Royal Darwin Hospital - and we are probably only going back nine months ago. I will read the petition and the member for Port Darwin was not here at the time or she may have …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It says:
We the undersigned deplore …
Deplore, Madam Speaker.
… the Commissioner’s appalling attitude to nurses in the Northern Territory. His apparent lack of respect for
our profession is evident in his laughable EBA offer. Nurses will not tolerate such treatment …
That was the legacy of the former government in terms of the esteem that they held the nursing profession in. Within a month of coming to office - maybe six weeks, I am not sure - we had this absolutely resolved. We had an offer on the table that took the pay and conditions of nurses in the Northern Territory up to the equal of the highest in Australia, and we will maintain that position. You know, memories fade pretty fast, but the petition that I tabled in this parliament back in July last year certainly puts paid to the issue that nurses here in the Northern Territory are somehow being ignored by the current Health minister.
If we look at the issues in regard to the smokescreen in terms of the capital works funding that we announced, again, no wonder the budget that we inherited was in such a mess. No wonder nobody could understand capital works budgets. I do not know why it is so hard for the opposition to understand that financial years and calendar years overlap. With a commitment for the 2002-03 financial year, the construction could start in the 2003 calendar year and still meet that commitment. I do not know why it is so difficult. A grade seven kid in primary school could probably understand it, but those members opposite will not.
I can say, unlike the members opposite and former CLP governments, when we have made commitments to the birthing suite, the oncology unit and the hospice, we will not be waiting 10 years. We will not be waiting 10 years, like Territorians in Alice Springs had to wait when the Alice Springs extensions to the hospital and a private wing were proposed 10 years ago when Steve Hatton was the Health minister. That particular promise was trotted out in election after election after election. It is great to see it has finally being committed. But for people opposite to say that, within eight months we do not have these new facilities and they are not rising out of the ground, well, again, I would ask them to go back and look at a bit of history. Ten years ago that was first promised.
Mr Dunham: Go back to your debates, mate. You are such a hypocrite. You had a go at me for having a go at the Palmerston Health Clinic.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, just cease for a moment. Member for Drysdale, withdraw that remark.
Mr DUNHAM: Which one?
Madam SPEAKER: Well, if you don’t know what was unparliamentary …
Mr DUNHAM: I said he had a go at me for having a go at the Palmerston Health Clinic.
Madam SPEAKER: I asked you to withdraw that word you used. Just withdraw it. ‘Hypocrite’.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw the fact that you had a go at me over the Palmerston Health Clinic.
Madam SPEAKER: And you called him a hypocrite.
Mr DUNHAM: The hypocrite. Yes, sorry. I withdraw the hypocritical comment.
Madam SPEAKER: And, member for Drysdale, you have had your say so I would like to hear the minister.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I think my interjections are fewer than the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled. I have ruled. Stop being so disorderly.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: You are!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I have not even got to the Palmerston Health Clinic yet, so obviously that has touched a raw nerve with the member for Drysdale.
We then move on. This supposed cavalcade of senior officers fleeing the department is absolutely ridiculous. I am not going to trawl individual public servants’ names - past public servants and current public servants - through this parliament, unlike these people opposite. In the last two years of the member for Drysdale’s administration, I believe we had four separate CEOs, either acting or temporary, in Territory Health Services. It will be an interesting exercise to go back and see the average tenure of the Chief Executive Officers of the hospitals over the years, but we certainly had four. I have the names. He knows who we are talking about and the last one - and I will mention Mr Fletcher because he is no longer here - lasted an inglorious couple of months or something like that. Again, in terms of this avalanche of people leaving the Northern Territory, we do not have to go very far. In the last two years, four acting and temporary CEOs of Territory Health Services. This was the great stewardship of the previous Health minister.
At the end of the day, as ministers - and I certainly accept there are people opposite who have served as ministers - there is a lot that you want to do with your portfolio but, ultimately, we are all constrained by the budget position. We take that responsibility very seriously, which is more than the members opposite.
I am going to go back - because it is absolutely indicative of the desperate financial mess that we inherited from the previous CLP administration - the collusion between senior ministers in that previous administration in terms of trying to hide the true facts of health funding in Territory Health Services. I refer to a memo that was tabled in this parliament on 25 October last year from Paul Bartholomew, Chief Executive Officer of Territory Health Services to the then minister for Health, the current shadow minister for health, dated 27 September 2001. I will quote from pieces in this memo again.
Mr Dunham: Does it warrant investigation?
Mr HENDERSON: This has already been debated in this House:
- In summary, there was an artificial reduction of $8m in THS’ 2000-01 budget in order that the 2001-02 budget
figure could be presented falsely as a 2.5% increase.
Just happens to coincide with an election year. This is from the Chief Executive Officer:
- In reality, the budget represents a reduction on the final 2000-01 approved budget.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I recognise that this particular minute has been tabled before, but I would have thought, in fairness and equity to the members who are being investigated, that the subject of that particular memo - which has already been referred to the Public Accounts Committee by this parliament - should not be referred to in this debate because the minister is giving authority to a letter, of which no authority has been determined, that is the subject of a PAC investigation.
Madam SPEAKER: I think there is a point of order. We must be careful that we do not make comments about the inquiry of the PAC that is occurring at the moment. Minister, you can refer to it in broad terms, but I prefer you not to speak to specifics. Do you understand what I mean?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I am happy to accept your ruling. We all, in this parliament, are interested to see the outcome of the current PAC inquiry. But it does go to show - and we have debated this in the House; this is a document that is available to any Territorian who may want to seek access to it - that it absolutely goes to the heart of the financial mess that the current Health minister inherited from the previous Health minister. Not only a financial mess, but a mess that was deliberately concealed. The former Health minister has absolutely no credibility at all, I believe, absolutely no credibility …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The censure motion and the tabling of that document did not demonstrate that anything was deliberately concealed. The member is either speculating or he is treading on very thin ice.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order. We have already referred to this document and how it should be treated. I am sure the minister understands exactly what I have been saying.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I will move to one final example - and this does not go to the memo. We have other evidence of the financial cover-ups that were going on in the previous department and it goes to the previous Treasurer, the member for Katherine, who had two sets of books running in regards to …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The imputation there were two sets of books libels the former Under Treasurer; it libels the entire Department of Treasury. If the member wants to make allegations that two sets of books were run on a fabricated basis, I suggest he refer it to the Public Accounts Committee where this is being investigated.
Dr LIM: Speaking further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. It appears that comments such as two sets of books and all that have been leaked by the PAC because those were things discussed …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Someone is on their feet. You haven’t been called.
Dr LIM: Hang on. Let me finish what I have to say first. These things were discussed within deliberative sessions of the committee and, if it is now out in public then I think there is a problem.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Those comments about two sets of books were actually given in public session and it is publicly available as Hansard to members of the public. It is on the public record.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The allegation was made by the Chairman and was strenuously refuted so it cannot be raised again here …
Madam SPEAKER: This is not the Public Accounts Committee. You people continue your debate in the session. We have the minister on his feet. Minister, continue.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, this was all on the public record and the documents are there about the Treasury quarterly financial statements. Again, I will read from the question I asked the previous Health minister in appropriation debate last year:
- Minister, the Treasurer’s quarterly financial statement for March 2001 was released nine days before the
budget. The March statement shows actual expenditure to the March quarter …
… at $346.8m, an average of $115.6m over the three quarters of the financial year to date. For the budget to
come in at the estimated $435.956m outcome indicated in your budget papers, actual expenditure in the last
quarter would have to be $89.1m …
… a cut of $25.5m in the last quarter …
Here we have a set of budget papers coming down in the parliament. Nine days before that, the Treasurer’s quarterly financial statement showed that, to come in on budget, you would have had to take a cut of $26m in the last quarter.
I am not going to bother to read the rubbish that the previous Health minister replied in trying to answer for this. He talked about incidences of water-borne disease, whatever it was, in Alice Springs that hadn’t even started when the budget papers were proven. But we knew then from opposition, before the Bartholomew minute, that there was something very, very iffy about the budget figures that had been tabled in the parliament. We will wait to see where the Public Accounts Committee finally gets with that.
I would certainly stand here and say, without any fear or favour, that the person who has led the charge in terms of this censure debate here this afternoon, has absolutely no credibility in terms of his stewardship of the department over his tenure. We can have absolute certainty that the budget figures that will be tabled by this minister will be the accurate budget figures before the parliament.
If we look at outcomes - this is what we should be debating here, outcomes. As the Health minister said, we are a government with a reform agenda for health, and a reform agenda focused on outcomes, about better quality of services and about better health profiles in the Northern Territory.
Again, if we look at the legacy of mortality rates in the Northern Territory …
Dr Burns: Madam Speaker, I move …
Mr Burke: Have you got a problem over there, have you?
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is all right, his time has not expired, you are interrupting him.
Mr Burke: There are more important things than jumping at the time expiry.
Members interjecting.
Ms Lawrie: Madam Speaker, I move that there be an extension of time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: No, time has not expired yet! Let the minister finish his speech. Go on, Minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I hope I will be granted an extension of time.
We certainly have seen, as my colleague, the member for Johnston has stated, that we did inherit deadly territory where health profiles of Aboriginal and non-indigenous people in the Northern Territory are far worse than those of the broader Australian community. If we look at some numbers here - diabetes, we have Aboriginal males and Aboriginal females between six and 11 times higher than the average of the Australian population; heart disease, two times higher; stroke 2.6 times higher for men, 90% higher for women; respiratory disease …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired now.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the speaker be granted so much time as it takes him to complete his speech.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, no, we don’t give him that much time, but we will have an extension of time. Is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Respiratory disease is between five and 10 times higher for Aboriginal males and females; renal disease four to 11 times higher; and the indications amongst the non-indigenous population across those profiles are starting to trend upwards.
Certainly, there was no legacy that we inherited in government - that this Health minister has inherited - in terms of a healthy populace here in the Northern Territory, but a requirement to look to more money for the budget to deal with this appalling health profile that we have.
The other allegation that was made, that people can’t get to the Health minister, how somehow she has barricaded herself behind a wall of advisors and will not meet. Well, again, if we go back to the interview of the other day with Robyn Cahill, the secretary or chief - or whatever her position is with the AMA - I don’t have the quotes here with me. She certainly indicated in that radio interview that the AMA have a much greater level of access to the Health minister than they previously had under the previous minister. I am aware of the ANF, Allied Health, a number of non-government organisations - in my time as the shadow minister - all complaining about how they couldn’t get anywhere near the previous Health minister.
There were ridiculous comments that were made that somehow the Health minister should not have good, competent people from a health background advising her in her position, and the ludicrous comments from the member for Drysdale who said: ‘Look, I only had one advisor’. Well, no wonder we inherited such a mess! No wonder we have inherited such a mess, when the previous minister was so arrogant to assume that not having a professional health background himself, that he knew it all: ‘I know it all, I can sit up here on the fifth floor, I don’t need anybody to advise me, I only need one advisor and everything is going to be hunky-dory. I can back my judgment; I can back my instincts and deliver the outcomes for Territorians with only one person advising me’. Well, I wouldn’t think there would be another Health minister in the country, in the western world, who would only have one advisor on such a vital area and portfolio responsibility. Maybe if the previous Health minister had had more than one advisor, we wouldn’t have inherited such an absolute mess.
Moving through to the points of the motion …
Mr Stirling: None of which they addressed.
Mr HENDERSON: None of which they addressed, but I will address them here. ‘The abject failure to understand or administer the most important portfolio, unable to answer questions’. Certainly, the Health minister has had more questions in the last two sittings than all of us put together. Members opposite could not prove one instance where the Health minister could not answer the question put to her - not one. Absolutely no substance.
‘Inability to ensure the government’s policies are implemented by the department’. Well, there has been a raft of policy initiatives that have been promoted during this minister’s term in this portfolio. I am not going to go through all of them but, particularly in the smoking related area, a very important public health policy had to be addressed. The professional health sector was beating the previous minister’s doors down begging for something to be done in this area, given the appalling health profiles in the Northern Territory. There was an enormous amount of public comment on this leading up to the election. These are health professionals - there was only one advisor in the minister’s office who probably didn’t come from a health background either, so no wonder the previous minister didn’t hear this. We have moved on that. We recognise it is tricky, we recognise that it is politically going to be difficult, but we are a government about improving health outcomes, and we are not going to improve health outcomes unless we tackle some sensitive issues.
There has been a lot spoken about drugs and the availability of narcotics in our community - the health consequences, the crime consequences and the previous administration’s absolute failure - absolute failure, there is no other word for it - to even acknowledge that there was a problem, let alone have public policy reform and a reform agenda to deal with it. The testament is all there. It is all in the Hansard; it is all there for people down the years to look at the absolute difference in terms of responsible public policy looking to improved outcomes for Territorians, from this Health minister compared to previous Health ministers. They can also compare them moving on the very important issues about sustainable recruitment and retention, not only for nursing staff but also for professional staff. Yes, it is difficult, but we have made the hard yards in the budget in terms of making nurses amongst the best paid with the best conditions here in Australia. The previous government failed to do that.
I have notes that the department has an additional five-and-a-half clinical nurse education positions across the Northern Territory - very important positions. Let’s grow our own nurses here. Four of these have been appointed and the second round of advertisements will see all positions filled by June 2002. The re-entry program for nurses that the minister has implemented will provide opportunities for nurses across the NT to re-enter the nursing work force - responsible public policy that is delivery the goods. The government is offering 75% of base salary for up to three months supervised practice in the work force, to get those nurses back in the work force. If all was so bad and we were having this mass exodus of professional staff, nobody wanted to work for THS - recruitment into the nursing program at the Northern Territory University has seen a record intake in 2002. In the Bachelor of Nursing Program, 240 new starters commenced in 2002; in excess of 100 of these being Northern Territory residents. So again, public policy, reform agenda being implemented by this minister is starting to deliver the long-term goods that we need here in the Northern Territory.
Government policies are being implemented through the department and we will see those outcomes as the term of our government progresses.
The third point of the censure motion was ‘failure to take responsibility for the actions of the department and cuts to services’. Well, the only cuts to services that could be identified was the dental position in Katherine. As the Health minister said, this isn’t an issue, in terms of the budget no longer available; it is an issue of trying to recruit dentists to the Northern Territory - a major problem. Look at the genesis of this problem, and not a word from members opposite when it occurred. One of the first actions of the new Howard government was to cut the additional funding that Paul Keating, as Prime Minister, put in to the dental services here in Australia. The direct consequence of that cut - not a peep at the time - not topped up by the previous governments, have been it is increasingly harder to recruit, not only dentists, but other health professionals. We are dealing with that. It is not an issue in terms of budget or responsibility; it is a recruitment issue that we have inherited, and we’ll move on it.
‘The disregard for the concerns and wellbeing of Territorians’. Well, I would have to say that this Health minister has more drive, compassion, sensitivity and zeal for this portfolio, than the three former Health ministers on the other side put together who, at the end of the day, can only look back on what was achieved during that period of office. What was actually achieved in the period of office? That is what we can all do here, as government, as ministers, as members, to look back and say: ‘Well, what did we achieve?’. I would have to say what the previous CLP administrations, previous Health ministers, have achieved were: declining health outcomes for Territorians. That is their legacy. That is what this Health minister, this government, is absolutely committed to turning around. The reform agenda has started and this minister will see it through.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I find it curious that the member for Wanguri stood up and, for 20 minutes, lashed out at my colleague the member for Drysdale, and said nothing - absolutely nothing in defence of his own minister! Then, at the last 10 minutes of the extension, he started to get into the thick of things. When he then tried to suggest that the member for Drysdale, as the minister for health, was very arrogant ...
Mr Ah Kit: Tell us what happened in Alice Springs Hospital some years ago!
Dr LIM: I will take on that interjection from the member for Arnhem. He hides in his coward’s castle and tries to imply that I had something to do with a person’s death.
Mr Ah Kit: Tell us what happened!
Dr LIM: Let me say categorically - and I will explain that in the adjournment later on - that in my 30 years of professional life I have never, ever lost a patient. If you have any problems, go outside and say it and see what happens.
Now coming back to the issue …
Mr Ah Kit: You probably never had many going to you! You probably never had many going to see you, that is why you are here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arnhem, order! Member for Arnhem, I find your remarks to be out of order. I think you are completely out of order. Refrain from it. I am not quite sure what you said, but it sounded to me as though it was the wrong comment to make in this House.
Dr LIM: I have already challenged him, Madam Speaker, I have challenged him. It is up to him now to try and prove it outside. I have spoken to the member for Nhulunbuy previously at another session of this parliament, and he had the decency to come and apologise to me, and has left it alone ever since. So, I challenge all you members to try and raise it outside this coward’s castle.
Coming back to this issue of the member for Wanguri attacking my colleague, the member for Drysdale, about his arrogance of having only one ministerial advisor. Let’s take this ministry for example. The member for Casuarina has six key portfolios, and six ministerial advisors - one for each portfolio. Well done, well done. The member for Arnhem has five portfolios, and three ministerial advisors. The Deputy Chief Minister himself has three ministerial advisors for three portfolios, and he carries the key portfolios of Education, Police, Fire and Emergency services, and also the responsibility of Leader of Government Business. The member for Wanguri himself has eight portfolios. He takes up the crucial portfolios of economy, development, and all he needs is one advisor per portfolio. Yet, the minister for health needs to have three, four, five.
So, what is she doing? She is incompetent, which is what we are trying to develop a case for. I believe this supports totally that she is incompetent, and unable to deal with health issues; that is why the department has fallen around its ears. For months now, Territorians have been saying: ‘The health departments are falling apart’, and she hasn’t heard. She might be accessible to everybody, but it goes in one ear and out the other, and that is the problem.
At the last sittings of parliament, the members for Macdonnell and Araluen and myself, explained in this House that we went for a briefing given by the Acting Medical Superintendent or Acting Director of Medical Services, the Acting General Manager of the hospital, and the Acting Director for Nursing. All three said to us that the Alice Springs Hospital was in a diabolical state.
Mr Elferink: A state of continual crisis.
Dr LIM: I take up on the interjection - a state of continual crisis. The intensive care area was dangerous and they were constantly at least 50 nurses short in their complement.
Let me come now to the minister and what she has done or not done about things. We tried to ask questions about the Hermannsburg medical service, and she gave us a beat-around-the-bush answer. In an article published in the Centralian Advocate of 14 May, the leading headline was: ‘Funding threat to remote docs job’. The first paragraph says:
- A community of more than 1400 people may be left without a GP after the Northern Territory government pulled
the plug on funding.
And it goes on, in a couple of a paragraphs later on:
- Now the government says it did not intend to cut the funding, only to shift it so that health services were put back
into Aboriginal hands. The ministerial backflip this week reversed the funding slash, but doubts have been raised
about the viability of the government’s plans to bankroll the flagging Western Arrernte Health Corporation so
that it can employ the doctor.
That is the problem. This minister, without thinking, has deprived a community of 1400 people of the full-time services of a general practitioner: somebody who will have volunteered to go out there with the funding - with the assistance of the federal government that provided $50 000 top-up money - and the ability to bulk bill Medicare. But that pool of money is insufficient to maintain a viable practice. For three years, the CLP government had continued to support her presence out in the area with $25 000 top-up plus the use of a vehicle and nursing support. That is what is required to assist Aboriginal people out in the Western Arrernte region. What has this minister done about it? Nothing! And she has nothing in place to ensure that the people of the Western Arrernte region have a continuing service after this funding finishes on 30 June. There is a gap that the minister is not able to guarantee to fill.
If the minister can stand up tomorrow morning and say that the Western Arrernte people will continue to have medical services from 1 July this year, then I will have no quarrel with her. But until she says that, there is nothing available and that is not right, not for 1400 people.
A question on the nursing numbers was asked of the minister this morning, and she told us that Alice Springs Hospital has two more nurses than full complement. It is interesting that she did not tell us that the majority of these extra nurses she had found to work at the Alice Springs Hospital in the last weeks or so, are 68 agency nurses. Sixty-eight out of a compliment of about 250 is more than 25%. Many of these nurses have short-term contracts which will end in about 10 days time. Suddenly, there is more than a full complement in the hospital at the time of the sittings, so that she can come in here and tell us the truth. But, in 10 days time, the Alice Springs Hospital is going to once more be back to the same situation: they are going to be many nurses short.
Patients are still waiting for two or three months before they can get elective surgery. They are not fulfilling the promises that this minister made. I will come to the Tennant Creek renal unit in a minute, but what has happened in the Alice Springs unit is that the specialist, Dr Kirubakaran has been on long service leave for two months now. He, I am told, is on an eight month long service leave. He has gone back to India, and it is very unlikely that he is going to return to Alice Springs, so we do not have a renal specialist in Alice Springs. But what’s going to happen? Tennant Creek is going to have a renal service for 10 patients. The member for Barkly earlier this afternoon indicated across the Chamber that he was going to get a renal physician sent from Darwin to Tennant Creek to service that unit. It does not matter about Alice Springs, with more than 10 patients. More than 40 patients are on renal dialysis, and it does not matter if they do not have a renal specialist, as long as the Top End and Tennant Creek is covered. Central Australia is represented by CLP members. Is that why it is that this minister and this ministry does not support Central Australia? They do not. The paediatric specialist is another …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Dr LIM: This member from Sanderson - I have said to this Chamber before - is like an empty vessel. He rattles around all day with an intellect as deep as the puddle of piddle that the member for Millner created on the football oval. It is about time he shut his mouth and stopped rattling around like an empty vessel that he is.
Coming back to the paediatric specialist at the Alice Springs Hospital, we are losing one of the most qualified I think …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Can we have some order so that the member can continue without being disturbed.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I congratulate the member for Nhulunbuy, the Leader of Government Business, for heeding your reprimand.
Coming back to the paediatric specialist at the Alice Springs Hospital; we are losing one of the most qualified, valued paediatric specialists this month. She is leaving out of pure frustration, because of the poor management of the Alice Springs Hospital. She was recruited at great cost from Sydney to look after paediatric pulmonary diseases. Just in case you do not understand pulmonary diseases, it is diseases of the lung. She has done a lot of research into Aboriginal children suffering from pulmonary diseases. But now, out of frustration, she is leaving town. Then there will be another hole in our paediatric complement once more. Is the minister doing anything about? Not as far I know. There has been no recruiting process put in place to find somebody to replace her. I suggest that they are not going to find somebody of equal qualification.
Does the minister know what the full complement of District Medical Officers in Alice Springs is? I suggest she might not. Let me tell her that we normally have six DMOs in Alice Springs servicing Central Australia, using the services of the RFDS. Right now, there are only three DMOs. Again, I do not see any activity from the minister. What is she doing about it? If they are three DMOs short, that is half the numbers that are required to service Central Australia. If there is no doctor at Hermannsburg then Central Australian Aboriginal people are going to miss out. All the cattle breeders in Central Australia on the stations are also going to miss out on medical care. Is this minister doing the right thing? Is this minister doing any work at all? I suggest to you, definitely not.
I am using Alice Springs Hospital and the Alice Springs community as an example; I am not even talking about the whole of the Territory yet. I have rattled off to you some six shortfalls already. The emergency department of the Alice Springs Hospital is one senior doctor short, and it is very likely that they are going to be short for quite some time. What has she done about it? Nothing! All she says is: ‘This is operational’, nothing to do with her. Yet she dares to tell us that she has been to Alice Springs six or eight times just recently. Isn’t it curious though that, until she was chastised by the Central Australian members of parliament, she had only been down there twice? Suddenly, in the flurry over the last five weeks, she has made five further visits. Well, thank you for doing that, Minister. I think that is great that you are now at least prepared to expose yourself to the issues in Central Australia and get some first-hand information.
The Night Patrol has been struggling in Alice Springs to provide services every day of the week. At the moment, they have enough funding to only do five nights of the week from 5 pm to 1.30 am. That is it - Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. There is no Night Patrol on Sunday and Monday. The Minister for Central Australia assured us that complementary measures were going to be put in place to back up the alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs. Yet, Night Patrol has not been funded. What has the Minister for Health and Community Services done about it? A big zero! That is what she has done, a big zero.
A member interjecting.
Dr LIM: I will not pick up on the interjection because it is going to distract me.
Let me come to the Territory in general. We heard the member for Port Darwin speak about the radio-oncology service and what it was going to cost, some $15.4m. I have worked in an oncology service during my training and I know what it costs. This is going to be a pie in the sky; it is not going to be enough. The minister needs to come to some sort of reality check to make sure that adequate funding is put in place.
Don’t lead Territorians up the garden path, particularly Territorians who are suffering terminal illnesses who would grasp at any straw they possibly can to ensure that they get some positive outcomes for their illnesses. If you are going to this; do it properly, do it right. The confusion between the minister for development and the minister for Health is a classical example of the ministers not knowing what each other is doing. There is huge confusion and your own publication demonstrates that. One minister says: ‘Yes, we are going to have this done in this term of office, and another minister says: ‘No, it is not, it is going to happen in the next term of office if we win’. That is a big difference. You are all leading Territorians …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex has just made an allegation that one minister has stated that the project will commence within this term of office and another minister has said no, it will be in the next term. I would like him to quote specifically from the Hansard because that is not accurate. It is totally a misrepresentation of what has been said here in the parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: This is a censure motion and there have been allegations made with evidence to back up the allegations. But members are aware that they should be careful in what they say. So, member for Greatorex, if you can substantiate what you have claimed, then do so.
Dr LIM: The planning of the project is the development; it is part of the whole development. You can’t have bricks and mortar coming up without plans. That whole thing is called a development. Yes or no? Therefore, I say to you that the minister for Health was adamant, yesterday and this morning, that the development was going ahead during this term of office. This other minister has a publication that says it is proposed for the next term of office. That next term of office is not a sure thing for them. So, here goes another rattle from the empty vessel.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Dr LIM: Here he goes again.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Dr LIM: And again.
We talked earlier about the management of the department and whether the minister takes responsibility for it. She obviously needs to have a Chief Executive Officer who is managing the department with her, side by side. She provides government policy, the CEO implements the policy and should be there. I hear now that the CEO is travelling out of the Northern Territory for purposes other than Territory Health matters. Now, what’s he doing? Why is he not here managing the department? What is he doing, when the minister is in difficulties and he is not here to assist? I hear that he is actually interstate looking for jobs elsewhere. Now, that is a problem. When you have a CEO who is now tuning himself out of the Territory to look for a job elsewhere, it is a problem. This CEO is not with the minister to run the department and that is a major problem.
The General Manager of the Royal Darwin Hospital has left today. This is a major hospital; it is considered a tertiary hospital for the Territory where very ill patients are referred to the Royal Darwin. This hospital has to be managed properly and we don’t have anybody at the helm. Is the minister concerned about it? She hasn’t said so. I suppose she will give us the excuse that it is just another operational matter and she’ll stay at arm’s length from it.
The Deputy Secretary of the department also resigned several days ago and was literally frogmarched out of the department the same day. This is definitely showing that the top level management, starting from the minister, has fallen apart completely and things are not being looked after as they should be. It is important that the minister starts looking at health issues closely, doesn’t wait for us to tell her what she has to do, gets across the issues quickly, gets doctors in to explain what needs to happen, gets nurses in to explain what needs to happen, and gets on with the job, or else step down.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether it was a wise move or not, suggesting that we might take three speakers each side in this debate this afternoon, when the normal protocol is two each side. I certainly didn’t want to be accused of gagging, and hence we were able to give the opposition spokesman for health an extra 10 minutes to try to substantiate his case for the censure motion that he tabled. We allowed an extra speaker each side which, from the opposition point of view, got us absolutely nowhere, and has burned up well over two hours of valuable parliamentary time.
That aside, I hope the opposition has learned something today in the ways of prosecuting a censure motion. The first rule they have to learn is that you don’t make up your mind to censure a minister just because you think it is a good idea. You have to prepare the groundwork and you have to substantiate your case. In this case, not one of them went to the first point that they were trying to prosecute. The last speaker tried to. The shadow minister’s first point in censuring the minister for health was ‘her abject failure to understand or administer this most important of portfolios as constantly revealed by her inability to answer questions’.
I know why they were so sensitive about Question Time being closed on the dot of 3 pm yesterday and not seven or eight minutes past as they wanted. They wanted to censure the minister for health yesterday. The game plan was in place 24 hours early, so it didn’t matter what, and how many questions the minister for health answered over however many days, she was going to be censured. It would have been yesterday, but they are so careless. When we were preparing for a censure we would lead in and keep an eye on the clock so that, at about the last 10 minutes - we never took the risk of going past the last 10 minutes because you couldn’t be sure you were going to get the question back. We always wanted to lead into the censure on our question. Now, they learnt a little last time, and today they gave themselves five or 10 minutes. They didn’t learn yesterday; they got cut off at the gong.
If we go back over yesterday, there were 17 questions asked in parliament - far more than ever used to occur in this Chamber - of which 10 were directed to the minister for Health. The first question from Mr Dunham to the minister for Health was in relation to the hospice at the Royal Darwin Hospital, and whether or not it had been postponed. Well, I’ll tell you how long it has been postponed. When we had the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill debated and passed in here in 1994 or 1995 by former Chief Minister Marshall Perron, part of the debate, negotiation and discussion that went with the passage of that bill - given that it was not an easy bill, it didn’t get an easy passage through this House, and there was a lot of emotion on both sides of the House - part of the consensus in the end was that they would commit to a hospice. The Leader of the Opposition would well remember this because he was on the same side of the debate as I was. He would remember that a commitment was made that a hospice and palliative care measures would be put in place to satisfy those of us who were bitterly opposed to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill. It is now 2002 and they are asking us - we have been in government for eight months - where this hospice is. Not only that, the minister’s answered the question. There is no suggestion it has been postponed.
The next question comes from Mr Dunham, again on the hospice, and the minister says: ‘It is in the mini-budget and will be built in the next financial year’. She has answered the question twice. In 10 of these 17 questions, she has the same question twice.
The next question from Ms Carter to the minister for Health is about the birthing centre. Very clear: it is part of our election commitment and will be provided.
Next question, Ms Carter to minister for Health, again on the birthing centre. The minister again gives that time; that it is in the mini-budget. She gets cut off, but this project might start at the beginning of the year 2005.
The very next question, Ms Carney to minister for Health. ‘How much of the budget has your office expended?’ She gives a detailed answer right through her budget and what is happening there.
Mr McAdam, one of our own to minister for Health, on the Alice Springs Hospital. So there we had 10 out of 17 questions and she has answered every one. I don’t intend to go through the 14 questions asked today before we were cut off by the censure motion; seven of them to the minister for Health. The answers are in there; you can look at them as easily and as well as I can.
Her abject failure to answer questions put to her in this Chamber, was dot point 1 of the censure motion. If you are going to prosecute a censure motion in here, you address the points - you address the points of the censure motion as you put it down. Now, you don’t say: ‘Yes we are going to censure the minister for Health. Let’s think up a few things, whack them down on a bit of paper, that is it’, and fail to address them.
Mr Ah Kit: But they are still learning.
Mr STIRLING: Jack, I understand they’re still learning, but I don’t want this to be a training centre for politicians. I don’t want it to be a learning centre for the opposition. You ought to be hitting your straps by now; you shouldn’t have to hear it from me as to how to run opposition or how to run a censure motion. Rule number one is, get your points down as to why you are going to censure this minister, and then have the decency to address the points and substantiate your arguments. It is no good for the opposition shadow minister for Health saying: ‘Answer’s not forthcoming, no capacity to do the job, inadvertent liar’. These just flow regularly out of his mouth over the space of 20 minutes – then we gave him an extension - 30, 40 minutes, however long he had. He failed to substantiate any single allegation, despite the fact that he had the four points down there. There was no prosecution of point one.
The second point was ‘her inability to ensure the government’s policies are implemented by a department has been revealed by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health’. Where on earth this came from, I know not, but we have …
Ms Scrymgour: E-mail.
Mr STIRLING: Oh, I have it here:
- ‘$100 000 boss quits Health job - staff informed by e-mail’:
- A senior public servant used electronic mail yesterday to tell Northern Territory Health Services employees he
was quitting because he disapproved of the policies of his fellow executives. ‘I would like you to know I endorse
wholeheartedly the directions set for the department by government’ - Local Deputy Secretary Haydn Lowe.
‘Unfortunately I disagree in a major way with the manner in which the department is implementing some of
these strategies and have expressed these concerns to the Chief Executive Officer. Given my views are not shared,
the most sensible thing to do is to agree to disagree and move on, not an outcome I would have chosen, but
probably under the circumstances for the best’. He believed the agency had a dedicated and competent staff.
- I disagree with the manner in which the department is implementing their strategies …
They’re being implemented though. It is very clear they’re being implemented. This man supports the directions, but he doesn’t support the manner in which they’re being implemented. He doesn’t question that they’re implementing the very policies of this government that he supports. Yet we find here the minister for Health is being censured because they are misquoting one senior public servant. If that is inaccurate, well, you have missed your chance. I am sorry, I am going to close debate after this; you have had your chance. I take it from that, that point two here just fails on its own accord.
Here is a beauty here too, point three. I waited and waited through 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes, and that is why I was keen for the opposition shadow minister to get another 10 minutes because point three was: ‘Her failure to take responsibility for the actions of her department such as the cutbacks and services across the Territory’. Well, where are these cutbacks? Where are the cutbacks? Where is this list of cutbacks that the department has implemented across the Territory for which the minister should be censured?
Today, we had a question on dental services in Katherine, and it seemed to be the only service. The member for Katherine prefaced that by saying: ‘Oh, there are cutbacks across the Northern Territory being experienced by thousands of people’. One example is - in fact it is the only example we heard, and yet it appears in the censure motion - failure to take responsibility for the actions such as the cutbacks in services across the Territory. We have one example of cutbacks in services, and that came from Katherine. I understand the minister for Health dealt with that inside her response to the censure motion. There is a fair bit lacking here in terms of fully prosecuting and substantiating each of the points.
The fourth point - well, how do you prosecute it; how do you defend it: ‘Her total disregard for the concerns and welfare of both Territorians in need of health care and those who provide such care’. It is a value judgment, it is an opinion, it is not worth the paper it is written on. A concerted attempt could have been made to prosecute points one, two and three. But it wouldn’t matter what you put on the table in respect of point four, it is just something that you can’t prosecute in here; you can’t prove one way or the other. It is not worth the paper it is written on in terms of a substantive motion, that the shadow minister for Health is trying to convince the Chief Minister that she is not up to the job. Well, he has failed, I am sorry to say. He has failed on all points.
In itself, they had the potential there, in the sense that they could be prosecuted if you had the ammunition, if you had the evidence and you were able to stack it up one by one. We gave your lead spokesman extra time to try and put the information on the record, and it simply didn’t happen.
Robyn Cahill and the AMA were mentioned in despatches at a couple of points in the debate. There was an interview this morning between Fred McCue and Robyn Cahill, 8.30 am on the 8DDD program, and if I just go to a couple of points here. The reporter says:
- Now, the current government, the Labor government has been in power for eight to nine months. Are you
laying the blame here squarely at their feet, or is it the result of time and previous administrations?
- It’s actually a systemic problem, it’s gone on for quite a long time.
- … the AMA has been saying ever since I worked with them that the bureaucracy within the Health Department is
far too top heavy and that has a double effect, and so on, but the problem has been there for quite a long time.
- How is the minister handling it? I mean, here is a person who seems to have been under a fair degree of pressure.
She has certainly been targeted in the Legislative Assembly yesterday. How is she going in her job?
Ms Cahill:
- I think the difficulty for her was that she came into Health - which we all agree would be the most difficult portfolio
to inherit at any time - with very little awareness of health issues particularly, no background certainly in the
delivery of health services, so she’s had a huge learning curve.
… and the AMA has been certainly willing to do as much as we can to bring her up to speed as fast as possible.
We have had access to the minister, which has been good. It was something that we didn’t have in the past.
- We have had access to the minister, which has been good. It was something that we didn’t have in the past.
… we have had access to the minister which has been good. It was something that we didn’t have in the past.
It was quite difficult, often, to get access to ministerial staff and to the minister in previous time.
In some issues we will be taking quite drastic steps to address this issue of safety for public servants in communities. To suggest and to put it on the record that it is all the fault of this minister and it all started on 28 August last year - it was happening before you were elected and it was happening when you were a nurse, I suggest, back in 1983.
I don’t intend to take too much longer of the time of the House. I have demonstrated to the opposition how they should go about a censure motion: get the points down, get your information together to substantiate the points. If you don’t have the evidence, you can’t back up the points, rub them out. Rub them out and start again; do it on the whiteboard so you don’t waste a lot of paper. Then get your senior staff around, your advisors, and you can have a bit of a think: ‘Can we prosecute that point? What am I going to say to prosecute that point before I move on to the next?’.
The opposition spokesman for health dropped this on the table, and then failed to address it. He failed to even look at it, forgot what he said, forgot why he was moving this substantive motion of censure against the minister for Health. It just seemed like a good idea. He said: ‘Let’s get in the minister for Health’. So right from the start, day one of the sittings, bang: ‘Oh, we missed day one. Let’s go, plan two: let’s censure the minister for Health on the second day of parliament’.
Okay, you have done it, but you have a long way to go. If you want a little advice, I am probably available at different times to take you through the process, and establish a case question by question. You would have seen us do it - you saw us do it - effectively censure you guys from the other side. I don’t know why you didn’t learn at the time. So effective, in fact, that you didn’t want to hear them in the end. When we wanted to censure you on the Darwin to Katherine transmission line, you didn’t want to hear it. We were getting too clever by then. They decided: ‘No, no, no, you are too good for us. We are not going to take you on’. So, you have a fair way to go, but that is all right. I am happy to assist along the way, but I don’t want to see the parliament’s time used up as a training room for a novice opposition. Madam Speaker, I move the question be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be supported.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mr Mills Ms Martin
Mr Reed Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Note Paper – Ombudsman
Annual Report 2000-01
Note Paper – Ombudsman
Annual Report 2000-01
Continued from 7 March 2001.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the Ombudsman’s 23rd Annual Report, which is the financial year 2000-01. Honourable members will be immediately aware that this covers the period before the Labour government gained office. With this in mind, the areas which I will highlight today will concentrate on how the public sector, under the Labor administration, is addressing the concerns raised by the Ombudsman, and doing that in a very positive manner.
Firstly, I think it is important to remind ourselves why we have an Ombudsman. The modern concept of the Ombudsman evolved from a Swedish model established in the early 1800s, and has since spread world-wide and been adopted in some 84 countries. In Australia today, the basic objective of an Ombudsman is to try to provide an accessible and effective means of dealing with complaints arising from defective administration by government agencies. The Ombudsman is independent of government and is responsible to parliament.
The purpose of the annual report, as noted in the forward, is threefold: to assure the Legislative Assembly that the Ombudsman has carried out his or her functions and responsibilities in a proper and accountable manner; to provide feedback to the community about issues which have arisen in relation to the provision of services by the public sector, as highlighted by the complaints received; and to demonstrate to the public that the office of the Ombudsman has operated efficiently and provides an effective complaint resolution mechanism.
The role of the Ombudsman is continuously evolving to meet the expectations of the public and the parliament. The Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act commenced at self-government in 1978 and, although it has been subject to a number of amendments, it has yet to be thoroughly reviewed. To ensure the legislation of the Territory’s Ombudsman meets the current and future expectations of Territorians, I have commissioned a full review of the act. The review panel is currently developing a public consultation process, and I am looking forward to providing more detailed information to honourable members in the near future.
Turning now to consider the Ombudsman’s annual report in more detail, I note that the Ombudsman has raised concerns regarding the resources available to him, that the perceived under-resourcing has, to quote him: ‘eroded the independence of the office’. I am pleased to announce that my government has recognised a potential shortfall in the resources available to the Ombudsman, and has made an increased allocation to the office of $114 000 per year for personnel costs, commencing in 2001-02, and a one-off allocation this financial year of $55 000 for information technology.
It is reassuring to know that Territorians are not afraid to voice their concerns if they feel they have been unfairly done by. In 2000-01, there was some 1900 approaches to the Ombudsman, an increase of 13% on the previous year. After removing the approaches which were outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, the increase was 6%, or 1100 approaches. It is also reassuring to know that the vast majority of the initial queries did not require action or investigation.
Take, for example, the police force, which was the area of government that received the highest number of approaches - some 360. Of these, only 23%, or 85, required investigation. While 85 complaints represents 85 possible instances of defective actions, let’s put this figure into perspective. Every year, there are tens of thousands of contacts between members of the police and Territorians, sometimes in the most difficult of circumstances. Only a very small number of these result in complaints, and of those investigated, only a very small number are actually substantiated. This indicates to me - and should indicate to other honourable members - that generally speaking, we are well served by our police force. To further ensure that these processes meet contemporary requirements, the Commissioner of Police is actively involved in the review of the Ombudsman Act. The review will address a number of issues that have arisen from judicial interpretation, such as the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, the subpoena of complaint documents, and disciplinary time limits.
The area of government which received the second highest level of complaints was Correctional Services, with almost 130 matters. Of these, 74% were found by the Ombudsman to be unsubstantiated. Of the 26% which were found to be proven against the agency, Correctional Services has taken positive steps to address the concerns raised by both the Ombudsman and the complainants. The Ombudsman has identified access to telephones by prisoners as an area of ongoing complaint. To address this, a new telephone system is to be installed before the end of the current financial year. This prison telephone system will address the Ombudsman’s concern regarding prisoner access to relatives and friends. It will also give direct access to the Ombudsman’s Office and legal practitioners.
A further example of Correctional Services successfully examining its systems in response to issues raised by the Ombudsman is in relation to prisoner property. The property holding facilities at Darwin Correctional Centre have been redesigned and the development of a new standardised prisoners property manual is underway.
Whilst, understandably, the majority of the Ombudsman’s annual report is concerned with complaints against agencies - that after all is the nature of the exercise - there are also accolades awarded to various agencies and their staff. The Ombudsman notes that he has generally had a good relationship with agencies, and singled out the Power and Water Authority, Territory Housing and the then Territory Health Services for their commitment to cooperating with the Ombudsman in improving client outcomes.
One area where the Ombudsman should soon be receiving fewer complaints is in regards to access to government documents and information. The Ombudsman notes and I quote from his report: ‘There is a need to introduce legislation so as to ensure the public have a clearly defined right of access to government held information’. My government’s Information Act will address these needs and, after its implementation, Territorians will enjoy a more open and accessible government than has been the case in the past year.
Another area that I wish to bring to your attention is the self-certification process in regard to the building industry that has been identified as an area of concern for some time. The government is currently considering proposals for the introduction of both a mandatory builders’ indemnity insurance scheme and builders’ licensing. My government is committed to ensuring that all participants in the building industry are held accountable, and that public confidence in the industry is high.
Whilst there are many issues in the Ombudsman’s 2000-01 Annual Report that deserve highlighting to honourable members, the final area that I wish to bring to your attention concerns land planning. The government recently endorsed a further development of a consolidated, integrated and rationalised planning scheme to apply to the whole of the Territory, replacing a multitude of separate control plans. I am confident that, combined with other proposed reforms to the planning process - for example, the introduction of limited third party appeal rights - the planning scheme and process will meet the expectations of the community in a balanced and equitable manner.
The Ombudsman provides one of the essential checks and balances within our bureaucracy by offering an accessible and effective means of dealing with complaints arising from administrative decisions by government agencies. The role of the Ombudsman is not an easy one. It is carried out expeditiously and to a high professional standard by the Ombudsman and staff in the Darwin and Alice Springs offices. I certainly thank them for their efforts. Also, let us not forget the public servants in all agencies who respond to requests for information and who participate in investigations and inquiries.
Honorable members, I commend the annual report to you.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was listening carefully to the Chief Minister’s response because she did raise a couple of issues that were of concern to the Ombudsman in his report. I am not quite sure if I heard her correctly, but in any case, in my comments I will pick up on those first.
With regard to the funding issue, I recognise that the Ombudsman’s office and this report, as the Chief Minister said, was under my period as Chief Minister. She did point to the fact that, with regard to funding issues, there has been $114 000 additional allocation this financial year. If that is the case, I simply ask the question is that on top of the $62 000 or $72 000 I recall was one-off funding in the mini-budget, or is that new monies on top of that? I am not quite sure what the answer is there. As I said, I was trying to listen to what she said.
She states also that she has commissioned a full review of the Ombudsman’s Act. It is certainly not pointed to as a need in that report. However, that aside, if that review does look at the relationship between the Police Commissioner, complaints against police, and the jurisdictional issues by the Ombudsman into police complaints, that has been an ongoing problem. In this report it states, and I understood, that those demarcation areas were resolved with the agreement of the Police Commissioner. If there are ongoing problems that a review and a change to the act will achieve, I am certainly pleased to hear that. We will be looking to see what those changes are. If they are constructive and positive, we will certainly support them. I have always felt that the demarcation issues between the Ombudsman and the police are wrong. Notwithstanding the good efforts of the Ombudsman, I certainly believe the police themselves should be given greater autonomy in terms of dealing directly with complaints against them, providing there is sufficient oversight.
The other thing the Chief Minister mentioned was the fact that there would be a telephone system installed, so that prisoners had a direct line to the Ombudsman. Interesting concept. That is all I can say: interesting concept. It seems to me that, obviously, some thought has gone into it. I would like some explanation as to why there is a necessity for a direct line to the Ombudsman. I would have thought that, in that particular process, there would be some authority whereby the corrections officers themselves could become involved, if for no other reason than to protect the Ombudsman and the workload that could be placed on his own office. It wouldn’t be to stifle the opportunity for a legitimate complaint to be put. I do wonder what and how this particular initiative would work whereby, as I understand the Chief Minister, a prisoner finds the right phone and directly rings the Ombudsman’s office. This would be a privilege, I would have thought, that is not even provided to the average law-abiding Territorian.
She also mentioned the self-certification process and talked about changes to the Planning Act that will assist in those areas. I am not quite sure if that was what the Ombudsman himself was pointing to. He is really talking about the self-certification by certifiers on builders themselves. Building registration and changes to the Planning Act are two totally separate issues. He is talking about the people who come in there and actually certify whether or not the construction has been done appropriately, and whether there has been sufficient audit within the department itself on those particular processes. On that issue alone, I agree. There is a great deal of concern, not only in the self-certification in that particular area, but self-certification across the board. Up until the change of government, I can tell you that I, for one, was becoming more and more concerned about this whole business of self-certification. There is a place for adequate inspection and I believe, in that regard, much more effort is needed.
As I said, in general terms the report covers the period of the previous government. The main issues pointed to in the report are really ones that come down to funding for the Ombudsman’s office. That is an issue for the new government to decide and something that, there is no doubt, the Ombudsman continually put to my government: the work within the resources that he was allocated. If the Chief Minister, in this new budget coming forward, believes that the Ombudsman’s office needs further additional funding, we would be interested to hear the reasons for that particular funding.
I thought it was an excellent report, actually. It is a very good report in terms of a small organisation reporting against outcomes. On page 15 of the report, the Ombudsman states very clearly the corporate plan: the vision to have a Northern Territory public sector that is recognised and respected as providing a fair, efficient and quality administrative service to the public; and the Office of the Ombudsman evidencing best practice in the provision of its services. It lays down its mission clearly: to resolve complaints in an appropriate, fair, just, and independent manner in respect of administrative actions by government agencies and local government councils; actions in the conduct of police; to assist parliament in safeguarding the public interest; and to work in cooperation with the Northern Territory public sector agencies for improvement of the quality of service to the public. It then goes on to list the goals of the Ombudsman’s office which are: complaints are examined and resolved in a timely and effective manner; agencies to improve and deliver services in a fair, equitable and impartial manner; the public is aware of and can access services provided by the Ombudsman; and the office is well managed, resourced and accountable.
For many departments, particularly larger departments in the Northern Territory, they can get that far pretty easily. It is when they then report against those particular goals that the Auditor-General has been continually critical. If one wants to see what I believe, on my reading of this report, is a very good example of a small department reporting very appropriately and clearly against each of the goals - and reporting against those goals begins on page 48. He goes through each of those goals and reports on his own performance against them. I found that to be not only very pleasing but easy to read and, I thought, a very good example of how an agency should report to parliament. It is certainly an indication of how some other agencies need to lift their own performance.
In page 35, he goes through general key areas of complaint. The Chief Minister said that the new freedom of information bill that her government will bring forward will fix all of his issues. We know from what the Ombudsman has already said, that the current draft freedom of information legislation doesn’t go near that. I have said in this parliament before that I believe that his comments are probably the most interesting and best comments I have heard in regard to FOI overall. The challenge for the government is to see how far they can meet those requirements as laid down …
Ms Martin: Anything we do is better than you did, mate.
Mr BURKE: Well, the Chief Minister says that ‘they will do better than we will, mate’. Doing better than we did, mate, so far has meant that she has rolled out only what we did, mate! With a new heading, mate! What you have to do now, is really come forward with FOI in the manner that you have promised Territorians. Surely the Chief Minister’s memory can go back far enough to say: ‘Let’s get rid of all exemptions, then we will be at the forefront of all FOI right around Australia’. She seems to have forgotten that particular call now she has experienced the difficulties of government and the requirements that governments have to meet in ensuring that there are some things that are appropriately exempt from the public but, at the same time, meeting a growing expectation that government is more free with the information. The areas that the Ombudsman points to are interesting examples for her to address.
I was surprised about the comment on the provision of services to Aboriginal people, and also surprised the Chief Minister didn’t make reference to that. I am surprised by the level of complaint and the amount of time that the Ombudsman took in this report in addressing that complaint from the Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee, where he believes that he has been unfairly targeted and unfairly criticised for his efforts in regard to ensuring that Aboriginal people have access to his own services. Again, that is something for the new government to address. I am sure they will be doing that when they are looking at the operational funding issues for that particular department.
As I said, the Chief Minister’s and my comments pretty well cover the thrust of this report. In essence, it is a good report. It points very clearly to the efforts of the Ombudsman and his staff. It lays out very clearly for everyone to see, the level of complaints that the Ombudsman deals with, and the performance areas where they have managed to deal with those complaints. It is worth noting that an initiative of my government, fair or unfair in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was to put the Health Services Complaint Commission with the Ombudsman. That was a decision and a task load that he has managed extremely well. In the report, it shows very clearly that the level of complaints in the Health Services Complaint Commission has increased by 60% since 1998-99. In his own office there has been a 34% increase in approaches to the office over the last five years. So, the level of workload is clearly increasing. That is a good thing in many regards, that people have confidence in the Ombudsman and in being able to approach his office and get a fair hearing on areas where they believe that they have a complaint. I can only say that, from my experience, I applaud his efforts, with the one proviso that he has had problems with the police and those jurisdictional issues, and the sooner that they are resolved permanently, the better.
With those few comments, I thank the Ombudsman for his report. For those who are interested in reading the report, I would say that, as I said, it is a very good report for those members to peruse, particularly in the performance areas and how he reports on those performance areas. I thank the Ombudsman not only for the report, but for the continuing dedication of both him and his staff to that particular role.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MOTION
Note Statement - November 2001 Mini-Budget
Note Statement - November 2001 Mini-Budget
Continued from 29 November 2001.
Mr REED (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to contribute to this debate. History, of course, will record the deceitfulness of the mini-budget that was brought down by the Labor party within a few months of them gaining government. I think it is already legendary across the Territory, that people have become aware of just what the Labor Party was all about with their mini-budget, in terms of it really being directed at funding Labor Party promises leading up to the election, which were excessive. Some means had to be found to be able to meet those excessive promises.
In addition to that, of course, people have twigged to the fact that the alleged $107m black hole and the measures that were put in place by the government to address it, add up to something in the order of $160m. People are aware of the fact that, if you have a problem of a certain size, then you don’t find a solution that is almost twice as big. People will quickly be alerted to the fact that they are being got at, and that is precisely what they think about the particular measures that were put in place.
Another point that Territorians are raising regularly in relation to the revenue raising measures that were put in place by the government to meet the so-called black hole, are that they are not one-off issues that will last a couple of years to be able to meet that perceived need. For example, the $90 on vehicle registration which was put in place and said to have a sunset clause but, of course, is an ongoing imposition on the Territory taxpayer. I would very much doubt if we are going to see a sunset clause in relation to the 5% increase in water and sewerage tariffs. I would ask the Chief Minister and Treasurer to explain to us tonight whether or not the water and sewerage charges will, in fact, be reduced after the so-called black hole has been filled? If she doesn’t do that, she will be again demonstrating the deceitfulness of these revenue raising measures. That one, in particular, will go on forever, well beyond any need to raise funding to fill the black hole.
One that industry and business is just coming to terms with, and I suspect will also be here forever notwithstanding - and I quote from the Hansard what the Chief Minister and Treasurer said on page 376 of Tuesday 27th November:
To bring the Territory’s fiscal position under control, a deficit reduction strategy is an essential component.
And then she goes on to say:
The revenue raising measures are:
One was the $90 improvement levy on vehicles, and that is said to have a sunset clause; another was increase in vehicle and driver licence fees. I hope that they too will disappear at the end of the day, at some appropriate time. Another was an increase on the rate imposed on pastoral rents: 1% to 2%. I would like to hear from the Chief Minister and Treasurer if, when the alleged black hole is filled, if those rates will be reduced by the same amount to reflect some decency and honesty in relation to this process. I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer to tell us if the 5% increase in water and sewerage tariffs that were imposed solely to fill the black hole - in her words in the mini-budget - will be reduced by 5% when the alleged black hole is filled. These are questions that are being asked by the Territory taxpayer. Most importantly, of course, is the waste charges for the disposal of non-domestic strength sewage.
This last item is an imposition that business is now having to tackle. Those charges have been put in place and the Power and Water Authority is now getting around to businesses and explaining to them the extent of the imposition. I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer - given that some seven months has passed since she advised the house and Territorians of the imposition of that charge – to explain what the structure of it is. Will there be a minimum charge in relation to that particular imposition? No doubt she would have the ability to respond to this tonight if she was across her job. If so, what is that minimum charge? If it varies across different categories of business, types of waste and quantities of waste, then at least give us some examples so that businesses may have some idea of the level of that imposition.
She might also demonstrate to us whether she has been purely deceitful in terms of saying that this is just a revenue measure for the alleged black hole, or if this cost is, indeed, going to be with us forever. Territory businesses needs to know. Territory businesses have suffered very severely, as have other Territorians in relation to the mini-budget, and it is time for the government to come clean in terms of the extent of this particular charge. I think that it is going to be quite extensive and it is going to be a large impost on business.
I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer to explain whether there is a sliding scale of charges; if the charges are graduated across a range of users; and just what the base charge is. The Chief Minister and Treasurer, if she is across her job, will be able to give that answer tonight, and that will be of some elucidation to the business community in relation to the extent of those charges. There is a great level of suspicion in relation to whether or not that charge will disappear at the end of the filling of the black hole. I fear that it will not, because there has been a bit of duplicity there by the Chief Minister. What she and the government has done, is try to cobble a fee that will last forever, and blame it on the former government. People are now a wake-up to that ploy and they don’t accept it. In not accepting it, what they are looking for is an explanation in relation to the structure of the fee and how it is going to be applied. If the Chief Minister could give us a couple of examples in relation to quantities and type of waste, or the type of businesses it is going to be structured towards.
Further, the imposition on, and the money that has been ripped out of the public service, has created unprecedented disruption across the public sector in the Northern Territory. We have seen some very sad results in relation to the impact of the mini-budget, in that some very good professional and long experienced employees have left. They just weren’t prepared to take this nonsense in relation to the impost that it placed upon them, and the fact that they were doing the government’s work, or expected to do the government’s work. Many of them decided that they weren’t going to be part of that. If the government wasn’t courageous enough to take the flack for this, then they were going to wear it on their behalf. That has, in itself, a very long-term cost in relation to the loss of that experience and the knowledge that those people take out the door with them. It will take a long time to recover, because some of those people had been in the public service a very long time and the corporate knowledge that they had, for example, was valuable in itself. Most of that corporate knowledge has been lost and that is very sad.
The other impact is that, for those people left in the public service, there are fewer of them to do the work. We heard the nonsensical answer in the last sittings from the minister for Public Employment when he stated quite proudly that over 200 public servants are no longer with us. The figure is no doubt much more, and the Chief Minister and Treasurer might give us that information tonight in her response: in relation to the extent of the reduction of public servants in the public service as a result of the cutbacks, and what impost that has had to public service employment numbers. That is very important and it reflects directly on this mini-budget statement, the matter of this debate. It is another impact that has been created. Those people who are left in the public service are now required to do more with less, and they have less people to do the work, and as a consequence …
Dr Burns: What about the good news of building activity increasing? What about the good news of increased tourism?
Mr Elferink: That is why they are going broke; why builders are shutting their doors.
Mr REED: What about the bad news of the building company that has just left the Northern Territory because of the dramatic downturn in the building activity?
I pick up the interjection. The company hasn’t left because it has gone broke, it has left because it doesn’t see a future here. It is Glenwood Homes, a large company based in Cairns. They have said: ‘This place, since the Labor government’s come into place, is not for me and we see no future in relation to the domestic building future in the Northern Territory’. They are packing up and going home. So, don’t hold those examples up in relation to how good you think the economy is.
In relation to the economy, it is interesting that the government has been crowing over the last few days about how strong it has been. If you go to the business community and ask them how good it is, you will get quite a different story. Indeed, I visited a couple of businesses yesterday at lunch time, and they were not crowing in the same way that the minister was crowing about the strength of the economy in the paper on Monday. The businessman I spoke to yesterday at lunchtime whose house and business had been broken into seven times this year wasn’t a happy chap either, and wasn’t speaking at all in glowing terms about the current Labor government. So, it is not all as rosy as you have been portraying in relation to many of the circumstances that people across the community are experiencing.
In addition to the disruption across the public service, I would like the Chief Minister to also indicate to the House the costs of establishing the mega-departments that the mini-budget was instrumental in introducing. I refer to things like the changes of stationery. I know information brochures and posters in some agencies have had to be scrapped because they had old logos on them. They received directions to shred them. That, in fact, was quite distressing to some of the people in some agencies who had been directly involved in the design and the production of those posters, which were very informative for the community. The orders to trash those and to reprint under the new regime demonstrates an enormous level of childishness in relation to the attitudes of the new government; that anything old had to be scrapped because it had something to do with the former government. They are overlooking the work that individuals had put into those sorts of things. If the Chief Minister could give us some advice in relation to that, I am sure it would be appreciated - if by no other people than those who worked hard to prepare that work.
The statement also made a particular number of references to things that were going to be done this financial year. It is reporting time for the Chief Minister and Treasurer in relation to how she is going with regards to the implementation of the commitments that she, as head of government, made in this statement on 27 November. In particular, I refer to the recruitment of an additional 10 nurses in 2001-02, increasing to 75 by the end of this term of government. I am not interested in the 75, but I am very interested in the 10.
Ms Martin: Two more in Alice Springs Hospital. We have established that today.
Mr REED: Well, there are two. Okay, even if you take that - and, of course we can’t, because that just demonstrates the deceitfulness of the Chief Minister in that those additional two are short-term employees. What the Chief Minister has to understand is that, if she is recruiting additional nurses, they have to be additional to the establishment. They don’t have to be over and above the establishment but they have to be permanent new positions. For example, to make it clear to the Chief Minister, if the establishment is 502, then is has to go up to 512 to meet her extra 10 that she has promised Territorians for this financial year. There are only a matter of weeks left to the end of the financial year, so I will not accept any answer from the Chief Minister in relation to ‘the year is not over yet so I can’t give you an answer’. Whilst the year isn’t over, if these positions are to be filled by the end of the year, recruitment action must now be in place. The Chief Minister has no way out of answering what the position of that commitment is. She has to tell us the situation in relation to the promise of the additional 10 nurses this financial year, and she has to tell us what hospital or hospitals those 10 nurses have been allocated to.
There is also reference to the recruitment of additional regional health care teams commencing in 2001-02, with an additional 25 nurses being employed by the end of 2002-03. That implementation was to be commenced this financial year. Again, there are only a matter of weeks before the financial year ends. If they are not in place, that is not such a big deal. But if action has not been taken to recruit those additional staff and have them in place before the end of the financial year, that is a big deal, because it is another promise that will have been broken by this government within its first year in office.
Another commitment I would like the Chief Minister and Treasurer to give Territorians is about the renal dialysis services for Tennant Creek. Much crowing was done in relation to this initiative - and I think that it is a good initiative – when the announcement was made regarding the introduction of this service. It was for 10 patients to be treated. The honourable member for Barkly would, I expect, be very familiar with this promise. As I recall, the basis for the announcement for this service was a report by the Menzies School of Health. That was held up by the government as: ‘This is what the report says and this is what we are going to do’. What you were going to do in relation to and in accordance with that report, was provide a service for 10 people. You made a commitment to meet the funding amounts of $800 000 that were identified in that report, yet I note that only $400 000 was allocated. Again, that needs explanation by the Chief Minister and Treasurer in relation to what was promised - $800 000 and 10 positions - and what, in fact, they are now going to do - $400 000. Why the difference?
In addition, and I quote again from Hansard:
- Capacity has been provided to recruit an additional 20 teachers from the 2002 school year.
How many have been recruited? I point out to the Chief Minister that it says ‘from the 2002 year’, not ‘after the 2002 year’. There is an expectation across the teaching service that the 20 teachers will be forthcoming. Has recruitment action commenced for those additional 20 teachers? If not, why not, and when will that commitment be met by the government?
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you can see from my remarks that there are numerous issues that the government now has to report on. They will find time goes quickly in government, from the day that the commitment is made to the day that the answer has to be given; and they have reached that stage. Today is the day that the answers have to be given in relation to those particular items. Can I say before the Chief Minister and Treasurer gets to her feet, that Territorians are thoroughly sick and tired - and they will not want to hear it repeated parrot fashion tonight again by the Chief Minister – of all the waxing lyrical about how terrible the CLP was. All of that has been run through, people are sick of it. Everywhere you go, particularly in the public service, the jokes are increasing on a daily basis about how the government blames everyone else, and is doing nothing and making no decisions on their own account.
These are the questions raised in relation to the promises made in November last year by the Chief Minister and the government. They probably thought, at the time, that the answer time was going to be a long way into the future. Well, it is here already. In relation to those particular issues that I have raised, people are waiting for the answers. They will not accept any more burblings about former governments, it is too hard, and all of the other excuses that have been coming forward. In the eyes of the public and those people who work in the public service and private enterprise across the Northern Territory, there is no alternative now but for the Chief Minister to knuckle down to the job and start giving answers. She can demonstrate that tonight by giving answers to those specific issues that I have raised regarding the specific promises that she made and said she would undertake this financial year. It is now time for her to be honest with Territorians and give a report card on the progress. I would appreciate it if the Chief Minister could proceed to do that in her response.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I preface my remarks on Labor’s responsible, fair and honest mini-budget introduced to this Assembly in the November sittings, with the advice to members that all figures contained within my speech are gross outlays and receipts as contained within mini-budget Paper No 2. The mini-budget strips away the waste in opulence of previous CLP governments - particularly the Burke government – while improving core essential community services of health, education and law and order. This is a mini-budget that has at its core a debt reduction strategy, while maintaining public service jobs and the essential services our public servants provide to Territorians.
We are spending, in an environment of inheriting a flat economy, an essential tool supporting growth. The latest economic indicators vindicate the wisdom of this strategy. There has been a drop in unemployment rates ahead of the national average. Yet, we are also addressing the outrageous budget fiddling undertaken by the discredited member for Katherine and his sidekick leader, by taking on the painful task of revenue raising through a temporary budget levy, because of inheriting an unsustainable budget outlook. I repeat, an unsustainable budget outlook. We are a tough but fair government that understands and listens to the needs of Territorians. Our mini-budget is proof of such, and I commend our Cabinet and their staff for their tireless efforts in bedding down a mini-budget within months of taking government for the first time in Territory history.
The Office of the Chief Minister will achieve savings of $4.4m. Our Labor Chief Minister does not squander the privilege of her office, unlike CLP predecessors. Indeed, the Chief Minister has shown the personal fortitude required to belt tighten where sometimes it is the hardest: close to home. The Legislative Assembly budget is reduced by $356 000, a reduction that I am aware has not been without its critics, but we are about leading by example. The good news is that this government is not into a quick cash grab through asset stripping; we have protected out assets and will not sell off NT Fleet.
A quick look at the key elements in our mini-budget shows a $1.7m improvement to the finances of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development. This department is now dynamic, with sectors of the community embracing DBIRD initiatives in pursuing, in particular, oil and gas agreements, tourism and mining. Health and Community Services was the big mini-budget winner, with a massive increase of $34.4m. This was funding identified by the department as essential to delivering vital services this financial year. We listened and we acted, and I’ll move to more specific comments later.
Infrastructure, planning and environment benefited to the tune of $14.3m. Our minister has already announced improvements to the minor new capital works program and has delivered environment initiatives including the solar hot water system rebate scheme, infrastructure corridors for the railway, oil and gas; and an action long overdue: land use objectives that can go out for public consultation.
This mini-budget establishes the basis for our future planning and growth with the Office of Territory Development. The Office of Territory Development will be a centre to gather knowledge and pursue innovation, seeking the projects and investment the Territory needs to become the economic powerhouse of Australia’s north. It is already operational, staffed, and providing a pivotal role in our pursuit of oil and gas agreements.
It is with delight that I outline initiatives in the Department of Employment, Education and Training that, importantly, create a greater nexus between school education and training, establishing the pathways we need to employment. Crucially the mini-budget provides for an additional $1.2m fit-out and establishment costs for schools; a $5m increase in base operational funding for the new teachers’ EBA; and $1.1m towards the progressive employment of 100 additional teachers over the next four years. This is, indeed, very welcome news for our school communities that have been crying out for an increase in the number of teachers for years, yet their pleas had previously fallen on the deaf ears of a CLP government.
The mini-budget has provided for the long awaited implementation of the Collins Learning Lessons report recommendations, that addressed the inequity faced by our young in remote and regional areas of the Northern Territory. This mini-budget clearly aims to focus on nurturing a safe and skilled workforce. It brings together core services of education, employment and training and also doubles the Work Health budget from $4.1m in the May budget to more than $10m in our mini-budget. Along with improved safety at work, Territorians will benefit from community safety initiatives in this mini-budget.
Importantly, community support and crime prevention services receive a $915 000 injection of funds. Crime investigation and prosecution gains an additional $768 000, while road safety benefits from an additional $230 000 and, crucially, emergency management gains close to $400 000.
Ours was a mini-budget that clearly promotes and resources Labor’s recognition of the importance of law and order to our society, specifically in relation to improving community safety. This is a good news budget for our northern suburbs residents. Residents in Karama and Malak are welcoming the progressive employment of 50 extra police, seven support staff, and six additional vehicles over the next four years.
This mini-budget bottom line is about improving the planning and provision of government measures that will improve the lifestyle of Territorians. We are about making communities safer. We are tackling the crime that we saw spiral out of control under CLP neglect. Importantly for those who suffer the impact of crime - and unfortunately, in any society this is inevitable - they will finally receive much needed, long overdue assistance through a victim support boost of an additional $118 000.
This government is also clearly committed to encouraging the economic development of our industries. This is crucial in a jurisdiction the size of the Northern Territory. Our mini-budget provides for injections of $905 000 into development of the pastoral industry, $404 000 into development of the agricultural industry, $155 000 into the development of a fishing industry, and $180 000 into the development of the horticultural industry.
Dear to my heart, we will also deliver a $411 000 increase to ecologically sustainable development of primary industry. This is the way forward for our rural communities, and we have recognised its importance through a mini-budget increase. At the same time, we boosted business and industry development funding by $254 000, taking it to $10.4m. This provides for government initiatives that include the establishment of short course business skills workshops funding of $130 000, and the establishment of business case managers funding of $250 000. This is truly welcome news to our often unsung heroes: the small and medium sized businesses. These are the men and women of the Territory with drive and initiative - incredibly hard workers whom government must support, and our government is supporting - that provide the growth in both jobs and our economy, and bless them.
I now move to comment on the Department of Health and Community Services, the undoubted biggest winner in our mini-budget with a funding injection of $34.4m. This heralds across-the-board increases that include an additional $16.5m for hospital services, $7.1m for community health, $2.3m for family and children’s services, with importantly, $1.1m additional going to crisis support. This government is about supporting families, particularly families in crisis. Our response through the mini-budget to community needs is a thread woven throughout government’s actions and is highly commendable.
However, it is the Territory’s shame that a generation in our remote communities is being decimated by petrol sniffing and other substance abuse. Former Health ministers who sat here in the Chamber today attacking our Health minister - who is taking action - chose to ignore Territory youths in dire need of help. They failed to address their needs and consequently condemned them and their families to a living hell. The opposition is constantly whining: ‘What is our government doing?’ The mental health services budget gained a major injection of $1.043m in the new budget.
In addition, we provided an additional $939 000 for collaborative partnerships in program and service. ‘Collaborative partnerships’ is a new terminology, I guess, for the opposition. They have never ventured down those paths, hence the crises we have inherited. Collaboration is essential in tackling the mental health crisis in our bush communities. Instead of burying our heads in the sand while communities bury their young, we will strive in a cooperative, multifaceted fashion to tackle this crisis head on. The budget initiatives ensure that our government begins to address the crisis while the parliamentary Substance Abuse in the Community Committee investigates the crisis and, hopefully, identifies further initiatives. I wish my parliamentary colleagues godspeed and strength in their critical endeavours.
The Health promotion will receive an additional $159 000, bringing the crucial preventative budget to $2.2m. I am delighted to say that, in concert with our emphasis on prevention, we have increased funding to the Menzies School of Health Research by $231 000, to bring the Northern Territory government portion of funding to this nationally respected and august research school to $3.2m.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the Minister for Health and Community Services and her fellow Cabinet ministers for substantially boosting government spending on health. This, indeed, is a just and fair mini-budget adhering to fiscal responsibility while improving core essential community services that improve the lifestyle of all - and I emphasise all - Territorians.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their comments in the debate that we started some six months ago, and thank them for their contributions - some more gracious than others, let me put it that way.
The mini-budget was an early achievement of this government to put the Territory’s finances back on a sound footing. The culture of delivering and managing budgets had been severely undermined by the former Chief Minister and former Treasurer. I think that is something that we need to keep to the forefronts of our minds in here; that the importance that we now, as a government, place on having budgets where you can trust the figures is absolutely critical. It does worry me that we have had a debate that has included the former Treasurer, whose only words in analysing what has happened and his part in it, is to accuse this government of deceit and duplicity. I find that an extraordinary response from a man who was the Treasurer for a long time - many years - and had an enormous responsibility. When it was uncovered - and I think substantially so - that he did fudge figures and he wrote the bottom line of budgets in his office outside Treasury advice, it is important that we are changing that culture. I believe that we are doing it effectively. In this parliament, you have to be able to trust the bottom figures of the budget; you have to be able to say that the line that you see at the bottom is real rather than a fantasy.
Remember why we had the mini-budget. We shouldn’t have needed this mini-budget. We should have been able to come into office and say that the budgets that were delivered last May in this House actually were honest budgets and were ones that we could work forward with. We had used the figures put into this House by the former administration with our financial statement and costed our promises against those. Our costings were done honestly. They were ticked off by very hard task masters in Access Economics. Yet I found out in the first week of taking office that those figures were rubbery; they were rubbish and they could not be trusted. Not only were we not in a position that we could manage, but we were in an unsustainable financial position.
‘Unsustainable’ is not said lightly by our Treasury. Everyone in this House knows our Treasury. To be told that the position was unsustainable was a substantial shock, not only to the new government, but to our community. There comes a bottom line that you have to trust something; and if you can’t trust the bottom line of the budget figures, then what do you trust? That really was a culture that developed and one that was a real indictment on the previous administration. It would have been good in this debate on the mini-budget if we could have had the former Treasurer come in here and tackle the issues, rather than just go back to his fall-back position, his default position. This seems to be when he doesn’t like what’s happening, or doesn’t want to admit to what is happening, he simply turns around and calls the current Treasurer or Chief Minister deceitful, and the current government full of duplicity. It is a shallow argument. It is one that he has relied on for many years now, but it is sad to see. It undermines every contribution he makes when his first point of responding to any argument is: you must be deceitful.
It is very important to remember that part of the mini-budget was the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act which now says that kind of behaviour will not happen again. This is a very important part and a real hallmark, I believe, of this new government. It represents and an historic shift for the Territory. From the mini-budget on, budgets in the Territory will not be able to be manipulated in the way that they were under the CLP. While government will set the policies, quite appropriately, it is Treasury that will cost them. The Under Treasurer will have to sign off on those figures, both in the budget as well as the mid-year reports.
I would like to go to some of the comments made by the Opposition Leader in his response to this mini-budget back in November. Referring back to those comments, the Opposition Leader predicted gloom and doom for the Territory as a result of the mini-budget. I would say to this parliament and the Opposition Leader that the turnaround that we have seen in the economy in the past six months, certainly undermine the prediction you gave then of gloom and doom.
Part of that turnaround has been the money that this government put into the capital works program and into minor new works. There is no doubt about it; it was in a disgraceful state. We had considerable funds into the capital works area, but none of it was in the area that was picking up on the small subcontractors. The $21m that was found and put into that important area of capital works has made a difference. We have seen residential construction start to pick up after very tough times. Certainly, QuickStart II - and I recognise the success of QuickStart I; when you see a good thing, why not repeat it? - had an impact over that low time of the Christmas season. We have seen a number of major constructions. Only yesterday, TIO announced $24m for construction of their new TIO building just across the road here. They have carefully looked at the market and have said: ‘We have confidence in this market; it is turning around’. With the other indicators that we see of unemployment now dropping down below the national average and participation rates growing in our economy, it is a really healthy sign.
I don’t have to say the railway, of course, is not our project. I recognise the work done by the current Opposition Leader, the previous Chief Minister, and the work done by so many public servants and the business community in getting that railway up and running. It is good to see that we have hundreds of jobs now in the railway. As I pointed out yesterday, those 508 jobs to the end of March represents 15% of the increase in the gross participation rate in the job market. A lot of other areas are growing, and this does represent a substantial turnaround in our market, which has been struggling now for two years.
The predictions this year from Treasury are of 5% growth. We have Access Economics saying about 4.5% and BIS Shrapnel about the same as Treasury. So we have excellent growth figures for this year. Put that together with what is happening in other jurisdictions and we are looking healthy here in the Territory. But I wouldn’t deny that there are still tough times for Territorians, and there are still some businesses that are doing it tough. We are very concerned that we can identify those areas, and work with businesses to create the frameworks so that those businesses can have better times.
There is no doubt about it, that the impact of 11 September and then, a few days later, the collapse of Ansett had an enormous impact. If you look at the tourism figures that we are facing for the coming Dry Season they are looking good. The work that was done to build up the domestic drive market - not only the domestic drive market but the domestic tourism market generally - is starting to pay off for Territory businesses involved in tourism. Of course, all the flow-on across other businesses as well, will have an impact over this Dry Season.
The work has had to be put in and I would say that we have, as a government, put that work in. We have worked closely with the business sector, but it still does not mean that the tough times are gone; they are still there for many businesses. But it is good to see the turnaround, and that it is underpinned consecutively, month by month, by the figures we have seen.
To go specifically to the mini-budget, no one is denying that the measures we introduced in that mini-budget back in November as a direct result of the former CLP government’s mismanagement, were tough ones and that some level of short-term pain was inevitable for the long-term gain. We couldn’t sit there with a deficit of the size that we were inheriting, along with the ones that had gone on the previous year, and the highest level of net debt in the country - the second highest after Tasmania, I believe now. It was a high level of debt that couldn’t be sustained; it had to be tackled.
I believe that the measures we introduced were reasonable and fair, ensuring that key services were properly funded while delivering on fiscal sustainability. When you go through the mini-budget, we recognised the core areas for Territorians, the ones that we said, going into the election last year, were our priorities. We funded an additional $34m for health to make it sustainable; additional funds for education, police and core areas of the Territory environment and community. These were being dramatically under-funded by the previous administration. We have funded those key areas while delivering on fiscal sustainability.
In his contribution to the debate, the Opposition Leader seemed to think that there was some mystery as to why the Percy Allan report revealed a $107m black hole in his government’s last budget. Yet, a $126m deficit was predicted for 2001-02 in the mini-budget. If the Opposition Leader had taken the time to read mini-budget Paper No 3, page 11, he would have seen that by the time we got to November, the estimates of the black hole had increased from $107m at the time of Percy Allan’s report, to $139m. Our savings and revenue measures are, therefore, winding back the deficit that would have occurred if the previous CLP policies had been carried on unchanged.
The Opposition Leader also raised the issue of funding of the HIH liabilities, claiming that, somehow, there was a shortfall in what he had committed from Consolidated Revenue to meet the emerging costs of the nominal insurer versus the need to impose a levy. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was the CLP that first introduced legislation to impose a levy; that was passed in May of last year.
Mr Burke: I’ll knock it on the head. I’ll knock it on the head if you like. Don’t feel constrained by it.
Ms MARTIN: What Labor promised before the election, and what we have delivered on, is a commitment to fund, from Consolidated Revenue, all of the emerging liabilities for the calendar year of 2001; and that we have done. The $9m put towards the HIH liabilities and the costs that would have been carried by Territory businesses across that year have made a substantial difference. Despite the fact that the CLP was planning to impose such a levy …
Mr Burke: No, we weren’t.
Ms MARTIN: What were you going to do? $3m as a loan that you didn’t even say was a loan.
Mr Burke: No we weren’t, don’t tell lies.
Ms MARTIN: You were going to recover that. You were going to recover even that $3m loan. It is all very well for the Opposition Leader to sit there and say: ‘Don’t put a levy on’. What kind of amazing way were you going to come up with it? What kind of amazing way? Nobody is saying we welcomed the HIH collapse; no jurisdiction did. It had had a direct impact, particularly in the jurisdictions where there were a lot of premiums taken out with HIH. Tasmania, Western Australia and the Territory were those areas.
Mr Burke: There would be no levy with $150m extra from the Commonwealth. That is the factor.
Ms MARTIN: The fact that we have responsibly dealt with that; we have picked up the first year and have responsibly dealt now with the levy, I think is a real sign of a mature government. Nobody wanted HIH to collapse. Now, with hindsight, there is a lot of anecdotals about how low the premiums were and this could have been expected. But when we are dealing with that wider issue of public liabilities and how they have also grown, HIH is a considerable part of that. HIH has had a very severe and substantial impact on Territory businesses, in the west and Tasmania as well, but also on that wider issue of public liabilities. We are dealing with that in a very responsible way. It is all very well to sit there in opposition now and say: ‘I would do it a different way’. Well, you weren’t going to do it a different way in government so don’t try and reinvent history.
To finish with the HIH, we picked up all the emerging liabilities for calendar year 2001 and in the event, that funding of $6m is now likely to extend through to the end of this month. Between then and the end of the financial year, any increased outlays will be funded by a loan to the nominal insurer, that will mean no impact on the budget bottom line.
The Opposition Leader has also highlighted differences between estimates contained within Labor’s financial statement, issued prior to the last election, and the figures adopted in the mini-budget regarding the government’s new initiatives. I am very proud, along with this side of the House, of Labor’s financial statement. It was an extremely comprehensive document, in contrast with the pathetic effort supplied by the CLP. Waving around this very flimsy bit of paper with a few numbers added up, was the then government’s response to our very substantial and detailed Access Economics approved financial statement. It was an extremely comprehensive document, and it was prepared using the best estimates from publicly available information, much of which came from the previous government’s budget papers. Access Economics agreed with our methodology and our estimates on that basis. It provided a detailed breakdown of a comprehensive range of initiatives broken down over the entire forward estimates period, year by year.
Given the resources available to my office as Opposition Leader, compared to the resources available to the CLP at the time, this was, I believe, an admirable achievement. It was entirely appropriate however, that on achieving government, the statement was re-examined by Treasury and other agencies, and we welcomed this. This ensured the costings, many of which were based on whole-of-government averages for personnel and operating costs, were reviewed to take account of the information available within agencies.
On the whole, Labor’s financial statement was remarkably close to estimates agencies came up with. There were some ups and some downs. There was also acceptance that a number of initiatives could be funded from within existing departmental resources. Unlike the previous government who believed it could set the policies and set the costings too, at the political level, this government acknowledges the rightful role of Treasury and the agencies to properly cost the policy decisions of governments. Hence, that review was undertaken and Treasury’s figures, quite responsibly, were adopted in the mini-budget, not those of Labor’s financial statement.
Considering the wide range of costings that were included in that document, I believe that, by and large, we were pretty accurate. In some areas we costed too high, and were very pleased to see when Treasury said the costings were too high but they could be reduced. In others, and a very few others, they were under. Access Economics congratulated us on our methodology, and on the whole, the work was very thoroughly done. I believe it underpins, very successfully, where this Labor government will take the Territory, and the promises we will keep over our period of government.
I will respond to a few issues that were raised by the member for Katherine, the opposition’s Treasury spokesperson, in this debate. I do have problems responding to issues raised by the opposition’s spokesperson on this, because I believe that his credibility on this issue is remarkably undermined. As I said before, the only kind of response he has is to accuse the government of deceit, which is an extraordinary response from a man who has been Treasurer and, I believe, is a fairly intelligent man.
To listen to him in this debate simply trying to reinvent history, was a very poor performance. I will pick up the point of the budget improvement levy that we did introduce. We introduced the levy with a sunset clause. That sunset clause is written into legislation, so there is no point in someone like the Treasury spokesman from the opposition coming in here and saying ‘the supposed sunset clause’. Let me be very clear, it is a sunset clause. That levy - the CLP’s contribution because of the debt that was run up and the deceit that was run through the deficit - will go in three years.
Mr Burke: I think I said ‘as your war chest actually’.
Ms MARTIN: It is unfortunate. Nobody likes to impose taxes or charges, or anything like that. I saw the CLP come in here year after year, imposing new taxes, raising charges, raising taxes …
Mr Burke: Not a lot.
Ms MARTIN: … with no apology. You were not around long enough to see it.
This levy was imposed very reluctantly, but we had to tackle the black hole in the budget. We simply could not walk away, as a new government, from an unsustainable budget situation.
There are a few other issues that I could deal with. I will deal with them over time. I certainly would like to thank all the hard-working Treasury officials, and those from other agencies who contributed to this mini-budget, for the help that they gave us.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
PENALTIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 42)
INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 43)
(Serial 42)
INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 43)
Continued from 5 March 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the opposition has examined the bill and I can indicate will be supporting it. It is not a bill of enormous impact apart from this.
The main purpose of the Penalties Amendment Bill, as the Attorney-General quite properly pointed out, is to amend the Penalties Act, so the value of the penalty in it changes from $100 to $110. The second reading speech which the Attorney-General gave went through some of the history of the amending act. The upshot of it is that there is a slight increase in the basic penalty unit; a change in some of the terminologies; and it corrects and changes the name of the act. It changes the name to the Penalty Unit Act. I can say that the opposition do not oppose this bill, and will support it.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker …
Dr Lim: Our aspiring Health minister.
Dr BURNS: I am happy where I am.
I rise to speak in favour of the Penalties Amendment Bill 2002 and the Interpretation Amendment Bill 2002. As the member for Goyder said, this is not a very substantial piece of legislation. So, I will keep my offerings short, particularly in view of the inordinate time that was taken this afternoon over the censure motion.
This legislation is an initiative of the previous government. I commend this initiative, particularly the conversion of monetary penalties in the penalty units. Whilst crime and punishment are eternal themes so, it seems, is inflation. However, whilst not wanting to be punitive, it is essential that punishments keep pace with the real value of things. The consumer price index is a well recognised measure of inflation. Sensibly, the policy framework of the previous government also included a regular review of the value of the penalty unit. Once again, the review sensibly uses the consumer price index to calculate the increase.
I must digress to tell honourable members that I recently learned of a novel international economic index: the Mac index. That is, the value of a McDonald’s burger in different countries compared to the value of other things. Apparently, it is quite widely used by a number of economists throughout the world. However, for my part, I prefer the CPI.
Using the CPI, the value of the penalty unit rises from $100 to $110. Further amendments have been undertaken to clarify terminology within the act. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank both the members who contributed to the debate. I will certainly give the member for Johnston an undertaking that we will look at having to eat a McDonald burger as a possible system of punishment. There may be some virtue in that with some parts of the population. I cannot promise anything on that.
I think the members have accepted that this is a sensible renovation, if you like, of what is a very effective part of our punitive arrangements within the justice system. This is simply bringing the value of a penalty unit up to current day values of money, to retain the seriousness or the impact of the punishment that the fine or penalty is going to carry to an offender. So, without further ado, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Timor Gas Onshore
Timor Gas Onshore
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this evening I would like to bring the parliament up to date with the various levels of activity in which the government is engaged to try to ensure Timor gas is brought onshore, for the benefits of Territorians and in Australia’s national interests.
I would like to say, at the outset, how heartening it has been to receive strong levels of support from Territorians on this issue. Territorians well understand that bringing this gas onshore will provide a quantum leap in the Territory’s economic fortunes. If we can get both Bayu-Undan and the Sunrise gas onshore, there will be nearly 5000 new jobs; there will be a great increase in industrial development and business opportunities; and a subsequent boost to Territory revenues. Gas onshore will lead to significantly more financial independence for the Territory, decreasing our dependence on the Commonwealth and giving us more flexibility in our financial management.
We all know the reasons why we are pursuing this campaign but just to quickly recap, we are concerned that the floating LNG option put forward by Shell and Woodside would see the Sunrise gas reserves turned into liquified natural gas onsite and shipped directly to the American markets. There will be no opportunity for Sunrise gas to fuel industrial developments in the Territory or to help meet Australia’s energy needs in the south and east, and there would be minimal jobs for Australians. Let us not forget who owns this resource: it is the people of Australia.
I want to outline today some of the work that we, as a government, have been engaged in as we try to bring the gas onshore in the national interest. Honourable members will be aware of my report yesterday about my weekend meeting with the East Timorese Chief Minister, Dr Mari Alkatiri, to seek reassurances that Bayu-Undan would soon get the go-ahead. We have been reassured on that point. There are some outstanding arrangements in the joint petroleum development area between our two countries, involving the so-called unitisation of the Sunrise field. But, we believe these can be resolved with the goodwill of East Timorese and Australian leaders. I am looking forward to travelling to East Timor next weekend for the Independence Day celebrations of that nation, and the opportunity of further discussions on these and other matters to do with Timor Sea gas.
Members will recall that the government has been engaged in a multi-layered campaign of attracting the attention of federal ministers, business leaders, the media, and the public to win support for our case for bringing the Sunrise gas onshore. On 3 April, I addressed the National Press Club in Canberra in a nationally broadcast speech to outline the Territory’s case for gas onshore. On that visit, I spoke to the Prime Minister, John Howard; the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer; the Treasurer, Peter Costello; the Resource Minister, Ian Macfarlane; and outlined our case and disseminated our report from the respected consultant ACIL. Following these meetings, our officials were able to brief Invest Australia, the federal government’s investment arm and the body that may be able to assist any major developer to get gas onshore, should this assistance be necessary.
On 24 April, we launched Team NT, which showed Australia just how seriously Territorians are taking this issue. Team NT is a bipartisan group including the Leader of the Opposition, Independent MPs, business, community, trade union and Aboriginal leadership. We were able to hold valuable discussions about where to take the campaign and how to enlist support from other groups around the nation. At this meeting, potential customers for onshore gas pledged their support and confirmed to us the importance of Sunrise gas to their commercial developments. With the full endorsement of this group, we took out full-page advertisements in The Australian and The Australian Financial Review on 30 April, appealing to Woodside shareholders to consider our case to bring Sunrise gas onshore in the national interest. The letter said that we understood that Woodside has a commitment to its shareholders - quite importantly, of course - but that we also have a commitment to our stakeholders, the people of the Territory.
On 29 April, Federal Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane, visited the Territory. By the time the minister left Darwin he had been thoroughly briefed by government officials and business leaders on the robustness of our domestic gas case and our doubts about the floating LNG option. Minister Macfarlane was far more positive about our case by the time he returned to Canberra, and last week sent a team of federal officials and one of his staff members to further investigate the matter.
From 29 April to 1 May, I visited Sydney and Melbourne to talk to state Premiers, and business and union groups to enlist more support for our case and our cause. My discussions with the Australian Industry Group, one of Australia’s largest industry representative bodies, were particularly helpful, with CEO Bob Herbert pledging support and writing to his member groups on our behalf. Both Premier Bob Carr of New South Wales and Premier Steve Bracks of Victoria were interested in our case, particularly in the context of Australia’s overall energy needs. The Premiers supported my call for a special meeting of the Council of Australian Governments to consider increased gas production as part of a national energy strategy. I am working hard at getting such a meeting and will report further on progress over the coming days. I should also mention I met briefly with South Australian Premier, Mike Rann and Tasmanian Premier, Jim Bacon in the margins of the Cultural Ministers’ meeting in Melbourne on 1 May, and enlisted their support for a COAG meeting as well.
During my visit to Sydney and Melbourne, I undertook a wide range of public and media appointments. I addressed the Sydney Institute on 29 April, and was able to engage a representative of Shell in a public debate on the Sunrise gas issue in the question and answer period following my address; and at the subsequent business dinner. The speech to the Sydney Institute and the full-page advertisement in the national newspapers sparked media attention and I was interviewed by several ABC programs, by the Network Nine Today show, and senior journalists and editors from the Sydney Morning Herald, the Financial Review and the Melbourne Age. As a result of these visits, the interstate media are much better acquainted with the Territory’s case and are reporting more accurately and extensively on our affairs. This is one of the best ways of enlisting further support for our cause in government and business circles. I should also mention that our advertisements provoked a strong response from ordinary Australians seeking more information.
We have not neglected Territorians in this campaign. We believe it is vitally important to fully keep our own people on top of the Timor gas issue. People want information about issues governing their future livelihood, business opportunities and jobs for their children. Our Office of Territory Development has distributed a gas update newsletter to every house in the Territory with factual information on the Bayu-Undan and Sunrise projects. Many Territorians were confused about the issues and wanted factual information. Informed Territorians are our best allies in this fight. An Internet site has been set up with reports, fact sheets, speeches and media releases to ensure easy access for members of the public seeking more information.
A Team NT stand was set up at the opening of the Mindil Beach Markets and it was good to see our friends from the business community assisting us there, talking to passers-by and helping to keep the community informed. I spent several hours at the booth and can report there is overwhelming support for getting gas onshore. We will be setting up a similar booth at the Freds Pass Show on 26 and 27 May. I would encourage anyone in this House who’s at the Freds Pass Show to come and spend some time on the booth talking to Territorians about gas onshore.
We are continuing to talk to businesses involved in the gas developments, as well as engaging federal government officials in talks. We have more projects planned for the coming weeks, and I look forward to keeping this parliament up to date with those and enlisting further bipartisan support. I would like to acknowledge the support of the Leader of the Opposition on this issue; it has been valuable. I would like to acknowledge the critical support of the Territory’s business leaders who invested their own money in commissioning the report by Professor Peter Brain into Timor Sea gas. They have been involved in intensive lobbying of industry groups around the country. We need all the support we can get to win this campaign and I have been impressed with the resources we have been able to muster so far.
At this stage, we are asking the Commonwealth to vigorously test the commercial cases presented to us by each of the parties. We have been encouraged to see federal ministers now starting to question the case Shell and Woodside have presented, arguing that floating LNG is the only option. We know that the federal government, like all Australians, wants to see gas onshore if it can be done commercially. Phillips Petroleum has presented a good alternative model for the federal government to consider in this regard.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that there are many potential customers of onshore gas. We have a proposal by a major investor to build a $3.6m aluminium smelter and power station, which will provide the Territory with a key foundation customer for gas. Alcan wants to expand its Gove alumina smelter with a pipeline from Mataranka to Gove. MIM announced recently that it wants to expand its major McArthur River activities, but its plans are also reliant on gas. Gas supplies in the Amadeus Basin used to generate the Territory’s power are running down and getting more expensive. Sunrise gas will provide certainty of future supplies for our Power and Water Authority. The proposal to link Timor Sea gas to the national gas grid with a pipeline to Moomba will create construction jobs in the Territory. It is not a commercial proposition without Sunrise gas. A major component of negotiations with our East Timorese neighbours included a commitment to jobs and training associated with Timor Sea gas developments. Offshore development erodes the chance of delivery on this very important commitment, and onshore gas will boost research and skills development in the Territory. For all these reasons, we will forge ahead with this campaign to get Timor Sea gas onshore in the national and Territory interest.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members present today for their support of the Team NT approach. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing forward a ministerial statement on gas. Notwithstanding that many of the issues raised in the statements themselves are already known to the opposition, it is essentially a report on the efforts that the Chief Minister has done in bringing the issue to national attention. I thank her for bringing it forward as a statement because it does give the opposition a chance to contribute to the debate, and also to put very clearly on the record that we do support the government’s efforts in ensuring that we get the optimum outcome for Timor Sea gas.
Obviously, the Chief Minister has not been appraised of the latest information, but I am sure her minister has by now; and that is that Woodside and Shell have just announced that they are re-examining the domestic gas case for Greater Sunrise. They will do that examination between now and October to reassess all the figuring that they have done and, in October, they will make a decision one way or the other as to where they move from that point onwards. So, it is fortuitous that the statement itself falls on the same day as, I would think, the government should rightly claim as a great success at this stage. Obviously, Woodside and Shell will make their own decisions in October, but the position has been reached whereby Woodside and Shell are putting out an olive branch and saying that they will reassess all their figuring. I would hope that in the same way some of the relationships have been a bit strained, particularly with Woodside, based on the government strategy in that intervening period we can work cooperatively together to get the best result, not only for Greater Sunrise but for the whole Timor Sea Basin.
It is interesting when we look at where we are with the gas situation and how gas fits into the history of the Northern Territory. Probably the whole history of the drive for self-government in the Territory was a drive for Territorians to overcome what they perceived was the benign neglect that successive federal governments had towards Territorians, the future of this great part of Australia and its potential. Territorians themselves, in their wish to get self-government, essentially wanted to get control of their own affairs so that they themselves could confidently drive the Territory forward into the future, as an economy and also a community
I believe, to a large extent, that has been done. If you put aside a lot of the petty politics that goes on in this Chamber, and look at the opportunity that was provided by self-government and the grasping of that opportunity by successive CLP governments from that time, you will see they first of all positioned the Northern Territory, if in name only, as the gateway to South East Asia. This was begun by Everingham as one of his early initiatives; that our future lay in Asia. We had to see Darwin and the Northern Territory as the rightful gateway to, not only Asia, but the world. That was a fundamental strategy in terms of how the Northern Territory promoted and positioned itself nationally and internationally.
The railway was the enduring dream of Territorians since 1911, but it was since self-government that that real drive for the railway occurred. One can equally say that maybe there were a couple of opportunities lost in that time. But that drive for the railway never stopped because the lack of transportation in the Northern Territory was such that a good transportation system - a railway that linked Darwin and Alice Springs right through to our southern capitals - was something that was long overdue. I have said on many occasions, as an aside that, during that time, when many people put forward the commercial argument about the value of the railway, I always reflected on the strategic argument. That was that, in all my time in the Defence Force, whenever we did an assessment of the threat to the sovereignty of Australia with an assault on our coastline from the north, it was an automatic assumption of the Defence Force in their planning, that a railway existed so that we could logistically support the force that was deployed.
That strategic assumption has always been there, right through from World War II. Unless and until that railway infrastructure was in place, the defence strategy was essentially to fall back on closer lines of communication, so that they could support you. So, strategically and commercially, the case has always been put, and more and more the successive CLP governments developed that commercial case for the railway. We now see the fruition of all of those efforts.
There were some great and big risk projects to develop the tourist infrastructure throughout the Northern Territory. Again, some risks cost the government and Territorians money. If one looks at the Sheratons, the Yularas and the Beauforts and thinks where the Territory’s tourist industry would be now without those projects, one would have to wonder if we could have ever established the tourism industry to the extent that it has been established. With regard to the development of our Territory Parks - even though we can always talk about the national parks – let us not forget the Territory Parks that we developed ourselves and are still free for Territorians, Australians and international tourists to enjoy.
We have lobbied and supported a strong defence presence in the Northern Territory. As the Minister for Defence Support said, quite rightly, that was a Federal Labor initiative as a result of the white paper that was produced at the time. Certainly from a defence position at that time, and now later as a Territorian, I am very pleased that the government of the time saw the need for that strong defence presence in the north that has resulted in the mechanised brigade and associated infrastructure now being lodged in Darwin. If I can put in an aside that when we talk about the federal budget that came down last night - notwithstanding the dollars - the fact that 1 Aviation Regiment has been located at Robertson Barracks with, eventually, state of the art helicopters to support that brigade, is a tremendous force multiplier to be located in Darwin and really does position that brigade and its capability for the future.
We developed ourselves and fought for or supported a whole range of infrastructure over that time, that we all know about. We began the development of the new port and the associated infrastructure to accommodate that port because, again, adequate transportation needs good, modern port infrastructure facilities. That was the only way that we could see ourselves competitive with the rest of Australia.
Despite all of those achievements - and the railway is arguably the latest and greatest of those achievements - we always did, and still lack a strong industrial base. The reason why we lack that industrial base is because we do have a small population. We still have limited, but improving, transportation and associated infrastructure and links to other markets and hub locations. We do have a high cost of living and doing business in the Northern Territory because of that remoteness, because of that small population, and because of that small industrial base.
The potential of the railway and the port to overcome some of these factors is absolutely clear. I am sure that, over time we will do that. The thing that has always been missing as the last piece of the jigsaw, as I have said on many occasions, is the fact that we had to get low-cost energy so that we could attract the business investment; so that we could get the cost of living down; and so that we could use the revenue and opportunities from such an industrial base to grow our own population. That opportunity is provided for the Northern Territory by Timor Sea gas and, like the railway, it is not a new issue. It is an issue that has to be fought for, like the railway. Where we have a situation in which either the national interest argument, the Territory argument, or the strategic argument is being put, on the one hand, and on the other, the commercial argument, to say that these sorts of things are either not commercially viable, before their time, or not the best use of that particular resource, there is another option.
It falls now to the current Labor government to not only get gas onshore, but to get Sunrise gas onshore. I do hope that the Labor government does keep focussed on that particular challenge because I believe gas onshore from the Timor Sea is assured. With few misgivings, gas onshore will come from Bayu-Undan and I have few concerns in that regard. Certainly, the challenge that the Labor government has taken up is the challenge of getting the Greater Sunrise gas project onshore, and it is a very large challenge indeed.
Prior to the change of government, I can say, proudly, that much was achieved in terms of getting Timor Sea gas and Greater Sunrise gas developed. One can go back as long as you like, I suppose, but during my term as Chief Minister, I only have to go back to what was then called the North Australian Gas Venture. This was, essentially, a loose coalition of the producers of gas - not only in the Timor Sea but also in the North-West Shelf - who saw the opportunity to develop Timor Sea gas by linking markets that the North-West Shelf gas could initially supply, and then growing those markets and moving that demand across as we developed green field sites in the Timor Sea. That was the North Australian Gas Venture, and I might also say that that gas venture did look, very seriously, at the domestic gas case and many potential customers were chased down at that time.
During that period, I visited China with the then Premier of Western Australia, Richard Court. We went with the Chief Executive Officers of both Shell and Woodside, and others. It was the first time that I met Dr Iain Paisley from Shell and John Akehurst of Woodside, and had an opportunity to see and understand from them the immense difficulties there are in getting these sorts of provinces developed. It is interesting that the visit was primarily focussed on North-West Shelf with, essentially, a pitch from the Northern Territory that not only was there abundant gas in the North-West Shelf, we had all this Timor Sea gas over here. If China was looking for long-term contracts, and a dependable provider, you only have to look at the Timor Sea for adequate gas; these same producers could move across and get it.
To a large extent, I believe the Prime Minister’s visit to China shortly will be successful and secure a Chinese market for North-West Shelf LNG. In some ways, one has to see that, perhaps, as a threat to our argument in the future for getting Sunrise gas onshore. The arguments in terms of where there is long-term supply for China’s growing markets is well and truly there from producers such as Woodside and Shell.
Also during that time was a recognition by us that, when it came to developing Timor Sea gas, a true joint venture arrangement was necessary. In that regard, I brokered a meeting between the Prime Minister, Minister Minchin, the CEO of Phillips, the CEO of Shell, and CEO of Woodside. At the table with the Prime Minister, they laid the case for developing a new gas province for Australia. I can clearly recall the Prime Minister’s eyes lighting up as these chief executive officers laid out for him the potential of the Timor Sea gas development. I can tell you that, at that time, they were not talking LNG; they were talking domestic gas primarily, and LNG for Bayu-Undan particularly. Out of that meeting came, essentially, the recognition that the way that the Timor Sea gas could best be developed was with a true joint venture arrangement. At the time, I met Jim Mulva. I was very impressed by the persuasiveness and the bona fides, in terms of the integrity, of that particular individual. I was very pleased to see the result of that meeting very shortly afterwards, when it came to be called the Sunrise Joint Venture. That joint venture then provided Phillips with equity in the Sunrise field along with Woodside and Shell and some smaller players. They all then, the real players in the team, were seen to became truly wedded together to Sunrise in particular, rather than competing against each other. At the time, Sunrise was to be the feeder, along with Bayu-Undan, for the gas markets that would be developed.
Also around that time I visited Japan, spoke to the potential customers that Phillips were looking for at the time: Tokyo Electric and Osaka Gas, large buyers. There were some sensitive arrangements put in place. These things were held very closely in terms of what Phillips’ strategy was but, there was no doubt in my mind at the time that Phillips were looking to sell Bayu-Undan gas to those particular customers; notwithstanding the fact that, publicly, the El Paso case was the one that was put forward in the public arena by Phillips. Certainly, Osaka Gas and Tokyo Electric were always there.
At the time, I also went to Houston. If you want to go to Houston, Minister, and you want to go to any of those technical conferences in Houston, the largest one that I went to - the name escapes me now, and I should remember it but I can’t - I would urge you to go. I would support you to go because it is an opportunity to not only get to talk to some of the largest players in the business world-wide; to understand the issues associated with oil and gas worldwide; but also to be part of a number of forums I was privileged to attend where it was striking to hear the discussions that were raised. Whilst in Houston you can walk around to some of the head offices of some of the largest companies in the world, including Haliburton, and talk about the way they see the world and how they see the way Timor Sea gas fits in to that particular profile.
All of this was happening at the time when the political climate in East Timor was changing. The political landscape was changing quite dramatically and, in that context, I don’t mind if the Chief Minister says publicly: ‘It was only when the Labor government came to power that we fixed relations with East Timor. They were terribly strained and it took us to get into government to fix it’. I don’t mind if she says that in the context of my relationship with Dr Alkatiri, because there is no doubt that that relationship was strained during the course of some very difficult negotiations with regards to the treaty arrangements.
The reality is that I think the East Timorese people haven’t forgotten that, at that time, we took 3000 refugees over a few days out of dreadful circumstances. Territorians banded together to accommodate them. It was an effort that we should be proud of, and East Timorese would be grateful for. I couldn’t believe that my strained relationship with one particular individual could overcome the immense gratitude that the East Timorese people, and their politicians generally, would have for the Northern Territory. I wouldn’t have thought that anything could have been done to have the East Timorese work against the Territory because of a couple of spats between politicians. At the time, I might recount that, notwithstanding the relationship with Alkatiri, our relationship with Horta was extremely good. I remember on one occasion when Jim Mulva of Phillips needed to talk to Jose Ramos Horta very quickly, it was Daryl Manzie, one of our ministers, who chased him down and got him quickly to the ear of Phillips. Phillips were very grateful for that.
Also at that period, not probably commonly known, it was the Territory government and one Mike Reed who actually provided safe haven for Xanana Gusmao. We took him out and hid him at …
Mr Reed: Somewhere.
Mr BURKE: Somewhere. I was very privileged to attend the meeting with him in the early days of that period whilst the siege of the UN facility was on, when we were trying to sort out exactly how we could accommodate safe haven, not only for the East Timorese that were in the UN facility, but also to try and provide some sort of mechanism and safety for those East Timorese students threatened in Indonesia proper. Again, we can criticise politicians in this House, but let’s not forget when you talk about someone like the ex-Treasurer, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the enormous effort he made in that time on behalf of the East Timorese as Deputy Chief Minister and Police minister. I believe he has developed a warm and personal relationship with Xanana Gusmao that will not be threatened.
Unfortunately, in that changing political landscape, the treaty arrangements that had been sorted out with regards to the Bayu-Undan gas arrangements as part of this offer, were thrown into disarray. We all know the arguments that were put, but there was no way in the world that Bayu-Undan itself as a project was going to get up. Because 20% of Sunrise was involved in these treaty arrangements, we had to get something resolved in order to move forward on either or both of those projects. The focus was very much on Bayu-Undan at the time, but the focus was also on the whole project. As you recall, Bayu-Undan was going to be the feeder for a large LNG market including Sunrise gas, which would be part of that LNG market more to feed a domestic market. The issue was urgent; Phillips needed a resolution of the treaty within a certain time. The markets were sensitive and waiting. We were attracting customers such as Methanex that were time sensitive.
We went to the federal government. We urged, in particular, Minister Alexander Downer to get directly involved in resolving that treaty. He did so and, again, when the time comes to lay out accolades as to how we got Bayu-Undan onshore - and, I hope, Greater Sunrise onshore - let’s not forget the personal efforts of Alexander Downer in getting that project moving and getting that treaty resolved. He made an extremely generous contribution from the Commonwealth to the East Timorese. It was most unfortunate and sad that, at the 11th hour - in fact it was the 13th hour, just after we had signed the treaty - urgings were made to the East Timorese that they should be able to gain a greater tax revenue from those fuels. Because of that, the treaty arrangements were put in flux, and that was, essentially, the situation that I had when we left government.
Bayu-Undan was uncertain because the fiscal arrangements hadn’t been settled; Sunrise definitely uncertain because it was to follow on from Bayu-Undan. There were markets that were time sensitive and waiting for confirmation as to what would happen with gas. The project had essentially came to, not so much a standstill, but at least a hiatus. Unless those fiscal issues had been resolved they weren’t moving forward. In that time as well, Methanex then left; they couldn’t gain a secure supply. The federal government and the new Labor government, in one sense I believe, refocussed on the Bayu-Undan project, and that is good.
On 20 May, we will see the culmination of the treaty arrangements being settled. Whilst there are some outstanding issues which the Chief Minister has alluded to, they will not affect the clarity that Phillips needs with regard to Bayu-Undan. That treaty will be settled and a major impediment to the development of Bayu-Undan will have been removed. It will then be up to the Phillips producers to decide and secure their own customers, and decide when they are actually going to build a pipeline and bring Bayu-Undan onshore.
Can I say to you, in some respects, since this project first came directly into my lap - and notwithstanding the change in government - my bona fides, my enthusiasm for the importance of gas in the Northern Territory has not waned one bit. The enthusiasm of the now opposition has not waned at all. As opposition, I have tried to help where possible. I have twice been to Canberra to see ministers, including Downer and Macfarlane. In that first meeting, I was reassured by Alexander Downer that the treaty would be resolved by 20 May. As I said, that will be a fact in a few days.
At the Federal Liberal Council Conference, in a wider sense I also facilitated the delivery of the government and the business community’s case for bringing Sunrise gas onshore, to the federal Liberal Party. I have been continually briefed by officers of the Office of Territory Development, and I thank the minister and Chief Minister for those briefings. They keep me up-to-date on exactly what the government’s position is, and the latest information they have on the project. I have also attended business meetings at the Institute of Northern Territory Economic Development, essentially the coalition of business people who are working alongside government to develop not only the business case, but also to lobby business leaders throughout Australia for bringing Sunrise gas onshore.
Can I say to the Chief Minister that I am pleased to be part of Team NT. I see myself as a contributor - and I say this quite seriously - not just one who is wearing a T-shirt for the photograph. I think that Team NT can achieve a lot together; each of us has an appropriate role to play. I am the first to acknowledge the rightful and dominant role that government should play but, certainly, where the opposition can assist - and also through our federal members - we want to do so and will do so. We will do everything to help, but we will also be concerned that the government’s approach is the best way to get a successful outcome for the Northern Territory. In that regard, it will not simply be blind following under the term Team NT; it will be watching the government’s approach, where possible. It is helped by the briefings that I am getting, to not misunderstand the government’s strategy, to be given the opportunity to raise our own questions on some of the issues we may be concerned about. In that vein, we can proceed forward together.
I would sound a cautionary note and that is that, if the securing of Timor gas onshore is the objective, then that objective has been achieved. Timor Sea gas will flow onshore with the successful outcome of Bayu-Undan. That, in itself, is a fantastic project and we shouldn’t lose sight of that. In construction costs alone, it is a far bigger project than the railway and, notwithstanding the fact that it is a LNG project, it is a massive project. It will provide great and long-term benefit for Territorians, and we should see it as a great success story.
If we put Sunrise gas aside for a moment, let us not forget the Bonaparte Basin. When we think about the gas reserves for Australia’s needs, the Bonaparte Basin’s Petrel, Tern, and Blacktip provide about 20% of Australia’s future reserves. I believe that issues such as Blacktip should be weaved into these statements, because they are real projects. The Bonaparte Basin is a real opportunity for the Northern Territory. Plans are well advanced in terms of securing pipeline access. Woodside are quite determined to develop the Blacktip field, and along with other producers, conduct greater exploration in that area. That is a very prospective field to feed the Northern Territory’s needs into the future. Also, let’s not forget that Blacktip can feed PAWA and Nabalco. It has enough gas to achieve that. That, in itself, would be of great advantage to the Northern Territory.
Sunrise is the problem; Sunrise is the challenge. We all know where we are with Sunrise at the moment. As I said, it is good news today to hear that Woodside and Shell are going to reassess the domestic markets. It is a sign that the government’s strategy and efforts to date are successful. There is no doubt that the federal ministers, particularly, are reassessing the figures that were presented before them. I am sure that Minister Macfarlane has done his utmost, and has been part of the decision by Woodside and Shell to come forward with this particular position today.
I applaud the energy meeting that the Chief Minister intends to organise with the Premiers. I believe it has the opportunity to be a major catalyst to put aside a lot of the arguments that have been put forward about domestic gas markets. It is an opportunity for the Premiers of those southern states to be fully engaged in the issue and to do more than simply give support with words to the Sunrise gas project. It is an opportunity for them to talk to and get the information from their own state-owned entities and government corporations, and also from the private suppliers that will supply their gas needs in the future - the pipeline owners - as to just what will be the demand in their own states; where that demand will come from; how secure is that demand from areas other than Sunrise, so that Sunrise figures very much in their thinking.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, time has expired.
Mr BURKE: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, my time has run out. I simply end up by saying I thank again the Chief Minister for her statement, and give a commit opposition support to getting Sunrise gas onshore in the future.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution and support in reference to the Chief Minister’s statement here this evening.
I suppose one of the most penetrating comments that I have seen in regard to Timor Sea gas in the media was quite some months ago when there was a headline - I think it was in the Sydney Morning Herald - that talked about the ‘Timor Sea gas puzzle’. That is exactly what we are facing. We have no shortage of gas reserves identified in the Timor Sea. We have no shortage of developers seeking to exploit those reserves commercially. We have a number of customers for the gas, both overseas and also onshore here in Australia, and we have a puzzle in terms of how we bring those opportunities to fruition. As I have said, the Timor Sea gas puzzle certainly has stuck in my mind as to how we move forward.
In regards to Sunrise gas and what we are talking about tonight, essentially the campaign that government has been running has had three phases. I have coined these phases. The first was the ‘hearts and minds’ components when we inherited government, and it wasn’t long after Shell had announced their floating LNG option. From opposition you don’t have the research and the resources available that government does but, it was obviously very significant in terms of that ‘hearts and minds’ components of the argument to establish very firmly, nationally and also in the minds of the developers and Territorians that - as the Chief Minister said - this resource belongs to the people of Australia; it does not belong to the companies. We, as Australian governments, have every responsibility on behalf of the people who elect us, to ensure that those resources developed are consistent with developing opportunities within Australia - opportunities for investment, capital construction activity, ongoing jobs, ongoing revenues, as well as opportunities commercially for the companies and their shareholders. We did appeal for the gas reserves to be developed in the nation’s interests.
Here in the Northern Territory - as the Leader of the Opposition said - we need to bring energy costs down. It is the greatest impediment that we have to the development of our economic base and to developing a manufacturing and industrial base in the Territory. The only opportunity that we have to do that lies in those significant gas reserves in the Timor Sea, and it is one that we should not give up without a huge fight.
Next, the government commissioned ACIL Consulting to provide independent advice to government on the economic case to bring gas onshore. The ‘hearts and minds’ argument was very firmly there, but we needed an economic case to understand the difference between the two projects that were proposed: the floating LNG project and the onshore LNG plus domestic gas project. We had to understand economically what was the difference in those two projects to the Northern Territory and the Australian economy. As the Chief Minister has outlined, we then developed a very strong economic case to support the hearts and minds arguments. That was supported, as well, by the business community here in the Northern Territory, who also determined their own economic analysis and funded it. That, again, provided two sources of economic advice to governments that showed that bringing this gas onshore was in the interests of the nation’s economy far more than floating LNG.
Finally, about three weeks to a month ago, Phillips Petroleum confirmed the third component of that campaign, which was a commercial case. That was the missing link in the argument that Shell and Woodside were running, that the only economically feasible way of developing this resource commercially for them was to produce LNG on the barge and float it off overseas. They were saying that the commercial components did not stack up for bringing gas onshore. Phillips Petroleum, who have 30% joint venture in Sunrise, came along and provided a very solid commercial case to bring that gas onshore. Those three elements together certainly proved that Sunrise gas is worth fighting for.
It is very heartening to see Woodside and Shell make the announcements today that they are now reconsidering the domestic gas case. That is an absolutely mammoth turnaround from where they were only as little as four to six weeks ago; where they were absolutely sticking to the line that, commercially, there was no way in the world that you could bring this gas onshore. Their position had changed very significantly. From August last year, there has been $200m worth of investment at least by the joint venture; two years worth of work running around the country signing up a customer base through heads of agreement memorandums of understanding,; and saying that the only way to develop Sunrise was to bring it onshore. We then had Shell come out in August with their floating LNG proposal and discussion about a $500m difference in the two projects. That went out to $1bn in about November last year and then $2bn in February of this year.
At that time, it was looking pretty bleak, given the arguments that Woodside and Shell were putting to the public. They also gave briefings to senior federal ministers from Canberra that there was a $2bn hole in the onshore argument. That was a number that obviously could not be breached by Commonwealth investment. Therefore, onshore gas from Sunrise was dead in the water.
We were not to be deterred from that. We believed that we had every responsibility as government in the Northern Territory to, as robustly as possible, challenge that assumption from the developers. With all the industrial development that would follow, we absolutely could not allow this opportunity to bring the Sunrise field gas onshore without testing those numbers very, very thoroughly. The announcement from Woodside and Shell today shows that we have been successful in doing that, and we are now back in the hunt. That is very, very reassuring.
Some people have described our campaign as David and Goliath: a small economy like the Territory taking on a multinational like Shell. But, as I said, we have been extremely encouraged by the strong support from our Territory business community, which has put its own money into its own report. There are a number of people to pay tribute to, all of whom have been part of Team NT and put money into that report. In particular, Bruce Fadellie from the Chamber of Commerce has been very active in terms of making sure that the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce uses its very substantial national links to take Team NT’s argument, that this really is a national interest argument, into boardrooms and financial institutions around Australia. The business community here in the Northern Territory has done an absolutely magnificent job of raising awareness interstate amongst the business community of how important an initiative this is. We urge the developers to work with us cooperatively so that we can all win. They can serve not only their shareholders’ but also Australia’s national interests.
I ask honourable members to cast their minds back to only a few short years ago when BHP Petroleum was proposing a floating LNG option for Bayu-Undan gas, a development option opposed by the Territory at the time. As we all know, Phillips is now proposing LNG production from onshore facility in Darwin, and that is a most welcome outcome. Again, we have seen that floating option come onshore. Phillips are still proving absolutely that they can get a return on that investment.
There was a further irony in this campaign in that, only a couple of weeks ago, I attended the Australian Petroleum Producers and Explorers Association Conference in Adelaide, where the issue of Australia’s oil and gas reserves was a major topic of discussion. By way of background, the APPEA Conference is the premier upstream and downstream petroleum conference in Australia, and this year attracted over a thousand delegates. Typically, 20% to 30% of APPEA delegates come from overseas. The theme of this year’s conference was Breaking Through to Our Future - Find More Oil, Use More Gas. I am sure I do not need to explain to honourable members how relevant that theme is to the Territory and to its future. We will certainly be making greater use of this argument.
Before the conference had even started, APPEA issued a statement calling on the federal government to address a rapid decline in Australia’s oil self-sufficiency. This peak organisation for the oil and gas industry outlined a five-point strategy covering the economic, military and diplomatic risks associated with Australia’s increased reliance on imported fuel. APPEA Chairman, Agu Kantsler said Australia needed to reduce its energy consumption in order to reduce the risk of supply disruption, and that the country needed a gas development strategy. He then said:
- Governments need to recognise that the opportunities for a more environmentally friendly fuel mix
rest primarily with developing Australia’s vast natural gas reserves.
Virtually all countries’ international mandates benefit resource developments nationally, either through legislative or fiscal vehicles. We are one of the few countries in the world, and possibly the only one - we have not been able to find any - where the actual outcome in terms of how our natural resources are developed and to what use they are put, is entirely determined by the free market economy. All other developed and underdeveloped economies that we have looked at, have many vehicles by which they ensure that their resources are developed in the national interest. That really is the essence of our argument: that we should be using all avenues and opportunities to ensure that the companies get a commercial return that satisfies their shareholders but, also, we as a nation benefit from the development of our resources.
The APPEA Conference was accompanied by a large exhibition, and the Territory continued its excellent representation through a stand staffed by Territory government experts. I was most impressed by the professional manner in which the display was put together. I can say that, from the time that I spent on the stand and talking to delegates of the conference who came to our stand, the Northern Territory is very much on the international petroleum industry’s radar screen. Everybody I spoke to at the conference was following our campaign with a great deal of interest.
Interestingly, directly opposite the Territory’s stand was the Shell stand with a model of the floating LNG plant. There was some discussion about connecting up a garden hose from the model to bring gas across the corridor to the Territory stand. There were other discussions about possibly scuttling that LNG plant overnight, but we did behave ourselves, and the floating LNG plant stayed there for the duration of the conference.
The conference is traditionally accompanied by a new acreage release by the Federal Resource Minister, and this year was no exception. I sat in on the acreage release whilst it was being discussed. We have released new acreage here in the Northern Territory, and it is going to be very keenly bid on.
Perhaps the best way I can encapsulate the NT’s involvement in this year’s conference is to refer to APPEA Executive Director, Barry Jones - not the former Federal Science Minister, I hasten to add - words used in his post conference wrap up for the media. Mr Jones described the Territory’s APPEA performance such as a headmaster might be representing a report card. For its overall performance, the Territory rated a B+ verging on an A. This was based, not only on its excellent presence at APPEA, but because of its constructive and productive working relationship with the industry. Only Western Australia achieved an equal rating with the Northern Territory, with New South Wales and Queensland each rating an F. So, I think that we did a pretty good job.
The high regard with which the Territory is held by the petroleum industry at both the political and bureaucratic levels, reflects on the importance the Territory places on that industry to our future development. APPEA and, particularly its annual conference, provide an ideal opportunity to showcase our exploration and development potential. I expect that we will participate actively in APPEA conferences in the future.
Finally, I would like to note some more positive developments on the oil and gas scene in the Territory. Phillips Petroleum has started work on its liquid stripping phase of the Bayu-Undan project. The Bayu-Undan field, which was discovered in 1995, will eventually have 26 wells and will provide condensate and liquid petroleum gas for about 20 years. About 200 workers are already placed in the Timor Sea, putting together drilling platforms and extraction equipment. Jackets have been floated to the site from Singapore and drilling starts this month. Once the wells are in place later this year, Phillips will start the liquid stripping phase in which the condensate and LPG are removed and the gas is recycled back into reservoirs in the sea bed, awaiting its transfer to Darwin via a 500 km subsea pipeline. Condensate production is due to start in 2004. About $15m to $20m a year is expected to flow into the Territory economy from this project over the next three years. Toll Energy has established a $1m supply base in Darwin, and supply boats began calling at East Arm Port earlier this month. All subcontracts have been awarded to local companies. Oil and gas service provider Baker Hughes Inteq is building a $2.3m drilling fluid plant at East Arm Port which was opened on 16 May. Again, 80% of the subcontracts have been awarded locally with Darwin fabrication company E.C. & E. doing most of the structural work. As I said, the next phase for the Bayu-Undan project is to bring gas onshore for processing at Phillips’ Wickham Point LNG plant. Again, this will bring significant benefits to Territory companies that are prepared and competitive.
All that remains for this project to start is the final negotiations between the federal government, Phillips and East Timor. I am very much looking forward to accompanying the Chief Minister to the East Timorese Independence celebrations on 20 May, a very proud day for all of us here in the Northern Territory, given the very close relationships that have existed between Territorians, particularly Darwin people, and the East Timorese community who exited East Timor as a result of the Indonesian invasion back in 1974. Very strong links have been built with these people over many, many years and there are going to be a lot of very proud East Timorese Territorians on 20 May. We look forward, as the new government here in the Northern Territory, to working very cooperatively with the new government in East Timor to do all we can to help them rebuild a very shattered country, both economically and socially. With those words, I strongly endorse the Chief Minister’s statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that gas onshore to the Northern Territory will bring great benefits. I attended the NT Gas Team meeting held recently and I would like to thank the Chief Minister for her invitation. I was impressed by the input from Alcan, McArthur River Mines, Mount Grace Mine and the Power and Water Authority. Representatives spoke about the advantages for them in lowering energy costs. In a competitive global economy, this is most important if our industries want to stay viable. Cheaper energy gives the Territory the chance to develop a manufacturing base; a manufacturing base will give the Territory a more stable economy and better chances for stable employment.
We know that gas will come onshore at Wickham Point and we know that this project by Phillips Petroleum is to supply gas to Tokyo Gas. In the short term, this will provide jobs in the construction phase and a smaller, but important, number of jobs in the long-term operation.
Whilst I strongly support the moves to get gas to Darwin, I think we should not lose sight of other issues, and I would like to highlight those. I feel it is dangerous for government to get lost in the glitter, the hype, the grand schemes, and forget the issues that are still of concern to others, especially those who live here. Please remember the number of people who signed the petitions to protect Darwin Harbour. Those petitions wanted the harbour protected through the concept of a national conservation park. Chief Minister, whilst the government is out convincing Australia about the benefits of gas, you should also be developing the best options for those who live here. This government has said that it will produce a Darwin Harbour management plan. This needs to be out now so that the public has a chance to have a say. The community needs plenty of time to analyse and comment. The community does not want to be pressured into agreeing with plans because it might be seen that they are opposing the gas development. I know the feeling, having been put in that same position myself.
The government must allow more open and transparent debate about all siting options for industrial development, including gas-associated development. It is no good saying that the middle of the harbour was identified in the 1990 Darwin Regional Land Use Objectives or even further back in 1982. This argument was used by some members of the previous government to argue the case for Methanex and GTL to be established in the middle of the harbour. It is the argument that has allowed extractive mining to occur on the Middle Arm Peninsula.
But the argument does not hold water. The only people who identified this land were the government and the planners. There was no public consultation about the use of the centre of the harbour as industrial, because there was simply a big rush to get the planning documents drawn up so that the government could put its case in relation to the Kenbi Land Claim. The use of land in the centre of the harbour for industry is purely a concept; the same concept that applied for four estuarine dams in Darwin harbour and two in Bynoe. The public were not involved in discussions about the dams, nor the industrial sites. The Lichfield Land Use Objectives were the first that people could have a real say in the future use of that part of the harbour. When asked about that at the recent meetings of the Development Consent Authority, they all said: ‘No’.
Chief Minister, whilst I have no doubt that Phillips will go ahead on Wickham Point, I ask that all options be looked at by the government to look for other suitable sites for industrial development. That process must be open and transparent, not ‘Trust me, I am from the planning department’. As an aside regarding Wickham Point, there is a proposal that most of Wickham Point, including Peak Hill, be sold off to Phillips. There is some confusion over how much land Phillips want on Wickham Point. Wickham Point is an island at the tip of the Ware Peninsula or Middle Arm Peninsula. In the preliminary environmental report on page 13, they said that the area of ground disturbance, which was originally to be 66.8 ha under the $3m tonne per annum facility, will now be expanded to 88.3 ha. But further on when, looking at reasons why it should be Wickham Point instead of other areas, it said that it required 150 ha of land - that is on page 227 of the preliminary environmental report - because they needed to expand to three LNG trains. If we go further on in the PER, we find out that the proposal for actual land tenure is 215.5 ha, as shown in Figure 3.11 in the preliminary environmental report.
The latter option of 215.5 ha takes in a small hill called Peak Hill which is 32 m high and can be seen from Parliament House. I would ask that the government leave this area as public land because I believe that it could make a good tourist destination if developed sensitively. What a place to sit and watch the sun set in the middle of the harbour! As people might not know, there is a road to be built to the LNG plant, and that will be a public road. If we are gong to develop Wickham Point, here’s an opportunity to develop it in a sensitive manner, where the public can get an opportunity to view the centre of the harbour, so Peak Hill is not locked up entirely by one large industrial development.
Chief Minister, I would also like to raise two other issues. The first one is in the form of a question: could the minister inform the House what is the latest on the negotiations regarding the territorial boundary between Australia and East Timor? Has this matter been resolved and does it have any potential problems that could affect the development of gas, either now or in the future, in the region?
My last comment is regarding our attitude to East Timor in the matter of gas development. I take on the comments of the Opposition Leader about the work the Northern Territory did when the refugee crisis was on. I think we have a good relationship with the East Timorese. However, I also know that East Timor will receive a substantial amount of the royalties from the gas. I do have some concerns about whether some gas should be flowing to East Timor. I gather East Timor uses oil for power generation, and wood is also often used for cooking. I have been told that when gas comes into production, in some parts of East Timor people will be able to see the flares at night. Yet East Timor will not receive the gas - gas which could reduce the polluting oil fuel they use and reduce the reliance on firewood.
A member: 450 km, mate.
Mr WOOD: Well, that is what I have been told by people, yes.
Ms Carter: On a clear night.
Mr WOOD: Or maybe from the mountains.
Mr Dunham: Flares? The flares would have to be about 500 m high. And even then you would not see it.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Drysdale. I was told that by somebody who knows. I digress.
East Timor is a developing nation, and is certainly much poorer than Australia. East Timor is a third world country. East Timor is our neighbour and, I hope, our friend, even though that friendship has, at times, been shaky over the last 25 years. Chief Minister, Australia needs gas. The Northern Territory needs gas. What will happen to East Timor? As I said before, I support the gas onshore, but please do not let the euphoria blind our judgment in the way we treat the environment, our fellow Territorians and our neighbours.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all contributors to this debate. It is an important one and probably more than anything, reporting to the House and to Territorians what has been happening in the campaign to get gas onshore from both Bayu-Undan and Sunrise fields in the Timor Sea.
The bipartisan support in this has been very important. The way we have worked as a government - and I mean government and opposition together - with the business community, the way that Territorians are on side, has all been very important. When it comes to arguing our case effectively on the national level, and to the companies involved, it is important that there is just one voice and a strong message coming from the Territory. I think we are achieving that. I certainly would like to thank everyone who has been part of that.
The announcement today from Woodside and Shell that they are reviewing their Domgas case is a terrific one. I was very pleased when I heard it earlier today. We were not certain when they were going to make it public so we were respecting their request that we were just informed. We were very pleased that it has received television airing tonight. It says that we have argued our case well, and that Woodside and Shell are prepared to revisit the arguments they were putting forward so forcefully just 18 months ago. We will certainly be part of arguing that very strongly with them. It is great news for the Territory that Woodside and Shell have said they will review their domestic gas case. It does not necessarily mean that the floating option has been put on hold, but it means our arguments and theirs - that were being so loudly put only 12 to 18 months ago - are being revisited and that the federal government will play a very strong part in that. In my speech, I outlined some of the domestic gas customers we believe are here. We believe that there is a strong case for commercial viability in bringing Sunrise gas onshore, and it is the one that we, as a Territory, will continue to argue very strongly.
To pick up the points raised by the member for Nelson. I do not think there is a discrepancy between being passionate and wanting to get gas onshore - which really does provide a change in step in the Territory’s economy, especially with Sunrise gas - and also properly protecting our environment and our lifestyle. The challenge for government and parliament is to balance that. The current environmental impact process that is going on at Wickham Point, I believe, will be a very open and transparent one, and the interests of our environment will be well argued and well protected. I believe that it is not an either/or case. In your comments I thought maybe you were leaning towards this either/or case. But let me tell you it is possible to walk and chew gum, and in this case I believe our environment and the economic future of the Territory can both be balanced.
As far as Territorial boundaries go, the East Timorese view is that the Sunrise and Bayu-Undan projects are being followed through on current boundaries. I believe that in the future they would like to take a look at the boundaries. What that means in terms of how and where they will argue this case, I don’t know. But I know that some time in the future - but not at all to affect Bayu-Undan and Sunrise - that case will be looked at by the East Timorese. That is all the information I can give you at this stage.
I know that Phillips and Timor have a good relationship now, and are certainly talking about what opportunities there might be in the context of gas going to Timor. It is our luck and Timor’s unlucky position, I suppose, that there is the trench that makes it, in an engineering sense, very expensive to take pipelines across to Timor. Gas is coming onshore to Darwin from Bayu-Undan because that is the only economically possible option for Phillips. The Territory and, I believe, companies like Phillips want to ensure that the Timorese get the most benefit they can from this resource. The Territory and Australia believes it is a shared resource, and we should be seeing those benefits go to Australians, to Territorians, but also to the East Timorese.
For the Territory, gas and its opportunities represents an expansion of what we do here. For the East Timorese, the royalties they get from gas really underpin their survival. So, it is a very critical issue for them. As far as being able to replace their current fuel with gas, I can’t add any more to that at this stage. I am sure that the current East Timorese government is very concerned about their environment as well as finding a balanced position. It is certainly an issue that I will pursue to see what the possibilities are.
Thank you for the contributions in here. I will not say any more. We are getting to the end of a long day. This campaign that we have taken to the national media, national industry groups, the political arena right around the country, is a very important one for the Territory. I have been pleased at the response we have had so far, as I said in my contribution to the debate. Even though it is something of a David and Goliath campaign, we are being listened to and are arguing our case well. The work we have done by getting consultants and having a major player like Phillips on our side, has certainly seen what happened initially - that there was no way we could support these arguments of bringing gas onshore - certainly turned. The announcement from Woodside and Shell today underpins that.
We are going to continue. This is an ongoing campaign, and a lot more work is being done. I have outlined the campaign so far and, hopefully, when we return to this House in June, I will be able to outline what has happened between now and then and the successes we have had. We have marched some way in this, but I must say there is a long way to go. I am glad of the support in this House for this statement, and I would like to reinforce that it is not gas or the environment; it is both.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly now do adjourn.
I would like to talk about a few things that are relevant to my electorate tonight in this adjournment debate, and the first one is the Cool Communities Project. Cool Communities is an Australian Greenhouse Office project, and the primary aim of the program is to reduce greenhouse gas omissions at the household level. Global warming is an issue that each of us must address, and no contribution to reducing the problem can be regarded as too small. It requires a community approach, which is exactly what the Cool Communities initiative is all about.
Cool Communities is an important step in acknowledging that individual householders can make a difference in the level of carbon dioxide that is released into the environment. The program will help households to make supportive changes that can reduce not only the amount of pollution produced, but also can save money. These changes do not have to be drastic and will be changes that we hope whole families can live with. In my Fannie Bay electorate, a grant of $50 000 has been made available to a steering group comprising members of Ludmilla Landcare and the Parap Residents Association. Steering Group members Johanna Kieboom, Monica van den Nieuwenhof, Gary Scott, Denise Goodfellow and Fiona Douglas, have been working tirelessly on their action plan which has been accepted by the project sponsors, the Australian Greenhouse Office. The group will establish cool houses and audit volunteer households. The cool houses will be supported to make various changes to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced by energy use. Not only will these households benefit by helping the environment, but also by a reduction in power costs. The power usage of the houses will be monitored to examine how successful the project has been. It really is a fabulous project that is targeting the Ludmilla, Parap, Fannie Bay and Narrows areas. The group will establish an education program that they hope will reach beyond those areas, and will continue after the completion of the project in 2003.
I am supporting the Cool Communities project throughout my electorate, and my own home is a volunteer household. I congratulate the steering group, all the volunteer householders and all those associated with this important program. I suppose the particular challenge for my household is - as I have teenage children who now have decided that airconditioning is the only way to go - is to simply fight them and get them turned off. It has been interesting as, when children are a little younger they are happy to get into a pool when they got hot. As they get older, they forget about swimming and all they can see is the airconditioner switch. I have shared this information with others who have teenage children, and they say it is part of the growing-up process; that the airconditioner becomes this icon that has to be turned on; regardless of what the temperature is. The temperature can be in the low 20s outside, and they still turn the airconditioner on. Then overnight, they will turn the control down to 18 and drag out the doonas. So, in my household, the Cool Communities project will have a direct and immediate effect and, I am hoping one that will certainly tell in my power bill.
Turning to another important issue in the electorate, and that is the Wirrina Housing Commission complex, which is in Parap. On 23 April, I attended a barbecue at the Wirrina complex at which many of the tenants were also present. We had a great roll-up, with about 40 tenants attending. My colleague, John Ah Kit, who is responsible for Housing, was also there, and some of his staff from Housing as well, and I thank them for their time. It was an ideal opportunity to discuss issues with the tenants, particularly those arising from trespass and antisocial behaviour, which has been an ongoing issue for my public housing constituents, particularly at Wirrina flats because they are so well positioned in the heart of Parap. Antisocial behaviour and drunkenness are, I suppose, a daily issue there.
The contribution of the residents was invaluable, and I am pleased to confirm that the government will proceed with a number of initiatives to address the concerns that have been raised over a number of years by the residents. Details of the proposed works are as follows: we will be replacing the existing 1.2 m Chainmesh fence with a 1.8 m heavy duty security fence, incorporating the existing mailbox facility. The proposed new fence will only have one pedestrian access point. Currently, there are three of those, and we have had to do a trade with the residents that there will be less ways of getting out of the complex. Having only one access point will certainly make it a lot easier to manage those who are coming into the complex. There will be a gate at the front of the complex complete with swipe card facility for access by tenants, and to be able to facilitate a remote opening function. On everyone’s keys, we are hoping there will be a card that can swipe the gate and, again, limit those who come in. Also, from the residents point of view, they will have to be responsible for who they let in.
There are two vehicle entrances to the complex which will have electric powered access gates at entry points from Gregory and Drysdale Streets on either side of the complex. These will also have a swipe card access facility. For any of the residents in their cars, they will have that kind of access facility. There will be an intercom system between the front access gate to each individual unit, complete with remote gate opening device, and an on and off switch that can be operated from within each unit. When you look at units in private complexes at the moment, those are the kind of facilities they have. I believe that Territorians living in those large complexes - and the Wirrina flats are fairly large, there are about 70 units there - should have access to that kind of security arrangement.
It is also proposed to landscape the Parap Road/Drysdale Street corner of the complex to make it look better, and to make the area less conducive to use by non-tenants. Currently, it is an area where people sit and drink. Despite the fact that the police come quite regularly because it is within 2 km, it is still a problem area, so we think that doing some landscaping there and changing some of the vegetation will actually help.
So it is very pleasing, after being the member for Fannie Bay for seven years now, that being in government has meant I can put in place initiatives for one of the areas that has been a constant issue for me. We have had a lot of trouble with some residents over the years, but also a more serious problem with non-residents causing a problem - and these initiatives will be welcome by the tenants. They will be discussed with them further before we actually introduce them. I believe they are not going to solve the problem entirely, but will go some way towards doing that. I believe that the amenity for the residents living at the Wirrina complex will actually be enhanced. As local member, I feel very proud of that.
I was also delighted to launch the first exhibition of the Fannie Bay History and Heritage Association at the Fannie Bay Gaol last month on 26 April. Fannie Bay has a fascinating history, from being home to most of Australia’s pioneer aviators; to having some of the Territory’s prime World War II heritage; to providing some of our major recreational pastimes; to being the prime place of residence of some of our most interesting citizens. I noted that this is Law Week, and one of the guided tours during Law Week is around the Parap area, because not only do we have some of the most interesting citizens, we have had some of those who have committed some interesting crimes as well. Our Solicitor General is proudly taking groups of people around the Parap area showing them sites of past infamy.
The Fannie Bay History and Heritage Society was officially formed at a public meeting at the Railway Club in March 2001. The enthusiasm of those attending, including a broad cross-section of interests and ages, demonstrated clearly that there is a real interest in the history and heritage of the Fannie Bay/Parap area, and that there is a community desire to celebrate and protect it. Two Territory historians and residents in the area, Barbara James and Eve Gibson, were elected co-convenors, and have been busy organising both meetings and projects.
Eve Gibson, who is currently doing a PhD on the history of Fannie Bay, has been the driving force behind the workers. She has been ably assisted by Annette Millikins, Wendy MacDonald, Beth Hogan, Ray and Glen Shepherd, Barbara James and Barry Kapert, whom she says has been a particularly dedicated worker. Historian Bob Alford has also helped in supplying photos and historical material, along with several other members such as long time residents such as Hilda Muir and Jean Vickery.
The exhibition at the Fannie Bay Gaol is the first stage of what will become a real attraction to the local community and tourists, and the catalyst for lots more photos and memories. The support of Anna Malgorzewicz and Mickey Dewar from the Museum and Art Gallery is greatly appreciated by the History and Heritage Society. It is an exciting group of people who have got together to support this. They have a vast knowledge of the history of the Fannie Bay and Parap areas. I am very confident this will be a most active society and one that will keep this exhibition at the Fannie Bay Gaol dynamic and constantly turning over, in terms of what is shown there. In talking to those involved with the society, I hear there is a wealth of historical material around and it just needs somewhere to be displayed.
On a totally different topic, I recently had the pleasure of presenting awards at the presentation night for the 2002 NT Barramundi Classic. This year’s event, the Darwin Game Fishing Club’s 21st NT Barramundi Classic, was a huge success and much credit is due to the tournament coordinators Kevin Bochow, Ron Bochow and Bill Brown and the tournament committee, Scott Coutts, Michael Dickinson, Peter Fisher, Julie Fisher and Lynne Dowling. Time will not permit me to acknowledge all the prize winners - and there were quite numbers of those - but we should note some special achievements. The champion team was Team Predator, the champion angler was Ron Bochow, and champion lady angler was Marion Washington. My government recognises the importance that Territorians place on the quality of recreational fishing and its contribution to the economy. I congratulate all the entrants in this year’s Barramundi Classic, the organisers, prize winners, and the very generous sponsors who support the event. I want to thank the regular entrant in the Barramundi Classic who has invited me to join them for at least a day or two next year, something that I would love to be able to take up.
Finally, I was delighted recently to accept an invitation from Asad Mohsin, the President of the Islamic Society of the Northern Territory, to present awards at the society’s inaugural awareness and open day. Honourable members will be aware of the vital contribution the Islamic community makes to the multicultural fabric of the Territory. The Islamic community is committed to maintaining its contribution to our harmonious multicultural society, and the open day was an ideal opportunity for sharing information on current issues and Islamic faith. I found their display most fascinating. At a time when there has been a lot of uninformed comment and criticism of their faith around the world, our Islamic Society chose to be proactive in terms of explaining what their faith is about and how, in many ways, it is complementary to and mirrors many other religions. It was a very good display presented by the community, and I want to congratulate them. It was an excellent evening and the food, particularly, was fantastic. I sincerely thank the Islamic community for its hospitality and generosity.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to make a few comments in tonight’s adjournment debate. The first issue that I wish to raise was an issue that came through e-mail to me from a gentleman by the name of Sean Casey from Weipa in far north Queensland. I believe that many people may have received this e-mail. I did take the time to ring Mr Casey and discuss with him the issue that he raises in the letter that he sent, to at least me, if not the rest of us. The issue, quite simply, deals with the sex lines available through 1900 numbers. He raises the issue that this particular matter came up not that long ago in Australia’s history, when these 1900 numbers were services available through Telstra by private companies, to provide telephonic sex services. These 1900 numbers had the spotlight drawn onto them by virtue of the fact that the companies that provided telephonic sex services had no bar or protection built into them. This meant that any Tom, Dick or Harry - or more to the point, anybody’s children - were able to access these particular 1900 numbers, and receive services that were entirely inappropriate for children to receive. There was some concern amongst parents that not enough protection was being afforded children by these services.
It turns out that, for the 1900 numbers that were provided, there was an agreement, as I understand it, between the companies or the service provider, so that anybody who telephoned a 1900 number for a sexual service had to provide a pin number or some sort of identifying code to demonstrate that they were the authorised person. The response from these companies appears to be that they have simply changed over to the 1901 or 1902 numbers where, once again, they are operating these services without any form of code or pin number or identification being required. Mr Casey is, once again, concerned that such access is freely available. He tells me that he is advised by Telstra that there is nothing that they can do about it and that they are merely the carrier of these services.
However, while talking, we came across an idea which I think is worth mentioning; consequently I mention it in the House tonight. When Telstra or Optus decides to provide a service of a similar nature, irrespective of the number that they are going to provide to the service provider, they should be asking some simple questions of the people who are going to provide this telephonic service: ‘Are you going to be providing a service of an adult or explicit nature?’. That may not be a sexual service; it may be some other service. I think that is a fair comment, because if you do ask a provider of a particular service these sorts of questions, you are very quickly going to be able to identify whether or not they are going to be dealing with material of a sexually explicit nature. As a consequence, I would urge telephone companies who provide these lines to, indeed, ask some of these questions of people who want to use the telephone carriers as a means by which they could ply their trade. They should ask those questions so that, irrespective of the number supplied, the person will be required to give some information once the service provider is aware that the company is going to be providing such an explicit service.
I do not think it would be impossible, and would be something that that Telstra and other telephone companies, I hope, would look at for the sake of helping Mr Casey and other parents in the community maintain an environment of a certain amount of control of what their kids can and cannot do. Certainly, when we were a lot younger ourselves, our parents were able to exert quite a lot of control because such services were not available on telephones . The Internet was not as available and material of a sexually explicit nature was generally more controlled, even in newsagencies and other places.
I am certainly not being a wowser. I am not saying that we should wind up all of this stuff. I am just saying that there should be a right of parental control. Certainly, the tools to get to those type of 1900 numbers are available in most people’s lounge rooms, and often in people’s bedrooms. I would like to reassure Mr Casey that there are members of parliament who do feel that there are, or there should be, some controls provided to those parents so that they can have some further say as to what their kids are exposed to. I am certain that members on both sides of the Chamber would feel the same way.
I also noticed on the news this evening some good news in relation to the Arrernte Corporation, which has finally become an incorporated body. The Arrernte Corporation is an Aboriginal corporation which has carriage of the native title decision that was handed down some two years ago, I think, over the township of Alice Springs. I am grateful to see that it has happened. It has, in my opinion, been a long time coming, but it is here and that is what is necessary. The question is of course is: what happens now? Justice Olney, I think it was, did make a native title determination over the township of Alice Springs. He clearly and, in quite a bit of detail, went over the native title issues that covered Alice Springs within - and in a couple of instances outside - the town boundary. As a consequence of that detail, it is quite clearly delineated and there is absolutely no doubt as to where native title exists and where it has been extinguished inside the Alice Springs town boundary.
That the corporation of this group has been completed is very important. The reason it is important is it gives legal standing to the body which ultimately will hold the trust interests over whatever benefit might flow out of the native title determination. I now urge the corporation to cautiously, but expeditiously, make haste in relation to a negotiated process. The new government of the day has committed itself to a new negotiated process and has said so in this Chamber already. I have said: ‘All right, we will see how you go. You guys have the imprimatur of the people to do so’.
I certainly hope that the process happens very quickly because there are very, very few blocks of land left in Alice Springs which can be purchased. In fact, I think I read in the paper the other day that there are only some 20 left and one of the local real estate agents was hardly complimentary about the quality of those blocks.
This has the unfortunate effect, whilst there is land under question which is subject to native title and still subject to negotiation, of creating a situation where, whilst that land is not being freed up, land prices around the Alice Springs area and within the town boundary - those little bits of land that are left over – are being pushed up and up. I believe it is not unusual to see a price tag of some $80 000 on a vacant block of land, which is of great concern to me because there are lot of young families trying to set up in towns like Alice Springs. There is a great deal of pressure on those people to spend a lot of money that they can ill afford on land. We are not talking about people with a huge amount of wealth being asked to pay $80 000 for a block of land, and that is of great concern to me.
Nevertheless, the native title holders do have the rights which have been granted to them under the Native Title Act. I do urge an expeditious resolution to the native title issues over the Alice Springs area for the mutual benefit of all concerned.
I make the point, however, that the legislation that was passed by the former government in this House and supported by the then Labor opposition - in fact it was passed unanimously by this House - would have sorted out the problem quite some time ago in Alice Springs. It would have put in place, well over a year ago, a mechanism which would have dealt with issues like compensation very effectively. However, the Senate chose not to pursue the unanimous decision of this House and decided to go its own way, which is a shame.
We have seen a lot of families not being able to purchase land and houses in Alice Springs, partly because of availability, and that which is available, is just out of the reach of so many people. It has a serious affect on growth inside the township of Alice Springs. I hope that an expeditious and quick resolution is now available to the Northern Territory government, especially in terms of areas such as Larapinta Stage III. Perhaps the former government’s Bellamack resolution may be a way to go: That makes it up to the native title holders themselves to negotiate with the government of the day. But I hope it is sooner rather than later, because there are many areas that could be developed which are outstanding in relation to hold-ups over native title. It is time for hysteria to go away and some real results to flow through to people who simply want to build a hope for themselves and their kids. That may be people of Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal descent. I just want to see this place develop. It is as simple as that.
I also make comment in relation to something I have observed going on in this House over recent times,. I have listened carefully and cautiously to a lot of the debate back and forth in this House. It is funny; I sit on the opposition side of the House and hear comments from here which I heard, while in government in the last parliamentary term, from the then opposition side of the House and vice versa. I am amused to see certain things such as the almost total silence of the government on issues of GST over recent times since their little windfall of, I think when the calculation was done, some $150m advantage to the government. I have heard barely a whisper. I heard only once, I think, the member for Karama squeak something about the GST, but otherwise it has been dolefully silent out there. And well may they be silent, of course, because they have come to realise what so many of their Labor state colleagues have realised over time during the GST debate: that it wasn’t bad for the states at all.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: It wasn’t bad for the states at all, and that is why the other Labor and Coalition states remain so deathly quiet about it during this great GST fracas.
I have also noticed the good news on the 6.2% unemployment rate. I am happy that the government is saying that the unemployment rate is going down because I take no joy out of people’s unemployment. But where were the calls, the loud and vocal calls about CDEP being counted in with the unemployment rate that we used to hear so regularly from this side of the House? It is amusing to me that what is happening across the other side of the Chamber is that the members opposite are learning that there is the real politic of government involved, and some of the hysteria that they used to peddle …
Mr Ah Kit: Adopt our position. Call on us.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I pick up on the interjection from the good minister. Minister, I am curious. Why aren’t you insisting that CDEP gets counted in the unemployment rate?
Finally, I have to close on this observation: today we heard from the Health minister and we have heard over recent times the problems and the troubles of being a new Health minister and ‘I am learning my job’. Tonight, I hear that she is the Placido Domingo of Health ministers in the Northern Territory’s history. She is the best Health minister that the Northern Territory has ever had, that is what she said on the news. Placido Domingo: she is the best Health minister. This morning she was learning her job. I am just wondering what initiation process was held upstairs - the swallowing of a live goldfish, perhaps - that suddenly turns her from a learning Health minister to the best Health minister the Northern Territory has ever had. We shall see.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Oh, gosh! God, how am I going to beat that one?
Mr Deputy Speaker, since the last sittings I have spent a considerable time travelling around my electorate visiting schools, councils and local organisations. On 21 March, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and I held meetings at Nguiu and Pirlangimpi to discuss the proposed development of a Tiwi education board. While visiting the two schools at Nguiu, we were entertained by school students and learned about the novel ideas at Xavier CEC for combating absenteeism, which is a big problem over on the island and everywhere else.
The school has established a centre where the students can play musical instruments or work on the computers. The absentee rates, we were told and were shown the figures, have been lowered considerably since the establishment of the centre. In fact, we were told students are now arriving at school before the teachers, so that is a good sign. I will be watching this innovative idea with much interest to see whether the improvements are sustainable over long periods of time.
Still on the Tiwi Islands, Skretting Australia, which is quite a big international company, has just completed their first harvest of barramundi. I have reported before in this Chamber on the fish farm on the Tiwi Islands. They have just completed the first harvest of their barramundi from the Barra Base. The fish will be packed on 30 May and sent to interstate markets for sale. It is through this first sale that the company will be able to ascertain and determine the commercial viability of the project. I know that my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries and I, were impressed by what we were shown when we visited the project site on the island. In terms of the technology it took to put that type of project together and also to sustain it, shows the commitment of this company in trialling this level of project, because the project is in two separate sites. The breeding of these fish are done in Darwin and the cages which, of course, hold the fingerlings, are then put in a tank and transported by container. These are then put into those cages on the Tiwi Islands.
Since the last sittings, there have been more cannabis busts. I keep highlighting these in my adjournment speeches. They occurred both at the Maningrida airstrip and on the road between Gunbalunya and Maningrida. A further two people were caught at Darwin Airport attempting to take quite considerable amounts of cannabis onto Bathurst Island. Last week, a young Tiwi male committed suicide at Bathurst. He was a known heavy drug user and the reason given for the suicide was that he was refused money to buy more drugs. These incidents are an indicator that drug use and the supply of drugs to communities is reaching endemic proportions throughout my electorate and, unquestionably in others, and should be a major concern to all.
On 24 March, I was privileged to be able to go over and watch, as I do every year, the Tiwi football grand final, which was also attended by the Chief Minister and the Minister for Sport and Recreation. It would have been the first time in Tiwi history that they had a female MC - myself, the local member.
The Tiwi football grand final was held at Nguiu and played between Tapalinga and Tuyu, and anyone who was there or who has gone to see a Tiwi football grand final, can testify that this is an entertaining and enjoyable occasion. It was particularly so for me this year as I had a brother coaching on one side and another brother managing the other. I had to take a diplomatic approach, of course, as to who I cheered for. One can only marvel at the level of fitness and skills displayed by these fine young Tiwis. I wish to put on record and congratulate all players and the organisers for this truly spectacular, uniquely Tiwi event.
On 30 April, I travelled to Maningrida with the Minister for Health and Community Services. Whilst there, we visited various community organisations and held a series of meetings with various health stakeholders, including staff at the clinic and the board members of Maningrida Health Board. In the evening, we were entertained with a community barbecue organised by the Bawinanga Aboriginal Resource Corporation, which was run very well. To the women from the resource centre, a big thank you for the meal that was provided. The community turned up in full force to meet the Health minister and talk about a lot of issues and she was certainly well received, especially by the nurses and the doctors in that community. We received the same reception from Gunbalunya and Jabiru as well. I was proud to help sponsor a local program at Gunbalunya run by the health centre issuing showering bags to all students containing soap, shampoos, toothbrushes and deodorant. The program was aimed at students taking responsibility for their personal hygiene, and by all accounts it was quite successful.
I attended the Batchelor College graduation ceremony a couple of weeks ago. I note that it was well attended by members in this House. Although outside my electorate, it was certainly well attended by graduating students from my electorate. I could read through all the names and the certificates of those students but could I get this placed on record?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just interrupt for a moment, member for Arafura. I have been informed that technically, you have to seek leave.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I would like to congratulate the Director of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, Veronica Arbon and the Chairperson, Gatjil Djerrkura, council members and staff on the afternoon events enjoyed by all.
Now that I have dealt with most of my electorate matters, there was a tribute to Daisy Ruddick which I wanted to do last night but, of course, the House was shut down. I would like to now do this tribute to Daisy Ruddick.
Yesterday morning, previous speakers articulated better than I could what a treasure the Territory has lost with the passing of Daisy Ruddick. When I gave my maiden speech in this House, and then again on the occasion of the debate on the resolution recognising the senior Territorians who were removed under the racially discriminatory Aboriginal Ordinance, I stressed the pressing urgency of seeking a specific apology from the Commonwealth government to those surviving men and women of the Territory who are its casualties. In the most important part of our resolution on 24 October 2001, this Assembly called upon the Commonwealth government to make a formal and specific apology to all those persons removed pursuant to the Aboriginal Ordinance, acknowledging that the Commonwealth failed in discharging its moral obligations towards them. I spelt out the nature of that failure in my maiden speech. It is a bitter reminder of how little time we have left to act, that Daisy should have died after the passing of this resolution, but before we had put arrangements in place to press home the demand that the Commonwealth government acknowledge blame and responsibility for what it did.
We have heard the rationalisations given by John Howard for the position he has adopted in relation to making a national apology. Indeed, there is force in the argument that the Commonwealth was neither constitutionally nor morally responsible for what happened to Aboriginal people anywhere or everywhere, going back to the beginning of colonial settlement in Australia. But the necessary flip side of that argument is that the Commonwealth is directly responsible for what happened in its own backyard, under its own laws and in its own institutions. The Aboriginal Ordinance was Commonwealth legislation. Kahlin Compound, where Daisy and others were sent, was a Commonwealth established and operated institution. Whatever policy changes might have emerged by the mid-1950s, the pre-World War II removal of children like Daisy Ruddick were exercises not in welfare, but in racist population control.
I know from talking to Daisy’s daughters that she sought an apology from John Howard right to the very end, but despaired of living to receive it. I know that Daisy’s family and other surviving legends who are Daisy’s friends and contemporaries - people like Aunty Hilda Muir - want this fight taken to the doors of the responsible entity: the Commonwealth government in Canberra. It is hoped that one day, maybe a bipartisan approach will be forthcoming from representatives and elected members of this House to seek the implementation of our resolution in the very near future. Daisy Ruddick deserves nothing less.
To her daughters, Roseanne, Josie and Esther and their families, and to my colleague, Matthew Bonson, Daisy’s grandson, I echo the recent words of my husband when he offered our heartfelt thoughts on her passing:
- Condolences on the loss of Daisy who, like so many others, passed on without ever having received the apology
she sought from the government responsible for her involuntary and racially discriminatory separation from her
own family.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, some weeks ago Darwin was subject to a visit by the leading Hong Kong Cable Channel TVB. In the few days they were here they produced two programs that will be viewed by around three million people in Hong Kong, and more than 70 million people on the mainland and beyond. I have been informed that the first broadcast will be on the 5 June.
Given the recent projections of dramatic growth in Chinese tourism to Australia over the rest of this decade, it was a good opportunity for the many people interviewed by TVB’s Suet Yee Cheung to tell the story of Darwin from a different perspective. She was not looking for a ‘throw another prawn on the barbie’ Paul Hogan-type travelogue of crocodiles, Kadadu and other outback stereotypes. What she was looking for was an account of the Chinese and Aboriginal heritage of Darwin. I was glad to be asked to help out. TVB visited and spoke with a number of Darwin’s Chinese citizens, including people from the Chung Wah Society and the Hakka Association. In this way, they were able to go beyond the clichs about Darwin and tell a narrative that is often hidden from general view and knowledge.
It is little known that in the late 19th century there were far more people with Chinese heritage living in the Top End than there were of Anglo heritage. Today’s vibrant Chinese community are the descendants of this presence. Similarly, little is known about the relationship between Aboriginal people and the Chinese diaspora. I have told this House how my family’s history forms a small part of this narrative, and it is this I was able to give an insight into for such a large overseas audience. The TVB crew were particularly interested in the story of the Larrakia, as well as the story of the Stolen Generation. They were interested to learn of the Asian heritage that is shared by many members of Darwin’s Aboriginal community. They learnt that many things are shared in the histories of the two communities. Both groups - Aboriginal and Chinese - experienced discrimination. Both groups were excluded from many activities in old Darwin - social, cultural and sporting. It is for this reason that both Aboriginal and Chinese people found themselves sharing experiences in sport - especially football and basketball - and in many ways also with marriage.
For the film crew, I visited a number of businesses in Darwin, including the Raintree Gallery, Delaney’s and Sue Wah Chin. The proprietors of all of them are to be congratulated for the welcome they gave to our visitors from TVB. I also spoke at the site of the Chinese Cemetery above Dinah Beach, as well as - just up the hill - the last remaining building of the old Parap Camp, the Christodoulou store. Anyone who lived at the Parap Camp has vivid memories of this old building. There is still the old cheeky plum tree along the front fence. Its current owner, Richard Luxton, is to be congratulated for preserving the fabric of the old store while, at the same time, building a wonderful Troppo Architects house alongside it. It is a wonderful juxtaposition of old and new tropical architecture, with a Sydney Williams structure linked by corrugated iron to Troppo. I thank him for being so generous, not just in hosting myself and the film crew on that day, but in preserving such an important part of Northern Territory heritage.
Then, I guess, I had some fun for the TVB crew - I took over the kitchen here at Parliament House to prepare an Aboriginal Chinese influenced banquet. For the best part of the last 70 years - certainly since the time of the Rondalla Bands of the 1930s - there has been an interplay of many cultures in Darwin, particularly between our Asian neighbours and indigenous peoples living in and around Darwin. Not least of this has been with cooking. Local ingredients and cooking methods, known for thousands of years to Aboriginal people, have combined with ingredients and cooking methods and styles of those near neighbours from what is now known as the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as the Chinese diaspora. So, on the menu we had curried magpie goose, chicken and vegies, cabbage and beef stew, chicken vermicelli - all with plenty of rice, of course. We had some of Patrick Dodson’s famous Broome honey - known better as Blatjan here in Darwin - a chilli and fish paste sauce to die for.
It was a great evening, with members of many important local families with both Chinese and Aboriginal heritage being invited. It was great to see people like Mary Lee, Terry, Dennis and Ian Lewfatt, various members of the Chin and Lowe families, enjoying plenty of food and good yarns as the sun went down over the harbour. In all this, I was ably assisted in the kitchen by Cedric Suradi, Maurice Kurnoth, Vernon Lee, Dee O’Brien from my office, and my son Jonathon.
What the evening achieved for the 60-odd guests was a great get together here in Parliament House, of two groups of Darwinites who have a largely unrecognised common history. It was a history in which many of the elements of reconciliation in this country between indigenous Australians and those who have arrived later, was achieved a number of generations ago. It is my hope that they are lessons that are taken up by younger people, as well as people from other cultural backgrounds who now call Darwin home.
I was very happy to welcome the Chinese film crew here, just as I was in promoting part of the Top End story to such a big audience. I would also like to thank the many members of the local Darwin Chinese community who also gave of their time to promote Darwin.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to draw from the comments by my colleague and good friend, John Ah Kit, about Darwin being a cosmopolitan town. Actually, he said there were only two different groups of people on the balcony that night. Actually, there were three – there were the Chinese, the Aboriginal people, and a sole Greek, myself. That indicates the ethnic mixture of Darwin and how we can be an example for other cities in Australia. This is the only place that a Greek migrant will marry an Aboriginal women, and have two sons who are crazy about soccer. This is the only place that I will go down the city and a Chinese fellow will come and speak to me in fluent Greek because his mother is Chinese and his father is Greek. This is the only place that a Greek migrant married to a Tiwi woman runs an Aboriginal art shop in Palmerston. This is Darwin.
It was very interesting when I took my son to Melbourne once and we walked to one of the biggest shopping centres. I explained to him that Melbourne is one of the biggest Greek cities. He looked around and he saw these old ladies with the black hankies and everything. He turned around to me and said: ‘Are there any Australians around?’ So, I explained to him yes, there are only 300 000 Greeks. On the way down, he said to me: ‘You know, there is something strange here’. I said: ‘What?’ ‘There aren’t any Aboriginal people’. Because he grew up in Darwin, he does not know any different. For us to be with a Chinese, an Aboriginal, a Scottish, a Filipino, is something natural. Down there, it is something strange. I think that we are very, very lucky to have shared cultures here, not only to be friends with Aboriginal and Chinese people and other nationalities, but we also have the fortune to taste the cuisine. I know quite a few Aboriginal people from when I worked at Danila Dilba who were crazy about moussaka. They grew up in Parap Camp and were living together in very tough conditions and they used to share their food with each other. That is very important.
Apart from that today, I would like to focus upon two items regarding education. One of the things I do, is strongly support the schools in my electorate. I have spoken to the teachers and principals at these schools and I ask them every month to give me the names of two children - not the best student all the time - the best student or somebody who achieved something; a person who was not very good before but tried very hard and he achieved something. I present them every assembly, every month, with a voucher for $25 for a book. For a young child, nine or 10 years old, that is significant. At the same time, it promotes knowledge, it make them think that buying a book and reading it is very important. Actually, one of the teachers commented to me that the kids really like it and wait for the end of the month assembly, because they want to see who is going to get the books that week.
I attended the final school assemblies of the months of February, March and April at Alawa and Nakara Primary Schools, two different schools in my electorate. Nakara school is a very large school, Alawa is a very small school, but both of them have the ethnic mix of Darwin. Going to Nakara, I say: ‘Hello’ in Greek to some of the Greek kids; I wave to some of the Aboriginal kids who used to come to Danila Dilba with their parents; and some of the Chinese kids know who I am and wave to me. So, it is very important to meet all these children and be there and see what a good job the teachers are doing with their education.
I presented some of the awards and I would like to mention some of the children who got the awards. I will hand this list of names to Hansard so that it will be easier for them to record it. Kevin Howard and Nissa Ryan in February in Alawa; Cindy Chan and Thanh-Thanh Thai in March, and Jonathon Lim and Patrick Thomson in April. In Nakara: Alice Cotton and Rachael Chatterton in February, Sarah Patch and Luke Logan in March, and Kalilah Pianta and Samuel Yick in April.
I also attended Dripstone High School quarterly All of School Assembly in April and met with the principal and teachers. I presented a secondary student from each year level with a special achievement award. These students were Ben Anderson from Year 8, Chloe Lehman, Year 9; Meghann Ripper, Year 10; and Kalipi Hourdas from Year 11/12. I also had two tickets for the V8s which I handed to the principal and asked her to either put them out as an award for the best student or to draw them so some of the children who cannot afford to go to the V8s would be able to go.
Another matter of education is the Northern Territory University Classical Studies Appeal. Before the election, I attended a function at the university and a number of students from the Law School approached me and discussed two elective units, Ancient Greek History and Ancient Roman History. The students were very disappointed that, because of funding constraints the university had withdrawn those two units. It is considered these units are fundamental for legal studies. The words of the one of the students was: ‘If you don’t know the ancient Greek history and answers on history, how can you learn about our legal system, about legal history? How can we learn about the western civilisation? Our western civilisation relies upon ancient Greece and ancient Rome’.
Later I was approached by the Dean of Law, Business and Arts, Professor David Carment, and we discussed the same subject and several solutions. One of them was to approach the Greek Embassy in Canberra or the Greek Consulate in Adelaide and seek assistance. I am aware the Greek government provides funding for schools and universities all over the world in order to promote Greek language and Greek history. That was a solution, but that would take a lot of time.
What I decided to do was approach members of the Greek and the Italian communities. I wrote to them and expressed that it was a request by the students that they would like the elective units to be reinstated. That was also very important for the two communities because these groups of people came to Australia from somewhere else and most of them came in the 1950s and 1960s to find a better life. A lot of them have made a real good life in Australia, and I thought it was appropriate to give back something to the community, especially at the university. A number of our children have attended university. We have a number of doctors, lawyers, and engineers who came out of the Northern Territory University.
I was surprised by the response. Two days after the letter, the first cheques started arriving. I am very pleased to say that I have now collected $20 700. I advised the Dean of this amount and he was equally surprised. I have had people asking me how much money I needed per semester, and they were prepared to cover the whole year from their pocket. I asked them not to give me the money. I wanted a contribution from a large number of the community because I did not want it to be a donation by one person, I want it to be a donation by the community. The Greek community contributed around $17 000 and the Italian community, which is much smaller, about $4000. I would like to name the people who donated the money: Mr George Tsirbas, Mr John Alexopolous, Mr John Vrodos, Nick Paspaley, Andrew Liveris, Nick Mitaros, Paul Pantazis, Chris and Nick Mellios, Leo Cleanthous and the Cypriot community of the Northern Territory, the Greek Orthodox community, and me. From the Italian community: Joe Randazzo, Benny Finnochiario, Rocky Pollifrone, Michael Spadaccini, and Carlo, Tony and Paolo Randazzo.
I was very pleased at the amount of money which was collected, which I am going to hand to the university very soon. All the cheques were made to the NTU Foundation so they could be presented to the university. The only request placed upon them is that they are used for the restitution of the electives. My understanding is that they required about $6500 per year for those electives to be reinstated, so we have nearly reinstated these elective units for approximately two years. This will give us enough time now to approach either the Greek and Italian Embassies or the Consulates and find out if there is any funding available to continue with these electives at the NTU.
I think it is very important and a very valid point made by the students: if you do not know the ancient Greek and Roman history, well, you don’t know much about the basis of our western civilisation. I understand some of my colleagues and members from both sides have a legal background and they know very well what I mean.
Education is very important to me. I will do anything to support schools: primary schools, high schools, and certainly the Northern Territory University. Some people would like to donate money, plaques, a statue or a building; in this case people decided to donate money because sometimes you gain more by giving other people the opportunity to find out about and understand your history and culture, rather than giving a statue or a lake or a building.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to publicly congratulate the Alice Springs Memorial Club for winning the Northern Territory Australian Hotels Association awards for excellence in February of this year, in the categories of Best Overall Club in the Northern Territory and Best Renovated Venue.
The Memorial Club, known to members and locals as ‘The Memo’, is located on Gap Road in my electorate and is certainly deserving of the awards it received. The extensive renovations included the installation of a new roof, new reverse cycle airconditioning and some significant internal structural changes, including a new bar and refurbished and extended bistro. One of the most striking changes to the bistro is the opening up to the bowling greens. This means that, as the sun is going down, members can have their dinner and overlook the well-lit bowling greens and watch bowlers in their games. I note in passing that the Memorial Men’s Bowling Club was the first bowling club in the Territory and the first club affiliated with the Memo Club.
The renovations cost something in the order of $1.4m. The club membership and board knew, when it embarked on its venture, that its membership would increase if the club met the challenge of providing a high standard of bar and bistro facilities aimed towards families in Alice Springs. Consequently, after the decision was made to improve the Memo Club, a building committee was formed and it began work, which included a fact-finding trip interstate to see how other similar clubs went about their business and what they did to increase their membership.
The Memo Club is a sporting and family club. Sporting-wise it has a gymnasium, sauna and spa, and in addition to these it has a social and sporting club which draws its members from all around the town. It also has a bottleshop. The builder who performed the renovation works, Mr Peter Walsh, was also on the building and development committee. He was, and is to this day, a member of the club. It is noteworthy that the entire development of the Memo Club was driven by its members, and a vision of how it could improve the club to attract members throughout all of the areas of Alice Springs. The club has done this with great success since its renovations have been completed. Indeed, I am told that membership is up by approximately one-third as a result of the renovations, and is now just over 3000 members. That means that about 100 Alice Springs people have joined the club each month.
This is a significant increase in membership and one which the members and the committee can be very proud. I am proud to say that I am also a new member of the Memo Club and, in very recent times I took my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, to the Memo Club for dinner followed by numerous games of eight ball pool into the early hours of the morning. The club’s facilities are outstanding, and I commend them to anyone who wishes to go in to see what a superb sporting and social club is all about.
The future of the Memo Club is a very good one. Now that the renovations have been finished, and having its work rewarded by the AHA, the Memo Club and its community can get on with providing excellent facilities to its members and maintaining an ambition to continue to attract new members. In 2002, the club has arranged a fantastic line-up of bands and singers, many of whom they have booked. Those bands will appeal to a wide range of age groups and, obviously, that will further attract new members.
The Memo Club is considered by some, and I agree, to be the heart of Alice Springs. I offer the invitation to the Darwin members of this parliament to join me as my guests in the future, when they travel to Alice Springs. It is truly outstanding. I note that the member for Millner is nodding, and I look forward to taking him to the Memo Club in due course. We may well have different views in a political sense, but I am sure the member for Millner and I can have a very pleasant evening wandering around this very impressive club, which I am very proud to say is in the heart of my electorate.
In conclusion, I, on behalf of my Alice Springs colleagues, the member for Macdonnell and member for Greatorex, congratulate the Memorial Club and its committee members on receiving its awards, Best Overall Club in the NT and Best Redeveloped Venue. I wish the club the very best for the years ahead.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about a number of issues, but first I would like to take this opportunity to speak briefly about my grandmother, Daisy Ruddick. In particular, I was quite touched by the members of parliament who spoke in the condolence motion. In particular, of course, the Chief Minister and Hon John Ah Kit, who obviously knew my grandmother for a very long time. His story of how she scolded him when he played up with his resignation at the hospital was quite interesting, actually. I didn’t know that one. Of course, there was the Opposition Leader who, again, I haven’t had the opportunity to thank for his kind words. He basically described my grandmother through and through with the way that she approached all persons of any background; she treated everyone with respect and kindness. Also, my grandmother knew the member for Daly’s parents quite well for a very long period of time. As well, Delia Lawrie, the member for Karama, of course, grew up with my sister and basically knocked around our household all her life. I would like to thank the member for Arafura for her kind words tonight.
There was just one thing that I wanted to add. There was a person who spoke at my grandmother’s funeral. He was a dear friend of hers. They would have known each other 75 years, and that is a long time to know a human being. That was Austin Asche. He spoke at my grandmother’s funeral with a tear in his eye and a lump in his throat, as he described a friend and a family member. Effectively, His Honour said that some people are in the public eye and make a contribution to the country while others less publicised leave a mark on the country so fundamental and so strong that they become representative of their family, community and country. It goes without saying that, coming from Austin Asche, it had great meaning for my family.
There was one story, in particular, that I wanted just to add tonight. Unfortunately, yesterday I was unable to because of the emotion of the situation. That is a story about our idols. I was very lucky when I grew up, that the person who was my biggest idol was in my family. But one of the other idols that I had was Muhammed Ali - and we will not go into that!
Dr BURNS: Don’t go there!
Mr BONSON: No. Anyway, it is a fantastic story that a reporter approached Muhammed Ali one time and said: ‘Muhammed, how do you become great?’. Muhammed was sitting down and he stood up and he towered over this reporter dramatically. He looked down at the reporter and said: ‘Don’t look down on those who look up to you’. That basically summarises my grandmother. She never looked down on people who looked up to her.
Dr Burns: Hear, hear!
Mr BONSON: Now to matters that I want to mention within my electorate.
My electorate of Millner is in an unusual position of arguably being completely surrounded and dissected by major roads. The suburb of Millner is bordered on three sides by Bagot Road, McMillans Road and Trower Road. Coconut Grove and Ludmilla are bordered on two sides by Bagot Road and Dick Ward Drive. If we had the Stuart Highway in my electorate, then I think I could safely say that 90% of the Territory population and 99% of the visitors to the Territory pass through my electorate at some time. Of course, that is tongue in cheek.
All these major roads come under the responsibility of either Darwin City Council or Transport and Infrastructure. To date, there has never really been a plan in place for the two groups to work together on road improvements. In fact, in the past, relationships between government and council have been, at times, less than amicable. This is the type of approach or relationship I don’t want to exist between myself, as the member for Millner, and the Darwin City Council. To this end, I will be holding regular meetings with Aldermen Christine Tilley, Bob Elix, Kerry Moir, Ian Fraser, Robyn Lesley, Carole Miller and Darwin City Council CEO, Alan McGill, to ensure that the lines of communication between us remain open. To explain to members, the electorate of Millner actually crosses between two wards, so that is why there has been a number of aldermen named.
Darwin City Council plays an important part within the community and deserves to be treated as an equal partner. An example of this is an initiative of mine which, I hope, will set a new standard in cooperation between government and council. I have written to the Darwin City Council CEO Alan McGill asking them to join me in forming a partnership comprising Darwin City Council, Minister Vatskalis’ office and myself. This particular partnership would be to look into Dick Ward Drive. The number of vehicles using Dick Ward Drive has steadily increased over the years. This is the result of new residential developments in the area and the Woolworths shopping complex. It not only caters to residents within the area, but also for people heading home from Darwin to the northern suburbs.
Even though Dick Ward Drive goes through a very densely populated residential area it is, in fact, a very pedestrian unfriendly road. The Darwin City Council have installed roundabouts and improved intersections where required, but at no stage has there ever been a long-term plan for Dick Ward Drive. If the council agree to this partnership forming - and I think they will - some of the suggestions that I’ll bring to it are:
- installation of a crossing near the Woolies complex. It is scary to watch as seniors, children, and parents
with prams try to cross Dick Ward Drive, especially from 4 pm onwards.
installation of more safety islands along the length of Dick Ward Drive, in particular between Progress Drive
and Nation Crescent;
improve the Fitzer Drive/Dick Ward Drive intersection. Improvements undertaken by the Darwin City Council
have improved this intersection from the motorist’s perspective, but this intersection still has serious
problems for pedestrians.
I am hopeful that these and other improvements will turn this road into a pedestrian friendly road.
I would also like to take this opportunity to flag to all residents in Millner that I’ll be looking at the intersection of Sabine and McMillans Roads; a bicycle track down Bagot Road; and relocating the McMillans/Bagot Road intersection. I have been approached by several members of the public and I can assure them that I will be taking this matter up.
The Water Gardens are in my electorate, and being the age I am, I was there when it was first formed, the water was clear and didn’t have any algae. All the neighbourhood kids spent their whole time swimming in it. It was not amusing to authorities at the time, but when you have 400 or 500 kids swimming in the lake they couldn’t do much about it.
My colleague, Chris Burns and myself, have talked about how we can provide an outlook for youth in our area. I will be endeavouring to investigate one of my suggestions - and certainly will not be promising anything, but I will be attempting to make sure it is viable - that of the installation of basketball courts with lights next to the current skate park.
Ms Carney: I reckon you will get them, Matt. $10 says you will get them.
Mr BONSON: We’ll, try our best. I hope you are right. I sincerely hope you are right, member for Araluen, picking up on the interjection. I hope I do get that. I think it would be a magnificent preventative scheme for youth in the area. I suppose I am one of these people who is sick and tired of complaining about youth congregating in all parts of the Northern Territory - Alice Springs included, I suppose; you would be getting that, member for Araluen. I want to offer them something. If a basketball court was there, you can imagine the member for Millner down there, 15 kg lighter - the backboard about three inches shorter than a normal backboard - and there I am ducking around with the young fellows in the neighbourhood, younger men and women and, hopefully, providing a good role model.
When I visited Minmarama Park during the election campaign - and I might say that I was the first candidate who ever ran for election that anyone can remember actually doorknocking in Minmarama Park and the Bagot Community in Darwin. When I say doorknocking, I mean door to door. No doubt someone probably had done something like that before, but it definitely was a long time ago. I went door to door in those areas and there were a number of things that were of concern to me. In particular, the fact that, at Minmarama Park they never had any postal service. It seemed quite strange to me, in the middle of Darwin, that a community of about 80 people never had their post delivered. I have been in general discussions with Julianna Horgan of Australia Post, who has been most helpful. We got word today from the member for Arnhem that we will be getting a post box put there. Next in line is to continue negotiations with Australia Post and hope that a normal delivery service can be delivered to 60 or so residents.
The other issue, of course, particularly important to Minmarama, is the crossing of Dick Ward Drive. Right now, between Ludmilla School and Minmarama Park there is no crossing that is adequate. I will definitely be pushing that issue, but again, it will be in negotiation with the Darwin City Council.
I would also like to take this opportunity to wish Mr Phil Baban a happy birthday. He was born on 26 May 1929, and will be turning 73 this Sunday. He is a long time Darwinite and definitely well known throughout the community. I wish him the best of luck and I hope he does very well.
Finally, I would like to mention the Millner Primary School swimming carnival that I attended last month. I watched Jabiru team claim first place just ahead of the teams Dingo and Crocodile. The three houses Jabiru, Dingo and Crocodile, certainly set a great example on how to barrack for their teams. I suggest anyone wanting to learn how to barrack correctly attend the next swimming carnival. Congratulations to all those staff and parents who made that morning a great event. I recommend to all members to look in on Ron Argoon, who is the current principal at Millner School, and his fantastic programs for education there. He has done a magnificent job since he has taken over, and he has a combination of indigenous and non-indigenous programs which are very effective in an urban environment.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am addressing the House tonight about a school in my electorate, Wulagi Primary School. It is just up the road from where I live. I have connections with the school; my daughter went there seven years ago, and I actually sponsor a few encouragement awards there. Whenever I can I like to go to the school for their assemblies. The school has a philosophy: ‘To Be the Best You Can’. Wulagi Primary School, in keeping with this philosophy, has developed three exciting and innovative programs with a strong community interest, as, I might say, a lot of our schools in the Territory have done. Number one of these is spelling. The school believes strongly in the importance of spelling. As a result, in semester 1, the school has a whole school focus on spelling. This includes programs to teach spelling as well as special events such as a community spellathon.
Also in keeping with the philosophy of being the best you can, it has reflections rooms. In response to the growing general public concerns of student behaviour, the school has instigated an innovative mediation program. Called the Reflection Room, the process involves specially trained teachers in providing dispute mediation to students. The program is designed to teach children to be responsible citizens in the future, who are able to deal with their own conflicts without violence.
The third leg of their Be The Best You Can strategy is twilight school. This is quite innovative and is something that I will take up with the minister for Education, because it is something which he might wish to consider. The school believes that children’s learning is best served when parents see themselves as partners of teachers in the education process. To this end, the school has organised an evening during which parents will become students in order to learn what it is like to be a student in the year 2002. For this philosophy, and for the strategy to Be The Best You Can, I commend this school.
During the past three months the following students have been awarded Being The Best You Can. These are: Ryan Straughair for completing the whole of his CPPT project, Joseph Mu for excellent high level extension mathematics, and Shanhan Mullins who has been the best for consistently completing her work to a very good standard. Congratulations to the transition students and Year 1 students, especially Broday Cook, Hartley Bonson - a second cousin of the member for Millner - and Isobel Cammarano for their excellent stories and illustrations.
The school, while looking at these academic achievements, also addresses the issue of sport. To this end, the school has had a team entered in the local AFL competition. In line with their philosophy of Being The Best You Can, Wulagi Primary School played Leanyer Primary School. I am pleased to announce that, during the final game of the season on Thursday, 28 March 2002, when the game took place at Leanyer Oval against Leanyer Primary School, Wulagi played well as a team and restricted Leanyer’s scoring opportunities. They didn’t win but they restricted their scoring opportunities, which is in line with their philosophy. I would like to extend my congratulations to Max Browne, Ben Palmer and James Wray for achieving their best. And also a special thanks should go to Bradley Roe for his excellent coaching.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I rise to speak in respect to the Nyingkka Nyunyu Cultural Centre in Tennant Creek. I have spoken about this issue in the past, but on this occasion tonight I would like to speak in respect to some recent developments, and also its economic impact that, I believe, will impact upon the Barkly over at least the next two years.
As I previously mentioned, Nyingkka Nyunyu is a significant regional development project in Tennant Creek. It incorporates both a cultural centre and a community centre, and is next to a Warumungu sacred site. In 1995, the principal custodians of the site gave permission for Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation to develop land, conditional upon the following: that the development recognised that it was indeed Warumungu land; that the project must respect the site; that the development must benefit Aboriginal people by providing jobs, especially for our youth; and significantly, that the area remain a grog-free area.
The principal custodians, or traditional owners, have directed every stage of the design and development, including buildings, landscaping and exhibition design, in an extensive participatory planning process over the last five years. This has involved more than 125 principal custodians of the Warumungu people and the wider community of Tennant Creek. It is interesting to note that Nyingkka Nyunyu also has the support of the whole community, and community organisations including ATSIC, the Yapakurlangu Regional Council, Anyinginyi Congress Aboriginal Corporation, Central Land Council, Papulu Apparr-kari Language Centre, the Tennant Creek Town Council, and also the Regional Tourist Association.
The Nyingkka Nyunyu project has the capacity to be the hub of indigenous economic development in the Barkly. The operations of the centre, which will open in April 2003, will incorporate the following: a caf with a capacity for small conventions and functions; a gallery showcasing and selling Tennant Creek art; and a retail shop selling traditional objects, screen printed clothing, fabrics, books, CDs, and high quality art souvenirs. It will also incorporate an exhibition of the Warumungu history and social structure as told by the Warumungu people themselves; and there will also be area for the performance of dance and singing by men and women. It will have a bush tucker and an indigenous plant garden which will explain Aboriginal plant usage within the Barkly area.
The project has been made possible by funding received from the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Commission, both at a national and regional level; the Department of Transport and Regional Solutions provided a grant of $550 000; and other monies have been received from the Department of Industry, Science and Business and regional online tourist programs; along with a commitment by the Northern Territory government of $1.5m.
Nyingkka Nyunyu will make an important contribution to the regional economy by introducing Aboriginal cultural tourism to the region. Tourism in Tenant Creek and the Barkly region is currently based on the history of the Overland Telegraph Station, the mining industry, some 4-wheel-drive experience, and, of course, the Devil’s Marbles. Nyingkka Nyunyu will meet an express desire of many tourists to interact with Aboriginal people, without leaving the Stuart Highway. It will work with other regional tourist attractions to attract numbers of visitors to the area, and to encourage them to stay an extra night - identified as critical to tourism in the region.
The project, as mentioned previously, has a depth of community consultation and community support that other projects might find hard to equal. The participatory planning progress, which has involved some 125 members over the last 5 years, has been welded to a commercial construction time line by the project coordinator, Liz Tregenza, who incidentally lives in Alice Springs and is a partner in Kutjara Consultants. Her partner, John Tregenza, wrote the brief in respect to assisting the local community with specific issues, including the return of museum objects from the Museum of South Australia and the museum in Victoria. The architects are Alice Springs-based Tangentyere Design, and building construction management is being carried out by Bill Lawson, a principal of Sinclair Knight Merz. Sinclair Knight Merz will also carry out the engineering design development for the major stage 2 building.
The interpretive exhibition will be a strong drawcard. It is being designed by Jisuk Han, who has several major museum projects to her credit, including the ground floor of the new Aboriginal cultural wing of the South Australian Museum. She will be assisted by Gary Warner of CDP Media, who is acting as an audio-visual consultant. The community has a major input into the display, and Aboriginal community members and artists are actually making the nine dioramas that feature in the map wall, working with Tennant Creek local artist, Alison Alder, whose work is known nationally.
Community members are working as consultants and in management roles in the process. Trish Frank, Mark Johnny and Michael Jones are organising community input into the project, as well as bush tucker collection for the interpretive exhibition; taping consultations in respect to the map wall and museum objects; and confirming the set out of the dance area and other landscaping. Artplan, a local design company, is designing the Aboriginal cultural tourism web site through, as I mentioned, the grant that is being provided by the Regional Online Tourism Program.
The economic impact of construction activities is based on $3.4m capital cost. It is assumed that the total amount of money will be new to the Territory, coming from a range of Territory and Commonwealth grants previously mentioned. Of the total amount spent, due to the innovative nature and use of local fabrics and materials in the construction of the building, as well as the building being designed in a low-rise style, there will be very minimal leakage out of the Territory economy. Based upon past experiences, where local labour and materials have been actively sourced for a construction project, an estimated 30% to 40% leakage can be expected. This will equate to approximately $2.2m, which will be injected into the Territory economy. Using standard construction multipliers, it is estimated that some 16 full-time equivalent positions are employed for every $1m spent in construction. It is understood that there may be local variances, but an estimate for the number of Territory jobs created for the construction of the centre will be some 35 people.
The ongoing economic impact of the centre is estimated by the extra amount that tourists will spend in the local community. To estimate increased expenditure, it has been assumed that the total number of tourists who visit the centre - approximately 60 000 per year – will be due to the wide range of activities and information provided about the local area. One third of them will stay an extra night. This means that there will be a further 20 000 tourist nights spent in Tennant Creek annually and, based upon earlier calculations, it has been estimated that the tourists spend approximately $98 per night. Therefore, as I mentioned earlier, an additional 20 000 nights equates to an additional expenditure of $1.96m annually into the regional area, which will equate to 25 full-time jobs on an ongoing basis.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016