2002-10-09
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Hon John Gazzola MLC, a member of the Legislative Council of South Australia, accompanied by Mr Brenton Williamson and Lucio Matarazzo. On behalf of honourable members I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, my government is committed to being accessible to all Territorians and one way to achieve this is by taking Cabinet to communities and regional centres throughout the Territory. So far this year, community Cabinet has travelled to various locations including Nhulunbuy, Alice Springs, Yulara, Tennant Creek, Parap, Wadeye, Palmerston, Kalkarindji, and Katherine, just to name a few.
I wish to report to the House on two community Cabinet meetings held last month. The first was held in Kalkarindji on 2 and 3 September and the second in Katherine on 23 and 24 of the month. The Kalkarindji and Daguragu communities welcomed the opportunity of holding a community Cabinet on their land and we were warmly received during our visit. A plaque commemorating our visit was presented to Justine Paddy, who is president of the Daguragu Community Government Council.
Cabinet members, chief executive officers and advisors arrived at Kalkarindji - many carrying their swags - for two days of meetings with community organisations, government agencies, private enterprise and individuals. The visit concluded with a formal meeting of Cabinet on the second day. During the meetings, we heard first-hand from committed council, Health, Education, Police and Essential Services staff on the concerns facing them in the delivery of services in remote localities.
Ministers left these meetings with a better understanding of issues and giving an assurance to follow-up a range of concerns and suggestions. Cabinet was invited by George Hewitson, Principal of the Kalkarindji Community Education Centre, to walk through all the classrooms. Each room was filled with colour, light and enthusiasm. An impromptu performance of Paul Kelly’s song, From Little Things Big Things Grow, by a class of primary school students was a highlight. We came away with that tune in our hearts and our heads.
We met with a number of senior students at the Kalkarindji Community Education Centre undertaking the first secondary school trial of an innovative strategy called Secondary Provision in Remote Schools. The aim of this program, which implements recommendations from the Learning Lessons report, is to keep secondary students at school longer and, as far as possible, in their own community.
No two community Cabinet visits are the same. Each community visited presents its own dynamics, issues and highlights. Katherine community Cabinet provided me with an opportunity to announce, during a Chamber of Commerce and Industry lunch, this government’s determination to have a closer working relationship with the people of the Katherine region. Work on the regional development plan for Katherine has been reactivated. A high level steering group consisting of representatives from council, indigenous groups, business, Defence, primary industry, tourism and government agencies has been formed. They will have the responsibility of identifying key projects and finding the right balance between social and economic priorities facing Katherine and the region.
After our visit, Jim Forscutt, Mayor of Katherine, was quoted in the Katherine Times as saying: ‘Personally, I have a vote of confidence in the overall governance of the Chief Minister’. Thank you, Jim. My government and I look forward to working closely with Jim Forscutt and all people living in the Katherine region to achieve business growth, and to address quality of life issues identified by the community.
Following the Chamber of Commerce and Industry luncheon, the Australian Red Cross provided their hall as the venue for a successful seniors’ afternoon tea. Clients from Red Cross and Missionaries of Charity hostels joined Katherine senior citizens and Cabinet for a cup of tea and a scone. The time spent with the seniors allowed us to introduce ourselves, to hear of their various life experiences, and to listen to their points of view on a variety of issues.
A number of individuals and organisations made appointments to see ministers during the one-to-one meeting sessions on the Monday afternoon. One woman drove more than 200 km to present her concern to a minister. Again, ministers have taken on board the issues arising from these meetings and they will be following through and responding to every issue raised, and to those constituents.
In order to further raise awareness of the community Cabinet program, newsletters will be produced and circulated after each community visit and, shortly, a community Cabinet web site will be established. I encourage all Territorians to take full advantage of community Cabinet visits, and use the opportunity to raise issues with ministers face to face. In this way, I look forward to leading a government which continues to be in touch with, and responsive to, the needs of all Territorians.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I rise to brief members on the program of events under way for October Business Month 2002.
I had the pleasure of launching October Business Month in Alice Springs on Tuesday, 1 October, and in Darwin on Wednesday, 2 October. Fiona O’Loughlin was the keynote speaker on both evenings. I am sure all members here would have enjoyed Fiona O’Loughlin, a wonderful comedienne and Territorian from Alice Springs, who entertained over 250 people at both of those events. It was a fantastic evening and a bit of a plug for Fiona. Her first full show in Darwin is on 19 October. Unfortunately, it is the same night as the Export Awards. However, if you are not going to the Export Awards I would urge you to get along and see Fiona; she really is a great laugh. As a polly there, you will certainly be targeted, but we are all used to that. Total attendance at both events exceeded 250 people, with over 200 attendees being local business people. Feedback from the launches indicate strong business sector support for the evening and the OBM program.
By way of history, October Business Month is a month-long program of events predominantly aimed at providing professional development opportunities for the people who run small to medium sized established businesses operating in the Territory. OBM is promoted as one of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development’s premier marketing and training events. Following an extensive evaluation of the 2001 OBM, including feedback which strongly indicated a need to reduce the number of events in the OBM program, the revised program has been developed featuring more targeted events with keynote speakers.
The four business topics of most interest to business in 2001 were marketing, finance, e-business and human resources, hence their pride of place in the 2002 calendar. The budget for OBM 2002 is $100 000.
Other events included for the month include the eBusiness Roadshow, introduced in 2001 as a new initiative. The information provided was so well received that the roadshow has been continued in 2002. The roadshow is travelling to all regions throughout the Territory and features a range of experts in the field on e-business and e-commerce including Dr Hugh Bradlow, Chief Technology Officer with Telstra, and it was great to have Hugh committing his valuable time to the roadshow in the Territory; Mr Jochiam Schoen, Marketing and Information Manager of Original IT Investments; and Mr Hugh Lovesy, a recent National Telstra Business Award winner and Managing Director of Pangaea Pty Ltd. It was a fantastic achievement for Hugh and that small company to win a major national award. Hugh really is committed to building capacity in the Northern Territory; a fantastic fellow.
The high number of registrations for the eBusiness Roadshow and the other scheduled events in the area of marketing, human resource management, and finance is a strong indicator that the decision to develop a program focussed on these four key business areas, and to feature keynote speakers - experts in their field - will be appreciated by the business community. The marketing expert speaking in Darwin, Katherine and Nhulunbuy is the keynote speaker, author and television personality, Mr Barry Urquhart. Barry is a regular on the Small Business television show in Western Australia. He speaks in easy to understand terms about the importance of marketing and business. Ms Catherine De Vyre was selected to present throughout the Territory on human resource management with a particular focus on the importance of service and nurturing customers. Catherine, a former Executive Business Woman of the Year, has recently released a book called Good Service is Good Business. And finally, in the area of finance, Mr Andrew Griffiths was selected to present a series of workshop style presentations in all major centres of the Territory including Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. Andrew will be providing all attendees with a copy of the book, 101 Survival Tips for Business, a book every small business owner would be keen to read.
Madam Speaker, I am sure that you would agree that October Business Month program is shaping up to achieve its purpose of ‘Helping Business do Business’. I encourage honourable members to avail themselves of the opportunity to participate. I place on the record this morning my thanks and congratulations to the very hard working staff in my department. It takes a lot of time and effort to put this schedule of events together for the month. It is about eight months work every year and they do a magnificent job and it is well received by the business community.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. As you know, the CLP actually initiated the October Business Month idea. It is certainly a great initiative and it is good to see the current government continuing with it. The assistance it provides to small and medium size businesses continues to reap rewards for the Northern Territory, not just through the professional development in the workshops, but very much the networking which occurs at many of these October Business Month functions.
The Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development should be commended for the way it conducts itself and the professional manner in which it sets up these workshops; an important aspect to October Business Month in that it takes these workshops to the people. It is in a number of regional centres, not just in Darwin and not just in Alice Springs. That is something which I have had positive feedback about. The CLP will continue to do all that it can to support small and medium size businesses. It is good to see the minister taking an interest in this important sector of our community.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, this morning the NT News carried a report indicating that the Territory Motor Sports Board has ordered the closure of Northline Speedway. Sadly, this is another example of a sporting organisation getting itself into financial difficulty and not being able to manage its way out of trouble.
In September 2000, under the previous government, the Territory Motor Sports Board was formed to operate as the leaseholder of the Hidden Valley Motor Sport Complex, and as the peak organisation for motor sports in the Territory. As part of that arrangement the Darwin Speedway Riders and Drivers Association has held a licence to operate at Hidden Valley along with several other motor sports clubs.
It was reported this morning that the speedway owes a considerable amount of money to the Territory Motor Sports Board for insurance, infrastructure costs and previous debts. I am advised that the Territory Motor Sports Board had issued the Speedway Association with a Notice to Quit due to the escalating debts owed and that termination of the licence to operate agreement had been foreshadowed. At the same time, I understand that the Business Affairs Unit of the Department of Justice has issued the Darwin Speedway Association with a Show Cause notice in accordance with section 25AU of the Associations Incorporation Act due to the unmanageable debt of the organisation.
This is a symptom of wider issues confronting sporting organisations and other community groups throughout the Territory. Good governance and competent financial management are essential for all clubs and associations. In that context, my colleague, the Minister for Justice, has this week announced that the Associations Incorporation Act, which governs bodies like sporting and community clubs, would be overhauled. The bottom line is that the 2000 or so clubs and associations operating in the Territory need to be self-sustaining, but the government will ensure that there is a proper framework in place to help those organisations which contribute a great deal, as we know, to our community and are part of Territory life.
The proposed legislative changes will protect club members and the wider community. In parallel with this legislative reform, the government will provide training and education to clubs to help them understand the responsibilities of office holders and to implement better management.
I recently met with the Motor Sports Board and raised concerns about the financial difficulties being experienced by the Motor Sports Club, and the perception that there existed a great deal of antagonism and turmoil within the motor sports community. I indicated at that meeting that I would be arranging to meet the Motor Sports Council, a group which represents the users of the Hidden Valley complex. That is because it is important to seek the views of all relevant stakeholders in this process.
It is regrettable that the Darwin Speedway Association has found itself in this situation, but I am also encouraged that the Motor Sports Board will be seeking a solution that enables speedway racing to continue at Hidden Valley. I am committed to working with the board and the clubs to ensure that motor sports develops a strong and sustainable future in the Territory.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. I am particularly interested that you are saying that the government will work to ensure that speedway continues at Hidden Valley. In your response, would you tell us how you foresee this will occur? There is no doubt that speedway has been an important part of the amenities and almost an icon in the Darwin area for many years. There is no doubt that it is a sport that is attracting fewer spectators and therefore less revenue. Equally, those clubs are facing themselves increasing costs in using the Hidden Valley facility.
There are, as you rightly say, antagonisms within the whole of the motor sports bodies associated within Hidden Valley. There are certainly concerns that are visible, too. If you have a look at Hidden Valley, the place looks unkempt. It is one thing to have that place prepared beautifully for the V8 Supercars; it is another thing to have the amenity as a suitable amenity maintained right throughout the year.
Ms Martin: Why didn’t you think of that while you were in government?
Mr BURKE: This is not an issue of trying to form a confrontation with the minister. I am simply saying that if you say the speedway will continue under the consultations and arrangements that you intend to put in place, can you tell us how you envisage that occurring without the speedway association?
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow opposition sports and recreation spokesperson for his comments. I am committed, as I said, to working with the board and the clubs to ensure that motor sports develops a strong and sustainable future in the Territory. Under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and the former Chief Minister, it is similar to yesterday; they have to be careful in going into this sort of area because once we dropped the letter yesterday, the wind went out of their sails.
Mr Burke: I met with them. I met with the bowls. I didn’t just write them a letter.
Mr AH KIT: We have another situation here, Madam Speaker. This bloke has, as the Chief Minister, allowed the establishment …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: You haven’t taken your tablets this morning, have you, fellas? See! I just have to rattle the bucket.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker …
Members interjecting,
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr AH KIT: Well, let’s quickly go to the history if you want and look at where and how the Territory Motor Sports Board was established, and where it was funded from and how it was put together, so you can have a look at that because you did not set it up properly and you left another mess and I am going to tidy that mess up.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I make the comment that it would be nice if in response we did not waste so much time with interjections. Minister, if you just stuck to the point.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial report on the Northern Territory’s part in marking the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the People’s Republic of China and Australia.
On 21 December 1972, an agreement was signed between the Australian government and the Chinese government. That agreement stated that:
Now, 30 years later, all Australians can see the benefits of that action so long ago. In the Territory, events will held this month to mark the 30th anniversary. On 11 October, the Northern Territory government will welcome a delegation of 13 senior Chinese officials to Darwin. This visit will be both part of an ongoing development of closer relationships with China and mutual recognition by the Chinese government and the Territory government of the importance of the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between China and Australia.
The visit by the delegation highlights our connection to the principles of friendship and harmony advocated by the 1972 agreement. The delegation’s visit to Darwin was initiated by the Northern Territory Branch of the Australia-China Friendship Society. The Society, Australia-wide, has been a key player in fostering interest in China and maintaining friendly relations between Australian and Chinese people. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Society. I particularly thank the Northern Territory Branch of the Australia-China Friendship Society for its efforts in organising the delegation’s visit.
Members of the 13 person delegation include:
Mr Guo Fucheng, the head of the delegation, Deputy Director General of the Standing Committee of
Baotou Municipal People’s Congress, Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region;
Mr Shi Peide, Director General, Shangqiu Municipal People’s Congress of Henan Province;
Mr Pang Liping, Secretary General of Hunan Provincial People’s Friendship Association;
Mr Wang Chongmin, Deputy Secretary General of Baotou Municipal Government, Inner Mongolian
Autonomous Region;
Ms Ma Hairong, Secretary General of the Chinese Delegation, Director of the Division for Oceanian
and Canadian Affairs of the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries;
Mr Shi Jianmin, Director General of the Committee on Science, Education, Culture and Public Health,
Shangqiu Municipal People’s Congress, Henan Province;
Mr Chu Qingfu, Honorary President, Nanyang People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries,
Hunan Province;
Mr Li Jinwang, Director General, Nanyang Municipal Planning Bureau, Henan Province;
Mr Sun Jianhua, Deputy Director General of the Construction Committee, Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region;
Mr Wang Xudong, Deputy Director of the Gardening Division, Baotou City, Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region;
Mr Wang Jianjun, Deputy Director General of the Standing Committee of Dongcheng District People’s Congress,
Beijing;
Ms Jia Feng, Deputy Director, Miyun County Foreign Affairs Office, Beijing; and
Ms Wang Lidan, Interpreter, the Division of Canadian and Oceanian Affairs, Chinese People’s Association
of Friendship with Foreign Countries.
The Northern Territory government will contribute to the delegation’s two and a half days Darwin program. On 11 October, the government will host a reception and a dinner to welcome the delegates and honour the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations. On 11 and 12 October, the government’s Protocol Branch and the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development have arranged briefings and tours for the delegation. These include a briefing on the Trade Development Zone on the new wharf development and the railway, and a visit to the Northern Territory Marketing Centre.
All of the activities supported by the government will promote the economic and social value of links between the Northern Territory and the various provinces of the People’s Republic of China.
The agreement’s context, 30 years ago, was reconciliation between China and Australia, and the aim of the reconciliation was constructive relations with each other, and also with our region of the world.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement on the coming visit of the Chinese delegation to the Northern Territory. I am pleased to also support the point that the Australia Chinese Friendship Society of the Northern Territory has been instrumental in organising this visit. It is an indication of the strong links that the Northern Territory has had with China for so many years under the guidance of the CLP government. We have had great links with provinces such as Ningxia, Anhui, and the capital, Beijing, and the many visits that our ministers have made to places like the Guangdong Province. Through efforts of the Northern Territory Chinese community over the many years, the relationship has continued to grow and it is pleasing to see that the government is recognising the friendships that have been established and affording the delegation with an official reception in Parliament House.
The minister is wont to say that, whenever there are ethnic functions organised in Parliament House, his office always extends the shadow minister for Ethnic Affairs an invitation. Minister, it is only two or three days away from the reception - no invitation has been received on my desk. That happens now. The minister can brag about it. If he brags about it, then tell the truth or do it right, otherwise just tell people you do not get the invitation and that is also fine. However, I will be there.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his comments. I apologise if he has not received an invitation. He certainly will receive one. He had better check with his office in Alice Springs.
However, this is a strong commitment from the Martin government for our links with South-East Asia and China and other regions in our area. This is not only to reinforce those links between the Territory and China, but to help celebrate the 30th anniversary of the diplomatic relations between Australia and Asia, thanks to the then Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Gough Whitlam.
At the same time, I acknowledge the member’s comments and, yes, we will continue the previous government’s policy with our relations with Asia. However, we are not going to actually keep our relationships with the Asian countries just on paper; we are going to be actively participating in functions in our area. We will forge economic links and we are not prepared to sit here in our offices and send letters and faxes; we are actually prepared to travel out there to sell the Territory and to invite people from other countries to come and see our Territory in order to develop stronger links within the Territory and other countries in our region.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I move that consideration of General Business Notice No 1 relating to variations to activities to agencies be postponed to a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we proceed to call on the member for Nelson, I am informed that, with the agreement of the Assembly, there will be a debate on Notice No 2, together with the following Notices Nos 3 and 4. On completion of the debate of Notice No 2, the question will be put on Notices Nos 3 and 4 without further debate. Do you understand what I am saying?
Members, the debate on this motion , that is No 2 on the Notice Paper, will be taken together with and inclusive of debate for Notices Nos 3 and 4 standing in the name of the member for Nelson. On completion of this debate on this motion, the question will be put on Notices Nos 3 and 4 without further debate.
So, we are basically having debate on the three motions in one debate. It is my understanding that that was the agreement of the Assembly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move – That sections 1812, 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791, Hundred of Ayers excluding the Phillips LNG site are ‘rezoned open space – conservation’, and included in a future national marine conservation park for Darwin Harbour.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table these documents and if they could be handed to members.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, whilst those documents and maps are being handed out I would just like to make some general comments. One of the reasons I raised this motion was I felt there was not enough debate in parliament in the last 12 months about a very important issue that many people in the Darwin area have an interest in and more so with the development of the LNG plant.
The debate about the harbour does go back some time. In fact, I think the original vision for the harbour was developed in about 1984, and it was put into more concrete plans, you might say, in 1990 with the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan. That is the conceptual plan that was put for the development of the whole Darwin region and it was developed because of the Kenbi Land Claim. One of the difficulties with that was that the public did not really have an opportunity to have a say in that. It was developed fairly quickly because the Kenbi Land Claim was being heard at that stage. I only recall one meeting on this particular matter and I am not sure whether there were any public meetings about it. So there has been this large plan for the development of Darwin that has never really been debated fully by the community.
When you look around today you would have to say that things really have not changed. I recall the government, when it was in opposition, saying that this document should be reviewed. This document is nearly 17 or 18 years old in one form or another and when you look back, very few things have changed except perhaps for the Elizabeth River Dam and some movement towards development of Glyde Point.
What I am doing today, I suppose, is taking a section of Darwin Harbour to highlight some of the problems that I see occurring at the present time. What I see is a lack of vision by the government for the whole of the region. I hope from this debate that something more will come from it.
The land I am referring to in the motion is on that map with the green border, all the sections of land as I quoted, except for the LNG plant which naturally is not up to scale there, but it just gives you an idea of the Wickham Point area where the LNG plant will go. So we are excluding that, we are excluding a couple of pearling leases and the aquaculture farms.
I suppose the questions is, why am I asking for that land to be protected? There are a whole range of reasons. The first one, the obvious one, is because of the environment. Now the government has made a statement that it intends to protect the mangroves of Darwin Harbour and they expanded the boundaries to Darwin Harbour and I congratulate them for that. But mangroves do not just survive on their own. Mangroves are not from the high tide to the low tide. Mangroves live in association with uplands and woodlands. They are part of a total ecosystem. You just cannot isolate them and build down to the edge of them and say they are okay, they will survive on their own. There are many animals and birds that rely on a movement between the eucalyptus forests, the melaleuca wetlands and the mangroves. So you need to have a vision that not only are you going to protect the mangroves, but you are going to protect the biodiversity behind the mangroves.
The idea of developing this land into industrial goes against that notion. If you have a look at the coloured maps, you will see that the Ware Peninsula has a section that is coloured in purple, and that purple is all the high ground that you see on the other map right down to the edge of the mangroves. I should note that the minister did make a statement recently that some land would be not used for industrial. This is the map out of the new Litchfield Land Use Objectives and it still shows some of that land as industrial, so I hope this map is just an aberration, but it does show that land as still being industrial.
Until now, before any real decision had been made, quite a bit of this land in this area has been used for extractive mining which was quite premature because until there had been a proper debate and until the minister had decided this land would be industrial or something else, it has purely been a conceptual plan. But in the mean time the Department of Mines, basing its advice from the Department of Lands which based its advice on this land being conceptually industrial, have been allowed to take quite a bit of …
Mr BURKE: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I am just trying to refer land in question. Can the member refer me to section 1819?
Madam SPEAKER: To clarify where it is? Yes.
Mr WOOD: What I think section 1819 is, it may be the new section that was developed with Wickham Point. Yes, I make an apology there. These maps are the latest maps I have but now with the …
Mr Burke: So it is the point? Part of the point?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I think part of that land now has a new section number, so it makes it a little bit difficult there.
Mr Dunham: It would not be 1819, then, Gerry. It would have a higher number.
A member: It could not be that one, I wouldn’t think.
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps the minister could …
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not have a new map. I only have the map provided by the honourable member, Madam Speaker, but 1819 is land that was identified for disposal of ash when the Channel Island Power Station was going to be a coal-fired power station so it could be a portion of the Channel Island land.
Mr WOOD: No, I did not include any of Channel Island in this.
Mr VATSKALIS: I will inquire and I will find out.
Madam SPEAKER: That would be good.
Mr WOOD: But I can double check on that. It was included in this area.
Madam SPEAKER: We will just get some clarification on that.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I can find that out for you. So basically, if this land was industrial according to the plans that are in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives, then all the land that is within that green area, perhaps with the exception of section 1813, and the remaining land around Phillips, will become industrial.
What are the other reasons for not having industrial zoning? Besides the environmental reasons, which are very important, there are cultural reasons. This land is still used for Aboriginal uses, especially for traditional hunting and I have raised this in the House before: a gentleman, John O’Sullivan, used to take many of the long grass people from Darwin there on the weekends where they could go crabbing, get long bums or just enjoy a little bit of peace and quiet in the bush. It is an area that people did use and still use for Aboriginal uses, so it is an important area. It highlights the fact that if you can keep an area like that in the centre of your city, you have an opportunity for some of these traditional uses to still be maintained close to Darwin. It also sends out the signal that this land was and still is Larrakia land and it does say to people that here is some land that we have kept more or less in its natural state in the centre of our harbour. It does have traditional and cultural reasons for staying as it is.
Mr Henderson: We have already agreed.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but you have also bought native title which signals the reason for using it for industrial.
Mr Henderson: With agreement.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that might be, but that does not stop the rest of us also hoping that it will be maintained as it is. We are part of a total picture; I am looking at a holistic approach.
Mr Henderson: The Larrakia agreed.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but I live here, too.
The economic benefits of leaving this land as it is are great. From a tourist aspect, by retaining this pristine area in the centre of the harbour, you are giving people the appearance that the harbour is still in a pristine condition. You are not putting industrial development in the centre of your harbour where it will be most seen and not needed. The tourism industry is huge, the fishing industry is big, bird watching, sightseeing, boating, diving are all done in Darwin Harbour, and most of that all depends on the maintenance of the biodiversity of the harbour. Some of it relates to just how the harbour looks. That is just as important. You do not say, that’s a beautiful mountain, and then fill it up with industrial. It does not quite look the same thing. We have a beautiful harbour; it won’t be so beautiful if it is industrialised.
There are other aspects, what I call the social aspects, and they are aspects, I believe, not covered by planners. The planning map will not show you the effect of the retention of Darwin Harbour in its natural state. We are going to have three cities fairly close to the harbour. We actually have Darwin and Palmerston already, and we will have a new city of Weddell. Those people need places to get away from it all. Why should they have to go out to Shady Camp, Kakadu or Litchfield? Why can they not also have an opportunity to have a place which they can enjoy right on their doorstep? One of the reasons you keep land like this is to allow people some space. We live in a mad, helter-skelter environment. People need to have sections of land set aside for basically peace and quiet, for some solitude, for enjoyment. I always used to say, Dad and Mum can take the kids up one of these harbour estuaries and throw a line in; that is important. Whether they catch fish or not probably is important too, but they get away from it all, they have a place for the family to go to and have a day out, and they do not have to go miles to do it.
So, having the centre of the harbour protected has important social aspects. It also gives the city some sort of soul, because we have been clever enough to leave some of the city as it is, we have not developed every square inch, and that is important. But people forget that, and I would ask people who may not know this area to go out and have a look and ask: does this area need to be developed for industrial? It is a beautiful area, it was well treed until some of the extractive mining was allowed there, and it is sad that some of the extractive mining, until recently, was allowed to go right to the mangroves. They are now restricted to the eight metre contour, so at least there is some conservation being allowed there.
Development: well, development is what the government wants to do with this area, and you have to ask them: is this piece of land really suitable for development? If you went back to the eight metre contour, which I am told by Mines and Energy is the land that is not to be mined simply because of the tidal surge, then if you took a 100 m to 200 m line around that area, the high ground, you would have very little land in there to develop in the first place. There is minimal land that can be developed there, and you have to ask: why not look for another site where you can develop it properly?
The government recently said it is intending to protect 5000 hectares of mangroves which will create a buffer between the LNG plant and any other development. But the 5000 hectares of land to be protected is actually 4737 hectares of mangroves that the minister has already declared that he intends to protect, which leaves you with about 263 hectares of land which is the little bit of land at Wickham Point and the island that the GTL LNG plant was going to go on. It still leaves you with a considerable section of the middle of the harbour to be industrial.
I have been listening to statements by the government as to why that land should be developed, and it has been fairly confusing. The Chief Minister, on Stateline a few months ago, said that that land could be set aside for Winnellie-type development. The Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment said at the AFANT meeting it could be used for benign industries, and he mentioned a container terminal. Lately, we have heard that the land will be set aside for LNG associated industries and a railway infrastructure development. Now you have to ask, why the heck would you want to put a Winnellie-type development in the middle of the harbour? This sort of industry does not need to be sold in the middle of the harbour; it can go anywhere. Bridgestone Tyres, Fred’s Ice Cream, the aluminium welders, they do not need to go in the middle of the harbour; there is no need for them to be there. The harbour is not essential for them to be successful.
On the issue of containers, the figure I had is that if we need land for containers, you can put around about 4666 containers on one hectare of land, stacked six high, and that is about 21 train loads. First of all, why would you want to then put them in the middle of the harbour? - you do not need very much land. And why put containers so far away from East Arm Port?
Then we have the LNG associated industries. Well, what are the LNG associated industries? Unless methanol and Methanex are coming back, the only other associated industries, I would have thought, would have been maintenance-type industries. They, surely, would come out of other industrial areas in Darwin. They do not have to be close to the LNG plant.
The last one, of course, is the railway. Why would railway associated industries be in the middle of the harbour? We have developed the East Arm Port as the area where the rail will terminate. We have set aside a large amount of land and, sadly, a large amount of mangroves are going to be filled in - and that was specifically set aside for the rail. I find it confusing and I still have not received an explanation as to why we are not using the proposed East Arm Port area for rail development and rail industries. I thought there was plenty of land there.
So what are the alternatives? I have said why I do not particularly like industry in the middle of the harbour. There are alternatives. You have to realise that if you look at the map of proposed land use concepts, and the land on this map in Middle Arm where the word says ‘East Arm’, if you go below the word ‘Arm’, you will see a purple area there. That piece of land is 32 km from East Arm Port. At the same time, the government has said it is going to put a 100 m corridor from the East Arm Port to Glyde Point. Again, you will see a brown and orange line going from East Arm Port to Glyde Point, and a small diamond on the picture there; it just goes under that area. The diamond area is the regional dump site. That corridor is going to have a rail spur on it. I presume it is going to have power and water, and part of it will have a road from Palmerston to Glyde Point. If you take the same 32 km distance from the middle of the harbour right around to East Arm Port, you will end up at Koolpinyah Station. I am not saying we need to build things out at Koolpinyah Station, but there is land along the way closer, and that land is to the east of the Robinson Barracks where that diamond is. There is land in there that is now used as extractive mineral areas - it is actually zoned EX for that use - that could be developed carefully for industrial development. It is also having the railway on it. If you are going to develop this corridor, why not use the corridor to the best of its usage? You could develop land up near Koolpinyah, because the Koolpinyah area is marked as grazing and agriculture.
So, there is land up there that surely would be available for some industrial development along the way to Glyde Point. There are alternatives. The distance to go to work along that way is the same distance that you have to drive from Palmerston around to East Arm, so the proximity to employment is still very similar.
The problem I have with all of this is that it seems that this industrial development has been set in concrete all the time, and there has been no public debate on alternatives. Even though the Litchfield Land Use Objectives have now, I presume, been declared, they still set this in concrete and there has been no debate. The Litchfield Council has always opposed this development and basically the answer we got back from the department was, ‘Well sorry, that is where it is going to go’. I have heard people say the other alternatives are not suitable but there has been no debate as to why they are not suitable, and why you could not look at alternatives.
If we are going to have a vision for Darwin we have to start looking with a long-term vision. We have to say, ‘Can we make our city special?’ This is a special place. We do have not the build up of other cities. We have a beautiful harbour that I reckon can make this city spectacular. All right, we have got the LNG plant and I have not opposed the LNG plant and I have always said that I believe you should be able to have development of the harbour, it is essential. But no one in the government has said why you would want Winnellie development in the middle of the harbour. What is essential about that? What is essential about having benign industries in the harbour? It is not about whether they do any damage necessarily to the environment, it is about why they have to be there in the first place. If they were going to cause damage to the environment I would use that as another argument. But why do you have to destroy the aesthetics of the harbour for an industry that does not have to be there? It can go somewhere else. The LNG associated industries, why? We put the LNG plant there specifically so it could get access to water. No other reason. That is why it is there and that is what the argument has been all along - they needed access to deep water. It does not mean everyone else has to go there.
I believe we have a chance to develop a city which has a national or marine or conservation park - that would have to be worked out - right smack in a middle of a city and that would be something unique and would be something that people would find very attractive when they come to this city. I have mentioned before to people, you take Sydney, four or five million people today. Someone had the vision and the foresight many years ago to have Royal National Park - which I believe was the first national park in Australia – to have Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park and they have a little park, it is not the greatest park, they have the Botany Bay National Park which is all right, it has a fair number of big oil refineries and development around it, but someone at least had some vision that we needed to protect some areas so that our city would have these special places in it.
If we do not have that vision now we are going to develop this city just like every other city. We will lose an opportunity and this is the opportunity to do it. If we miss it now it will be ruined. Once you have filled up your mangroves, once you have cleared the land, that is the end and I said to a lot of people when it came to issues of land clearing in Litchfield Shire, it is not about the amount of land clearing it is about the quality of land clearing.
The decisions we have to make today are probably decisions that should have been made by people who came here, Europeans who came here 200 years ago. They are the ones who first changed Australia’s landscape permanently. Aboriginal people might have burnt the place and they might have gone hunting but they did not change the landscape considerably. Even our pastoralists, I suppose, the graziers in the Northern Territory, did not change our landscape considerably. But we are the first people in this century to start to change the Northern Territory permanently and we do it by clearing and development. Once you have cleared the land and once you have developed the land you generally cannot go back from that point. So the decisions we make about the development of this region have to be taken very seriously and very carefully because there is no turning back once we make those decisions. If those decisions are being made behind closed doors, if those decisions are being made without at least alternatives being put to the public, then I feel we are limiting the chances of making the right decisions for this area.
My vision for the Darwin area is to have a harbour which is retained as a park including the Wickham Point and the Ware Peninsula; to develop a series of towns as part of greater Darwin which are close to the harbour but do not impinge unduly on its beauty and environment; to use the harbour as a key component to attract tourists to the region - and that it is very important because tourism will continue regardless of LNG plants. We can have the big development things, the rail and the LNG plant, but underneath that you need an economy that is bubbling along. These ones come and they go and the economy goes like that, you need something operating within the economy that ticks the economy over continually and one of them is tourism; and the harbour, surely, is one of the great tourism potential areas in the Northern Territory.
Why go to Kakadu? Why go to Shady Camp? Why go to Litchfield? Great places, but for some people who might drop in here overnight and stay at a hotel, there is an opportunity to go out into a pristine development and try to catch a barramundi within sight of the hotel! What a great attraction for people to come here. Go down to Indo-Pacific Marine and have a look at all the corals. You might have heard the discussion from the gentleman who looks after all the corals and sponges in the harbour. He was on the ABC, I think, the day before yesterday. He was just describing the colour and beauty of a lot of the sponges and corals that will be seen on a very low tide that occurs next week. I don’t think people realise what a great harbour we have.
I remember doing a study on the harbour when we were debating the issue of the Elizabeth River Dam. I went to the museum and I got some of their books and I looked at some of their material. Up until last year, or the year before, 440 species of fish – that is just fish - have been identified in Darwin Harbour. Then you start to include your worms, corals and sponges, and Lord knows how much else is in that harbour, and you realise we really have a top grade harbour sitting right here amongst us.
We should be doing our darndest to make sure that it is not wrecked. I am not saying the government intends to try to wreck it, but you should put in place a solution that will make sure that we do the very maximum to minimise any harm that we could do to that harbour.
I also believe that we should only allow essential development of the harbour. My argument has always been about the LNG plant: it was essential; it required deep water. I probably could say I would love it to go somewhere else, but the reality is it needed to go where there was deep water. Harbours are for shipping. I am not saying that we should lock the harbour up, but it is a harbour, and ships come in to harbours because they are safe, and because they require deep water and safe access.
I do not agree that development should include things like housing and marina estates. Those days should be gone. I have said before if we need marina estates, then we should be looking at things like either floating marinas, and you live back on the high ground, or, if you have to have them, and I still query whether you have to have them, then you develop a canal system that goes through the mangroves into the high ground and you develop the canals from digging out the high ground. Why bring half the cattle station down to the harbour and dump it on top of the mangroves? It seems a very clumsy way of doing things. If you need them, look at alternative ways of doing them. I prefer not to have them because there are dangers with them and I think that black striped mussel is one of the dangers of having these land locked or enclosed, you might say unnatural, water next to natural water systems.
You could have development, for instance, eco-tourism. You could have things like jetties. A lot of people don’t have boats and might want to go fishing. Perhaps we could have access to some small jetties into some of the estuaries so people could have a weekend there or just a day fishing. And there are restaurants, museums of the cultural and environmental type.
In the end, we need to develop alternative sites for industrial development away from the harbour and in appropriate locations which are within reasonable access to the workforce, and sited on land suitable for such development. I do not believe we spent enough time dealing with that issue.
We really have to set the vision up first, and I don’t think that vision is what I call ‘modern’ at the present time. It is 27 years old. It needs revision. It needs the government to say. ‘Well, we are not the same government as when we were in opposition. We are going to come here with new ideas.’ But I have not heard new ideas. This plan is nearly the same as all the other plans except that Weddell has been moved away from the Elizabeth River. That is about the only major change in this whole development.
I am just hoping that the government will look at the whole of Darwin Harbour, that they will use this small part of Darwin Harbour as an example of what they are going to do, that they will retain that as conservation land, that they will not put zone industrial in there because in the long-term that is the way that Darwin people want it to be.
I might not agree with some of the sentiments from the Save the Darwin Harbour campaign as regards the LNG plant, but behind all that is a sentiment that many of us agree with: they do not want Darwin Harbour ruined. You can argue those bits and pieces about the LNG plant and little bits here and there, but in general, people want the harbour protected. The government has to recognise that. I hope they listen to what I have to say. I hope they listen to what those people are saying, but I hope more so that they represent, in what they do, the people who are going to come in 100 years’ time, the people who will look back and say, we made the right decisions.
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Madam Speaker, I can respond to all three motions put by the honourable member because he mentioned he is going to roll them all in one.
Madam SPEAKER: Sorry?
Mr VATSKALIS: My understanding was he was going to roll all the motions into one, so I can respond to all three motions in one go.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr VATSKALIS: First of all, I appreciate his decision to actually roll all the motions in one, so it makes things easier for us. I also welcome his point of view. I always welcome his point of view. There are many things we agree on, there are also things we disagree on. We agree on certain things like the LNG plant site, , we disagree in some of the areas where it is going toward the harbour, and the location of the plant, the location of the harbour associated industries.
I know he is very passionate about certain issues. He is very passionate about the environment, and I also know that he has a very good knowledge of the Planning Act, having been the President of the Litchfield Shire for many years, and being involved with the planning action groups and other groups that have a particular focus on planning.
As I said before, we share common ground, and also we disagree in certain areas. However, I would like to speak on his motion, taking one at a time. First of all, the member for Nelson calls upon the government to cease any further industrial development in the Wickham Point area, especially land and sea covered by sections 1812 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791 Hundred of Ayers, excluding the Phillips site. I would like to approach this section one at a time. I have no idea what the member for Nelson intends to do with section 1819. There is an extensive tract backing the Elizabeth River; I have a document here which I am prepared to table that identifies section 1819 exactly opposite Virginia. Currently this Crown Land is zoned for future use, and is zoned for proposed land use objectives and planning concepts for future open space. I have to point out that the previous government was forced to rule out any development in that area, and also this government has promised no weirs in the Elizabeth River, so nothing is going to happen there. It is already planned to be open space, so that covers some of your concerns.
Section 1791, which is here on the map, the section I referred to before, was actually considered by the previous administration to be an area to dispose of fire ash should the Channel Island Power Station be powered by coal. This has not happened, and my department is now negotiating with PowerWater to acquire this piece of land, and most likely it will be returned to conservation estate. But part of this land will be used for corridors, road, railway and future electric lines and gas. There is no proposal for industrial development of this land and, as I said before, it most likely will be returned to an industrial estate, apart from the corridor that is required.
Section 1813: this land is within the area where the former government applied native title for Phillips Liquified Natural Gas, the LNG project, and possible future natural gas based industries. I need to explain that the Phillips project started within the former section 1812, and both sections of 1812 and 1813 were within the acquisition area. On 26 September, the Chief Minister announced a general prohibition against future gas-based manufacturing in the Middle Arm Peninsula industrial estate. That means no urea, no fertiliser, no plastics, nothing that will require breaking down LNG and reconstructed to produce other material or chemicals. There is not going to be any further industry in the Middle Arm Peninsula apart from the LNG plant and other industries required to support the LNG plant. We are not talking about power stations or anything; we are talking about industry directly linked with the LNG plant. She specifically ruled out any development of that land that is described as section 1813, and this one will also return to the conservation estate. That area will accommodate the road and service corridors required for the Phillips site. We have actually provided the road and service corridors to the LNG plant. Some of this area will be taken away to provide for the corridors and, also, this corridor probably will accommodate the pipeline from Sunrise when it will come onshore to Darwin because that will be the only developed corridor to put the Sunrise pipeline and then to continue it up to Glyde Point.
This section contains an area of dry monsoon rainforest which, I presume, is the matter that the member for Nelson is concerned about. I also remind the member for Nelson that this is the area that was identified by the British company GTL Resources for a methanol plant. I believe that the member, in his previous capacity as the President of the Litchfield Shire, gave some support at the time. Following the government’s decision to exclude this area from future development, the department is now in discussion with Phillips about possibilities of an enhanced conservation management program. We are discussing with the company to provide conservation money for a program for the area that contains dry monsoon forest.
Section 1812, as previously noted, is the actual site for the Phillips LNG plant. For some time now, it has been proposed to subdivide this site into sections 1860 and 1861. The actual plant will be constructed on 1860, and 1861 would serve as a buffer. It is this section, an area around 120 hectares, that the government has now determined will be zoned as conservation.
Finally, section 1814: this area of land, together with part section 1817, comprises former section 1, Hundred of Ayres, that was originally granted as freehold in 1884. One hundred years later, the government acquired this land for the purpose of developing an industrial estate. This land has been identified in planning documentation for nearly 20 years now for industrial purposes. Even now, within section 1814, there is a small area zoned industry, an areas set aside around 1992 for a petroleum industry proposal that never took off. The government intends that this area be appropriately zoned for industry. It is envisioned this area would be accommodating businesses established in the Middle Arm Peninsula industrial estate to directly service the LNG plant. No refineries, as I said before, no petrochemical plants, no urea manufacturers, no plastics manufacturers, no power station, nothing that will actually breakdown LNG components to manufacture other materials and chemicals. The only development at Middle Arm will be the LNG development and any other industry that will support the construction of the LNG plant and support the LNG in that place, so liquified petroleum …
Mr Wood: What are those LNG industries?
Mr Burke: Like GTL?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, we said no methanol and we stated clearly that the only thing that will go in Middle Arm will be the LNG plant. That is the commitment we gave.
Mr Wood: What are the associated industries?
Mr VATSKALIS: We will need industries to construct the plant. We have to have it there. You might have associated industries later. When the Sunrise pipeline comes off the sea, before you pump it to Glyde Point you will need to either pressurise it or take water out of the gas. These are non-noxious benign industries; they are not manufacturing industries, they are not industries that would take the LNG to break it down to manufacture other chemicals. They will be only associated with liquified natural gas, the Phillips plant, are the only ones that will be associated with natural gas.
Mr Wood: What will be associated with …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson. We are not in committee. The minister has the floor.
Mr VATSKALIS: I am prepared to give you a briefing should you require one, but as I said to you before, I cannot foresee what is going there. But I stated before and I say it again: no refineries, no petrochemicals using natural gas as feedstock to manufacture products such as ammonia, urea, methanol, or methanol derivatives such as solvents and plastics. None of these industries would be permitted in that area.
So, let us start again. Section 1812, 1813, 1814 and 1791, excluding the Phillips LNG site, these are the sections that the member for Nelson calls on the government to cease any further industrial development. Section 1812 contains the LNG site, the balance of some 120 hectares will be zoned conservation. Apart from the necessary service corridor, section 1813 will be zoned conservation. Section 1814, along with section 1817, will be zoned development to accommodate transport related and general industry, but gas-based manufacture will be excluded.
I note very much your comments: there is Koolpinyah Station; why don’t we take the industries there – the distance is the same? The reality is, until now, everybody who talked to us or talked to the previous government, wanted the area to accommodate freight industry or freight connected industry very close to the East Arm wharf. Unfortunately, the physical design of the harbour is such that people would like to see it very close. The previous government, in some of their planning documents, even designed a bridge to bridge the sea between East Arm with the Middle Arm Peninsula. It is something we have to consider. We can take all the industry and put it at Koolpinyah Station; it might be cheaper, but that cannot be guaranteed because we have to acquire the station, the pastoral lease. The moment you start acquiring large tracts of land for other purposes than pastoral leases, you immediately have problems with native title, you immediately trigger demands for compensation. This place is already clear of native title. It was freehold in 1884; that means the government does not have to pay a dollar.
So what is the point of me spending money to acquire native title rights when I can put this money to develop a clean estate related to East Arm wharf? Not me personally, but I am talking as government. What is the point of government spending that money? I believe the previous government had exactly the same idea as this government and pursued the same development in the same area and we will continue to pursue that.
The government is trying to strike a balance between economic development and preserving the environment. We are very, very serious about it. We came with this platform to the election and we have already taken steps to show the people that this is what we are going to do. There are limitations about the position of the LNG plant and we discussed that before. We said before that there is a commitment by Phillips; Phillips has already spent money there. The government has given a commitment and it is very difficult for the government to step back and order or ask Phillips to go somewhere else without paying compensation. That compensation could run to millions of dollars because do not forget Phillips acquired some of the native title rights directly from the traditional owners. Phillips have spent money to conduct surveys and studies. Phillips have signed a 30 year agreement to supply gas to a Japanese company. If this government, or any other government, said to Phillips, pack up and go somewhere else, any company would have the right to sue you for millions or hundreds of millions of dollars and certainly I do not want to spend the next 20 years arguing with Phillips about this. The easiest position for Phillips or any other company is, ‘Well if you can’t have your land developed like that, we’ll go to Western Australia. They already have a gas industry and we will give the advantage to them, so goodbye’. And they would be absolutely right.
Let me turn to issues raised in the other two motions. I have to say that I am surprised by the position taken by the honourable member in relation to the alternative industrial sites. The site selection criteria for the type of industry we are considering, which is gas-based manufacturing, is quite simple. They require excessive areas of relatively flat land for large sites including sufficient area to provide buffer zones and separation between the facilities; proximity to an available and feasible deep water site, as you acknowledged; an available and suitable source of water, both potable and industrial standards; absence of environmental constraint that will preclude development; manageable level of hazard risk with regard to other land users; physical workforce options for the construction and operation phases; and proximity to existing or economically extendable support, infrastructure and community services.
The site selection process carried out by Phillips Petroleum took these factors into account. This process is detailed in the company’s original environmental impact statement and the later public environmental report. At the time of Phillips’ site selection process there were no other proposals for Glyde Point. Phillips was the one that wanted to come to Darwin, to come to the Territory. The reasons that Phillips used to reject Glyde Point included the exposure of the coastline to winds, the waves and the strong currents; the shallow seas requiring extensive dredging; and distance to deep water and also the particular situation with the port. Glyde Point is an open area. That’s okay. But this government has committed that if any other industry would go to Glyde Point, and we have allocated $1.8m to do all the necessary environmental studies to collect atmospheric data, environmental data, and hydrographic data, so when the time comes for other companies, other industry to come to the Territory, they will be directed to Glyde Point and we will have in place a database with all the important information that industry will require to do the environmental impact statement and the environmental reports.
The Phillips site selection process has been extensively published. However, many other companies have gone through a similar process: Shell, Woodside, Methanex, Multiplex, Alcan, Wesfarmers, Pechiney and many other companies. All have concluded that Wickham Point or other locations on the Middle Arm Peninsula offer the best opportunities.
Now, we have a range of companies from gas companies to aluminium smelters, to urea manufacturers to alumina refineries, that have said the best location anywhere in the Top End is Wickham Point. But, you cannot let industry like Pechiney or an aluminium refinery or any other industries to be put in Wickham Point for obvious reasons. First, they are polluting industries. Second, they require extensive areas to site their factory and associated power generation equipment and stations. They would require about 200 hectares of flat, clear land to put something like Pechiney there without taking into consideration all the problems with atmospheric conditions, effluent and everything else.
Wickham Point was chosen by Phillips, and Phillips was the first one to be chosen for Wickham Point for the LNG plant because it was the first to be established and, first that came to the government to suggest putting the LNG plant in the Top End and, second, at Wickham Point. As I said before, we are not going to allow any further development in Wickham Point. All other development will go to Glyde Point. However, there are going to be other developments there and these developments would be associated with liquified gas, they will be associated with the freight industry and certainly with the East Arm Port development.
We are going to acquire some corridors in order to bring liquified gas from Sunrise to Glyde Point. These corridors have already been identified and we have initiated the acquisition process and will continue to do so, so when the gas arrives in Darwin, we are going to be ready. We are going to provide these facilities to the industry and we will facilitate the development of industry to Glyde Point.
Of course, you might ask why don’t we put all of them together somewhere in Koolpinyah. I don’t think the people in Litchfield Shire would be very pleased to have a Pechiney factory located about 30 km from their front door. You would disagree with that, and many other people in that area. In addition, some of these industries can pollute not only the atmosphere, but can pollute the ground water supplies and they will be located in the industrial estate identified and which will progress now to put in place at Glyde Point.
In the third motion, the honourable member presses his claims that the Darwin Harbour ought to be a national marine conservation park. I have argued many times with people, and I am not afraid to argue again, about Darwin Harbour being a pristine harbour. Darwin Harbour is a working harbour. Darwin Harbour ceased to be a pristine harbour when the first settlement of Palmerston took place on the shores of Darwin Harbour. Today we have two major urban centres, Darwin and Palmerston, on the coast line of Darwin Harbour. I only have to take you down to the creeks after a heavy storm and show what our pristine harbour receives after a heavy rainfall. Not only does it receive a lot of silt, but it receives petrol additives, carbon from diesel, emissions from industry that they wash out. Don’t forget we have a major operational airport at the RAAF base with vast areas of bitumen that wash down to our pristine Darwin Harbour. Our harbour is in very good condition, but I will not call it pristine. It is a working harbour that has been operating since the 19th century and will continue to operate in the future and it will get even better.
With the train coming up and the prodigious work in the industry, the traffic in our harbour will increase at least five times. If you think that the harbour now is busy, wait until the train arrives and wait until Darwin becomes a transport hub for Australia and South-East Asia as predicted by the people who are coming and talking to us, and certainly they talked to the previous government, about the benefits that the railway will bring to Darwin.
Mr Wood: It can still be a park. That does not stop it. It does not stop it.
Mr VATSKALIS: If the harbour is declared a park you will not even be able to fish in it. We have taken steps to protect the harbour. We have appointed a committee to produce a management plan for the Darwin Harbour, and this committee is comprised of members of AFANT, members from the Environment Centre, representatives of the people who use the harbour, such as shipping companies. The harbour is used by everyone; it is not used by an exclusive group. It is used by everyone in Darwin, Palmerston, the Top End, through the Territory, and these people have been asked to contribute in the development of the Darwin plan of management for the simple reason, we do not want to degrade our harbour. It is in our best interest to keep the health of the harbour as it is today - in very good condition.
We already have baseline data from previous studies and we will continue to monitor the health of the harbour. We will continue monitoring, and I have stated publicly, when the LNG plant is built and starts operating, we will continue to monitor the effect of the LNG plant in the harbour in order to maintain the health of the harbour; a parallel monitoring system with Shell or other industry.
We are determined that the harbour is not going to be turned into an environmental disaster. I agree with you, we do not want this kind of development if it has a heavy impact upon the health of the harbour, the marine developments, or some development that has a direct impact. We cannot stop Darwin Harbour being a working harbour, but what we can do, with the knowledge we have, and the knowledge we will continue to acquire, is to continue to maintain the harbour in a very good condition. You do not have to declare something a national park to protect it, and we have even moved away from protection of biodiversity, protection of flora and fauna only in our national parks. I have stated publicly in parliament that protection and conservation now extends to the whole Territory. Our national park is called the Northern Territory, it is not Litchfield, it is not Uluru, it is not Kakadu. It is our responsibility to maintain the biodiversity in the whole estate of the Northern Territory, including creeks and waters, and we are going to do the same with the harbour. The harbour, a working harbour, will be monitored closely in order to maintain the condition of the harbour as it is today. We will make every effort to ensure that the harbour remains as it is but, again, we cannot stop the harbour being a working harbour, it is impossible. That opportunity was lost in the 18th century when the first settlers settled in Palmerston.
The member for Nelson wants certain areas to be declared a conservation area, and one of them was section 1812; on 26 September the Chief Minister did exactly that. Section 1813 – we have done that one as well. Section 1814 was zoned development and will accommodate general and transport related industries. The member for Nelson wants section 1819 zoned conservation. Now, apart from the fact that this is an area of Crown Land, the Elizabeth River, and there are no plans to do anything here, there are actually plans to return it to the conservation stage. This will happen in the near future.
In all that the member for Nelson has asked, he has to consider, because of the continuous industrial development in the Top End, and in Darwin in particular, there will be requirements to apply corridors. The corridors will be acquired, and quite rightly as you pointed out, that brown line from Glyde Point all the way to East Arm, and all the way to the Middle Arm Peninsula. These corridors are required because, as we said before, the industrial estate will be in Glyde Point and would be required to somehow to bring the gas from the landing point, which is going to be Wickham Point, up there. Somehow we have to put the electricity lines up there, the railway first, and the roads. However, considering the total area of the Top End, that corridor is very, very small, but they are very important to provide the functions that are required. We will acquire these corridors, and I might have to argue to have to extinguish native title rights, and we will have to pay for it, and a significant amount of money because it is so important we are prepared to spend the money.
But, for us now to say we declare the whole Wickham Point, or Middle Arm, as a conservation zone, apart from the LNG, and take the whole lot and put it somewhere else, first of all, we are going to create problems for the sovereignty with the Territory government and Phillips. The other thing is, if Phillips is asked now to go to Glyde Point and put the LNG plant there, they will need another three to four years to produce an environmental impact statement. Phillips has signed an agreement to deliver gas in Tokyo in about three years. Phillips is planning to start construction immediately after the signing of the agreement between Australia and East Timor in order to meet this supply.
I know you support the LNG plant in its current position, and we understand the reasons for that, but this is for me to stress in parliament that the LNG will be at Wickham Point, however, no other industry will be in Wickham Point, apart from industry that supports the construction of the LNG plant and industry that is required for the LNG plant to operate, or the Glyde Point LNG plant.
At the same time, with the East Arm Wharf nearing completion and the railway line coming to Darwin well ahead of schedule, this area would be required to develop freight industry. This is appropriate industry because the storage of containers does not pollute the harbour. Empty containers do not pollute the harbour. The other thing is that we know very well at the moment that they have problems with space in South Australia. These people require space to put the containers. Not only South-East Asia. The financial report from down south is that the Melbourne Port Authority now has to transport containers to a site 50 km away from the port just to store them. That creates enormous difficulties for the industry and adds to the cost of the whole operation. For us, hypothetically, storing containers if there is a suggestion of storage for those in the Middle Arm Peninsula would be complementary to the operations of East Arm and would help in reducing the cost. What we are doing now, is put the benign industry that is not going to have a negative impact upon the environment.
The other thing you mentioned is the train. Trains will be coming from Adelaide to Darwin, 42 hours. Trains will be required to be serviced. Trains will be required to be shunted, to be moved around. The problem is, if you put them at East Arm Wharf, you really give away very valuable land, because everywhere the freight companies want to establish the facilities – storage facilities, quarantine facilities and other facilities - will be very expensive. That is why the government has resisted giving away or selling land in East Arm and TDZ areas, because we want to have planned development and to maximise the return for Territorians. It would be very easy to give land away in East Arm to put containers there. But at what cost? In three years time, when the railway will be up, the value of this land will be multiplied 10 times, 20 times, of what it is today. People know that; that is why they are queuing, asking for land. I am pretty sure the previous government or the Leader of the Opposition can say in parliament, that he had the same demands from people when they realised the potential of development in Darwin following the arrival of the railway and the completion of East Arm.
The government will be opposing each of the motions put up by the member for the reasons I explained. We believe that the government has done everything possible to maximise the return for Territorians; at the same time protecting the environment in Darwin and in Darwin Harbour - protecting the environment not only for the people who live in Darwin and Palmerston and surrounds; who go fishing or sailing in the harbour, but all Territorians, because that harbour does not belong to Darwin, or Palmerston, or to Litchfield, it belongs to all Territorians.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, can I say that it was not a debate I particularly intended to get involved in, but I have listened to the arguments that have been expressed by the member for Nelson, and also by the minister. It seems to me that there are very good points being made on both sides. There is no doubt that the comments that the minister has made in giving - not only assurances as to how the parcels of land that the member for Nelson is concern about, will be reserved - are said in all genuineness, I am sure.
However, the sentiment that is expressed by the member for Nelson is not probably fully progressed in these motions. If you look at the motions themselves, there is no doubt that motion No 2:
as a motion asking for support in this Chamber today, it will have to be called premature to say the least. It may be that, as things evolve in regard to gas onshore, it may be quite appropriate that in due course that land is rezoned open space conservation - all of it. It may also be the case that the arguments that the minister has put that certain land needs to be reserved for benign industrial use, are quite potent. Certainly, just listening to the minister’s arguments in terms of the areas of land that the railway will need to have reserved for shunting purposes and other off-loading and on-loading of containers certainly are the areas of land on Middle Arm that are proximate to the railway line, have some argument.
There is no doubt that the arguments that the government are putting forward have strengths certainly in their debate in this Chamber today. What I also think is worth reminding the government though, is that in this Chamber today the minister has stood up said that the government is absolutely firm that there will be no more petrochemical development on Wickham Point or anywhere in that Middle Arm area. It was the same government - it was the same minister, Vatskalis, and the same minister for industries and development who lampooned me in this Chamber only a few sittings ago for suggesting that no more petrochemical development should be on Wickham Point. It was you yourselves who pointed to conversations in Team NT, said that the position that the Opposition Leader took in saying there should be no more petrochemical development in Darwin Harbour, could only be interpreted …
Mr Henderson: They were your maps.
Mr BURKE: The member for Wanguri is obviously sensitive on this point. The member for Wanguri and the ministers made great play of saying it could only be interpreted as the Opposition Leader not wanting gas onshore. Isn’t it strange …
Mr Henderson: I did not say that. Point to the public record, I did not say that.
Mr BURKE: … that the same two ministers now come into this Chamber and swear on their hearts that there will be no more petrochemical development on Wickham Point or on that Middle Arm Peninsula area. This is there sentiment, this is the way they have always felt. What garbage!
How can you expect the member for Nelson, and how can you expect the general public, to take that point of view as being the actual sentiment of the government? No wonder there is suspicion out there that the land that is reserved for industrial development will in fact not only lead to benign industrial development but could lead to actual petrochemical development because the ministers themselves know that part of the rationale for reserving that land, as the member for Nelson well knows, was precisely for that situation to occur.
In that regard we have to understand what the member for Nelson is saying. And what he is saying essentially, and what I expressed in the Team NT position and what I have expressed publicly, is that times have changed. When the firm position on putting petrochemical development or industrial development on Wickham Point was most likely, it was at a time when the Australian government was negotiating with the East Timorese government for the unitisation agreement of both Bayu-Undan and Sunrise fields. A unitisation agreement that was progressing because the three developers, Phillips, Shell and Woodside, had agreed to a joint sharing facility for a pipeline that would land at Wickham Point and that there were base load customers who were necessary to take that gas from both those fields. One of those customers was Methanex which had done its environmental impact statements and feasibility studies on Glyde Point. Whilst Methanex was still considering both options, Wickham Point or Glyde Point, it was very strong in the pressure that it was putting both to the federal government and to the Northern Territory government that Wickham Point was the preferred location. It was in that atmosphere that Wickham Point in terms of petrochemical development became more and more a reality. And it was at that time that the member for Nelson was quite vocal in saying even at that time it was unnecessary and should be relooked at. Certainly, he and I had many arguments about the logic or otherwise of that particular point of view.
GTL was a methanol producer that frankly did not necessarily require to be at Wickham Point in terms of their business case, but was essentially linked closely with Phillips and was a foundation customer essential to get the base load of getting those two fields onshore. We were very close to getting there and Wickham Point was firming up as being not only the place for the LNG plant but certainly the place for the essential foundation customers. That is why those purple lines came there from the planners; that is why those purple areas became more and more firmed in the planners’ view and in the government’s view at the time.
The point the member for Nelson is making - and the point I made in Team NT - is that times have changed. Shell and Woodside are not in bed with Phillips. The joint venture arrangements have broken down. They may, in fact, come together again; we all hope they do. But at the moment they are broken down. At the moment Shell and Woodside are looking at different feasibility options and Shell and Woodside are not looking at Wickham Point to bring their gas onshore, and Methanex has gone. Pechiney, as your base load customer, as the minister himself said in this Chamber, will not go to Wickham Point. So it begs the question: who will go to Wickham Point? Who could go to Wickham Point? Why, in fact, should you have that land reserved and determined in the public eye that that is the fact of the situation, that is why it will stay?
You may be right. The government has good arguments, as I have said. I do not oppose those arguments. I simply say you have lost the strain of what the member for Nelson is trying to ask. He is not asking, in fact, as his motions say, that we should make determined decisions today. I would suggest to you that what he is asking is for people to discuss it, and in that discussion you will bring Territorians onside if your arguments are as sound as you claim. At the same time, it will not only give Territorians a chance to understand the logic behind it, but also give them a chance to express a point of view, points of view that he has made today which, on the face of it, are quite sound.
In that context, I foreshadow an amendment I wrote out during this debate which I would like to have photocopied and distributed as I am speaking because I would like to speak to that amendment.
In speaking to the motions as they exist now, first, motion No 2, does not stand. I hope the member for Nelson understands that. It does not stand because it is premature. There are too many undetermined factors as to what could happen with regards to bringing Sunrise gas onshore, what could happen with regards to bringing Blacktip gas onshore. What could happen with regards to the needs of the railway; all of those arguments that the minister put forward, really say that motion, as it is written, cannot stand in this Chamber today and the opposition will not support it.
In motion No 3, the member for Nelson says:
This cannot be supported by the opposition for the same reasons. It is a definitive statement that says: no more industrial development in those areas, full stop. Again, it is premature because the arguments that both the member for Nelson and the government put both have substance, but certainly neither side’s arguments could be dismissed at this point.
The third motion reads:
In fact the government is doing that, in part, as the minister says. They are undertaking feasibility studies on Glyde Point, rightly so, and environmental impact studies preparing for the corridors, and so that motion as it stands does not really get to the heart of what the member for Nelson requires, I would suggest.
Perhaps there is a compromise solution in here somewhere which is this: the land has been set aside for industrial development, benign, as the government says, for good reason, as the government says, but essentially as a planning method only. There is no industrial development that is going to occur in that area outside of the LNG plant. Whilst we are confident construction of the LNG plant itself will start some time next year, it still cannot be determined absolutely that it will, but there is going to be no industrial development, benign or otherwise, in that area in the immediate future. Why not take the opportunity to do exactly as the member for Nelson is saying? Give the public the assurance that it is more than the fact that you have drawn a few new lines, you have made a few new conditions in some areas of Middle Arm, but give the public the assurance that you are going to suspend the notion of any industrial development on Wickham Point, in that Middle Arm area, in those areas covered by the parcels that the member for Nelson has decided, until such time as a public discussion process has been completed.
It would seem to me that that still gives the government the opportunity to debate with the public, to discuss with the public, to look at alternative developments. And also, by the force of their argument and the support, I would hope, from the people that they already claim, as the minister said, support them, organisations like AFANT and those who are involved in the preservation of Darwin Harbour, it would seem to me that a public discussion process would serve two very good ends. Firstly, it shows that the government is not simply running along the same arguments and planning objectives that the previous government did, without adequately explaining why; it gives the government an opportunity to convince Territorians that, through public discussion, it is logical and obvious that these parcels be set aside in the way they have been set aside.
It also gives the member for Nelson, and other supporters and other interest groups, to convince the government and the planners that there are other options, that they have not been explored sufficiently, that the predetermined position of benign development or otherwise on Middle Arm is premature to say the least. Other options have not been suitably developed, and you could get a change. And I would suggest you would get a change that would have strong public support. So, what I am suggesting is that, rather than just dismissing what the member for Nelson is saying, why don’t we have a compromise position, it is a position the opposition will certainly support and, as the member for Nelson said when he started his comments, the sentiments that are out there cannot be ignored.
I remember years ago, when the notion of the LNG plant was first decided by the CLP government at Wickham Point, there was a lot of debate in Cabinet that said, ‘When the reality of this LNG plant arrives on Territorians’ doorsteps, you watch them get upset’. And I can tell you, there is no doubt that that is happening. What we have to do, together, I would suggest, is manage the future development of this whole petrochemical industry and give assurances to the people that where there is further development on Middle Arm, it is essential, it is logical, it is not harmful and it carries the public with it.
It is one thing, and we can all stand proudly and say we did this to get the railway and we achieved the railway for the Northern Territory; we are all very proud of it. The Chief Minister can say, ‘I am going to get Sunrise Gas onshore and that is a great achievement of the Labor government’. The best achievement that we can do for Territorians is to set aside land for future Territorians, for their enjoyment, as national parks, as the member for Nelson suggests, in as many areas of the Territory as we can possibly do it. That Middle Arm area, the Wickham Point area, is an area of opportunity. It may not be practical, at the end of the day after public discussions, that what is being suggested can be accommodated at all. But it is equally not the case that what the government is saying will occur in terms of the way the land is set aside is also absolutely necessary at this point in time.
Why not simply look at the amendment I have suggested, combine motions 3 and 4, which basically says that the government cease any further industrial development in those areas until such time as public discussion has been completed. It seems to me that that is an area where all of us can agree. It seems a simple compromise for the government to accept, and to not accept it, to my mind, really puts yourself in a position where you are locked in prematurely and makes it even more difficult to carry the general public. I might say, the general public in many respects on this issue are well and truly represented by the member for Nelson. If that has not come through to the government yet, it has certainly come through to the opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: I am aware that members of the government would like to consider your amendment …
Mr BURKE: I would like to move it now, it that is possible.
Madam SPEAKER: It you do not move now we can debate both the motion and the amendment at the same time, rather than just the amendment.
Mr Stirling: Leave it on the table and we can talk to it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The advice I am receiving is that we are, in actual fact, debating item No 2 on the Notice Paper. If you foreshadow these amendments, we will later on then be able to vote on those. So, just foreshadow this motion at the moment and it will be circulated for everyone to look at.
Mr Stirling: To ensure clarification and understanding, any member may speak to that foreshadowed motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, at the moment, that is right. At the moment, we are looking at item No 2 and, because they were cognate motions, we were basically allowing discussion across the board. If we foreshadow this motion we can then discuss it later on.
Mr Stirling: At any time?
Madam SPEAKER: So you are happy with that?
Mr Stirling: As long as it can be discussed.
Madam SPEAKER: It will be circulated so you can continue the discussion if you want to on Notice No 2 at the moment. Otherwise, would you like to adjourn for lunch? Yes, that seems to be the feeling, so I will adjourn for lunch.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw attention to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Michael Beahan, former President of the Australian Senate. On behalf of all members I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: We also have in the gallery Mr John Kerwan, the Commissioner for Public Employment, accompanied by his family. On behalf of members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, we are debating Notice No 2 on the Notice Paper. The member for Nelson is going to conclude the debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I just thought I would make some comments on what the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment said earlier. I have taken a few notes. The minister raised the issue of native title and said that because native title had been purchased, the land was free, therefore it was much easier for the government to develop in that area. I do not believe that that is necessarily the reason why you should develop some land. Just because native title holders decided that they want to sell their rights to that land does not mean the land should not be kept for environmental reasons.
We are all part of this community, both the traditional land owners and the citizens of the Territory, and we have as much right to ask that that land be protected. If some people felt that that was not of great importance to them, that does not mean that that land is not important. I certainly am one of those, and I think a lot of other people, who believe the centre of the harbour is important. I also would like clarification from the minister at some other time as to the extent of the native title acquisition, or what area was covered by the purchase of the native title rights. I do not believe that it covers the whole area.
The minister made a statement also that he thought I supported GTL. I may be wrong but that is what I thought he said. I certainly did not support GTL, never have, never will. I just do not support the Methanex project either, and I know the Leader of the Opposition and I differed on that at times, but that was clear. When I gave my support - and my support, when I say that, was through the Litchfield Shire Council – it was simply because the LNG original plans were for gas in and gas out, and we were told nothing else was going to occur there. That is why we agreed to it and that is the position I have stuck with ever since, and that is why I do not support other industries being there, because they do not have to be there.
There was a mention about the corridors. I know there are two main corridors. There is a corridor that goes south around the base of Elizabeth Valley and up through Black Jungle and across to Glyde Point. There is also the other corridor that runs from East Arm Port to Glyde Point via south of the barracks and goes up through the Howard Springs Shooting Reserve. I need to make it clear, the reason I believe there are other options - it is not seen clearly on this map - is that there is a rail spur intended to go to Glyde Point along that corridor. I could not afford another 25 coloured copies of your other one, but on the other map, in this Litchfield Land Use Objectives, it shows the rail spur going from East Arm Port along that corridor to Glyde Point. And that is the very reason I think, well, why cannot you put your rail infrastructure along there? Why, for instance, couldn’t the land to the east of Robertson Barracks be used for some of that rail infrastructure? It could be used for containers. Surely that small rail spur there which, at a guess, is about 6 km, could be available for use for that type of industry. I know we have an amendment coming up which may allow more discussion on that, but what I am saying it that the corridors that the government has decided to put there certainly look like there is an opportunity for alternative development.
The other question I have a problem with is, that if natural gas comes to Wickham Point, why can’t the natural gas that has come some 400 km from Bayu-Undan, go under the Darwin Harbour and along the northern corridor, which would then allow gas industries who want to use natural gas, to use that natural gas along that corridor? If we can bring gas under water for that distance, it seems to me strange that we cannot put it under the harbour and along that corridor. I have heard people say it is not safe, etc, etc, but natural gas is piped along Wishart Road at the present time, I thought. So why should it be any more dangerous than it is at the present time? Why can’t we use that corridor to its fullest extent?
I should also explain that I was not just talking about Koolpinyah Station. What I was trying to emphasise by saying Koolpinyah is that, if you measure the distance from the middle of the harbour right around to East Arm Port, that is exactly the same distance as going all the way out to Koolpinyah, and along that corridor there are opportunities, I believe, to use land for industrial purposes that will not affect the environment, will not affect residential. It may not all be in the one spot, because as you know, most of this area here has wet areas in it. You just have to get the water logging map of the Litchfield Shire, and you will see that 50% of the Litchfield Shire is subject to seasonal inundation. No matter what you do, you have to select your site carefully. You will not always get large sites, but you may get a series of smaller sites on which you can develop your industry. That is where I was coming from. I certainly was not putting an emphasis on Koolpinyah by itself.
I have never supported the idea of methanol, or the aluminium smelter, or the fertiliser factory, or any of those things ever going in the middle of the harbour. I always presumed they were going to Glyde Point. Therefore, I do not think that issue is relevant to the issue we are talking about at the moment. We are talking about an issue which I still think is confusing; that is, the issue of what does the government intend to put in the middle of the harbour. As I said before, there does not seem to be a clear strategy from the government. It talked about the Winnellie-type industries, benign industries, containers, LNG associated industries - which are what? If they are associated with the construction, well, they should be gone. Construction will take four years and they will be gone - and the railway. What the government is talking about certainly needs to be very clear.
With regard to the park, the minister raised that the idea of having a park where you have rubbish run into the park: you have oil from off the airstrips, you have chemicals run into it. If you are talking about wilderness, fair enough. This is not wilderness where no man shall set foot; this is a park like a lot of other parks that people work in. However, just because they have some pollution, because there is some wear and tear on the park, because there are some development, there is no reason for not making it a park. That is why I think the government can do something that is unique. It can say: ‘We can have a park’ – that is why I have never given it a proper name of national, marine or conservation, because a lot is sometime interpreted and seen in the terminology used. You could produce a park which says: ‘This is a type of park we are going to put in Darwin Harbour, and it will allow development’. By calling it a park, what you immediately say to developers is: ‘If you want to develop in this park, here is the criteria. You will make sure that whatever you do will not have this side effect on this park’. So the park becomes the goal line, the goal post, and they have to reach that level if they want to develop there.
At the present time, if there is a development in Darwin Harbour someone has to go out and pretend they are a supporter of mangroves to save them, or a supporter of something else to save them, because it is development that comes first and everyone else has to come in later and hope that they can save the harbour. I say you put the ‘save the harbour’ concept up first and allow development to reach the goals that you have set. I believe you can have a park with development. That is why I think Darwin could be unique. The government should really give that some serious consideration. We are a territory, we can make up our rules about a park; we do not have to be told that the park will have to be A, B, C, according to international guidelines. We will say: ‘This is a Territory national park or a Territory conservation park and these will be the guidelines for it’. That would show some leadership for many other parts of Australia in developing their foreshores.
Foreshores in Australian surely have been one of the most subdivided and developed parts of Australia, because people all say, ‘We should live next to the water’. How many areas in Australia are now costing us a fortune to repair because we developed too close to the water on very sensitive land?
I thought I would put those explanations in, minister and, once again, ask the government to not necessarily worry about what the planners say. They are very good people; I know they are great people. Sometimes, governments have to have the vision and tell planners, ‘That is the vision, now you fit within that vision’. Sometimes we have gone the other way around; the plan has come before the vision. That is what we need to look at.
Madam Speaker, I have covered all the points that I would like to cover today, and I will finish on that note.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that motion No. 2 on the Notice Paper be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that notice of motions No 3 and 4 relating to Wickham Point and East Arm development standing in my name be taken together.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move:
That the government -
(a) cease any further industrial development in the Wickham Point area, specifically land and
sea covered by section 1812, 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791 Hundred of Ayers excluding the
Phillips LNG site; and
(b) initiate a public assessment of the alternative industrial development sites in the Darwin region,
for example, along the proposed corridor from East Arm to Glyde Point.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion and the amendment is as follows: Omit all words after ‘That’ and insert:
‘the government initiate a public assessment of alternative industrial development sites in the Darwin region,
for example, along the proposed corridor from East Arm to Glyde Point; and whilst that assessment is occurring
the government ceases any further industrial development in the Wickham Point area, specifically land and sea
covered by sections 1812, 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791 Hundred of Ayers excluding the Phillips LNG site.’
Madam Speaker, I will not labour the issue because we have essentially covered the issues involved in the previous debate and the members involved in this debate are well aware of the issues here. The two motions, whilst they are being taken together in terms of debate, cannot be supported I believe in this Chamber as if each motion stands alone, in that ‘the government cease any further industrial development of the Wickham Point area, specifically land and sea covered by sections 1812, 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791 Hundred of Ayers excluding the LNG plant’ is a definitive motion in itself. It essentially says that no more forever is the government to involve itself in any further industrial development.
As I said in the previous debate that is premature because of the various unknowns regarding what sort of development, benign or otherwise, might be considered necessary for a whole range of reasons. Those reasons have been discussed in the Chamber, not the least being, as the minister said, benign industrial to support the LNG plant, benign industries also to support the East Arm Port or the railway. It seems to me that there are good reasons for checking a definitive motion of that type because of those unknowns.
Equally, it seems to me that the other unknown is whether those industries may be needed at all. That is the point of the member for Nelson’s motion: that not enough public debate has occurred, not enough discussion has occurred regarding alternate sites, and in particular, the fact that the primary reason why any industrial development was ever considered was essentially for petrochemical industries and then very definite petrochemical industries to support the gathering up of the Sunrise and Bayu-Undan fields. Those circumstances have changed. The government claims that there is a need to put land aside for some industrial development in any case. The member for Nelson’s arguments, which are quite sound, is that those arguments have not been substantiated at this time in order to firmly establish that land should be put aside for industrial development.
In order to try to achieve some sense of compromise in the Chamber - because I think it is an opportunity to secure the support of all members of the Chamber; it is an opportunity for the government to show that it is well and truly consulting on the issue; it is an opportunity for the government to also remain confident and secure by virtue of what it has already done with regards to Wickham Point, that their hand is secure, their rezoning has in fact already been done; the minister has already indicated in a press release that land use objectives rezoning that land have already been signed by his hand, so the government is secure in the action that it intends to take in this Chamber now.
What the member for Nelson is suggesting, and what I am supporting with this amendment, is that until a full public discussion occurs, that industrial development itself, benign or otherwise, does not occur. To my mind, that is a great compromise and a win-win situation for everyone. That is the purpose of the amendment, that essentially the government initiates a public discussion, an assessment of the alternative development sites which include not only the work that the government is doing and has committed money to, also the areas that have been identified and the options and alternatives suggested by the member for Nelson, but also takes note of the changing environment that has occurred since these land use objectives were put in place because those reasons, in a number of peoples minds, have well and truly changed.
It has nothing to do with gas onshore. Specifically, in the member’s motion the LNG plant is set aside from these considerations; it is secure. But it is the issue of the other land right throughout that Middle Arm area. So in that regard, I am looking to get a sense of compromise, and I commend the amended motion to members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the amendment. It is a good compromise. I admit that the reason the three motions were proposed was that I knew that the chances of them being passed by this House were probably fairly remote. But the reason I proposed them was because there was a lack of good debate about this very important issue.
Nearly two-thirds of the Northern Territory’s population live in this area. It is an area that is developing fast. It is an area that I live in, and many people live in. I want to make sure that we plan and develop it correctly. I support development, but I have been around Australia too long to see the legacy of poor development where things were rushed. I will give you some examples in Darwin and Palmerston. I always felt there was an opportunity to retain that entire escarpment. But it seems to me that there was a rush to get suburbs developed and perhaps there was not sufficient time given to look at the overall retention of what is really a beautiful area. Now it is a remnant of what it was and, to some extent, it has even become a fire hazard because we have houses on top of a ridge and that ridge is on the south-east side of those houses, so that is not really good planning.
What I am saying is let’s not repeat those mistakes. We can do better, and this amendment is a good start. I should say to the government that even though the amendment mentions the example of the proposed corridor from East Arm to Glyde Point, I am asking to government to look at all the alternative sites. For instance, there is land at Lloyd Creek and if you were to look at Lloyd Creek, it is the grey area to the east of Noonamah where the corridor will go past. There is no development there at the moment. It is, I think, mainly Koolpinyah land. I am not saying that is where it should go, but what I am saying is that you should look at those alternatives, bearing mind that you are now putting a corridor right past that land. That is not very far out of Darwin. For Darwin people it might be, but it is not very far from my place and it is not very far from Weddell. The people who live in Weddell would probably find that if there was some industrial development there, so will be opportunities for work.
We have to broaden our vision. We have to look at alternatives. We have to be very careful of what we do because, as I said before, the development is permanent, it will not go back to what it was. Once we make the decision and once we go ahead with it, that is the end, it will never be the same. With those few words, I support the amendment.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I will oppose the amendment, and I will oppose the amendment after careful consideration. The proposed amendment is:
Let us have a look at what is the proposed corridor: land east of Stuart Highway to the Gunn Point peninsula, three areas of land west of the Stuart Highway to the Middle Arm peninsula for corridors, and land south of Alverly Road to the Litchfield Shire boundary; land from Middle Arm peninsula to Stuart Highway through Palmerston; land from Temple Terrace to Gunn Point peninsula; and land for service corridors in the Berry Springs and Blackmore River localities. I don’t think these people will be very happy if we decide to develop industry along those corridors. In addition, about the public consultation, the Litchfield Land Use Objectives have been on the table for seven years. There were two rounds of public consultation; one as late as a few months ago and I believe you took part in that one. Most of this land was actually decided by the previous administration. What we have done is made minor amendments to incorporate the land use objectives into the planning scheme.
On this map the corridors have been identified for the gas industry as early as 1992-94. We have, quite rightly as you point out …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister has a map that the public has not been able to have. This map, which is written …
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr WOOD: The point of order is that map is not available to the public, and if the minister would like to table it, because …
Mr VATSKALIS: I am prepared to table it, Madam Speaker. I do not have a problem with that. Then it becomes available to the public.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister will table it.
Mr WOOD: It is the same map?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes. The only difference with this map is where it indicates that the open space conservation that has been decided and already announced, and was widely publicised, north and south of the Wickham Point development, and minor changes from the original land use objective map you have there. The corridors are already identified.
What do you want to do? You want to stop any development in the Middle Arm peninsula. That includes any development with regards to the railway, any development with regards to the freight industry. The Leader of the Opposition can go out there and tell the people that he has been talking to for all these years, that I am sorry, you are not going to have a freight industry development because now we decide to put a stop on it until we go out once again and talk to the people.
I understand your concerns, and the member for Nelson pointed out earlier, people out there do not trust the government. We did not develop it; we found it the way it is. We did not put the LNG plant there. It was there before we came into government and there is a commitment for this, and I explained to you why we cannot get out. We cannot get out for reasons I said before about the LNG plant, and your proposal to go to Koolpinyah, go somewhere else, on a very close observation of this map you will find out there is very limited land around the East Arm wharf. That is the only land that is, at this stage, free of native title, free and available for us to use. If we go to Koolpinyah, and we decide to take the pastoral lease away to develop to freehold for development of industry, immediately we trigger a native title issue. That means that the money we are going to spend on developing the industrial estate has to be paid to the native title owners, and quite rightly so, they will ask for it. Now they don’t, but if we decide to make it freehold, they will ask for it.
Another thing, developing land in the Middle Arm peninsula is not going to happen over night, or without any controls. Everybody who comes with a proposal has to gain the approval of the Consent Development Authority. During the approval process, a test will be triggered to find out if this proposed industry requires assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.
The other option is that, under the land use objectives that would be incorporated into the town planning scheme, this is industry - not noxious industry, not offensive or hazardous industry – industry. If you notice, it is the same colour as the industrial areas around Palmerston and around Winnellie. This is not going to be petrochemical industry. This is not going to be industry that will emit atmospheric pollutants or effluent. We stated before, the only industry that will go there will be the Wickham Point LNG plant and gas industry associated with the LNG plant.
The member for Nelson asked before why we cannot put the pipelines through somewhere else. The original plan was the pipelines from Sunrise will join the pipeline from Bayu-Undan so there will be one pipeline landed in Wickham Point. We still hope that this work will happen in the future; instead of getting two pipelines coming through we will only have one because, hopefully, the companies will sit together and talk to each other and make a sensible decision.
The other thing is, where are we going to develop industry? Industry that will potentially be developed requires open space, plenty of water, services, and deep water. Koolpinyah is a pastoral station that has lots of land but not much water, or much deep sea. If you look around …
Mr Wood: Robertson Barracks are not in Koolpinyah. They are east of Robertson Barracks.
Mr VATSKALIS: Well, I do not think the Army would be very happy with developing industry near the barracks. At the same time, looking at the map you see that a lot of the area has been identified as horticultural land or for small rural developments. This is valuable land that we will not waste to hazard industrial land. I will invite him to have a look closer at this map that will be tabled immediately afterward.
It is very difficult for me to support this motion for the simple reason it does not make sense.
Mr Wood: It makes perfect sense.
Mr VATSKALIS: It does not make sense.
The marine park was mentioned. You do not have to call something a park to protect it; it would be a Clayton park if you declare it a park and you decide to put more industry. This government has decided to protect all the mangroves; the mangroves were subjected to the Planning Act assessments. You will not be able to clear mangroves; you have to give us a good reason why you would have to clear 1 m2 of mangroves. We increased the area of the mangroves. We protect the harbour by not declaring a park but with taking active measures to protect the harbour. We have extended the area of the harbour. That has increased the size of the protected mangroves. We put a plan of management in place. We have put in place an independent Office of the Environment and we are prepared to put more staff in the Office of the Environment to do monitoring to make sure that the harbour remains in good health.
I do not have, as a minister, to put my signature in an official paper that declares a Darwin Harbour marine park, and do nothing about it after that. I am prepared to do the things that tend to protect the harbour, and that is what I am going to do.
Madam Speaker, I cannot, and I will not, support this motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): I will be brief in my comments on this motion, Madam Speaker, in supporting my colleagues comments.
Where we have to get to in all of this - and the word has been used a few times in the debate - is balance. That is what we on this side of the House are trying to achieve: balance that will provide for the future economic growth that we so desperately need in our economy, to allow us to diversify our economy, to provide for jobs and investment into the future with an absolute responsibility to the community for the protection of Darwin Harbour and the protection of our environment. That is what we are looking to: balance.
Whilst we have been trying to work towards that balance, we have been doing that within a climate of a very mischievous and misleading public campaign that has really plumbed to the depths of putting a lot of very misleading and quite frightening information into letter boxes in every house block in the northern suburbs. Totally false and misleading allegations in those letter boxes has generated, as expected, a significant amount of community concern. We have been trying to address that and those issues that have been raised within that misleading campaign: everything from LNG plants exploding to massive pollution in Darwin Harbour and noxious omissions and fumes flying over Darwin which is going to trigger huge amounts of asthma in the population. Really, in light of those types of allegations being quite misleading and mischievously spread amongst the community, you could argue that we have not done enough to put some of those issues to rest.
We have done an enormous amount in terms of response; full page advertisements in the paper and putting stuff back into letter boxes. But once the genie is out of the bottle in regards to those types of those allegations, it is very hard to put that to rest, but we have to be responsible as a government to try to balance the needs of the community in terms of economic growth and environmental protection. A huge amount of work has been done to date. The member for Nelson said that we did not have any vision for Darwin Harbour. Well, certainly it is like …
Mr Wood: It is the same plan as 1984.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, it is the same plan as 1984. So, where was the management plan for Darwin Harbour in 1984 that encompassed and expanded the harbour from Charles Point to Gunn Point? Where was the fact that all of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour have now been put into a conservation zone? Where was the absolute commitment from government that we would monitor the water quality and the health of the water in our harbour and make that information publicly available? Where was the commitment to work with the communities to stop the runoff from massive and significant population growth around the harbour, and a harbour which is several times larger than Sydney Harbour? Where was the previous commitments to do any of those things?
I do think that we have a vision. Our vision certainly does not extend to damming the Elizabeth River, but we do have to provide for industrial developments that will come as a result of bringing gas onshore. We cannot continue with an economy that is primarily supported by public sector spending and tourism in the retail industries and continue to have a boom and bust economy. We need a normalised economy. We need to have an industrial base. We need to develop a manufacturing base. The only way we can get that is with a cheaper energy source. That is going to come from the gas, and that has to be landed somewhere, and Wickham Point has been the place where it has been determined that it is to be landed. Once you land that type of energy source at a particular headland, there is going to be some industrial development around it.
We have the Minister for Lands and Planning absolutely committing that we will not see petrochemical industries, heavy metal industries, heavy base-load industries there, but supporting industries. I suppose we do have a choice which we have to make. I can certainly say as business minister, as well as a local member of parliament that we have not done any polling on the issue and there is a debate out there, but I can certainly tell you that there are a hell of a lot of people in the business community who are very, very keen to see this gas to come onshore and want to see the growth that is going to come with it. We do have to be sensible. This government is not hellbent on being environmental vandals and wreckers as some of the community would have us believe. The balance that we are talking about - and the member for Nelson’s talking about in 100 years’ time we want to leave something for future generations - well, yes, we do want to do that, but we also have a responsibility as members of parliament to provide for generations much closer in than that. Certainly, we need to be providing for investments and for jobs and in an orderly and in a managed way.
I think we have come up with a compromise solution. We have gazetted areas north and south of the Phillips LNG plant to provide a buffer zone. There is an absolute commitment that there will be no heavy industry; that we will move any heavy industry to Glyde Point. If we were to accept this amended motion that is before us today, that is only going to create and whip up expectations in the broader community that okay, nothing is going to happen out there. Then as soon as all of the analysis is done again for the umpteenth time, that with the availability of land around Darwin to attract the investment here to support the railway and the port developments, much of that investment in part is determined by the availability of land and the price of that land in the market place. I am sure if we do the reviews for the umpteenth time, we will come to the same conclusion and certain people in the public will be disappointed yet again.
We cannot say no to industrial development once we have made an investment of over $250m in a new port, a $1.3bn railway and then turn around and say: ‘But all the land around that area we are not going to touch for any supporting industry’. It is a case of managing development; it is about balance. I think that we can achieve that, and I am certainly very disappointed with certain sections of the community that are still peddling totally false, mischievous and misleading information designed to scare people. They will absolutely not be satisfied, even if we accepted the member for Nelson’s three motions today that we have just defeated. They would not be satisfied with that. They will only be satisfied if they saw the Phillips project scuttled. That is what this is all about in terms of the people who are running that campaign. That is what it is all about for the people running that campaign: they do not want to see the Phillips development at Wickham Point.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister has said this is all about scuttling the LNG plant. I have never, ever said that this should be about scuttling the LNG plant. The minister should explain that.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, there is no point of order and I am sure the Hansard record will bear me out because I did not say it and I did not intend to say it, member for Nelson. It is not the member for Nelson who has that agenda, and I totally accept his credentials in saying he supports the LNG plant at Wickham Point. I have heard him say that publicly at the AFANT meeting that the lands minister and I attended along with the member for Goyder who was there and was conspicuous by his silence. The member for Nelson is on the record. But there are other people in the community who will only be satisfied when they hear Phillips announce that they are not going ahead with the LNG plant at Wickham Point. I believe that that would be an enormous loss for our community and would certainly be a detriment to any investor confidence of any significance ever wanting to do business with the Northern Territory for many, many years.
We have to achieve some balance in this debate. I believe that the commitments that we have made for no heavy industries, petrochemical industries or pollutant industries at Wickham Point along with the concessions - we have listened to the community and created that buffer zone around the LNG plant. Through the Development Consent Authority and with the environmental regulations in place with a management plan for Darwin Harbour, we can achieve that balance. That is what this debate is all about: balance. That is why we on this side of the House cannot support the amendment.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the member for Wanguri spoke about balance. If there is any indication of balance, it is probably indicative in this Chamber, and that is that arguments were put by the minister to the member for Nelson and the end result of his arguments was the member for Nelson saying ‘shame’.
There is no balance there. There also is no substance to suggest that anything to do with this motion has, in any way, shape or form, any effect on getting gas onshore and getting large quantities of gas onshore and getting appropriate areas for industrial development put aside to accommodate that gas. There is no suggestion whatsoever in this motion that anything caused by this motion could have any effect on those projects. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.
As the minister himself said, if the development on Wickham Point goes ahead, it will go ahead in an incremental fashion other than the LNG plant which we all hope starts construction as soon as possible next year. There is no problem for government to engage in further public discussion to convince the public that what they are doing is the correct move - that is all the motion suggests - and give those that are against some of those proposals the opportunity to truly voice their concerns and for the government to show they are listening.
I listened to the minister and I’ll tell you, all the arguments you put, if I was in the room I would be sitting back saying they are pretty effective arguments. Lots of them are logical and it may be that at the end of the day that is the way that everyone agrees it goes ahead. All this amendment asks you to do is, not only give yourselves an even break, but I would have thought give yourselves a real opportunity.
The member for Nelson does not express a sentiment that is simple to him. He does not express a sentiment that is alone amongst those who are the rabid arguers against the LNG plant. This is a sentiment that I am hearing in my electorate. I am hearing it very strongly within the CLP. They are incredibly concerned about the fact that this thing has now arrived on our doorstep, and as I said in the earlier debate, that was something that we spoke about in Cabinet many years ago. I can remember Barry Coulter saying when it was Aquatain, in fact, looking at the Petrel Tern field that we first looked at Wickham Point and it was Aquatain in fact that caused the CLP government at the time, I think under Marshall Perron, to first identify Wickham Point as a site for an LNG plant. And it was after those initial proposals that Phillips started to look at Wickham Point. It has been there a long while. But in all of the drawings that came from the planners was this single warning: you wait until the day arrives when this thing starts to become a reality, and then you have to carry the public with you and carry them very carefully.
The member for Nelson, in many respects, is a very potent representation of the sentiment that is in the community. That is not a rabid sentiment, it is a very concerned sentiment. It is a sentiment that, I can tell you, I wish that I had listened to far more carefully in the past, and I can tell you, I am going to listen to it far more carefully in the future. But it is also an indictment on the present government to not live up to what you promised. The Chief Minister said, ‘We will look at other options’. And the Chief Minister has ridiculed me publicly by suggesting that Burke was against gas onshore …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Listen. That Burke was against gas onshore. You have gone out publicly, along with your ministers, given away confidences that were given in supposedly a Team NT meeting, and ridiculed me on the radio for simply suggesting that there should not be further petrochemical development on Wickham Point; that Burke was against gas on shore.
Ms Martin: Never said it.
Mr BURKE: At every opportunity you have said it. Now you have the gall to walk in here and say, ‘This Labor government is definitely against any more petrochemical development on Wickham Point’. Well, thank you for listening to me, because I was starting to listen myself to what people are saying out there. And I am starting to say to you people, there should not be any more petrochemical development on Wickham Point, so hear the message.
Ms Martin interjecting..
Mr BURKE: And I said to you if you want to know what was said in Team NT, if you want to know what was actually said, because the Chief Minister knows what I said, and the member for Nelson knows what I said. I drew a line in the sand and I said, ‘As far as the CLP was concerned, other than that LNG plant there would be no more petrochemical development on Wickham Point’. You went out there and ridiculed me and said I was against gas onshore in the Northern Territory, and what happens? What happens when you feel the pressure? You draw a few more green lines on the map, you call that consultation, you call that the proper response to the public, and if you are successful in that regard, fine.
All this amendment says, all this motion says to you is this, give yourself a chance to be what you said you would be. Give yourselves a chance to put those arguments. For the minister to go out there, to say to the public, as he has been speaking to the member for Nelson, all of those arguments that are for benign development that might be required for the railway, put those arguments to the public. You do not have any threat. You already have your land use objectives signed off. It is not as if there is a problem here. It is not as if you are not secure in what you are going to. Your land use objectives have already been signed off. You have already rezoned the way you want to go. You can listen to the public and take no notice of them at the end of the day, if that is your view.
All the member for Nelson is saying, and all this amendment is saying is go out there and convince them; convince them that what you have now designed for Wickham Point is the appropriate way for Territorians to go with regards to that development, that is all it says. You can knock this over in six months. There is not going to be anything out there in six months time, but what have you done? You have won the public support entirely. You have won the member for Nelson entirely; your arguments have been substantiated in the public mind and you have the opposition with you.
But you do not want to do it? If you do not want to do it, that is fine. If you do not want to do it, all I can say to you is: sadly, you have lost a great opportunity – and minister, you in particular. You are a great one for coming in here and saying: ‘This is what I will do and I will do it’. It is – what? - Kon the Roman or whatever. Why don’t you do something in fact? That is, go out there and actually talk to the public and say to them: ‘I believe, the government believes – we have listened to your concerns, this is the way we have decided to go. But, I am going to put it in abeyance for six months, I am going to have more public discussions. I want to convince you that this is the best thing to do …
Mr Vatskalis: It is going to be out there for public – it is going to be out there before it can operate.
Mr BURKE: Don’t say - been out there for seven years is garbage. Look, we have been playing around with those maps ourselves for years. Been out there for seven years is garbage.
What you have done, minister, is this. To the planners you have said: ‘We have a problem, do something with Wickham Point, draw a few more green lines, make the thing look better’. The planners come back and say: ‘What do you think of this, minister?’ ‘Yeah, we can sell them that, let us go with that’. That is what you are doing, and in arguing about what you are doing, the end result is: the member for Nelson says: ‘Shame!’
This is the man who I reckoned had a fair amount of respect and expectations of what he would get out of this government. I will tell you, the man is being disillusioned daily, like many Territorians. You said you would listen; you would consult. You must be able to hear the sentiment. There is no threat whatsoever to you in what you want to do. You have already done your land use objectives; you have signed them off. Make a gesture. Go out there and say: ‘Look, we have had a motion today. They have talked about consultation. It seems like a reasonable thing for the government to do. We are a listening government, we are going to spend six more months and listen’. What have said, though is: ‘No, we will not listen; We do not care’.
You are going to defeat the motion, do so at your peril. I have tried to help. All I have done is I have tried to help; I have tried to get a compromise. The opposition wants to work with the government and the member for Nelson. We have done our best. You are being arrogant. It is your problem.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the amendments be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that Notices Nos 3 and 4 be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I move –
That the Assembly take note of the Casuarina Coastal Management Plan tabled on 14 August 2002.
The Minister for Lands and Planning, and Environment, came in on that date in ministerial reports and laid on the table a management plan which is some 61 pages long. As I have heard from his response today in relation to a question I put to him during question time that the plan is formulated under the Crown Lands Act and not under the Parks and Wildlife Management Act. That is fine; I do not much care. The fact is that the minister has brought the document to the attention of this parliament and I presume for that reason brought it to the attention of Territorians. Whatever act the report is being made under, the fact is that the minister has come into this Chamber, a Chamber which is by its very name a parliament, it comes from the French word meaning talk, suggests debate and he has chosen specifically on this occasion to use Ministerial Reports to drop a 61 page report on the table for us to peruse, read and comment on in the space of two minutes. That is clearly unreasonable and as a consequence of that I now find myself in the unusual position where I now have to do the minister’s job and move a motion so that this matter can be properly debated. That is what I am here to do today.
I find it curious that other management plans seem to make it onto the Notice Paper for discussion. I notice that on the Notice Paper the Nitmiluk Management Plan stands in the name of the minister for a full, complete and comprehensive debate. So the question you have to ask yourself is what is the difference between the Nitmiluk Management Plan which requires a fulsome and complete debate and this particular management plan which seems to be something that can be dealt with in the space of five or six minutes of this Chamber. I then become a little bit curious and as a consequence of that find a way, through the assistance of the Clerk - and I thank him and the assistance of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I thank him - for finding a way to put this on the Notice Paper so it may be debated properly.
I notice in the preface that the document is dated August 2002. I find it curious that today in Question Time the minister said that he has had this report in his possession for 12 months as a result of a question that was raised by the former administration about concerns on how the reserve was being managed. So the former administration already was aware of some concerns in the area. As a consequence, the minister receives a report shortly after coming into office and then advises this House today that he has been sitting on the document for 12 months despite the fact that it is dated August 2002 which was two months ago. It is curious to know why the minister has been sitting on this document for 12 months.
In the preface to the document signed by the minister himself, and a more hairy photograph of him appears at the bottom of the page, the minister makes the important point that as the highest visited reserve in the Territory it is clear that the Casuarina Coastal Reserve plays a vital role in the life of the local community. Indeed, the local community visits that reserve seven times over for every man, woman and child every year: 700 000 visitors. This park receives more visitors than Ayers Rock nearly twice over. That is the number of people who visit it. Most of those visitors are repeat visitors from the Darwin community, people from the minister’s electorate, from the member for Drysdale’s electorate, from anybody who has an electorate here in Darwin.
The minister acknowledges the values of the reserve on page 2 of the document. He talks about the aesthetic values, the natural values, the Aboriginal cultural values, the historic values, education and interpretation values, recreation and tourism values, and conservation values of the reserve. It is indeed an important place. I know that the former administration is very proud to have established the reserve for the people of Darwin and tourists to come and enjoy this reserve. Needless to say many, many people do.
However, as I read the document I find on page 17 other principles which guide the government and the people who manage in the park - in this case the Parks and Wildlife Service - which are effectively the management plan of how the park should be run. On page 17 at paragraph 5.1 bullet point number four:
I am curious about that comment, not so much because it raises anything in itself, but on the next page in paragraph 5.2, Management Objectives, the very first management objective is:
There is a trend that is starting to appear in this document and as a consequence of that trend, I then start to read this a little bit more carefully because obviously safety seems to be a very important issue and high on the mind of the government of the day.
As I keep reading through the document, I come to page 28 which deals with the free beach and nudity. There is nothing new in that; there is nothing exciting in the Free Beach. It has been around since I was a kid growing up in Darwin. As I read the paragraphs on the Free Beach zone, whoever has written the management plan has found it necessary to quote bits of legislation. This person quotes - and the minister, I presume, approves it because his name appears on this document - schedule regulation 2 of the Nudity Act 1980. It reads:
There is, further down that page, a quote from of the document:
I come to the heart of where the minister was coming from in how he was approaching this issue. I take the minister back to what he said in the media release when he released this document after sitting on it for twelve months. He said:
The only other comment he makes is when, during ministerial report, he makes roughly the same sorts of comments in relation to how the park is going to be managed. I am concerned because he seems to be glossing over the antisocial aspect. He acknowledges that it is there and then promptly ignores it saying only that we are going to change the number of places and the hours in which one can consume liquor.
When I finally turn to 7.4, as directed by the document, that takes me to page 35. This is where we find buried a matter of great public concern. Remember that the park is used by 700 000 people every year. It is not a small number of people who come to this park, and the vast majority are Darwin residents. On page 35, we come to issues such as illegal camping:
The minister’s response in this instance is to change the liquor hours. I am just curious as to how he thinks that changing the hours and some places where liquor may be consumed will prevent this sort of behaviour from occurring. Indeed, the report is quite damning about the issue of public drunkenness, which is the only issue that the minister has turned his attention to in either his statement to this Chamber or in relation to his press release. Public drunkenness is often associated with illegal camping and itinerants: ‘Rubbish, aggressive behaviour, fighting, defecating, and urinating in public and disturbance and harassment of other users are some of the problems associated with public drunkenness in the reserve’.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I took the time on Monday at about lunchtime to slip down to the park to see if there really was a problem in the area, to see if I could find any campers or drunks, and you would think that at lunchtime on Monday that would be a fairly difficult thing to achieve. But lo and behold, on Rocklands Drive, I stopped and talked to some people who were kind enough to allow to me to take their photograph. I sat down and explained to them why I was taking their photograph that I was making a presentation to parliament, and they agreed. This photograph depicts several people sitting around and they had wine casks and liquor with them. I would like to have these photographs handed over to the minister. I shan’t seek leave to table them. But I would like the minister to have a look at this photograph so he is aware of the situation down at the beach. Interestingly, in the background in this photograph there is a sign that says ‘Casuarina Coastal Reserve’.
This then takes me to the next area on page 35
Dr Burns: Did you report it to the police?
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up the interjection. I actually did! I did what I had to do. Unlike members opposite, who so regularly come into this Chamber, spot offences, and don’t report them to police. And I would remind the member for Johnston about the comments from the member for Sanderson, when he was making points to demonstrate what illegalities he saw in the community. And did he report it to the authorities? No, he did not, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is very cute for the members opposite to try to score a political point. I am not scared of doing my job. When my job is to report offences, I do report them and I did on this occasion.
The next item on this page deals with lewd sexual behaviour. What evidence could you possibly find at lunchtime on Monday of lewd sexual behaviour? This is a time of day when normal people travel to the beach.
Dr Burns: What time was it?
Mr ELFERINK: It was about 1 pm for the information of the member for Johnston. As much as the member for Johnston does not want to hear this because it affects people who live in his electorate as well, it is very important that these matters are aired.
Now what evidence can I find? I went to a lavatory in the …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: This may be very amusing to the members opposite but I wonder if they approve of what is in this particular photograph, which was written on a public lavatory wall. Once again, I shall not seek leave to table it. However, I would like to have an attendant take this over to the minister or any of the other members who want to see this particular unspeakable piece of filth.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, if you are not going to table it can I suggest that you put it in an envelope and just send it to them.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will make sure that the minister receives it. What is written on that is clear evidence of something fundamentally amiss in the reserve. Those members opposite may find it particularly funny, but I do not. I am concerned that the people who do these sorts of things are doing it in places and in times which it is just not appropriate to do those sorts of things.
As I travelled around the reserve, I also found evidence of damage in the area. Why would the minister come in here and deliberately drop something on the table in an effort to push it through so he can get all the kudos out of the fact that there is a good and great reserve available to the people of the Northern Territory - but only allow two minutes of debate on it? I will tell you why: because he knew this was in here, and he deliberately went out of his way to try to push through a nice little press release saying: ‘We are going to do something about a few public drunks’, and ignore a fundamentally serious problem in, probably, one of the most visited public places in the Northern Territory.
The minister and the members opposite should be ashamed of themselves for trying to interject in such a fashion where they belittle this particular issue. If this is their attitude to public safety and public order – okay, so they are doing things with drug legislation - but there is a whole aspect of public safety which has very little to do with drugs other than alcohol. That is the issue I am trying to raise here today. It is the issue that I face the moment I walk out of this parliament and through the Bennett Park across the road; it is the issue that I see on a daily basis in the Mall; in Bicentennial Park; and in the Todd Mall nearly every day. That is the issue which concerns many Territorians. It concerns people in my electorate as much as it concerns people in the electorates around Darwin and the rest of the Northern Territory.
The minister wants to avoid it. His answer to this particular problem is not to have it opened up for debate. His answer is not to try to talk about it, but to try to push it through under the door. He has been caught out on this occasion, and I can tell you something: he has been caught out badly and he should be embarrassed by the way that he has proceeded with this.
As a consequence of this, I would like to move an amendment which is in addition to the motion that I signalled:
These words are to be added onto the tail end of the motion:
The reason I bring that motion before the House is for the reasons that I have outlined today. The fact is, the minister should have done his job properly, and now I find myself, as the shadow minister on the other side of the House, doing his job for him.
Mr Henderson: Sneaking around public toilets. He is a bit busy for that you know.
Mr ELFERINK: Doing his job for him and the levity of the members on the other side of the House just clearly demonstrates how flippant they like to be about these issues. Well, I wonder how flippant they will be when they have to deal with the drunks at the beach when they have done nothing to sort the matter out.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as I explained in Question Time Casuarina Coastal Reserve was declared under the Crown Lands Act not the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. I did not have to table the document. I tabled the document in the public interest. Someone must be a real idiot to table a document if they want to hide something. That logic is beyond my understanding. I certainly cannot comprehend what the member for Macdonnell said. Why would I want to put something in the public record if I want to hide something? Not only that, that I was sitting on that document for 12 months. Now, that is funny. It was released for public comments in April 2002; 12 months before brings us to April 2001 - we were not in government. We came to government on 18 August 2001.
This document was drafted by the department. The department did not release it according to their excuse because it was election time, and I can understand that, but they needed time to draft it. So the department had control of the document over a period of time and when I asked for the release, it was released in April 2002, and it was out there in the public arena for people to have a look. If I wanted to hide something, would I put it out? No. But if I had put something because the law requires me to do so, would I put all this information in? No, I would try to cover it. I did not cover any information. What is there is what is reported. It was drafted by the department. It is what went out to the public.
But let’s go back to the plan. I tabled it in the parliament; I did not have to do it, but I did. The management plan has been developed for the reserve as a proposal of a plan of management which is a requirement of various reserves under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. As I said before, there is no statutory requirement for me to table a document for the Casuarina Coastal Reserve.
The plan is a clear statement of government’s intent in managing the reserve. Nobody denies there are problems with Casuarina Coastal Reserve. There have been problems for years now. The drunks did not just suddenly turn up on 19 August 2001. The people in the nude did not make start doing lewd acts suddenly on the 19 August 2001. People did not start writing things on toilet doors on 19 August 2001. People at Rocklands Drive have been sitting there for as long as I have been in Darwin, which is 10 years; probably not the same people but I have no problem if they were same people. I have seen them time after time, most of us have seen them time after time. People are sitting down in the centre of Darwin drinking and they did not start drinking there on 19 August 2001. But what we did is now face the problem and try to address it. What we did we said we identify there is a problem and we tried to address it.
Let’s go back and see what we tried to do with this management plan. We have set up a direction for management of the reserve over the next five to ten years and we focus on the management of natural values and cultural values, control of weeds, fire and feral animals, regulation of recreational and visitor use of the reserve, and the requirement for a site development plan to guide future development within the reserve over the life of the plan and involvement of the community in the management of the reserve.
The final Casuarina Coastal Reserve Management Plan was released on 15 August 2002 following an 18 month period of development. During the 18 month period of development there was repeated consultation with the public. I went to some of them; I attend some of them. People were there and they spoke in April 2001 about the very same issues the member for Macdonnell brought to the attention of the House today. People talked about the threatening behaviour of itinerants, people talked about drunks in the park, people talked about people on the nude beach, or the sand dunes around the nude beach, who were behaving in a lewd manner. In April 2001, this behaviour was there.
The department called for submissions. Eleven submissions were received after the public meeting in April. These submissions and all the issues raised at a public meeting were considered during preparation of the draft plan. Visitor surveys took place in the reserve in June 2001. Of 1800 vehicles, 900 people returned the questionnaire. These responses were taken into account.
During preparation of the plan, stakeholder groups were invited to provide representation. Discussions were held with groups such as the Casuarina Coastal Reserve Land Care Group and the Larrakia Nation. The Draft Management Plan was released for public comment in April 2002. It was publicised widely; it was distributed to different offices; it was available from the office of Parks and Wildlife; people knew about it. If I had something to hide, would I distribute it like that? I doubt that very much.
The plan addressed management issues that were identified during the public consultation process, such as itinerants and antisocial behaviour. I have been there myself. I have been there regularly. I am a patron of the Life Saving Club, and very often I go together with members of the club, cleaning the area and having a look at what is happening.
I have seen for myself a groups of people drinking and making a mess. I am also aware that members of the Larrakia Nation have gone there and have been very unimpressed with the condition of the reserve, and themselves exercised their cultural authority and asked people to leave; and they left. This is what I want to incorporate in the running of the reserve, that the Larrakia rangers will work together with our rangers, exercise their cultural authority to tell itinerants who come from other areas of the Territory either clean the area or not to make a mess.
Following the call for public comments, 28 submissions were received in regard to the Draft Management Plan. I had a number of people coming to my office. Their main concern was the dog exercise area. There was a small minority who came to me and expressed concern about lewd behaviour for the simple reason people did not cross the boundary of the nude beach, they did not want to go there, they did not care. A small minority of people went there and we have had complaints about some offences and we contacted the police or we contacted the rangers. Also, the rangers patrol the reserve regularly, and we have had cases where rangers moved some people and we have had instances where the rangers exceeded their authority and people complained to us about the way the rangers behaved. That happens sometimes. People actually misunderstand situations and they can overstep the boundary.
The Domestic Animal Regulations were of concern to the public. As I said before, many people were not happy with the new arrangements. They came to me and asked me to actually go back to the original plan. I consulted with my department. My department consulted with these people and they decided that when the final plan came out, they would reinstate the previous arrangements.
The plan for the first time provides for the establishment of a Community Advisory Committee to ensure there is continued input from the community to the Management Plan. We wanted people who actually live around Casuarina, people who visit Casuarina, people who have an interest in the reserve to actually form that committee to help the department run the reserve the best they can. These people will identify these issues, they will continue to identify these issues, and they will come to us and the department will respond. I give my promise that they will respond because these same people talk to me regularly. Or, even better, I go to them and speak with them regularly because nearly every weekend I am out there doorknocking. Many times, I get this first hand information from people living around Casuarina Reserve.
I know antisocial behaviour occurs. People talk about it. We know that itinerants are a complex issue, but it does not happen only in Casuarina; it happens around Darwin and it happens at Lameroo Beach. We have problems at Nightcliff Beach. Itinerants go there and sit around the barbeques and that is the reason why the government has allocated $0.5m this year to implement an Itinerant Strategy. Even better, ATSIC and the Larrakia Nation now are working together with the government to resolve some of these issues because the itinerant problem is not new; it is long standing. The member for MacDonnell comes from Alice Springs, and I bet that they have itinerant problems. I know they have because I have been there many times and I have seen it with my own eyes, and I am pretty sure that he is faced with the same problem in his own area in Central Australia.
Parks and Wildlife will continue to work with itinerant groups to address some of the present problems. We have changed the way we maintain the reserve, so we will remove certain areas of shrubbery so they cannot hide. We have regular patrols - we do not harass people, we tell them that they have to clear the area and they have to move their camp. A lot of these people listen and then move, other people can be recalcitrants, but we continue to disturb them so eventually they will move. But, as I said to you before, you did not resolve the antisocial behaviour and the itinerant problem by stomping on them and pushing them out all the time. We have to find real solutions. We can move them from Casuarina Reserve, they will go to Nightcliff. You move them from Nightcliff, they turn up somewhere in Leanyer and behind Shoal Bay. You go from there, they will go somewhere else, so you move the problem rather than resolving it. Our intention is to resolve it.
We did exactly what the Darwin City Council has just done - reduced the time of alcohol consumption that is permitted at the reserve. You can go to Nightcliff beach at the rocks and have a glass or wine or two at certain times, other times the council rangers might come and apprehend you and tell you that you cannot drink wine …
Dr Burns: We have our branch meetings there.
Mr VATSKALIS: That is right, and I have been there with many people, from both sides of politics - I have friends on both sides of politics - and we have a few drinks together. Sometimes we might be a bit early, or sometimes a bit late, but most of the time we are within the limits set by the Darwin City Council.
The department works very closely with the police and the night patrol, and I acknowledge that the police cannot be at Casuarina Coastal Reserve 24 hours a day, and certainly the night patrol cannot do that. However, we have a very good relationship with Casuarina Police, and also the night patrol, and we resolve most of these problems.
I also point out that we have resolved some of the problems of itinerants, and especially people who are abusing alcohol, by making sure now that people cannot buy alcohol by leaving their key cards with a particular supermarket, and then having money automatically withdrawn from their key cards. Something like that creates terrible problems in some of the areas in Casuarina. We have people even from Port Keats going there and they have their key card there. The supermarket buys the alcohol, and the proprietor has the key card and the pin number and withdrawing the money. This is just perpetuating this tragedy. We have people who were caught in that system living in Palmerston, having to catch a minibus to come to the supermarket to buy a packet of biscuits, at a significant cost to them, not only the packet of biscuits, but also the cost of the minibus. We have problems, we are not denying that, but we are trying to solve them and we will work very closely with the police and also with the night patrol.
The same thing applies to the nudist beach. It is a very popular place for many Territorians. Unfortunately, some idiots find it an ideal place to go and do what they want to do. We do not condone these actions, and certainly we have now worked closely with the police and will encourage the public to advise them to call the rangers to call the police. I will not condone this kind of behaviour in the reserve. I do not condone this kind of behaviour anywhere, but in the reserve it is under our control. We will take active measures to remove these people, to make sure people can go to the reserve safely. To increase safety, we have now modified footpaths, removed vegetation, and mowed the long grass so people can see a longer distance. We have made sure the parking areas are closer to the beach so people do not have to cross vegetated areas over long distances so people feel safe.
We developed alternate car parking facilities; put solar lighting in; conducted a safety audit; upgraded, sealed and realigned the single road leading to Rapid Creek; and upgraded beach access where appropriate, including disabled access. The plan will be publicly exhibited in the community and reserve users will be invited to comment. The community that uses the reserve will be part of the development of the reserve and we invite the community to have input into the reserve.
The management strategies will be continuously reviewed. Some of them might not work. We want to go back and have a look at them. We want to go and change them and, again, these changes will not be the work of a bureaucrat, but it will have to be the work of the community, to take the advice of the community.
In reality, I did not have to table the Casuarina Coastal Reserve Management Plan. I did not hide it, it has been out in the open since April 2002 for public comment. It was widely publicised. Obviously, the member for Macdonnell missed the advertisements because he would have an opportunity to look at them. He would then have been able to put some of the comments he brought to the House formally to the department. The department certainly would have considered his comments, as it has considered other comments. The truth of the matter is, we never tried to keep it secret. We did not table it here for the members to have a look for two minutes because, in reality, the draft management plan was out there for much, much longer and any member who wanted to have a look at the management plan had the opportunity to have a look and contribute to the management plan.
I will consider your points; I will take your points on board. I will bring them to the attention of the department and make sure that the department responds appropriately. Even if it is a bit late - it is October 2002 and it was put out for public comments in April 2002 - I welcome any comments from the public and members of this House on the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and, certainly, we will take them into account.
I thank the member for Macdonnell for taking the time to visit the toilets and speak to the people at Casuarina Coastal Reserve. I consider there are people who are living - well not living, but at least drinking - I have seen worse situations than this, where people actually have erected temporary shelters, have fires and they have eskies with food. These people said to me they are not in Casuarina Coastal Reserve now because they are continuously being moved on by the rangers. I thank the member very much for his comments, but once again, I assure the House that the Casuarina Coastal Reserve Management Plan was tabled for the information of the public and the House and, certainly, not to hide anything from a member of the public or the members of the House.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the minister, in his foreword, describes the Casuarina Coastal Reserve as a ‘rare park’. Indeed, in an Australian capital it would be a rare park. It would be very rare to find such green belts as extensive, and as varied as this, in any of our Australian capitals or larger towns. It is not rare in the NT, however. We have five significant parks in close proximity to Darwin, and I am in the happy position, as the member for Drysdale, of having all of them, with the exception of this one where it only part fits, in my electorate. Indeed, Holmes Jungle Nature Park, the Leanyer Recreation Park - which might be a surprise to the member for Wanguri - the Charles Darwin National Park, and Knuckeys Lagoon are all within the electorate of Drysdale. This particular park is partially in my electorate and, ironically, partially in the electorate of the minister. I would have thought this would have been something he would want to sing loud and long about, and make a great amount of noise about.
The Buffalo Creek management area is entirely within the Drysdale electorate, so I am very pleased to be able to speak on behalf of my electorate and constituents on this particular matter. I am very familiar with the park as nearly everyone in Darwin would be. Indeed, as has been pointed out by not only this management plan, but by the member for Macdonnell, this is the big one - this is the park that most Territorians visit. It is the park with the highest rate of visiting that enables a great variety of uses including water vehicles, some walking, and some cycling. There is a great natural endowment there and ample flora and fauna variation in this park area.
It is necessary to debate it in this parliament, minister, with due respect. To run the case that it was available prior to the election but sat on because of the election, I think you immediately contradicted that because then you went on to say: ‘But they needed time to draft it’. Now, it is one or the other: it was ready before the election or it was not. In the event that it was not ready before the election, I can see exactly why Parks and Wildlife could not have proceeded with the thing.
Now that it is available to us, this should be a document that is used. It is a document that sets out a number of significant concerns for the commission. Those elements of concern have not been addressed, and many of them are within the province of the minister because they relate to resources. They are issues entirely within the capabilities and capacity of the Parks and Wildlife people. They are issues that they are extremely adept at. However, in the absence of resources, it will always be problematic for them.
This government is very proud of this park, and as I said it is a potentially an icon for Darwin. It is already highly patronised. I live about 700 m from the Buffalo Creek management area – or a portion of it. It is an area that will provide ample open space for people for many years to come. But the previous government has often been pilloried for the things we did, did not do or did differently. But I am quite happy to talk about the things I was associated with. Certainly vector control, I was present when the then minister supervised some engineering works to get rid of some breeding habitats particularly for aedis vigilax which, as the minister would know, is a nasty mosquito beast that carries Ross River. We had done some works in the small creek near Tiwi, which is also in the minister’s electorate. When I lived in Tiwi, I experienced mosquito plagues the like of which I have never seen in Darwin, and in fact were much more dense than what is seen in Leanyer. So it is an issue of health for the minister to look at some of those vector control issues that are not talked about other than generally in this submission.
Recreational access, multi-user access, came out of the original plan that was done by the CLP. It was a vexed debate and quite contentious. It was dogs versus horses versus various other things. I remember in the 1970s, this beach was used by dune buggies and trail bikes and the like. It is a highly erodable area. The soils are very friable and the primary dune is the only protection for a significant stand of casuarinas and other floras that is there. The access now includes horses, equestrian people, people who take dogs there, fishermen, obviously bathers, it has a significant barbecue area, and a clubhouse, of which the minister tells us he is patron. It is an area, particularly when you get down to the suburb of Nightcliff, that provides a convenient transport route to the university and to the hospital for people who are inclined to ride. These are things that have been put in place.
The heritage site too, I recall in 1992 with the 50th anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin – there is significant signage placed there for people. The original access road dating back to the 1940s in fact traverses a part of my block in Leanyer. The barbecue infrastructure, including free barbecues, were put in by this government. The boat ramp to Buffalo Creek, even though it was Defence land, was put in by the previous government, and the toilets were done also. They were featured in election campaigns and other issues about putting a toilet there. At the time we were concerned because we did not have the managerial capacity to look after them because it was a matter we had to negotiate with Defence, and we had a problem with the vexed issue of itinerants using it as a habitat basically to live, eat and drink at.
Erosion control was put in by the previous government, some fencing, and significant planting. The beach accesses are much defined now. They have boardage to prevent erosion. Weed and fire control is also significant elements of this plan. The walkway, the small bridge across to Rapid Creek which is used by fishermen, people watching the sun go down, commuters to the university and the hospital, were also put in by this government. So this is not something that we were shy about. It is something we would have gone to the election quite willingly to talk about.
But, the problems were occurring and they were growing. And the management plan does point that out. This is the second management plan aimed to build on the achievements of the first plan, whilst addressing those management issues which remain or have arisen since. So some of these are emerging problems, and that is exactly why the previous member for Casuarina took it to his colleague, the minister for Parks and Wildlife, and said I would like it to address those issues. So don’t assume we were shy about this; this is something we would quite happily have paraded before the people before the election.
Those issues which have arisen, the complexity of domestic animal regulations, illegal camping, drunkenness and antisocial behaviour, traffic flow and access, visitor facilities, visitor information and it goes on with a number of others. Mosquito patrol, protection of fore dunes, but the rising number of itinerants using that area, the levels of drunkenness, the threats that have been exhibited to Commission staff are in this report. They are emerging issues and are not addressed in this report. It is a matter of resources; it is a matter for the minister to tell the people who use it that the resources will be sufficient for them to have amenity of this park which is their heritage and which is their right.
There was some jocularity attending upon my colleague’s discussion about having a look at the public toilets. Well, I can tell you a lot of people who go to these parks do take small children to public toilets and, indeed, I was in the habit when my children were small of accompanying them to the toilets because you never knew what you would find in the place. It is a matter of some concern that the government finds this a frivolous issue; the fact that in looking at the infrastructure and the resources at the park that my colleague happened to go to the public toilets. That is what they are there for; they are there for the public. They are there for small children, they are there for women and other people who might go singly or in groups to the beach.
If that is an issue that the government finds funny, I can understand why people who want to park there, who want to live there, who want to drink there, who believe that there is an issue of anarchy about this because, after all, what the heck about the laws and the regulations? They are of no consequence. The government does not really care, anyway, so why should we worry?
The issues about fixing the problem, really, if you look at this, what the minister is saying is: ‘We are going to put some signage up saying: “You might get stuff pinched out of your car”. We are going to get a few more patrols to go through the place. We are going to prohibit drinking hours down there’, and I would suggest that there are a number of statutes that already prohibit drinking in certain places there that is already taken place.
None of that is going to be done to fix this. The first issue is a resource issue and it is a resource issue that is well and truly the peoples’ due. There are 700 000 people visiting this reserve, and they are all in our electorates. In fact, they are predominantly in electorates of the members of government. It is something that should be taken back to them and said: ‘Look, we think it is so important, the obnoxious behaviour of many people who are drunk and camping in the rough down there, the behaviour of people who have dogs off leashes and the unfortunate combination often with equestrian people and dog people; these are matters that we will take into hand in a way that we will enforce regulations’. It is not just a matter of saying: ‘Educate, educate. Stick signs up saying that stuff is going to be pinched out of your car’.
Mr Bonson: Lock them all up.
Mr DUNHAM: You also need – well, lock up is what you say, maybe. What I am saying is that if you have laws, you should enforce them. If those laws are being flagrantly breached, you should do something about it. It is not a matter of saying that the Parks and Wildlife Commission has adequate resources because they do not. This report will tell you that and it will tell you that the resources are stretched.
I would also ask the minister to consider another matter that I suppose I probably should have done by submission but it has only come to me lately, and that is on the southern boundary of Royal Darwin Hospital there is a little finger of this reserve that comes out that is non-contiguous. It is broken by the access road into Royal Darwin Hospital. But it is an area that has been notorious from time to time for people camping there, swimming in the creek and playing cards and whatever. I would suggest that in a future plan or maybe some discussion should be entered into that that reserve should come under the by-laws of Royal Darwin Hospital because it is more likely that they will have the capacity to supervise, oversee and enforce regulations in that area than would the Parks and Wildlife Commission.
That is something that could be considered. I would entreat the minister to look at issues relating to his electorate, particularly vector control on that small sandy creek. It is a breeding site for mosquitoes that are carrying a number of diseases that are problematic in our society, and it is in close proximity to the hospital where they may also be having a blood feed off people who are carrying those diseases. So it is a series of coincidences next to suburbia that should be looked at.
While it is an easy thing to be off-hand about matters relating to the Free Beach, they are matters that do cause concern. Whilst I have never been a nude bather myself, I can understand that some people find this particular activity attractive. I would say - and I know anecdotally that many of our staff at the hospital have used this beach, including for that purpose, and I would hope that some duty of care would be provided by people who would look at some of the predators and other people who hang in the forest there and do something about moving them on. It is a difficult issue, obviously, because it might require unconventional vehicles like motorbikes and horses but it is something that has to be addressed. It comes out loud and clear in this report and is not something that should be buried.
On the issue of the appendix lists of the number of creatures that live at, or visit, the reserve, I notice in relation to some of these that there are some members of this parliament who could be well named in there, including a ruddy turnstone and a bar-tailed godwit, both of whom I think could be evident in some of the people opposite, including galahs and spangled drongos. There is even a tree martin that lives there, and the Attorney-General might be interested to know there is even a bilingual frog down there. The hump headed batfish is there, and a gobble-guts, along with grinners - so I am sure those members of the government who go down have been spotted by the various nature lovers and they have found their names in this appendix.
However, I do digress. This is a very serious issue. It is an issue where it effects the electorates of at least 10 of us in this room directly, in the case that we are either adjoining it, it is part of our electorate, or our constituents frequent this place. I would ask the minister to take the motion seriously and I strongly support the motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened with some heart to some of the things that the minister talked about. I am glad to see they have so many programs that they are working on to try to reduce some of the problems out there. The only problem I have, of course, is that much of what he has talked about does not appear in the management plan, and there should be references in the management plan. If the minister brings a management plan to the parliamentary Chamber, then the minister should make that a comprehensive plan.
I also pick up one other comment in relation to the matter, and that was the comment that the minister made about a safety audit. A safety audit on the timelines that he has provided in this management plan is going to take two years. What happens for the next two years in the reserve, let’s say if the audit is completed? I would hate to think that people were going to be exposed to drunkenness, lewd sexual behaviour, and theft and criminal damage in this particular park and I hope that the minister would seek to redress these problems more completely. It is for that reason I bought this amendment before the House to the original motion.
I think the matter has been fleshed out enough. I listened to the member for Drysdale; I am grateful for his contribution. I appreciate the minister is casting a wider net than he has provided for in the management plan. I hope the park continues to be something the residents of Darwin can enjoy safely, and I hope the residents of Darwin will continue to have long and complete use of this park in the future. So to that end, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the amendment be put.
Amendment negatived.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this then brings one of the anomalies of having a member of the opposition do a ministers’ job, because now I find myself in a situation I have because of the ridiculous way that this report is brought before this House. I find the ridiculous situation where I have moved that the Assembly take note of this report, when I clearly feel that there are shortcomings in this report. That is something that the minister is not prepared to deal with.
I place on the record now that I am not entirely happy with this report in its current structure. If the minister was to incorporate all of the things that he said here today into this report, then I would be a lot happier with it. I would be much more convinced that this was an appropriate plan of management in terms of safety management of the park. Consequently, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have to withdraw the motion.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move - That this House express its concern at the deliberate misleading of Territorians about how much of their money will be spent by the government and, in particular, in such vital areas such as education and health and calls on the government to:
1. apologise to Territorians for spending at least $60 000 of taxpayers’ money on brochures,
advertisements etcetera, that do not paint the true picture about how much money is being
spent on such items as education and health;
2. acknowledge that the headline figures they have used are inflated by the use of book entries such
as depreciation and state taxes – for example $527m for health and $505m for education have been
inflated by more than $46m for depreciation and more than $18m in state taxes; and
3. commit to publishing along with future budgets a transparent set of figures and an easily understood
document that explains exactly to Territorians what the government will spend and on what.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as you and members are well aware, a large part of the Estimates Committee hearings was taken up with members on this side of the House trying to establish exactly how to compare the figures published in the budget papers for 2002-03 with the previous budget and mini-budget. We believe such a comparison is essential information if any Territorian is to understand what this government intends to do in 2002-03. If there is no point of reference, no understanding of what happened in 2001-02, then how do we know that the government is increasing spending or decreasing spending? How do Territorians know whether their government is misleading them or telling the truth? How do Territorians know how their money is being spent if they have no way to compare with how it was spent in the past?
We acknowledge that the change to accrual accounting has presented problems in providing this comparison but we also know that, when the Chief Minister saw fit, she was able to do it, as she explained herself during the Estimates Committee hearing and I quote:
There were other occasions when departmental officers had the opportunity to truthfully answer questions and provide the comparison figures. Otherwise, it was a continuous mantra of:
This was despite the fact that Budget Paper No 3, at page v, said: ‘Actual results for 2001-02 are available on a cash basis’. This denial of the facts and figures was a deliberate attempt to mislead not only this parliament but also Territorians. It began, you will recall, with the examination of the Office of the Auditor-General. The Chief Minister told the Estimates Committee that the actual figures for 2001-02 were not available because they were not audited. The Chief Minister said, ‘They have not been fully checked by Treasury, they have not been audited, and they will be in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and that accounting will be as every previous year’.
Yesterday, the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s office financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2002 was deemed to be tabled in this Assembly. The figures have been independently audited by PKF Chartered Accountants and signed off by them and the Auditor-General. The figures are comparable to those presented in the previous budget and the sorts of figures that we were looking to get in answers in the Estimates Committee process. They are comparable to those presented in the previous budget and in the mini-budget and in the Auditor-General’s annual report for 2000-01. But the crucial point is that the sign off by the chartered accountants is addressed to both the Chief Minister and the Auditor-General and is dated 13 August 2002. Now, 13 August 2002 is seven days before the Chief Minister and Treasurer brought down her budget and more than a month before the Chief Minister sat before the Estimates Committee and told us that such figures were neither available nor audited. She either had these figures all along, or she has no idea what is going on in her own office. She either had these figures and deliberately chose to mislead the parliament or she was so intent on maintaining the faade of misleading Territorians that she had to ignore them.
You would recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you were there, the laborious process we went through to try to find out whether these figures were actually available as audited figures. It is quite instructive to look at the Hansard and reflect on that particular day, because the amazing thing was we had the Auditor-General himself, the brand new Auditor-General for the Northern Territory, in the chair, with the Chief Minister next to him, in an Estimates Committee process, trying to find out whether or not audited figures were available. I will simply just reflect, for members, part of that discourse.
Mr Reed was asking the Chief Minister about whether or not these cash figures were available and the Chief Minister replied, ‘They are not audited …’. This is referring to the Auditor-General’s office: ‘They are not audited and they will be in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report’.
Mr Reed: ‘But they are available? Your document here tells me they are available. The figures are
available. Yet you tell me you do not have them. Which answer is correct?’
Chief Minister: ‘No, they are not available’.
Mr Reed: ‘Oh. They are not available?’
Chief Minister: ‘They are not available’.
Mr Reed: ‘So this book is in error; this is a printing error?’
Chief Minister: ‘No, they are not available across government, they are not available across government
and they will be in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report’.
Mr Reed: ‘Can I refer you to the book?’
Ms Martin: ‘Yes, no, no, go for it’.
Da de da. I think rather than reading it all, I will refer members to the debate of Tuesday, 17 September 2002, pages 52 and 53. It is in that debate that the Chief Minister consistently says to Mr Reed that audited figures for the Auditor-General’s department are not available. That is consistently said by the Chief Minister. Mr Reed continues to push the Chief Minister suggesting that they are available and in fact says to the Chief Minister that it appears that she is either misleading the House in her budget book or she is misleading the House in the answers that she is giving now. The Chairman himself interjects and says that is a very serious allegation coming from Mr Reed.
It is a very serious allegation indeed when you pick up the Auditor-General’s Office financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2002 and you find out that all of those figures not only were available on a cash basis, on a comparative basis as we were asking in the Estimates Committee, but those audited figures were available to the Chief Minister as early as 13 August 2002, at least one six-day sitting period before the Estimates Committee took place. I can tell you that on the face of that information, it appears prima facie that we have a case here where the Chief Minister has misled deliberately in the Estimates Committee by the fact that she was in possession of those audited documents.
So at some stage it was decided that Territorians were not to be given figures that would allow them to accurately compare the activities of 2002-03 with 2001-02. Why the government would want to practice such a deception escapes me, but the decision having been made, everyone had to stick to it, with the notable exceptions that I already mentioned.
The deeming of this report yesterday begs the question of how many other reports are waiting in the wings. How many other departments have the figures ready to be tabled in this parliament, and how many, in fact, had those figures audited and available to be presented to the Estimates Committee, but it was decided not to produce them, even though they were consistently asked? But more than that, not given the answer: ‘We have decided not to give them to you’, but deliberate and emphatic statements to say: ‘Those figures are not audited. Those figures are not available’. It appears to me to have been a deliberate campaign to mislead Territorians. It has been a deliberate campaign to spread the government story and to hell with the real information. How ironic that this has happened while the government is busy patting itself on the back for providing freedom of information legislation. One day, we will find out if the facts will ever match the rhetoric of this government. All this open, accountable and honest government really believes in, is its freedom to provide whatever information it wants to provide.
The Chief Minister and Treasurer made it quite clear at the Estimates Committee hearings that between the budget being brought down on 20 August 2002 and 17 September, in just four weeks, she spent $61 230 promoting her budget to Territorians. Those advertisements and brochures made headlines out of the figures her government was spending on health, education and law and order. I seek leave to table some examples of those advertisements that accounted for just part of that $61 230.
Leave granted.
Ms Martin: They were great ads. Let’s have them again.
Mr BURKE: Well, arrogance. Just keep it up, Chief Minister. One thing you have learnt is how to be arrogant in the chair.
The figures claimed were $527m on health, $505m on education and $142m on police. Now, not one of those figures accurately reflects how much this government is spending on those particular areas. It was made quite clear during the Estimates Committee hearings that these headline figures are made up of large amounts of book entries, money that these departments certainly do not have to spend on Territorians. The major offence is the inclusion of depreciation and amortisation in the figures. Whatever may be claimed about the need to put these figures in the books because of the accrual accounting system we have now adopted, it is no excuse for the government to use them to mislead Territorians. That $527m for Health and Community Services includes a figure …
Ms Martin: Of providing services to Territorians.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister says that $527m for Health and Community Services is the cost of providing health services to Territorians. Well, let’s see if Territorians agree with that at the end of the day because it includes a figure of $16.969m for depreciation and amortisation. It is nothing but a book entry; it is nothing but an accounting device. It will not pay for one pill, one nurse, or one doctor. It will not contribute one cent to ensuring the health of Territorians and it is certainly not the case, as these brochures and advertisements claim, and I quote from the brochures:
That is plain wrong. It is a blatant con perpetrated on Territorians and, what is worse, Territorians have had to pay more than $60 000 for the privilege of being conned. An open, honest and accountable government would have told Territorians that the real figure for spending on their health is some $17m less than the $527m that they claim. But that is not all. The deception continues. The Department of Health and Community Services will also pay more than $4.5m in state taxes and fees – again, a book entry. The Treasurer says we will give you so much so that you can give it back to us. It is nothing but an accounting device and nothing to do with how much money will be spent on the health of Territorians. The reason given for including this book entry in the Health and Community Services budget, in fact, it is right across all government departments, is that these are all competitive neutrality reasons.
Who is the Department of Health and Community Services competing with in the Northern Territory, you might ask? The simple fact is, it does not compete, but the inclusion of a state taxes figure allows the government to further inflate its headline figure in its claims on how much it is spending. If you remove that figure and the depreciation figure, you end up with $502m for Health and Community Services. Is that then the amount that this government is spending on Health and Community Services? The parliament only appropriated $377.6m for the Department of Health and Community Services, but that includes the money to pay for those state taxes and fees. It would be nice if the government, in its open, honest and accountable way, would tell us exactly how much real money is going to be spent on the health of Territorians. It would be even nicer if they could tell Territorians the real figure instead of using taxpayers’ money to peddle some made-up headline figure.
The situation is repeated, but even more so with regard to the education of our children. This shameful deception is there again in the ads and brochures, which say:
But let’s look at the figures. You need to take off $29.490m from the book entry of depreciation and amortisation because that will not be funding one pencil, one teacher and one brick for a new school. You then take off the $14m for state fees and taxes. You then take off the $18m for repairs and maintenance that has now been included to inflate the figure, but was not included in previous years, and what do you get left with? It is not $505m, but $443m, and how does that compare with the figure given at the Estimates Committee by officers of the Department of Employment, Education and Training who said that last year $442m was spent on that department. That was one of the few times we were able to get some real cash figures. Whatever the comparison, it was, and it is wrong, to spend $60 000 of taxpayers’ money to tell taxpayers that $505m will be spent on education. It is just plain wrong.
But there is more. These advertisements, these creatures of the great spin factory on the 5th floor, claim Education has increased by $14m to the mythical figure of $505m. In the budget detail, and of course we have to remember that the Chief Minister told us that these budget books provide all the information, all the details anyone would want to know about the budget. In the budget detail on page 65 of Budget Paper No 3, the policy initiatives are listed for the Department of Employment, Education and Training. So here we will find how the extra $14m will be spent. Unfortunately, the initiatives only add up to $9.64m, so I ask – where is the other $4m plus that has been lost to state taxes, or is it just part of the fibbing?
It is also worth noting that these fraudulent advertisements refer only to Education as being the recipient of the $505m, and even that is incorrect because, according to the budget books, $16.7m relates to outputs named ‘employment initiatives’, and outputs named ‘regulation of occupational health and safety’, and $57.8m is allocated to the output group, ‘vocational education and training services’.
On their own figures, Education receives a global figure of $430m, and that is a hell of a lot different from the $505m. It is not a figure that you will find in any one of the advertisements or the brochures. Not one cent has been spent by this government in telling Territorians this figure. They should apologise to Territorians for trying to con them; for wasting taxpayers’ money in perpetrating this con trick; and for failing once again in their core promise to Territorians to be an open, honest and accountable government.
Let us look at some of the other claims in this virago. I quote: ‘$432m for infrastructure investment’. That $432m is made up of $119m of repairs and maintenance which, according to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, is slightly less than last year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, do we sleep in the Chamber nowadays, or not?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not believe anyone was asleep, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: I find it interesting that the Chief Minister has such a response to this motion and the comments therein, which I consider to be serious. I would have thought a Treasurer and Chief Minister who received an editorial that said: ‘You did not even understand your own budget’, would do a little more than laugh or pretend to sleep while this motion is being put forward. Rather than laugh, you want to get across your own budget, because that was one of the major problems in the Estimates Committee.
Some of the other claims: $432m for infrastructure investment. That $432m is made up of a $119m of repairs and maintenance which, according to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment is slightly less than last year. From that $119m, the fees paid by the Construction Division must be deducted and, according to at least the Department of Legislative Assembly, those fees are about 11%. So, presumably, $13m comes off the $119m cash to be spent on repairs and maintenance. We need to deduct that $13m from the $432m, which leaves $419m. The government says that $99m of the works program will not be carried out this financial year, but revoted until next financial year; so, that gets us down to $320m. Of that $320m for infrastructure development, $25m goes to ‘program delivery charges’; that is, one department paying the Construction Division its fee. That leaves $295m for infrastructure investment. Of course, we also need to take a further $9m off that, because that is where the monies paid this financial year was for various completed projects. So, the real infrastructure investment for 2002-03 is $286m. That is a long way removed from what these advertisements and brochures so proudly but falsely claim. In fact, these advertisements overstate the expenditure - the actual real cash that the government intends to spend on infrastructure investment - by some 33%.
Yet another claim is and I quote: ‘Reducing the cost of living’. Under that heading, it specifically mentions the freeze on power prices but makes no mention of the increase in water and sewerage charges which are subsidising that freeze. How a 7.5% increase in water and sewerage charges is not considered an increase in the cost of living, escapes me - it certainly would not escape the average Territorian. However, its omission from these advertisements and brochures is no mystery. It is just another example of how this government has wasted $60 000 of taxpayers’ money in its deliberate campaign to mislead Territorians.
I now move to paragraph (3) of my motion. It is very clear that not only do Territorians need a transparent set of figures and an easily understood document that explains to them exactly what the government will spend and on what, but the ministers themselves need that type of documentation as well. I return to the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Let me quote the minister from the Estimates Committee hearings. He was replying to a question about how the budget improvement cut affected his department budget and he said:
The minister is clearly saying that, out of his $505m budget, he is expecting to have to take about a $4m cut as part of the budget improvement measure. A few exchanges later, the Under Treasurer tells the Estimates Committee and I quote:
Clearly, we have a situation here, when it comes to understanding this so-called accrual accounting method, understanding the initiatives of this government, rather than ridiculing the opposition it would be helpful if the ministers themselves could answer the questions clearly and accurately.
Members would be well aware that this exchange was replicated right across a number of departments, as to whether the budget improvement cuts were part of their operating expenses or had already been taken out. The Under Treasurer is quite clear on how it works but the Minister for Employment, Education and Training had a contrary view and so do other departments he administers, if you look at the Hansard records. For example, the written answer from Police, Fire and Emergency Services says:
The written answer from DCIS states:
That is, the budget for 2001-02 and 2002-03 has been reduced by the effect of the cuts.
Many agencies did not even bother to answer this particular question, which simply asked, ‘Is the cash relating to the budget improvement cut included in the agency’s budget, and if so, how is it treated, in the 2001-02 2002-03 figures?’ The time constraints imposed by the government on the Estimates Committee hearings prevented those answers being tested, but if we had a clear set of figures that even ministers could understand, then perhaps there would not be this confusion. Certainly, there would be less room for the government to fudge and fuddle and fix the figures.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the government has mislead Territorians about its first budget, it has made Territorians pay for being misled, and it needs to get its act together so that in the future not only Territorians will be able to understand the Labor budget but so too will the Treasurer and her ministers. I commend the motion.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I find the motion a very bizarre one and I have found the Leader of the Opposition’s response adds even a more bizarre element to it, indeed. I do not think it has necessarily contributed to any level of discussion about the budget nor anything constructive. It is very disappointing. Here it is, general business day and a chance to actually look at what government is doing, or for the opposition to raise some useful issue, and this is more of the same of what we heard in Estimates. More of the same that reflects the chronic condition that we have from the Country Liberal Party, reflected after nearly 27 years in government, that budget books are not worth the paper they are written on and that you simply can not take them seriously.
Let me say that these budget books are to be taken seriously. The figures are put together, the whole framework is put together, under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, something we did not have before. We hear the squeaking from the member for Drysdale, who spent the entire Estimates Committee not looking at policy, not looking at funding of direction for Territorians, but trying to find typographical errors in the budget papers; and boy, was he happy when he did. Like a primary school kid, he said, ‘Wow! I’ve found a typographical error!’ Well done, member for Drysdale. In the transition school of life you have an A. Well done. In the transition school of life, but no more.
This is a very bizarre motion and the interesting thing is that had there been no election - because the whole basis of what we are hearing from the Leader of the Opposition is about accruals, it is about accruals that confused him, accruals that you cannot trust, accruals that are somehow deceiving Territorians. But if there had been no election last year or if there had been a different result, we would have still had a budget brought down in accrual terms exactly the same as we see now. That is the irony of it. A CLP Treasurer would have been telling this parliament what a wonderful thing this budget was, expressed in the new accrual format. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The commitment had been made to move towards accruals within that Working for Outcomes framework, and it was one that we embraced and won, and that the now opposition had also embraced, and the move had been happening. We had some parts of government that were already working in accruals. The Auditor-General’s Office had been producing reports in accrual accounting since, I think, 1996.
Instead, what we have today, is a somewhat desperate sounding Opposition Leader trying to turn back the clock. It was obvious that he never understood budgets when he was Chief Minister and he shows, over the last 15 or 20 minutes, no more understanding now. Desperate Denis, I think we can call him, believes that every other Australian jurisdiction is wrong to adopt accrual budgeting and reporting. That is your bottom line: they are wrong. Desperate Denis believes that the Australian Accounting Standards Board which called for accrual accounting for governments more than five years ago is also wrong. Desperate Denis, despite his mistrust of politicians last night when debating the FOI bill, believes that the CLP way of having Territory Treasurers determining accounting rules for budgets is best rather than abiding by external national accounting standards.
It is a serious issue. I might be making light of it here, but his is a reflection of the Country Liberal Party that believes it is okay, as we saw with the 2000-01 budget, to write the bottom line in the Treasurer’s office, in the Cabinet room. It is fine. It is absolutely fine to write the bottom line like that, and not by proper accounting standards.
Desperate Denis also believes that it is acceptable for the Northern Territory Auditor-General …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister may act in a childish, school-girly fashion, but there are procedures in this Chamber where you refer to members by their title or by their electorate.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been allowing a bit of latitude on this, Leader of the Opposition, in that she is not directing comments at you.
Ms MARTIN: I am sorry. I do apologise. The member for Brennan - I won’t call him Desperate Denis any more - believes that it is acceptable for the Northern Territory Auditor-General to be forced to issue a qualified audit report on the government’s finances each year because in the cash format they were in breach of the accounting profession’s accounting standards. By failing to adopt national accounting standards, the Opposition Leader as Chief Minister, presided over one of the biggest rorts and deliberate manipulations of budget data in 2000-01.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The word ‘rort’ is a connotation of illegal activity which has not been demonstrated in any way, shape or form against the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think it is a point of order, member for Drysdale.
Ms MARTIN: I will actually speak to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, because it is an interesting point.
Mr Dunham: We will talk about rorts. No rorts.
Ms MARTIN: It was not a technical rort because there was no law that was broken. There is now. But it was an absolute rort for Territorians, an absolute rort of this parliament and it was a deception of this parliament. That was when the CLP decided to bring a former off-budget entity, that is the Conditions of Service Trust, within the budget as it improved its budget bottom line by a cool $150m.
Then, of course, we all know about the black hole in the budget for 2001-02. They are still trying to reinvent on that side of the House that it did not happen at all. Well, it did. We saw what happened and we know what this government has done to make sure that never happens again. What we have seen, and what we saw through hour after hour of Estimates, is a pathetic attempt by the now opposition to somehow justify that they had not perpetrated a major deception on Territorians in their last budget, trying to pretend that every budget must be doing this, and spent - rather than useful hours in the Estimates Committee - all the time trying to prove that you could not trust budget papers, a real reflection of what their attitude was in the past, but not in these budget papers. I say again: a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act that will stop rorts going on and has been applauded across the country as us leading the way. And we are certainly very proud to be doing that.
It really does take extraordinary gall and hypocrisy to bring this motion to this House today. For the first time, this government has produced a set of budget papers that show Territorians the total cost of providing services. Sure, some of those costs are not reflected in the cash outlay in a particular year, but they are nevertheless real costs of running government and every other jurisdiction has recognised it. We lagged behind but we are there now, and so now we understand the real costs of providing services. The fact that the CLP deliberately avoided moving to accrual accounting for years actually mislead Territorians as to the real cost of service provision. That is why our unfunded employee entitlements were able to rise to such a disastrous level. Did we ever hear a CLP Treasurer actually tell us what those unfunded liabilities were, or ever have any kind of strategy in place to tackle them? No, no, no. Never went out and told the public that they were well over $1bn, now $1.4bn. Never told this, never said what kind of strategy was in place, just pretended it did not happen. How can you then say that we should not be talking honestly about the real cost to Territorians of the services provided? Unfunded employee liabilities - they are not a cost? They are not something we have to meet?
Mr Dunham: They are a contingent liability.
Ms MARTIN: Really, talk about head in the sand. That is why the capital works program was not clearly targeted as a proper and prudent asset management, but it was rather, as we saw from the CLP, a pork barrelling set of promises.
Depreciation is one way to attribute the cost of using assets to provide the services of government. Previous budgets in the Territory had no way of assessing the use or value of these assets, and therefore provided no focus on asset management. And yet, we had the Leader of the Opposition standing in here criticising that kind of approach, telling us we were trying to deceive by using that kind of approach. In fact, this approach, this move to accruals, actually shows in detail, which we have never had before, the actual cost of providing services, the cost of asset management. And, what we need to do is to manage our assets. You are trying to tell us that you can actually provide education without classrooms, without managing the refurbishment, the renewal of classes. Of course you cannot, don’t be so ridiculous.
I turn now to specific items in the motion. Paragraph 1, and we heard a very sanctimonious approach from the Leader of the Opposition, refers to the amount spent on advertising the budget. This amount is not significantly different in magnitude to what former governments have spent if you look at the money spent by the previous government in advertising their budget of deception in May/June 2001.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The magnitude of deception in 2000-01. The gall to have a motion like this, the gall to have it when we know that hospitality for the previous government was not a problem. The former member for Karama could spend the equivalent amount we spent on advertising what was an excellent budget for Territorians, telling Territorians about the budget, could spend that on himself on long lunches and dinners in just a year. It is entirely appropriate that the actions of government policy decisions be transmitted to Territorians. I would certainly welcome any opposition suggestion as to how this can be done for free. It cannot. It is very important that government tell Territorians about the initiatives in the budget, the biggest expenditure in the year, the major focus of government, the direction of spending, and Territorians deserve to know, and I think $60 000 was a modest amount to spend.
The second paragraph of the motion, and I don’t know if it is the words that are out of order, but I think it is simply stupid and the Opposition Leader should know better. Perhaps, as he likes to see himself as such an expert, he might like to answer the following question. And I hope, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you give him some licence to answer. A question to the Opposition Leader: in recent CLP budgets were state taxes included in the expenditure of agencies or were they excluded? Does the Opposition Leader have a clue as to what the answer is? I can only assume that he does not, because if he understood CLP budgets, he would have known that the treatment of state taxes was conceptually no different in this budget than it was in theirs. For the information of the Opposition Leader, both the CLP and this government have included the costs of paying Territory taxes in the expenditure of agencies. The Opposition Leader went on and on about the deception being perpetrated, about including these taxes: ‘Did we want to have agencies like Health or Education being in a competitive environment? No, this was ridiculous’. And yet your own budgets did it, year after year - the cost of paying Territory taxes was included in the expenditure of agencies. It only highlights the desperate nature of this motion, that the Opposition Leader would try to paint as devious something that his own government practiced for years.
In case the very quiet Opposition Leader did not hear it the first time round: including depreciation in the cost of service delivery for government agencies is enhancing the information available to the public, not hiding it as we saw in budgets under the CLP. In providing information to Territorians, we stated accurately the headline costs of providing services in a number of key areas. We also stated clearly the amount of additional resources allocated to these vital areas of government expenditure, and we did it on an apples and apples basis. We did it transparently and we did it on an apples and apples basis …
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Ms MARTIN: The member for Drysdale can sit there saying ‘rubbish’ as many times as he likes, but that is the fact - that is the fact. Sadly, the member for Drysdale was so obsessed with finding the typographical errors in the budget papers that he could not look at the bigger picture, and he simply could not trust that these budget papers were telling Territorians about what expenditure there would be for this year.
That apples and apples was simply the reason we adjusted the numbers to take account of the fact that, from 2002-03, each agency’s repairs and maintenance expenditure would be recorded against the agency rather than with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. Essentially, the Commonwealth Grants Commission processes delivered an additional $76m in this financial year to the Territory’s coffers, over and above what we had been anticipating at the time of the mini-budget. That money was provided because the cost of providing services in the Territory, especially in the areas of health and education, had risen, largely due to the fact that other jurisdictions were also spending more in these areas lifting standards of service Australia-wide - which is the principle underpinning horizontal fiscal equalisation.
Quite legitimately, we utilised this extra funding to ensure that Territorians were able to get the services they deserve as citizens of the nation. In the priority areas they agreed, via the 2001 election, that they needed more funding. This really underpins the idiocy, the stupidity, of the opposition’s argument. You stood in this place, you put brochures in my letterbox saying things like: ‘Hey big spender, you have all this extra money’. We received $76m extra and that is terrific. It really recognises the additional cost of providing services in the Territory.
Then you spent hours and hours in the Estimates Committee, come in here and repeat the fraud by saying we did not get extra money and we are not spending it on Territorians. What do you think we did with it? We even had the absurdity of the former Treasurer, the member for Katherine, trying to pretend that we had found some hollow log to put it in. On one hand you tell us we have more dollars to spend - you tell Territorians in a brochure in every letterbox that I could be best described as ‘Hey big spender’ and then you spend the rest of the time …
Mr Burke: Therefore, why do you tax them so heavily if you have the extra money?
Ms MARTIN: No, no, don’t try to change what the fundamental argument is.
Mr Burke: Why don’t you lift the rego tax off them if you are such a big spender now? That was the thrust of it.
Ms MARTIN: No, no, don’t try to change the fundamental argument. On the one hand he says: ‘You have extra funds’. We had them in here quizzing us about what we were going to do with those extra funds, the $76.1m. He sent every letterbox in the Territory - or many letterboxes – saying: ‘They have all this extra money; they are going to spend it’, and then spends most of the time in Estimates trying to prove that somehow or other we are not spending that money. It is extraordinary when budget papers clearly articulate where the extra funding is going; when we show extra funding across those key areas; when we look at the extra funding going into capital works; how we are on target for our deficit reduction strategy; and accountably say where all those dollars have gone that we have an opposition wasting the time of the parliament, wasting the time of the Estimates Committee, trying to prove that that money is not there and, somehow or another, I have slipped it into some hollow log we are keeping for the future.
We have changed the rules of things like the Community Benefit Fund so you can not do the rorts that you guys did over the last few years. We have changed the rules. You kept your piggy-bank. You called it the Community Benefit Fund. But we do not. Those extra funds from the Commonwealth Grants Commission were spent on services for Territorians; on health, on education, on community safety and building our Territory, on infrastructure, from repairs and maintenance through to building, for example, new schools. Accountable, open, transparent, in a budget framework that is accrual and shows what the real cost of delivering those services are. So we have it right, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we have it right.
So I am proud to restate that the operating …
Mr Dunham: Rubbish, it is a fraud!
Ms MARTIN: Don’t you mention fraud.
Mr Dunham: Tell us again how much the Commonwealth gave.
Ms MARTIN: Don’t you mention fraud. The man who when his CEO of Health went to him as health minister and said, ‘They are fudging my budget bottom line, do something’, said, ‘I can’t even hear it. I can’t even hear it’.
I am proud to restate that the operating expenditure of Health was increased in this budget - you only found the typographicals, you did not find the rest of it, sadly – was increased by $20m; Education was up $14m; and that community, safety and justice was up $9.6m. The rest of the additional money was in the main allocated to increasing our capital works spending, in cash terms, and the largest cash expenditure we have seen to upgrade essential infrastructure and to assist in the process of economic recovery.
I started off describing this motion as bizarre and it still is bizarre, and what makes this motion even more bizarre is that virtually every business and community group has widely endorsed this first Labor budget. I am grateful to the many Territorians who approach me in the street, the groups I have spoken to, the people who say in the supermarket, ‘It’s fantastic’, who have really praised the budget. The only negative comments we have been able to find come from the opposition. The only negative comments. The opposition really is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. His deputy is desperately trying to find some handle upon which he can criticise this budget. He is desperate to find some kind of black hole in the same way his own budgets contained them. But he has failed.
As for paragraph (3), it is about time the Leader of the Opposition and his party moved with the times. Under his government, commentators like Access Economics placed the Territory last in terms of budget transparency. We have already moved up the list considerably with the mini-budget and Access Economics have flagged that the introduction of full accrual budgeting will increase our ranking even further. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that budget presentations, whether in cash or accrual terms, will never be easily comprehended by the novice. That is why we produced the budget overview, and it is a good document. The new book, Building Our Community, and the regional highlights, presented the budget data in ways that could be more readily understood by Territorians. We should again compare, when we have the opposition trying to pretend that somehow or other the previous budgets were more understandable; I mean, I stood in here year after year, and what you had in budgets was some line items, and no explanation of anything that seemed to be a variation. No explanations.
We would stand in here during the committee stage of the bill and say, ‘Can you explain the difference in this allocation; there is a difference of $5m?’ And we would have no idea from reading the budget papers what that difference was. Much of the time those questions would be simply about, ‘can you explain the difference’. You had ministers standing on that side of the House, saying, ‘You are really stupid. Don’t you understand there was a one-off this or a one-off that’. But the budget papers did not explain what those variations were. Compare them with our budget papers that do explain that. I do not know how much explaining you have to do, but we had the Opposition Leader saying: ‘Turn to page 65 of Budget Paper No 3 and you look at Employment, Education and Training policy initiatives for the budget. You said you put $14m extra into Education. Those only add up to $9.6m’.
It was not the whole list. They were some of the major policy initiatives. We would have had to have a book seriously thicker than that to have everything listed. What we did was give you the major highlights, explain where those extra funds were going and even then, you grizzled. Compared with your budget papers, this is a PhD! It explains where those dollars are going. It explains what the initiatives were and it explains the significant movements between 2001-02 and 2002-03. It explains that.
Compared with previous budgets this has detail. This has explanation and it is a much more open and accountable document, full of information. I know it is difficult. I know accruals are difficult. I do not pretend they are not. We are spending significant time training and working with agencies to make sure that the new processes of accrual are understood, and of course it will take time. To have the previous government spend their time in Estimates trying to disprove accrual accounting was an absurd exercise; it was a waste of what Estimates was about.
You resisted accruals but you knew you had to go to them. I think that, rolling on, you would have done accruals this year, or maybe you would have put it off for another year if you were still in government. But you knew it had to happen. You resisted. You were way behind the rest of Australia. We were rated so lowly in terms of our budget performance because we did not have a transparent budget process. We have moved there now. And like King Canute, the head is still in the sand, along with your mates. It is in the sand. And, we have to put up with silly motions like this in the parliament, and we had to put up with hour after hour after hour of Estimates Committee - 17 hours, and I was asked the most ridiculous, pointless and sometimes stupid questions!
Mr Baldwin: Only because you couldn’t answer the questions.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: The questions mostly did not make sense.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as a final gesture on my behalf in reference to paragraph (3) of the motion, I refer you to the Budget Overview. It is a very simple format, very simple.
Mr Henderson: With pictures, just to help you.
Ms MARTIN: With pictures! Thank you, Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development. It actually explains what the budget does. So, if it is so confusing, then this will help you out. But your motion is ridiculous. In light of what I have said, I move that the motion be amended to reflect the following changes: replace all the words of the motion that follow after ‘deliberate misleading of Territorians’ with:
for Outcomes Plan,
(2) subject to the economic and social conditions faced by Territorians continue the deficit
reduction strategy as announced by the government at the time of the mini-budget in
November 2001; and
(3) to continue to improve the budget documents and other reports of government and to inform
Territorians appropriately of major policy initiatives decided on their behalf.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if we have difficulty with the Chief Minister saying: ‘Look it is a cash accrual problem’, we should go to the figures where that has been factored out. One of these papers provides it for us. The Chief Minister happily gave us a paper signed off under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act saying: ‘This is the hunky-dory paper’. This paper is one where it compares year for year, totally devoid of anything to do with cash or accrual accounting, and that is at page 80 of Budget Paper No 2, Uniform Presentation, Northern Territory general government sector expenses by function: Health, estimate 2001-02, $432m; budget $427m, a cut of $5m. Now, that has nothing to do with accrual. It has nothing to do with cash. It is to do with a comparison. Now, when we asked the question it was flicked to the Under Treasurer, for obvious reasons, because the minister could not tell me why, when you had a health budget with every item going up, there should be a comparison like that that showed a $5m reduction. What I have done is, I have gone to ABS, because she said, well, these are very complex things, ABS do this stuff, and ABS has given me the subcategories for general purpose classification for health. There are not many of them here, and I would ask the minister to tell me, when she contributes to this debate, which one is going down by at least $5m.
The first category of Health is acute care institutions and that has some subcategories of psychiatric units, nursing home-type patients, other admitted patients, mental health institutions, nursing homes for the aged, community health services, public health services, pharmaceuticals, medical aids and appliances, health research, and health administration. I would have thought that somewhere in there somebody is missing out by $5m. Forget accrual and cash. In that classification, signed off by the Under Treasurer, Health has dropped $5m. It could be the hospitals, it could be acute care, could be mental health, could be nursing homes; I don’t know. I would just like to know which one it is, because on that particular paper I find it quite confusing. All the rest of them are trying to lead us to believe that Health has gone up from $447m last year to $527m this year; an increase of $80m. That is a significant amount of money and it still cannot be reconciled by the minister, by the Under Treasurer, or anybody else who gave evidence to the Estimates Committee.
Let us start with the easy one. The easy one is the statistical device to measure health effort in the Territory compared to every other state, and that statistical device has us losing $5m. There are not many items there. I am sure one of them, the minister would be able to tell us, is the person who is missing out by a big lump of money, probably $5m. That is one where we can take away all the mystique about accrual.
The other thing we need to do is find out how much was spent in the department last year. This is an enormously difficult amount of money to find and identify. The reason for it is that, for some reason, while the members on the government side were quite intense about tracking down $8m about this time last year, if I recall, they do not seem to exhibit the same degree of fervour in finding the missing millions this year.
So if a question was put to a department, and we did put this question, in fact, to the department, we asked if the data for the agency differed materially from that understood by your agency to properly reflect best estimates available to the agency at the time the budget papers were compiled. A twin of the question that was prepared for departments presenting to the Public Accounts Committee. Answer – no. So what we have been told by the department, or the minister, is that the budget papers will reflect accurately that which we provided to Treasury.
We had the former CEO of Health, Mr Bartholomew, tell us that he would achieve his budget target of $481m last year. Now, if we go to any of the documents that are here, you will see that that amount was significantly overshot no matter how you want to look at it. In a way we could be pleased about this, this is good government giving more money to health, great initiative. On the other hand it could be seen as a blithely ignorant minister, totally incapable of understanding that her budget had blown out by some millions. Certainly, by a significantly larger amount than that which my colleague, the member for Katherine, was accused of. We have asked for these numbers and they are purported to be coming.
But let us look at a couple of culprits for the end of financial year expenditure. It could well be $499m. That figure appears on a couple of documents, including this one here. If you go to this one here, the extra $20m comes from $507m, and $7m has been tucked into repairs and maintenance, so there is your $20m. What it is telling you is that they hit a final outcome target of $499m last year. That is a lot more than $481m. In fact, that $18m would seem to put Mr Reed’s alleged misdemeanour well and truly into the shade.
So, when the Chief Minister talks about fraud, the incapacity to trust budget documentation, how oblique our documents were compared to the great clarity of these documents here - they are falsehoods; they are untrue statements. What we have here is a series of numbers that show that the minister - despite twice being asked in this parliament and giving an assurance that she would come in on target - not being able to do so; and her CEO being told that the $481m represented best estimates and was overshot. We now have a parade of documents - a charade of documents rather - which would show us that that was patently untrue. The minister, in trying to reconcile it, told me that she got an extra $4.6m from Treasury. Surprisingly, Treasury gave me a document saying she had an extra $8.3m. So, we have some great difficulties in trying to reconcile these clear documents that have been given to us by the current Treasurer.
I do not really mind if, at the end of the day, it comes out that it was $499m that was spent in Health. I do not even mind if they are able to give us a series of items that show why that was overrun - not a problem. Because some of these things, as we have discussed - in fact, several previous CLP ministers gave evidence to the PAC that this was a very difficult thing to quantify, to manage and to sometimes bring in on target. That was seen as some sort of a quaint excuse, whereas at the moment, it would appear that we are not being able to get a close look at some $18m.
The Chief Minister also called on us to interject about taxes. ‘Come on, come on, tell us about state taxes’. Well, that is true. State taxes did appear; they did feature in last year’s budget. In fact, for this particular area they were $4.3m 2001-02 and they are $4.56m next year - line ball. What the Under Treasurer is saying is: ‘You are parading a myth out there by saying that these taxes are somehow some sort of a change in circumstances because they were there last year’. Yes, they were.
Let us look at some of the others. Let us look at repairs and maintenance. Repairs and maintenance in 2001-02 was $2.3m and for the current year is $9.7m. We can see there that some several millions of dollars that have gone into this area that were not there last year. Depreciation and amortisation has also gone up nearly $2m. There is $9.5m sitting there that used to be described thus last year and is now being described in a different way next year: total accrual basis on each end - this is her apples and apples discussion - and there is an additional $9.5m What some commentators would say is: ‘Well, that is a more accurate number. What we are doing is we are more accurately describing what those costs will be’. Perhaps. But the Leader of the Opposition’s point is still made. Notwithstanding you are more accurately describing them, that money is not available for services. That additional $9.5m in Health will not be available for services.
I ask that some efforts be made to reconcile some of these documents. It behoves the minister to commence her journey with a figure that we all know and love so well. That is the figure from the mini-budget of $481m. That $481m has somehow turned into $527m. Yet, in the descriptors, it talks about an additional $20m being provided for Health. So we are going to find somewhere in there that there are some numbers that need describing and they need describing in such a way as to give some confidence to people who would read these documents.
The documents are described by the Chief Minister as being fulsome, transparent, and able to be understood by anybody who read the budget overviews. That is patently not the case. These are obscure documents. They were meant to be obtuse and they are certainly opaque rather than transparent, and I believe that that is calculated. I believe that the thing that is being produced in parliament yesterday on behalf of the Auditor-General, where he produced his audited figures which have somehow been shelved for some significant amount of time, notwithstanding a legislative requirement that they are here within six days, puts a lie to some to the things that have been said about this budget.
While we are on lies, let’s talk about the lies in this thing. So out we go with a piece of paper to people in the community with lies in it. The difficulty I have with it is that ...
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, a point of order! The member is talking about publications put out from the government which would directly implicate, so they have been authorised by the minister, that the minister is lying. I challenge that he can only do that by way of substantive motion.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. When I have brought this to the attention of the minister she knew nothing about it so her authorship is obviously not readily apparent.
Madam SPEAKER: But what you have accused the minister of doing in the previous comment is lying, is that right?
Mr DUNHAM: No, I said that this document contains lies, Madam Speaker. I am not deflecting on anybody in this house.
Madam SPEAKER: You should rephrase it so it does not reflect upon the minister.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. I am happy to read a quote here which is untrue. It is attributed to Paul Nieuwenhoven who is not a member of this House although he valiantly tried to be one. This quote says: ‘For the first time in a while we’ve had a real increase in health spending’, Paul Nieuwenhoven, Australian Nursing Federation. Now, I do not really mind that Paul Nieuwenhoven lies; I do not have a problem with that, I understand his job.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, point of order! That is deplorable.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I do not think we should reflect upon someone who has no right of reply within this parliament.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I am quite aware of my parliamentary responsibilities and I am able in this House to call Paul Nieuwenhoven a liar, and I will do so.
Madam SPEAKER: You have to be very careful that you are in fact reflecting on a member of the public who does not have the right to come in and challenge that.
Mr DUNHAM: Not a problem, it has been done before. I have heard various debates about Mark Textor and other people in this parliament and I am merely saying …
Madam SPEAKER: I will just caution you that I believe it is inappropriate.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, it might be inappropriate. I can understand they are trying to defend someone who has close …
Madam SPEAKER: I am not trying to defend someone. I am saying that …
Mr DUNHAM: I am saying the government is.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, listen to me for a moment. Although you have the right of reply, and I have said this before, you also have a responsibility with it. To make comments about someone who is not a member of this House, who cannot come into this House and defend those remarks is, in my opinion, unparliamentary. You have to be very careful. I said it this morning when referring to questions about public servants. You are making comments about them that are reflective of their personal behaviour. I caution you about that.
Mr DUNHAM: It is definitely reflecting, Madam Speaker. Thank you for your opinion.
I will read for you, Madam Speaker, and for the benefit of Hansard, the actual expenditure in Health starting 1995-96. These documents are available publicly because they were provided to the Public Accounts Committee: 1995-96 - $331m; 1996-97 - $354m; 1997-98 - $396m; 1998-99 - $403m; 1999-2000 - $433m; and 2000-01 - $447m.
Everybody can see that there were increases and we can even go back further, but they were the documents that were provided to the PAC to demonstrate how each year there has been a real increase in this portfolio area. So when you read a document that quotes a person saying, ‘For the first time in a while we’ve had a real increase in Health spending’, I do take offence to that. I believe that that is not something that can be sustained by the facts. I believe to include it in here is obviously done by some sort of spin doctor who has access to this information or it has been done deliberately to give an authorship to this, a credibility statement to this, by somebody who is speaking something which is not true.
Dr Burns: Is it the whole sentence, though?
Mr DUNHAM: I am quoting from your document.
Dr Burns: No, is it the whole sentence?
Mr DUNHAM: I quote from Delivering Today, Investing for Tomorrow. There is a black box on an unpaginated page that says:
Mr Stirling: Your budget was erroneous.
Mr DUNHAM: It is true – that comment is erroneous. You have published, if you want to use legal terms – you have taken a quote, you have taken it far and wide knowing it to be wrong. Now, how would you know it is wrong? Well, there are a couple of ways. The first is we have had a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into this, and those figures are readily available. In fact, the figures I read out are figures that were provided by Paul Bartholomew on 29 November 2001 and they are figures that are available through Treasury. I assume they are figures that are available to the Health minister, so one would wonder why you would seek an endorsement which is so erroneous.
I am aware of my duties in this parliament. I have spoken before about people who defame others in this House. I do not believe I have defamed Mr Nieuwenhoven. I believe that if he wants to take this further and if he wants to demonstrate to me how there have been health cuts across those years, I would be happy to listen. But that is not the problem; Mr Nieuwenhoven has other barrows to push. The problem is that this fraud was promulgated to every household knowing it to be wrong, so we either have an ignorant bunch of people up there putting this thing together so that it can be deceptive to the people in the community or, alternatively, they knew that to be wrong and still included it. That is a big problem.
There are a couple of other endorsements. I have talked about a lady called Jane Alley, and she is talking about the same area, and I quote:
I have written to the minister about this and I hope in her contribution she can provide some answers because in these papers that were provided, the minister has said the provision of funds for disability will be about the same as last year. Now, if they are at about the same as last year, the submission from the same Jane Alley asking for 11% obviously has fallen on deaf ears, and I am surprised with that level of endorsement from this lady, when she is seeking 11% as a survival level of funding, that she would be so endorsing of a budget that is not increasing.
I would be interested to know, too, whether the budget figures which show a reduction in the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement, a reduction of $1.35m, I would want to know whether that is in fact correct because certainly I heard Amanda Vanstone on the radio use a totally different figure which showed an increase. These are significant numbers. They are millions of dollars. They are for services for disabilities and hospitals, and they are wrong. To make matters worse, they have been promulgated in an incorrect format with incorrect endorsements to the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I support the original motion and I think the Chief Minister should hang her head in shame.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): It is interesting, Madam Speaker, the ones that always protesth the loudest have seemingly the most to hide in these kinds of matters because we well know the lack of courage that the member for Drysdale and the former minister for Health showed in standing up for his department when it was quite clearly pointed out to him …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! While I would disagree with your ruling about my capacity to talk about people other than parliamentarians, there is now a parliamentarian reflecting on myself, and I believe that is out of order to reflect on my courage or otherwise, to use words like fraudulent and deceptive …
Members interjecting.
Dr Burns: Oh, precious dear.
Mr DUNHAM: And to be called a precious dear is something that would offend the Chief Minister, because that term of endearment from the member for Johnston indicates several things, but it probably indicates a little bit of sarcasm. I suggest that I be afforded some protection in this debate from people who would choose to impugn my good name.
Madam SPEAKER: I refer all members to Standing Order 62, which says that all personal reflections on members shall be deemed to be highly disorderly. That is the point the member for Drysdale is making. The remarks made by the Leader of Government Business are deemed to be offensive. I ask the Leader of Government Business to rephrase what he is saying and to not make personal, offensive remarks that would be deemed to be disorderly.
Mr STIRLING: Far be it from me, Madam Speaker, to be disorderly.
If I could go back to the transcript of the Public Accounts Committee in May 2002 and the committee has Mr Clarke before it. The Chairman says:
A member: That’s right. Fraud.
Mr DUNHAM: Keep going, oh, it gets better, keep it up. A point of order! That is not a demonstration of fraud, and that comment has been used outside this parliament and I think it is actionable.
Madam SPEAKER: Who made that comment?
Mr Henderson: I withdraw.
Mr STIRLING: I thank Dr Lim for his timely question. I will go on.
During the Estimates Committee sessions, questions have been raised about the financial impact on the budget of this transition from a cash accounting environment to this accrual accounting environment. The Leader of the Opposition now proposes, by way of a motion, to debate this out, and that is fine. Now the transition from cash to accrual accounting - and I am pleased that these matters are raised, and I think it is a great learning for all of us.
Mr Burke: The Chief Minister reckons it is a waste of time. Ah, so he gets the credit, good thank you, thank you, she reckons it is a waste of time.
Mr STIRLING: No, she knows all this because she is the Treasurer. I think it is good for all members to get a feel for this. You guys might have been on the path toward this, as was clearly indicated, but it is good for all members to understand what this fundamental change from cash to accrual actually means, because it involves a change in thinking by every user of the budget. With accrual accounting, it seeks to record absolutely everything: all the revenues, all the expense transactions that are required to provide the service; not just the cash that changes hands in any given process to deliver a service.
The Leader of the Opposition has a couple of issues, but he seems to have a fixation, in the first place, on the inclusion of depreciation expenses in the budget papers. What he has to bear in mind is that the inclusion serves to provide everyone with information about the extent to which fiscal resources themselves are either consumed, or worn down, or worn out in the process of the provision of services, and the likely impact that will have on future taxing and spending. Schools and training centres are used to provide services in education and the cost of consuming the asset needs to be measured to reflect the real cost - the bottom line, actual, real cost - to government of providing that service for employment and education and training.
It is notable that the opposition, when they were in government, chose to ignore the extent to which the Territory’s assets were being consumed and run down in providing services, so there was no basis upon which to plan for asset replacement. There was no basis. If you do not know what you are running down, if you do not how your asset base is being eroded, how much has depreciated in real terms, you can not plan for the future to replace it.
Police boats are a classic example because, if you go back - and I can remember a decade ago, the Salloo at Nhulunbuy was a large vessel. There have been large vessels in Darwin for police use over years, and boats right across locations in the Territory at government disposal. They were never on the books in terms of an asset and how much it was depreciating each year, thereby alerting government and the agency for the need to look to the future and say, in eight years time: ‘That boat is going to be beyond economic repair’, or, in five years time: ‘It would be economic to get rid of it and replace it’, and thereby preserve the government asset base and, of course, still have a police boat there.
I do not blame the government in the sense that 10 years ago accrual accounting was not being employed across all governments, but it does alert and put governments and business on notice that they are continually wearing down their assets. We got to the situation - I think it was pointed out by the executive officer of the Police Association just the other day on radio in relation to this question about boats where he said: ‘Well, the government came to us and said: “It is a boat or a plane. You can have a boat or a plane, but you cannot have both, so which do you want?” Of course, the decision by police management in the end - or the decision by government – was, in fact, to purchase the Pilatus plane for police use in the Top End. And so: no boat. If accrual accounting had been in the system those years ago, with a proper replacement plan against the gradual erosion of those assets, then government would not be caught out in any given period having to face major capital replacement to the tune of millions of dollars in relation to police boats.
But it is no different if it is a school building, or any other asset that government runs. The current policy for depreciation is for building assets to be depreciated over a period of 50 years. In the Territory environment, it is a reasonable estimate of the useful life of a school or a training centre. So DEET, with an asset base of some $1.5bn, at a depreciation rate of 2% - that is one year divided by 50, coming to 2% - derives a depreciation cost of $30m per annum. That expense is included in Budget Paper No 3, for both 2001-02 and 2002-03. It has not caused an artificial variation between the years because it is simply reflecting the true cost of providing the whole service.
In his motion, the Opposition Leader also suggests that the budgets, in the case of health and education, have been inflated by including state taxes as expenses – they have always been included. They have always been included in agencies’ budgets. Why is it that it is wrong for our budget to go in with state taxes in it when it has always been the case for previous governments, previous Treasurers and previous budgets? There has been no change in policy. The point raised seems to suggest a lack of understanding of just what expenses are in agencies’ budgets.
The Leader of the Opposition refers to state taxes as a book entry. Government agencies are required to pay payroll tax on the basis of proscribed rates contained in the Pay-roll Tax Act and that is 6.3% on proscribed areas of expenses, namely salaries and allowances, and it has been incorporated into every Territory budget since the introduction of the tax. On the matter of the format and the content of budget papers, the government has committed itself to a policy of openness and transparency. I can understand some criticism in and about the budget this year in terms of comparison because of this transitional phase to accrual accounting. You would expect those issues not to be there in future years as the need for having cash in there as you move completely to accrual, you have absolute transparency and a much fuller understanding. Everyone should have a much greater understanding and fuller understanding and appreciation of just everything that has been used in the process of delivering services.
The budget papers for 2002-03 in this transition phase to accrual accounting are a great first step and the same thing would have occurred if our predecessors had still been in government because the commitment to go to accrual accounting was there.
I would always argue for the greatest simplicity that you can possibly obtain in putting budget papers together. I am probably with the majority of people, figures do not come easily to me as an individual and I think there are many in that category – the more simple we can get the budget papers in a way that you can very readily compare year to year, the better off we will be. The 2002-03 budget papers have been a great start.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I support the original motion for a very good reason. The purpose of this parliament is to ensure that those whom we serve have a clear understanding of exactly what is going on and the role of opposition is to reverse the spin and perhaps we have a mechanism that reflects quite accurately and genuinely what is being put in place for Territorians. I understand it is the prerogative of those in government to do whatever they wish with regards to this, but ultimately there will be an election and our role on this side is to ensure that those who make these decisions, who are being served by this government, know exactly the true nature of things.
It did not take too long for the budget to be responded to. I heard my colleague, the member for Drysdale, speak of offence that was committed with regards to inflating the notion of the magnanimous contributions made by this wonderful government. It was the federal Minister for Education who very promptly responded to this grand announcement by identifying the magnitude of spin that had been applied to the announcement of the great contribution made by the Northern Territory government to primary and secondary education. It did not get by the federal minister. Money that has been contributed by the Federal Treasury to the students in the Northern Territory, we were led to believe by separating these figures that there had been an increase of 11.4%. It would have gone through if we did not have the federal minister and his department quickly spot that which we knew to be the case: that repairs and maintenance had been included in the whole package unfairly and dishonestly distorts the process. So you have a figure of 11.4% presented as being the increase when in fact if you compare apples with apples, remove the repairs and maintenance contribution which was not there in the previous budget, the real amount is perhaps not as spectacular. But nonetheless, it is an increase, but it is an honest increase that is reflected of 5.6%.
It is just a simple matter. It is just a few percentage points, but it goes to the very heart of what this issue is about. You can apply spin. You can make yourself look good, but the fact is you have to be honest at the same time and you have to be able to report accurately the actual nature of the case.
Mr Stirling: The schools are happy with their increase, Terry.
Ms Martin: Yes, school supplies, 22% increase.
Mr MILLS: In the case of those comments that have just been made, you will not find my comments detracting from that point of view. I acknowledge that the schools appreciate the additional support that they have received. That is not the issue here. The issue here is $60 000 of taxpayers’ money being spent to promote a distortion of reality and to paint the current government in the best possible light. I find that offensive, too, in the sense that the paper on good government and fair and honest and open government is compromised by the very reality of $505m that Territorians have been told that has been given to Education. Well, it has not been given to Education – there was an amalgamation of agencies: employment, education and training.
I know Territorians are busy with their lives. It is difficult sometimes for them to get their mind around the complexity of budgetary matters. The fact is that even those in government found it incredibly difficult. We found it taxing, too. The reality is those whom we serve are dependent and need to excise an element of trust in understanding what decisions are being made for them. You can throw smoke screens, smoke grenades and to try to shield this whole strategy, but the reality is of the first smoke screen that is thrown up: ‘Oh, you do not understand accrual accounting. That is really what this is all about; it is accrual accounting’. You can toss that phrase around all you like, but the fact is that has given a very genuine distortion to the representation of this budget.
But I notice that $60 000 good, honest money goes into making sure that that smoke screen is well and truly alive and anyone who attacks it is accused of not understanding accrual accounting – as though many of those on the other side there really do understand it! I tell you what: the issue here is what is being done in Employment, Education and Training? The average Territorian thinks: ‘My goodness! That is fantastic! $505m is being spent on education. That is a significant increase’. Well, it is not just education. It is a bit of a complexity there that might escape the casual observer. It is not all in the one place. It is spread over a number of agencies. They do not let the facts get in the way of a good story. The good story is that we all know that education is the highest agenda item when you do public polling. These days education is rising right up the list. Everyone is concerned and interested in education, so being aware of that, you pump out the story that there is $505m for education. I am sure that those who think their best interests are being served would accept that, and think that is good.
Well, that is not quite the accurate story. This original motion actually addresses that very important issue. To change the motion to suit yourself further emphasises the very spirit of this. Once again, I really believe that Territorians are being given a disservice by this whole exercise. It is our role in opposition to play an honest game and to ensure that the fact is presented. For any one who is interested, they will be able to read the Hansard and get a fair idea of this.
Another issue that needs to be attended to - in fact, I have been going through some of the past reviews that have been conducted in education, and another one just arrived then. They will make good reading. The first one I opened up said, ‘We must do more than talk’. We must conduct a review with the clear, confident purpose that you are going to do something with that review. I have been in the business of dealing with people, and I know how you can get short term gain by saying things like, ‘We are going to have a serious look at this’. And everyone says, ‘That’s fantastic, we are going to have a serious look at that’. Well, that is only a short term gain, because the expectation then notches up, and in that flurry of initial rush of excitement that something is going to happen, you may fail to notice that the party goes a bit flat after a while because nothing actually does happen. Or, some time later something occurs but it does not quite match the original euphoria. There have been a number of reviews conducted, and reviews are to be conducted. Granted, in all the excitement of coming into government, almost every active agency within Education seems to be under review. I found one, during Estimates, that was not under review, and it seemed to me remarkable that this area is not currently under review. There was a rider, if you read the Hansard, it said, ‘yet’, and that was school sports.
Now, with the issue of reviews, being so many of them, once again, this is the same sort of thing. It is like the sense that something is happening. Coming down to a comment that was made earlier in this debate with regards to the review in secondary education, that creates the impression, fairly, that secondary education is important. It is in need of review, we need to get lots of information, and then opposition comments will say, you know, just hang on, let us just be careful, we are messing around with people here. When we look at the school based constable review, we find that that has been going on for an inordinate amount of time, and still there is no result.
Secondly, we find that SHAPES - sport, health and physical education - has been under review and it concluded, I believe, in April, and still there is no outcome on that. The minister says it is quite cute to compare that sort of review with the great review that is going to take until 2004 with secondary education, as well, it probably should. However, when you have a track record already of 12 months of review, there is a sense of activity, and people are going about their busy lives saying, ‘Actually, what did happen with that review?’ People start to ask these questions. They start to find that their confidence is reduced in the whole exercise. That is one thing I, and members on both sides, need to fight against, that the people feel that they are actually being served and not being conned. So, you can see why there would be an undermining of confidence in the review process, because it is more than talk, it is action.
Why do I go down this line with regards to this motion? It is for this reason: the NTU. Going through estimates, and this is all to do with spin once again, promises were made of $7m to the Northern Territory University in recognition for the fine contribution they make to the Territory, etc, etc. You know all the rhetoric, all the sort of stuff that has been spoken. The trouble is it has been spoken a bit too much. We had speeches given at graduation ceremonies by the Chief Minister that fell a bit flat, I would have to say, with the same sort of talk many months ago about the great partnership arrangements that will be forged between the Territory government and the Northern Territory University. Fantastic words, but after a while, they start to fall a bit flat. When we had the investigation of the estimates we find that there is $5m that has been given to the Northern Territory University. On closer inspection, we find that that is $5m which is an ongoing amount which was committed previously. The $7m, it is recognised in Hansard from the Estimates Committee, is actually a completely different amount, and it still has not been activated and is still not included in the budget, because we are still waiting to forge this great partnership between the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory University, modelled on the Tasmanian experience.
Mr Stirling: It is coming together.
Mr MILLS: Well, that is fantastic. However, we still have talk but we do not have the action to match it up. The election date will be coming and I reckon some chickens are going to come home to roost when the party will be over and people will feel that that was actually a bit of a let-down in fact. Notwithstanding that there has been a certain contribution made to educate - and I will never walk away from that - but what I am concerned about, as I referred to right at the outset, is the spin aspect of this; the dishonesty of this - the spending of $60 000 to go that extra step to put it into people’s letterboxes and to pump it up for all it is worth. That I find offensive, and I think we do our fair duty to make sure that that issue is clearly addressed. I support the original motion.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak in support of the Chief Minister’s amended motion. First, I would like to say that I believe that the Chief Minister and Treasurer and the Deputy Chief Minister have already very satisfactorily explained the budget, both here today, when the budget was brought down, and during the estimates process.
As the Treasurer has said tonight, the motion brought by the Leader of the Opposition is, indeed, a bizarre motion. It seems that no matter how many times the members opposite ask and are told the message, it never seems to sink in. I understand it is hard for members opposite to face the fact that this government is spending a record amount on Health and Community Services. Let me repeat – a record amount in Health and Community Services.
As the Treasurer has pointed out, Health and Community Services received an increase in its budget of $20m. It is pointed out in the budget papers and in numerous estimates documents, that Health and Community Services budget for 2002-03 is $527m. What these figures represent and what is for members opposite to accept is that this government has a real commitment to improving the health of Territorians. There has been an increase in the Health and Community Services budget. Once again, the 2002-03 budget provided a record $527m. This was an increase of $20m over the last year, and an increase of 4% over last year’s budget. It was with pride that I was able to announce this increase in August this year. I responded to the member for Drysdale during the estimates process about this one particular issue.
I repeat that the motion brought by the Leader of the Opposition is bizarre. It shows that the members opposite do not actually understand the basis of budgets in the accrual format, and how meaningless it is to try to convert it to the cash, which they are asking for.
The member for Drysdale, when he was speaking earlier, raised a number of matters in his speech. I have to say that each one of the matters that he raised was actually answered in the Estimates Committee - each one of those questions were answered either by me, the CEO or by the Under Treasurer. So, I refer him to those answers. He also refers to the fact that he wrote to me on 25 September about disability funding. I have already responded to the member for Drysdale and I will read the answer:
Mr Henderson: What is Tollner doing about it?
Mrs AAGAARD: I do not believe the member for Solomon is doing anything at this stage.
I will now address the specific matters you have raised. There will be a significant increase in disability funding in 2002-03 in the vicinity of $850 000 in growth funding and ongoing commitment to the $1.2m unmet need funding. Further, disability providers will be recipients of a proportion of the $6m funding increase in the budget for the non-government sector.
Commonwealth funding in its entirety, including bilateral agreements, has yet to be included in these figures, therefore it appears as a decrease in funding in Budget Paper No 3. Based on national figures provided to the department by the Commonwealth, I was operating under the assumption that the offer for the Northern Territory was an amount of $125 000 per year, or $625 000 over five years. This was clearly not the case as articulated by Senator Vanstone in her ABC radio interview on 13 September 2002. In this interview, Senator Vanstone stated that the Northern Territory offer equates to a mere $181 000 of growth funding in the first year with additional growth funding in subsequent years of around $60 000 per year totalling $423 000 over five years.
This is unacceptable and even less than the standard proportional funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory of 0.5%. All state and territory ministers are urgently seeking a meeting with Senator Vanstone this month to work through the anomalies in CSTDA 3 and I am hopeful that these discussion will result in a realistic offer from the Commonwealth. In the interests of people with disabilities in the Northern Territory, I would encourage you to lobby Senator Vanstone to meet with the ministers to resolve this situation. Ministers from states and territories have agreed to meet on 18 October 2002; at this stage we have had no commitment from Senator Vanstone and I encourage the opposition, and particularly the member for Drysdale, instead of criticising the government to actually get in there and work with his federal colleagues to try to solve this situation so that Territorians with disabilities can actually receive a realistic funding arrangement for the next five years.
Madam Speaker, words will not fix peoples’ health; resources will. And that is what we are actually providing in this budget. For 27 years of CLP government we have witnessed progressive decline in the health of indigenous Territorians. This government is determined to halt that decline and improve in real ways the range of services offered not only to indigenous Territorians but all Territorians.
We have just come through an exhaustive Estimates Committee process. The Treasurer spent 14 hours before the committee. Ministers provided endless amounts of statistical and financial information; senior members of the public service were made available. This Labor government has absolutely nothing to hide. But still the message has not got through. Madam Speaker, when they ran out of time because of their own arrangements of time, we provided them with all the documents so that they could take them away and pore over them in their own leisure time. Yet only yesterday we had the Opposition Leader putting up this motion which clearly shows that no matter how much information we provide them with, they are simply not able to comprehend the information.
If the opposition cannot grasp the fact that we have allocated more money in this year’s budget then let them try and grasp this: We have allocated $3m for a new stand alone hospice at the Royal Darwin Hospital; we have provided an addition $6m in funding for NGOs; we have provided $500 000 for extra family and children services; we have also provided money for additional nurses and for child health teams; the list goes on. We have also set aside money to implement the findings of illicit drugs task force, and there is more. There is more money for hospitals, more money for primary health care, there is more money for community services, for ambulances, for public health interventions. There is simply more money, in fact, $20m more.
It is deliberately mischievous of the opposition to claim that this government has not committed additional funds to health and community services. Let me again remind the members opposite, this is an open and transparent budget. It does not get simpler than this. Let me also remind the House that only yesterday in this House, freedom of information laws were passed and it is a scandal that we were the last jurisdiction in Australia to have these laws. This is the government that introduced a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act which has set new high standards in the presentation of budget information in the Territory.
It is time for the opposition to move on. August was the budget; September was the estimates; we are now in October. What are we going to have in November? How long will it take for the opposition to grasp the fact that we have increased spending in the budget? In fact, we are already spending the money.
The opposition has tried for three consecutive months to undermine the budget and mislead Territorians about what is happening in health and community services. It has not worked; it will not. It is time to move on.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the opposition’s original motion. I am concerned that taxpayers’ money has been used to deliberately mislead Territorians over how much money the government is going to spend, particularly in the area of health. During the budget process we have learnt more about accrual accounting. With regard to the pamphlet that was sent around the community about your budget, you have used the term ‘record $527m in health’, but of course this includes, for example, depreciation. Money that does not actually exist and money which will not actually be spent.
We have had the comment from Paul Nieuwenhoven that for the first time in a while we have had a real increase in health spending. As you know, the shadow minister for health a few moments ago went through the amounts of money that have gone into health over the years and for the five years that he gave every single year under the CLP government there was a significant increase in the budget being spent on health. So for no moment was Paul Nieuwenhoven’s comment accurate because under the CLP government, just as you have, there has been an increase in health. My concern is, however, that the amount of money that you are claiming as a record amount is not accurate because you have not removed from that figure depreciation of assets because those sort of funds cannot be spent per se on health.
You made big in your election promises. Your promise to increase nursing numbers by 75 during your term in government, and as you know from my previous comments in this House, I have a real concern about your ability to deliver on that promise and I will pursue it during your term. You have mentioned it again in this flier, and I quote:
As we know, nursing in Australia is in a crisis as far as the provision of nursing numbers goes and I will argue that it is also in crisis here in the Northern Territory. There is an article in this month’s Australian Nursing Journal, a publication of the Nursing Federation of Australia, that if nothing is done to recruit more people into nursing courses or to retain nurses already in the system, by 2006 - only four years from now - we will be facing a nursing shortage in Australia of around 31 000.
So, minister, obviously we have a major problem with the provision of nursing services here in the Northern Territory and also in the rest of the country. It is really a vicious cycle, and I know that from my friends who are nurses. The problem is, of course, that when you do your nurse training, your nurse education, you learn how to provide a good service. When the reality hits of what is actually happening on the wards, you are not able to provide the standard of care that is required and that creates a great deal of stress amongst the nurses who work there. The expectations and the workloads are horrific, and they are deteriorating every day.
I believe that your election promise to provide 75 extra nurses, and once again promised here and highlighted in your budget document, that you have tapped into that concern of nurses by highlighting it, but I do not believe that you can deliver on that promise and I do not believe your budget and this pamphlet are going to reflect the reality that is required. I really think it is unfair because you are making promises that you cannot keep. You claimed in a media release on 21 August that you will boost nursing levels here in the Northern Territory and employ these extra 75 nurses during your term as stated on the flier.
Through the estimates process, by looking into the figures that were provided - and once again, I thank you for those figures and the department for doing that - they really just reinforced the problems that we are facing here in the Northern Territory. These happy photos that are on this flier, the $60 000 flier that went out, I would argue are not actually reality of the people on it which could well be nurses.
When you make the promise of 75 extra nurses, it implies that these extra nurses are going to work in the work places so that work loads will decrease. That is why nurses would have voted Labor, thinking, ‘Yippee! We are going to have somebody coming in here to attack the nursing shortage and to really reduce our workloads by providing these extra nurses’. What we found out through the estimates process was that is not accurate, and that in fact the extra nurses are going to go into places where there has been, and I quote ‘a growth in demand’. It appears that during the year 2001-02 only two new clinical nursing positions were created. This is disappointing. The Labor promise of extra nurses would have been interpreted by many nurses as meaning their current heavy workload would decrease. Instead, it appears that the extra nurses will be placed so as to provide extra services.
One way that shifts are covered at the moment is through double shifts. From budget information we were provided with by the minister, we can see that a significant number of double shifts were worked by nurses at Royal Darwin Hospital, for example, last year. It appears that over the 12 months the occurrence of double shifts is trending up. This is a concern with regard to fatigue which can lead to errors and illness. As conditions deteriorate, sick leave, of course, amongst staff, claims for sick leave and claims for worker’s compensation will tend to increase. From the budget estimates process I am advised that mental disorders - and I assume that probably means stress - as a valid claim for worker’s compensation make up almost 25% of successful claims by nurses working in Health and Community Services, and mental disorders are the second highest form of worker’s compensation occurring after sprains, strains, etc. The health of the staff, and obviously the stress they are suffering at the moment is a very serious matter.
From what I learnt during the budget process, sick leave is also trending up at Royal Darwin Hospital. In January of this year, the rate of sick leave was 5%. It has now gone to 7% of nursing staff rostered on shifts in June 2002. We can see that the stress, and the workloads, are starting to have a real impact on the staff in the hospitals in the Northern Territory. Also, one of the causes of sick leave is fatigue, and this is caused by having to work great lengths of time and the shifts that people are working. The use of overtime is also trending upwards at Royal Darwin Hospital with 1245 hours worked in July 2001 now gone up to 2680 one year later. That is a significant increase in the amount of overtime being worked by nurses at Royal Darwin Hospital. The picture is not good, and it is certainly not being reflected in documents like these that have been sent out.
There has also been an increase in double shifts. The concept of double shifts is a real concern to me. This is where somebody obviously works one shift and then due to shortage of staff in the following shift they are asked to stay onboard and work an extra shift. From the information I was provided during the estimates process, there appears to be a reduction in the use of agency nurses and an increase in the use of double shifts. For example, in July 2001, there were 86 double shifts worked, while in June 2002, a year later, there were 137 double shifts worked. So there is a pattern there of increased work load for the nurses who are already there working in the hospitals.
I believe a number of measures should be taken to address this staffing problem. Of course, one of them is to do all the very most that can be done to retain the staff that you already have. However, these problems are not getting any better and it appears that the retention of staff is deteriorating quite markedly. As I mentioned earlier, the unhappiness of nurses is increasing rather than decreasing, and the fact that these budget promises are coming through is not going to do anything to help because the actual nurses who are already working on the wards are not going to get extra staff to reduce their workloads in that regard.
Now, you market your budget to make nurses think that help is going to arrive at any minute, but of course it will not. Your promises raise hope. The budget totals you market are inflated by including such things as depreciation of assets. By claiming that Health will receive $527m as a record implies to nurses that an additional 75 nurses will arrive shortly. They will not be coming in to actually reduce workloads. They are going to go into staff new areas, such as, I would suggest, the new A&E, the Oncology Unit and the Hospice, whereas it has been marketed to imply that workloads will actually reduce. That is the devil in the detail. There will be no reduction in workloads, turnover will remain high, and sick leave will remain high. Nurses should not be duped by the clever manipulation of figures and the provision of information in that manner.
Therefore I do support the original motion of the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that you should apologise to Territorians for spending about $60 000 on advertisements such as this which do not paint the true picture; that you should acknowledge that the headlines figures have been used to inflate, by the use of book entries such as depreciation; and that you should commit to publishing along with future budgets, a transparent set of figures that can be easily understood so that Territory nurses can gain a real understanding of the truth.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for quite some time this evening, and tossing up about what has been said. I must admit I will not support the motion, except for paragraph (3). I put it in simple terms, that when you …
Ms Martin: Budget for dummies.
Mr WOOD: I will not be supporting the amendment either.
If you look at paragraph (2), we are talking about book entries being inflated by depreciation and state taxes; and for sure they are. When I worked on the Litchfield Shire Council which had accrual accounting one always expected that to be in the figures; that was par for the course. I do accept that maybe the government could have said how that figure was higher than last year, but at least it did not put that figure in.
Ms Martin: We did.
Mr WOOD: I am sorry, I am using this paper as reference, this one here. In the previous year, for instance, Health was $499m compared to $527m this year. The statement by the government said that that went up by $20m. When you look at the budget papers, it actually says it went up by $27m, and that $7m of that was transferred from other agencies.
With Education, it went up from $472m to $505m, which is a difference of $32.6m. Transferred from the agencies was $18.7m, which left you $14m; which is in the statement there. The police went from $131m to $142m. That was an increase of $10.48m. Transfers of agencies is around the $2.6m, which left you roughly $8m; that is what was mentioned in the paper. Notwithstanding, one could argue whether for the extra teachers, police and nurses, the money is solving that problem or not. I am talking to paragraph (2) as it stands. There may certainly be arguments as to whether the extra money for nurses, teachers, or police is actually making a difference; but that is another argument. The debate tonight is over whether those figures were misleading.
My understanding of the manner in which the extra money was worked out - that is, the $20m, the $14m and the $8m, on the health, education and police departments - was based on a figure that was also inclusive of depreciation and taxes …
Mr Burke: And carry overs, lots of carry overs.
Mr WOOD: Yes. But I feel that …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I should say that I will be looking forward to next year’s budget, because it is going to be a lot easier to compare next years with this years because of the change over, and I might have a bit more experience in reading this document. That is why I support paragraph (3) because, even though the Chief Minister talks about having a document for dummies, there is certainly a document for the community that is required which really bases itself to some extent on the old cash flow-type budget. Many people really want to see how much money was spent on the hospitals, the roads, and on other capital works. Even though that may not give you an indication of whether that was efficiently done, or whether it has achieved the purposes, it is still a valuable tool for people to discuss with their electorate and I think the paragraph (3) is certainly worth supporting.
Even though I believe the government needs to be careful when putting out those figures, I think it would have probably been better if there had been some note even that these figures are now based on accrual accounting, and perhaps even if you had a hotline number if people wanted to understand what the budget was about. They might even want someone to answer the question, ‘What is accrual accounting?’ As long as they did not ring me, they were pretty safe.
I won’t say any more. I just feel that, in general, what the government put out there is reasonable. The guts of it may be debatable for sure, but that is another debate. It is not part of this particular motion. I will not support this motion, but neither will I support the amendment from the government.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am going to speak to the amendment. Clearly, I am not going to support the amendment. It is the only chance I will get because the government is obviously set on its way, so it gives me a chance to say a few brief words only because I do not intend to labour the point. But it is interesting that it is only the Labor government that understands accrual accounting. It is one thing to sit over there and bag us and say, ‘You dumb CLP, you have no idea about accrual accounting. Why don’t you seek a briefing? Why don’t you get some understanding of this practice because it is the world’s best practice?’ The only problem you miss when you do that is you capture – as you captured the poor old member for Nelson as well, because he is obviously of a similar view as we are, that there are some inaccuracies and misleading statements in this budget that need far more clarification and that was the point of the original motion.
This motion is not about accrual accounting. It is not about the costs to government that have to be captured up in the accrual accounting procedures. It is about you telling Territorians that you were spending certain amounts of money on their behalf and you clearly were not spending those amounts of money on their behalf. That is the substance of the motion. It is not a bizarre motion. It is not a bizarre motion because some of the comments that you claim are so nonsensical and I can tell you have come to me from accountants, and I have said that before. These figures – when you sit up there and you say that you are spending $142m on police this year, up $8m, you know that is not true.
It is simply not true, particularly when in your own answers in the estimates, you clearly showed that a great deal of that money was either carry over money from previous years’ budgets - so it is money that should have been spent the previous year but was not spent - so it is not additional money, it is simply money that will be spent in that year but not new money. And included also are large amounts of money that came from the Commonwealth that were not being spent on anything related to police activities directly in the Northern Territory.
The minister for health in reading her prepared script made much of how little the CLP understands about accrual accounting and how very sad it is that no matter how many times they tell us, the CLP will never understand this accrual accounting, this new procedure, will never move forward into this great and enlightened future; and what an exhaustive estimates process it was as they had to explain to us, and she in particular had to explain to us, all about accrual accounting and the procedures and spending in her budget. Can I tell the minister for health if she thought this last estimates process was exhaustive, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. She was in the chair for what? For a couple of hours. Had to be a couple of hours. The minister for health would have been in the chair for at most a couple of hours because we had not even finished with the minister for police before mid-afternoon. The minister for health has not seen anything yet because one of the disappointments of the last estimates process is that we did not get an opportunity to question weak and incompetent ministers such as the minister for health – weak and incompetent and totally unable to be across their portfolios.
Ms Martin: But you got the Auditor-General, didn’t you? Two and a half hours for the Auditor-General – well done.
Mr BURKE: As the Chief Minister and Treasurer wants to interject, I can promise the Chief Minister and Treasurer this: you will not be in the chair for anywhere near 17 hours because one thing is true - questioning you is certainly a waste of time and effort, because it takes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 pages, laborious effort by the opposition to even try to get or attempt to get any sort of an answer that goes anywhere near the substance of the issue. A good example of that was frankly today in Question Time when a simple yes or no response took numerous interjections by members of this Chamber before we could even weasel anything out of the Chief Minister closely related to the question that she was being asked.
The issue here is that this government has misled Territorians with the publication they have put out by telling them you are spending these large headline amounts of money in their interests on those particular areas of government spending this financial year. No matter which way you try to spin it, no matter how you try to abuse the opposition about not understanding accrual accounting, you are not spending those amounts of money.
I accept these are costs to government. I accept that depreciation of assets is part of the new accrual accounting process, but what I do not accept is you suggesting that just because you have depreciated something, just because it is a cost to government, you are spending money on that particular area this year. Nothing will convince me that that is the truth and, frankly, your own budget papers show that it is not the truth. If you look at the depreciation and then look at the nett worth of government over the period of this term in government, you have actually depreciated the nett worth of the Territory estate, as I said in my budget reply, from $591.435m to $100.367m.
Ms Martin: Oh, look, read the right page. Honestly!
Mr BURKE: Now, the Treasurer – well, you may laugh …
Ms Martin: I am not; I am despairing.
Mr BURKE: … but I can tell you that when this ignorant so-called nonsensical, bizarre Leader of the Opposition goes to one of your accrual accounting briefings and asks your own accountant expert consultant to explain to me how on Budget Paper No 2, page 64, figure 3, the nett worth of the Northern Territory could be devalued over that period, do you know what happened? He went silent. Then he sat down with me for about 10 minutes while he looked at those figures and said: ‘There is something wrong here’. The eventual result was that you are going through a transition process in terms of how you depreciate assets in the Northern Territory and, clearly, you will have to quickly re-look at it and start revaluing assets. That will pop up, too, under your own accrual accounting procedures. We will see when you start revaluing assets. We will see then, very quickly, how quickly you say: ‘Oh, we are actually spending money’. But we will know because of course you will simply be revaluing.
That is the substance of the motion, Madam Speaker. The substance of the motion is simply that $60 000 of taxpayers money was put out there in the public arena, saying that in this financial year those headline amounts of money were being spent in this budget and if you believe you can lie straight in bed and say you are spending that amount of money this financial year, well you have a lot to learn.
You have a lot to live up to in terms of your own promises. I can accept the abuse that you don’t have any understanding, Leader of the Opposition, of accrual accounting, if that is the way you want to run it. But please, sit down and do a bit of homework yourself and at least in your own minds, even if you do not want to admit it in this Chamber, accept that a carry over from one financial year to the next financial year is not an additional spend in that year. No amount of accrual accounting mumbo jumbo can change the simple fact that if you put a cost of depreciation and you do not spend money in some other area to account for that depreciation cost, you have not spent any money. All you have done is recorded a cost. The fact that you are not reinvesting in the assets that you are quickly depreciating in your accrual accounting methodology will have to be rectified because it simply makes no sense if you see the way your trend figures are under this new you-beaut accrual accounting method.
It is a pity that the government only wants to heap abuse on the opposition for this motion. It does have substance. I take some comfort from the fact that the member for Nelson has a similar mind in terms of his …
Dr Burns: That’s a worry.
Mr BURKE: I am sure he will be pleased to hear that. I suppose you need in the Labor Party to have some sort of a doctorate, do you, to understand or have any common sense?
Dr Burns: Stop being elitist.
Mr BURKE: You are the patronising one. You are the elitist one. You are the one who sits here and peddles out your so-called professional qualifications. How many methadone prescriptions did you give out as a pharmacist to drug addicts? Tell us, how many? One? Two?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is it Standing Order 62 that refers to denigrating a member? I think the Leader of the Opposition is attacking the professionalism of the member for Johnston.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not really think these remarks offend the member by the look of the smile on his face.
Mr BURKE: The sensitivity of the government!. It is amazing, the sensitivity of the government. You can come in here, you can laugh and cackle and call us frauds, call us rorting the system but if one tickles the sensitivity of saying something about our academic qualifications, all of a sudden it is unparliamentary! Grow up. Grow up. God damn.
Madam Speaker, the other part of the motion that I thought was interesting was that part of my motion reflected on the fact that the Chief Minister, in my opinion, has clearly misled the Estimates Committee. I can give notice now I intend to pursue that in terms of the fact that clearly she is on the record, on many occasions, of saying that audited accounts from various departments, but in particular, and the area that I refer to, the Auditor-General’s department, were not available to the Chief Minister at the time that that Estimates Committee was in process. Categorically stated that fact, on the Hansard record, when the Auditor-General’s financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2002, and for the enlightenment of backbenchers, it is not a bad document to get hold of, it was deemed here yesterday, another one that just slipped through unless you go out the library and try to find it – not a bad document, because when we talk about clarification of the information that we required in the budget for an uncomplicated department, in terms of reporting actuals for the financial year past and a comparison to the budget, the Auditor-General’s department expresses that clearly.
That is what we were after in the Estimates Committee, in terms of getting us a baseline area, in terms of getting a comparison between actual spending and the accrual accounting figures. That is all we were after. The member for Johnston would be well aware – he was certainly well aware of the questions that occurred in the Estimates Committee; this sort of documentation, this sort of clarification was what we were after in the Estimates Committee, and they were the first line of questions we asked at the outset.
The Chief Minister categorically, emphatically, after repeated questions on this particular Auditor-General’s department said in the Estimates Committee that those accounts were not audited, and because they were not audited, they were not available. This report is shown as being audited and presented as early as 13 August 2002. There is a problem here in how long the Chief Minister was aware of this, when these documents were ordered, and the misleading statements that were made to the Estimates Committee. The Chief Minister chooses to be abusive but it would help if she went anywhere near that particular question.
Madam Speaker, I thank those who have spoken in support of the content of the motion which was essentially to get some sort of clarification as to what were the real spending amounts. For those who feel that it is far more beneficial to abuse, that is sad. For the Chief Minister, who would say that to use a General Business day to reflect on the budget is a waste of time, is also disappointing. I would have thought that reflecting on this important budget at such a time, our first real opportunity after the Estimates Committee, would have been considered by anyone to be a reasonable motion to put.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the amended motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
1. the government has cut the actual numbers of police rather than increasing them as promised
during the election campaign and since;
2. the government is only committed to having 799 police by June next year, when there were
811 in June 2001;
3. there were only 761 sworn officers on 31 August this year, compared to 811 in June 2001
(according to the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report 2000-01);
4. the government does not plan to exceed the numbers that existed on 30 June 2001 for another
two years;
5. the target outlined by the police minister of 830 police by June 2005 is an increase of 20 on the
strength of 811 in June 2001, whereas the government has promised an increase of 50;
6. the government’s figures are based on an annual attrition rate of about 8% a year (about 200 police
over the next three years) and its recruitment policy will add only 219;
7. 50 police of the rank of constable or above left in 2001-02 and only 27 were recruited to replace them;
8. Alice Springs is short 16 police officers which along with leave, rostered days off, etc, leave it down
by 54 officers on any day;
9. at least 12 other stations are presently under strength;
10. $2.8m of carry over funding is part of the claimed increased budget for police;
11. increased salary costs such as superannuation is part of the increased money provided to police to
make the community safer;
12. the police budget has been cut by more than $2m since the mini-budget; and
13. the headline figure for the amount of money to be spent on actual policing this year includes such
book entries as $6.8m on depreciation and $6.1m on state taxes.
And further calls on the minister to explain the contradiction between his evidence before the Estimates Committee that
the police force is well under strength and the commissioner’s reported comments that it is at strength.
Madam Speaker, there can be few more important issues involving government than providing a system of law and order for its citizens and a police force to ensure that system is carried out. It is the first substantial clause of our Constitution, that is the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act of 1978, that this parliament exists to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory. If this parliament, this government, this executive cannot do that then we have failed in our duty and we have failed the Territorians. Unfortunately, the details of how we are failing to ensure that we have a police force capable and adequately resourced to enforce the laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory were revealed in the Estimates Committee hearings of last month.
The litany of facts listed in this motion is only part of the story. In the annual report of the Police, Fire and Emergency Services presented to this police minister in September last year, the figures for the number of police as at 30 June last year is given as 811. This does not include Aboriginal community police or police auxiliaries. In the graph provided to the Estimates Committee by the police minister, this number had dropped to 761 actual estimated strength against a projected strength of 789. On these same figures, the actual estimated numbers dropped further to 753 in September this year and are expected to slowly increase to 802 by June next year, still under the number of June 2001. In fact, on the figures provided by this graph that was given to the Estimates Committee, and I have a copy of the graph here which I will table for the assistance of honourable members and Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, I will also table the extracts from a Police, Fire and Emergency Services annual report. I seek leave to table both those.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: On the figures provided by the graph, police numbers will not exceed the June 2001 figure until July 2004, and the target for June 2005 is for a total planned strength of 833 against a total police establishment of 819, although the minister stated elsewhere in his evidence that his target for June 2005 was 830. So, try as much as I can I am unable to see how it is that there is an increase in police numbers of 50 over the life of this Labor government. An increase that was promised by this government during the election campaign and a promise it still clings to despite what is revealed in the numbers it provided to the Estimates Committee and through that report. The numbers show that the June 2005 establishment figure is only nine above the figure for June 2001, and the total planned strength figure is only 22 above the 2001 figure.
In Question Time today, the police minister revealed an even worse story. He switched his numbers to the total figure of police, Aboriginal community police and police auxiliaries. The establishment for all three was a total of 940. He said, and I refer you, minister, to look at your own report, when Labor achieved government he intended to increase this by 50 to an establishment of 990 towards the end of 2005. However, the figures of the annual report presented to him last year show that at 30 June last year there were 984 sworn police officers. At page 20 of the NTPFES annual report it says:
However, if the annual report that the police minister brought to this House is correct then we have the shocking revelation that the government is in fact only going to increase police numbers by six over the term of this government. How on earth does that fit in with the promise of 50 extra police? No government in Australia could count on only increasing its police numbers by six over four years. It is an appalling situation. I cannot believe even this government is prepared to so limit the police resources of the Northern Territory.
So, the minister’s figures must be wrong. They have to be wrong for the sake of your credibility and for the sake of law and order in the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, the less pessimistic picture painted by the evidence before the Estimates Committee and the figures I earlier quoted from the graph fit with the other testimony provided by the minister to the committee. While a subsequent graph indicates attrition over the period July 2002 until June 2004 is estimated to be 137, the minister also stated that that the attrition rate for 2001-02 was 8.58%, which his answer said was consistent with previous years, and he reinforced that in the House today.
If that rate is applied, then the numbers leaving our police through normal attrition will be much higher, in fact closer to 200 over the next three years. The planned recruitment for the same period is 219, and that does not allow for any dropouts from the recruit courses. The lower attrition figure would provide an establishment far in advance of the minister’s target of 830, while the higher and more likely attrition figure means recruitment is barely keeping pace with replacing the numbers that we already have.
Something in this case must be done to retain our experienced police, and to increase recruitment. What should never be repeated is this government’s action of cancelling a recruit course in 2001-02 and allowing police numbers to drop dramatically. The minister’s own figures showed the result. In 2001-02, 50 police of the rank of constable and above left the force, and only 27 were recruited to replace them. It is not only the loss in numbers but also the experience that is being drained away. Fifty experienced police leave and they are replaced by 27 raw recruits. It does not matter how fine a body of men and women - and those recruits were - they cannot be expected to, nor should they be expected to, individually attempt to replace two experienced officers each.
That is what will be demanded of them because the situation out there is at crisis point. The minister revealed just how bad it is with his table relating to the establishment versus the actual numbers at police stations across the Territory, a snapshot that was taken on 31 August this year. In the northern division, Nhulunbuy, Wadeye and Alyangula are under establishment; in the central division, Maranboy, Lajamanu and Kalkarindji are below establishment. Alice Springs is down 16 on its establishment; and in the southern division, Ntaria, Kulgera, and Yulara are short. In the Barkly, Elliott is under establishment.
But the raw numbers do not reveal the real picture. As the minister explained in his answer to the Estimates Committee, on any given day about 20% of the police work force would be absent on leave, training or rostered days off. The situation becomes starkly clear when you look at Palmerston, which on a snapshot day of 31 August was listed as one over establishment with 44 members. In his detailed answer, the minister says the establishment is 45, and the current strength is 40. But there are only 27 members available in the station for full operational duty, and when the minister was speaking quite a number were acting in higher duties. The minister tried to suggest this enormous difference between an establishment of 45 and actual numbers available of 27 was due to members being on leave. But only seven are required to be on leave, not 18. If we were to examine every police station, would we find a similar situation?
For example, we know that on 31 August, while Alice Springs was supposed to have 89 constables, it only had 73. Presumably, about 15 of those were on leave or on rostered days off, or training, leaving less than 60 against an establishment of 89. We cannot expect our police to continue to carry this burden of lack of numbers and lack of resources. Minister, I accept the fact that you will defend the force but I say this: this is a serious motion. No defence of the information that has been given at the senior officer echelon level will abrogate the fact that the reality is that things are very bad out there, particularly in terms of strength numbers. I know you can play games with establishment, but this is real strength compared to those who are actually on duty on any one day. It is quite critical.
The government claims in its advertising to have added $8m to its police budget in order to deflect such criticism. However, when you examine those figures it is a very different story. Beginning with what they claimed to be spending on police, $142m, we know that the figure is incorrect because it includes the book entries of $6.8m for depreciation and $5.6m in state taxes. I accept their costs, but they are certainly not spending. Again, the claim is made that agencies have to pay state taxes for competitive neutrality reasons and, in this case, who are the police competing with? And it certainly is not spending. Perhaps it is the private security firms that business and others are finding they have to turn to because this government is failing to adequately resource police.
When we look at the $142m for police, now less $6.8m for depreciation and $5.6m for state taxes, the headline figure is less than $130m. That figure includes a repairs and maintenance budget of $2.6m, which was not included in last year’s figures, and I wonder if that is part of the $8m increase. The figure also includes $846 000 increased personnel costs relating to the increased superannuation levy, a Commonwealth requirement of increase 1%, and you really have to be stretching the truth to try to claim that an increase to resources, which is a statutory regulation, is somehow beneficial in terms of increased spending for the benefit of policing to Territorians.
The figure also includes a carryover of $2.8m from the year 2001-02, and I ask the question, is that part of the $8m increase? Those three figures alone add up to $6.2m of the supposed increase. Plus, you have to take into account that the police budget has been cut by more than $2m over 2001-02 and 2002-03 because of the Budget Improvement Levy. And according to the minister’s own answer before the Estimates Committee, this year’s cut of $1.329m has to come off the headline figure of $142m. You may wish to correct that, minister, because there is certainly confusion between your answer and the Under Treasurer’s opinion on these things.
If you add that on, though, to the other spurious increases, you can write off any $8m increase in real terms in the police budget. What makes matters worse is that the need for a well resourced police force has never been in more demand by Territorians. Only this morning we heard yet again about the level of criminal activity. It was said on ABC radio this morning that incidences of property damage have more than doubled since the abolition of mandatory sentencing.
Dr Toyne: Drugs are pretty bad too.
Mr BURKE: That was – well, you just continue. The minister for Justice interjects, Madam Speaker, and I say to the minister for Justice, you pursue your strategy of introducing methadone into the Northern Territory to aid drug addicts. You pursue with your strategy; if you follow some of the other states, you introduce drug houses in the Northern Territory.
Dr Toyne: We are getting rid of it, remember?
Mr BURKE: I am sure it may even be part of your tourism strategy, minister, that you want to get more people to visit and in fact stay in the Northern Territory, and for those who need extra assistance, why don’t we give them free drug injections courtesy of the Northern Territory taxpayer? So, you pursue your strategy of attracting drug addicts to the Northern Territory. You pursue your strategy of continuing to try to suggest that 50% of property crime in the Northern Territory is caused by drug addicts. You pursue that strategy, because I can tell you that the businesses I speak to you out there have given up on reporting lots of crime to police because they simply do not get the response they need, notwithstanding the promises you made prior to the election. They do not get the forensic people out there, like you said they would be, quickly taking fingerprints. They do not get the special squads that come out to deal with every incidence of property offence that you promised before the election, and they have not seen the people with the brooms arrive yet to help them clean up the glass which you promised also before the election.
What they are seeing is a lack of response, a lack of recording, and if you talk to some of the people who work in the aluminium and glass industry, who are the ones you really get a fix on what is going on, and ask them about what has happened since mandatory sentencing, you might get a bit of a surprise. And you will also get a bit of a surprise if you walk out to places like Palmerston and other parts of the Northern Territory and see gangs of kids of 20 or more wandering the street of a night, committing crime on a nightly basis in every suburb in the northern suburbs, and the member for Johnston is in this Chamber, and I know the member for Karama has all sorts of problems in her electorate.
Mr Ah Kit: You should be fixing it up. You are the local member.
Mr BURKE: The member for Arnhem might want to be aware that when they were fixing the ATSIC offices the other day and putting in new darkened windows, the stones were hitting the windows while the repairers were still in the place. When they rang the Casuarina Police Station, which was about 300 m away, do you know what happened? They came with their sirens blaring and their lights flashing, and the kids spotted them a mile off and they were gone. Those are not drug addicts. You pursue all of those drug addicts who are in the Northern Territory …
Dr Toyne: All I said was drugs are bad. We have had a half-hour tirade. A bit sensitive about it, aren’t you?
Mr BURKE: You pursue that strategy in your efforts to reduce property crime by 50%. What I and the CLP wants to see, is that property crime under your strategy will decrease by 50%. That is the benchmark you set yourselves. You said drug related crime was responsible for 50% of property crime in the Northern Territory. Your drug strategy was going to address drug related crime. You then reduced property crime by 50% and you have a bit of ground to make up. You have a bit of ground to make up already, because green signs on the odd drug house does not mean that you have got rid of drug related crime, or even attempted to get rid of drug related crime in the Northern Territory.
The minister for police has a major problem on his hands too, because he cannot even match this years attrition rate in terms of better policing. I can understand that some police may be under pressure to do their basic policing job, but they do not have time to do all the paperwork. However, as I said, there is definitely crime that is being reported that is not going recorded. There is clearly evidence that that is occurring and, in that regard, the minister for Justice has continually promised these statistics that he is going to run out and give us a true picture of what the crime level is in the Northern Territory. You, in your comments today in your ministerial report, seemed to know what those figures are going to be months in advance, which I find suspicious at the very least. We want to see those figures, not only when you periodically report them and massage them, but we want to see them on a regular basis. We want to make some comparisons on what is really there, because if you do not do it properly, if you are only reading police media releases, you will have a problem in terms of crime being apparently not recorded when it clearly is being reported. So, it casts doubts over the crime statistics.
In essence, that is the situation across the Northern Territory. We have a crisis in police resources; a crisis that is largely of this government’s making. You can blame the CLP government and you will continue to try to blame the CLP government. We left this police force at strength, at the promises that we made over our term of government, and they are nowhere near that in terms of your efforts so far. You can point squarely to the cancelling of that police recruit course as part of your budget efficiency measures, as part of making that problem.
So, you are going to address the crisis. You are planning to address it by either increasing police numbers by at best - as far as I can see on the numbers - 23 and, at worst, six over this term of government in real terms - in terms of effect out in the street, of strengthening stations, of what extra effort is going to be out there to help Territorians.
Something must be done and that is why I am urging the government to set up an independent review of the force and its resources. Police today have many more duties than they once did. Many of those extra duties are of politicians’ making, and politicians have to ensure that they are adequately resourced - and I say that for both sides of the House. We need an independent review to establish how those resources should be deployed across the traditional roles of police and their added responsibilities.
We had intended to pursue a review prior to the election. We had promised to conduct it soon after the election and the Police Association supported us at that time in such a review and continued to support that review. Even the minister conceded during the Estimates Committee debate that a review might be a good thing. He said, and I quote:
I can see that it is probably not a good idea to jump all over the commissioner, but I do think it would help matters if the minister and the commissioner could get together on whether the police are under strength or not. Throughout his evidence to the Estimates Committee, both oral and written, the minister and his senior police officers provided extensive detail on just how under strength the force was. This motion is based solely on the facts provided by the minister himself.
Yet then we find the commissioner, on his return to Darwin last week, told the media the police were not under strength, and the minister seemed to concur with that opinion during Question Time today. One recruit class graduation of 25 last week could not have solved all the problems the minister revealed only three weeks ago. I hope the minister takes the opportunity of this debate to explain to Territorians whether the assessment put to the Estimates Committee by himself, the deputy commissioner and the assistant commissioner, that the force is under strength and they are attempting to address it with a recruiting program, is correct or not.
Certainly, the picture they painted then makes my call for an independent review urgent. The minister’s shocking figures today make it extremely urgent. With all due respect to the new commissioner, we have a situation now that requires more than a continuous improvement program. The commissioner can continue with that because it is something that should always be in place, continuing to improve and develop the police force. What is urgently needed now is independent analysis of the resources we have, the resources we need and how best to deploy them for the safety and security of Territorians.
If the numbers of police will only increase in real terms by six in four years, then we must have a review as to how those numbers are going to maintain law and order in the ever growing Territory. A police force already stretched to breaking point must be given help in allocating its resources. I urge the government to adopt this suggestion and I commend the motion.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, sometimes you might get angry with this sort of information coming into the Chamber from the other side. But maybe because I am a little tired, I am more saddened than angered by the attitude of the opposition to the police in the Northern Territory. It seems to me that since going into opposition the Country Liberal Party, and most notably, the Leader of the Opposition who has responsibility for police on that side, have gotten into continually bagging the police force from the commissioner down. That has included criticism of the selection process for the new commissioner; the commissioner himself - probably because he came from South Australia and not from here; and the commissioner’s plans for a continuous improvement program. He says tonight, well, that should be going on anyway.
But these are the attacks and criticism that continue to come from the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson for police. He climbed into the commissioner for not attending the Estimates Committee on the day that I was before the Estimates Committee minutes before he left the place to get a plane south to meet with his Liberal mates. Only minutes after criticising the Commissioner of Police for not being there at the Estimates Committee, he bails out, grabs a plane to go to meet with his Liberal mates down south.
That is about the height of hypocrisy, the height of hypocrisy. You criticise someone for not being there, who is on professional business, on international travel, and he jumps on a plane three minutes after. Not only that, he sat there, as the Leader of the Opposition and said, ‘I am finished with you. I want to get some of those ministers from upstairs, hiding up in their offices down here’. Well, he might have been, but his mate, the member for Macdonnell had not, because Mr Elferink proceeded to ask questions for about 20 to 25 minutes. The member for Goyder, Mr Maley - I don’t know if cannot hear, if he has a hearing problem, but his own leader and the spokesperson for police on that side said I am finished with you, I want to get some of those ministers that are hiding upstairs, and the member for Goyder, Mr Maley, had another 15 or 20 minutes worth of questions. So here we are about 40 minutes after the leader says I am finished with you, I am still there copping questions from his own side. Some leadership, some direction, some strategy. Of course, five minutes after that, having criticised the Commissioner of Police, he climbs on a plane to meet with his Liberal mates.
All this comes into the category of political game playing from the other side, not games that we used to get into, criticising police; but criticism of myself and criticism of the Police Commissioner, I guess you take it on the chin. The Leader of the Opposition crossed the line today because it was not criticism of myself and it was not criticism of the Commissioner of Police, it was criticism of our police force. When you get into that, you have crossed the line. When he says that there are no police out there doing the jobs that police are supposed to be doing, he is attacking every police officer out there. Considering the job that they do to enhance and create a safer Territory, he is undermining that role. He told Territorians on ABC Radio that there are plenty of police manning speed guns but there is no one out there doing the job that really matters. Well, I say you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong. That is your quote from ABC Radio. You can dispute it if you wish. I will get a transcript for you.
To me and this government, the police are out there doing what really matters every day. The Drug Enforcement Unit, doing what matters, when they shut down those drug houses selling speed and cannabis for profit; when they shut down that illicit laboratory in Karama that was manufacturing speed. These are jobs that do not matter. Well, I tell you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it matters to the surrounding households. It matters to the neighbours of those residences where there are cabs coming day and night, buying their supplies of illicit drugs. It matters for those householders who have been knocked - property crime - to have their VCR and TV and whatever knocked off to pay for these illicit habits.
We see our roads safer as a result of those speed guns. Now, there was criticism of the police and government over these speed guns because they are a revenue raiser. The police have been advertising on a regular basis through the media, on what streets and major roads they would be putting those speed guns. What has that meant? I can tell you what it has meant. It has meant reduced numbers of speeding tickets being issued and it has meant reduced revenue for government, and this is the criticism, that it was all about raising revenue. I will tell you what else it has meant: a 32% reduction in road traffic accidents on those roads targetted by those speed guns - 32% less injury, 32% less trauma for people that would have been caught up in those accidents. This is a job that does not matter! This is a job that does not matter, creating a safer Territory! Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I ask, is this not a worthwhile result?
Did the work that the police and the response group did in relation to the apprehension and taking into custody of one Matthew Page not matter? A fairly nervous Territory we had in the Top End there for a little time. Great work by police on that occasion.
But I draw the line because it is unacceptable for the Leader of the Opposition to bag these people and I put him on notice that every time he tries to play games with the effort and work of the Territory police, we will be there, and we will be stomping on him to make sure that Territorians know what he is up to.
In relation to the motion, on television the other night he talked about leopards changing their spots, and it is a pretty accurate description of what he seeks to do with this motion because when he was in a position of power as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory government, did we hear anything about an urgent need for a review of police?
Mr Burke: Yes. Prior to the election. It was an election promise.
Mr STIRLING: Just prior to the election, was it? Just prior to the election. It was a promise that got lost or swamped or something because I never heard of it. Did he think that there was a crisis at hand and we needed an urgent review? A crisis in the police force? I do not recall. I can recall the CLP and the Chief Minister making a commitment to Territorians to increase police numbers by 60 - by 60 you said during last year’s election campaign. We had on the record that we would increase it by 50. He was saying 60; the CLP were saying 60. The Police Association were then saying an extra 150, and today they are still saying 150.
But he made this commitment at a time when he had all of the information of government at his disposal. He had the information and advice of the Police Commissioner and senior police management; he had Treasury, he had an idea of what was in the coffers, or should have had, if he was being accurately advised by the Treasurer. And with the benefit of all of that information, from the position of Chief Minister, he was arguing that there needed to be 60 extra police. Well, what in the world has changed? What in the world has changed that we need this urgent review right now. It is a hypocritical stance, and it lacks credibility, because people know what the now opposition said and did when they were in government, and they now know what they are saying and doing when they are in opposition.
The Opposition Leader had fun throughout the Estimates Committee trying to scare Territorians but, as I said, we did not get to finish that debate because he said, ‘I’m finished with you,’ but his colleagues had not. And I wondered who was the leader there for a while, because the questions kept coming despite the fact that he had finished with me. He was watching that clock because the engines were starting out at that airport and he needed to get on that plane to meet with his Liberal mates.
I did not see a press release from the CLP. I did not see a press release from the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow opposition spokesperson about the graduation squad 71/02 last week. He was there, he saw those 25 trainees come out in the system, he had the booklet the same as I did, he knows where those recruits were going.
Mr Burke: They sat me down the back.
Mr STIRLING: I acknowledged you. I saw you there and your good wife, Annette, and I was very pleased that you were there, and I hope you are there …
Mr Burke: You said you did not see me.
Mr STIRLING: I just said I saw you. I acknowledged you. I do think you have a hearing problem. Next time when I am speaking, I will face you and acknowledge you. I certainly acknowledged yourself and your good wife, as I said.
I wonder whether there will be any acknowledgement or recognition next Monday, 14 October, when 29 further recruits start training. And I wonder what he thinks about through January when the next recruit course comes on. So 25 last week; we are talking 29 into training next week, and conceivably up to 30 – 27, 28, 29, 30, going into training in January. That is a total of 81 between the end of last week and June next year – 81 new recruits coming out as constables. Will they be celebrated by the Opposition Leader, or again don’t they matter?
A good deal of the motion is dedicated to creating this illusion that the police force is in deep crisis and a whole wave of problems were created by the change of government last year. Of course, the Opposition Leader does not want any facts here because they do not suit his game. Most of his motion is riddled with distortions. He is into scaremongering and they really are baseless, as indeed are criticisms of the Police Commissioner and the police, or up to digging up scares.
For the sake of the record, some of the distortions - there is no case for a new, independent review of the police, something now I learn that they thought was a good idea in the last days before the election. Of course, had they been successful at that election, I wonder if that commitment would have been made a bit louder than it was at the time, because I certainly do not recall anything other than a commitment to 60 new police. If he has not had a briefing from the Police Commissioner, he should have one, but I do know that he has spoken to the commissioner about the continuous improvement program and the review process that the commissioner is carrying out with senior management over this first 12 to 18 months of his term. It is a modern approach to modern management in an organisation that knows it has to move with the times, but it has in the past – there is nothing stick-in-the-mud about our police force.
The government is sticking to its commitment to grow police numbers, and I repeat again – the government is committed to increasing the police establishment progressively over its term of office by 50, and to provide sufficient funding for increases to staffing to meet the establishment as it is progressively increased. In June 2002, the establishment was increased to 950 from 940. In 2002-03, the establishment will be increased to 960 and, by the end of the financial year staffing will be at the establishment level. In 2003-04, a further increase of establishment by 10 will occur and will be funded. In 2004-05, 20 additional positions will be available bringing the establishment to 990-strong staff.
The Opposition Leader claims that 50 police at the rank of constable and above, left in 2001-02 and only 27 were recruited to replace them. The fact is, during 2001-02, 53 police at the rank of constable and above left, 65 constable recruits were in training in July 2001 and were supplemented by a further 27 in April 2002. The Opposition Leader says Alice Springs is short 16 and could be down 54 officers on any day. He seems to make mileage out of this question of the numbers on deck at any day knowing full well those sorts of reasons an officer may not be on deck on a particular occasion. Of course, this never occurred prior to 18 August 2001 - simply never occurred that you ever had a police station in the whole of the Northern Territory for 27 years that never had more or less than its absolute full quota of police at that station. What utter nonsense! There was a time here, when former Chief Minister Marshall Perron was minister for police, that we barely had a police force left. I give credit to Chief Minister Shane Stone, at the time, and the member for Katherine for the work he did with the police force because, being Treasurer at the same time, under him we saw those numbers up somewhere where they should be.
However, there was a time prior to that where the focus was completely off the police force - no one knows why - to a point where you could not take leave if you were a police officer because you were putting too much stress on your mates, so that, for two and three years there was no leave for officers. Then they came back and said: ‘You have to take all this leave, so use it or lose it’. People tried to take leave, but again, management would have been in deep trouble if those officers had taken leave, so they come back with another strategy to say: ‘Okay, we will buy you out. Please do not take your leave, we will pay for it all now’. Some of that may even pre-date not just the current Opposition Leader’s time in politics, so part of that history would even pre-date his time in the Northern Territory, because he has a view of the Territory that really only commenced about 1993, I think. But, certainly, through 1994 -95, the police force was in a dreadful state. He comes in here and pretends that this is the first time in history that a particular station does not have all of its officers on deck on a given day.
The police locations are required to manage staffing levels on any given time and, in doing that, they need to take account of promotions, transfers, training courses, recreation leave, sick leave, long service leave, maternity leave and any other variation of condition of service that police officers have.
He seeks to make mileage, again in relation to the budget, of this carry over funding, as though this is the first time that this has every occurred. The member for Katherine would well know that is not the case. The inclusion of carry over funding as part of the new financial year’s budget is consistent with every previous budget presentation. The budget increases by the previous government of course always included carry over funding. Again, the Opposition Leader seeks to make mileage out of the fact that superannuation is included in there. Well, it is a part of the total cost of employing staff, including police officers, and all costs need to be included to arrive at the final budget figure - again consistent with previous budget presentations.
These things did not start with this budget coming in, nor with the mini-budget in November, and nor with the budget that the previous CLP government put in, in the last financial year. They have been there and they have always been there. So, the Leader of the Opposition asserts falsely that the police budget has been cut by more than $2m since the mini-budget. No basis at all. I think what has happened there is that he has deducted the figures for depreciation in state taxes from the final budget of 2002-03. If that is the case, of course, to be consistent you would need to deduct the state taxes totalling $5.7m from the 2001-02 figure that he made comparison with. Now, if you do not take from both sides of the equation, you are going to finish up with a lesser figure than you otherwise would. He needs reminding that he should refer to 2002-03 Budget Paper No 3 for the comparison between financial years 2001-02 and 2002-03. That is the data that has been presented there in a comparable basis. The budget has in fact increased by around $8m.
Now, his misinformation is either done deliberately or through lack of understanding. And I will accept that it was the latter. I am thinking that there may be a case for a workshopping exercise. I would not include the member for Katherine because as a former Treasurer he would well know probably what every line item in the budget stands for, represents and means. But there are newer members who are not going to necessarily know how a budget is put together and it may be a useful exercise that all members are taken through that.
Despite what he says, the Opposition Leader does criticise the accrual accounting system. The new financial management framework places emphasis on accrual accounting and the delivery of outputs, so it is important to identify the total cost of providing such outputs to the public. All of those items such as consumption of capital, the depreciation figure and state taxes, and payroll tax are legitimate components of the total output cost in delivering that particular service. It is incumbent on the opposition to stop criticising the accounting method used around the world, and the Treasurer has been more than patient I think in explaining it, and it is time that the opposition comes to terms with it.
I do stand in here reluctantly on these matters because I think it is becoming a little too common. The police play an absolute vital role out there in our community providing and working towards a safer Territory for all Territorians, and we see that in the number of people speeding on the major roads, the fewer accidents, the efforts they are making there and yet they are just dismissed. They seem to be dismissed with contempt by the Leader of the Opposition when he says, ‘Well, there is no one out there doing the jobs that matter’. Well, I think that safer roads and a safer Territory, safer communities are things that matter, and the work they are doing in relation to the drugs, again cleaning some of these far less than desirable elements in the community and those sorts of things, are things that matter. They matter to Territorians and the police are out there doing a great job.
Mr REED (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there is little point the police minister telling us that he is in here reluctantly in terms of this debate. The fact is that this debate is directed at him. He is the one who has the blow torch on him in these matters. The criticism is not directed at police or indeed the Police Commissioner, notwithstanding that the minister would like to deflect the criticism from himself to the Police Commissioner and the police, which he has tried to do unsuccessfully during the contribution that he just made to this debate. But he is the one who is deficient in carrying out his responsibilities as a police minister. If he cannot understand what the community concerns are in relation to policing, if he cannot understand what the concerns are from police themselves in relation to policing, and he is so dismissive of the information that is brought him, then he is going to have a very uncomfortable future. Not only from the point of view of the matters that this opposition will continue to raise, but also the awareness that will grow in the community about the services that they are finding diminishing, and will become increasingly angry about.
You do not have lecturers in political science at the Northern Territory University - and the particular lecturer, Mr Bill Wilson, is in fact a former senior police officer - going on radio today saying the sorts of things he said if there is not a problem. That particular lecturer in political science was on radio today and was asked about matters of police statistics and crime statistics, such as, ‘Do you think there are a lot of crimes that are unreported?’, and he said, ‘Yes, there are’. I think he was speaking to Julia Christiansen on ABC Radio. ‘I think Julia, that there are’, said the lecturer. Indeed, he gave the example that he had knowledge of one person who made a complaint to police and it took eight days for police to respond to that complaint. Now, if the Police Commissioner is going to get the blame for this as it is shoved off by the minister, that is very sad because the responsibility really does lie with the minister. The people of the Northern Territory will quickly be alerted to the fact that that has been the case, that the minister is not capable of doing his job.
We had the other spectacle on television tonight, and it follows the selective amnesia that the minister had in his contribution to this debate, where he said that the opposition had promised an additional 60 police if it were re-elected at the last election, but he could not recall any mention of a review. In fact, had he a real interest and done his homework in preparing for this debate, he would be aware of the fact that the additional 60 police that the CLP promised in the last election campaign was tied to a review on the basis that it was some eight or nine years since the McAulay Bowe Review which was instrumental in bringing the police up to a higher establishment level. And that whilst we recognised that there was a need for additional police, the quantum of that need was not really known and we decided that 60 would be appropriate until such time as a new and complete review of the police force and their contemporary needs was undertaken, reported and the government could respond to that.
The minister dismisses the need for an external review. He is going to await the review of the commissioner, and that might be appropriate. But I know that the Police Association is very supportive of an external review and they see great benefit in it because they know the benefits that flowed from the McCauley Bowe Review and how that assisted them in gaining additional police numbers, resources in the form of improved radio networks and other equipment requirements and acquisitions that have seen the police force improve markedly over the last eight or nine years since that review.
It is one thing for the minister to try to fob the responsibility off to the commissioner, but it is quite another thing for him to come in here and have selective amnesia in relation to what he thinks was said, bearing in mind particularly and underlining that problem the minister has, he cannot even remember what he told members of this House in the budget Estimates Committee of but a month ago. That was very clearly demonstrated on the Channel 8 news tonight where, as a result of questions that the opposition asked the minister this morning, the Channel 8 folk very much remembered what the minister said in the budget Estimates Committee. But when he had a camera and a microphone stuck in front of his face out the front of Parliament House today and was asked: ‘But minister, it was you who said in the budget Estimates Committee that police staffing levels were at a critical level’, the minister said: ‘Oh, no, no, I never said critical’. The reporter said: ‘Well, yes you did’. Immediately, coming over the minister’s face is a very strange and shocked look: ‘Did I?’ ‘Yes, you did, minister’. ‘Oh,’ says the minister, ‘that was an improper use of the word “critical”.’
That is the sort of minister we are dealing with here. A minister who is not across the job, cannot even remember what he said and what he put on the Parliamentary Record but a month ago and is tonight trying to fob off to the Police Commissioner his poor performance and the lack of responsibility that he is taking for the appalling position that we are debating here today.
It is an appropriate debate; it is a matter of concern to the people of the Northern Territory, and if the minister had a talk to the people who have to repair buildings after they are trashed, after the shop windows and the windows of business houses are shattered, then he would get a fair idea of what the level of crime is. Another startling revelation on ABC Radio today was a senior police officer making the point that the crime statistics that are now released weekly - and members might recall that it was only over the last month or so that we had the police minister and the justice minister very upfront praising the fact that police crime statistics are now released weekly so the people can see what the level of crime is, and that it is an open and honest government. Well, we had a retraction from senior police today that, in fact, they are not full police statistics, they are not full crime statistics. They are a measure of some things that are happening in the community; they are not a full report of crime statistics, and you can take it …
Mr Stirling: They are an educative tool.
Mr REED: Right, an educative tool.
Mr Stirling: That is the way they were explained when they were put out. Who has the short term memory loss now?
Mr REED: I have to tell the minister that the people who are getting their houses broken into, who are having their private property trashed, do not have to be educated by the minister in relation to the fact that they are getting their house broken into. As a member who lives in the northern suburbs I would expect, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that you would be very much aware of what the circumstances are in relation to the public perception and their dissatisfaction with this government and the performance of both the police minister and also of the flow-on that that has across the community as regards the lack of resources that police have and the reduction in police numbers that we have seen in just 12 months of a Labor government.
It is startling. The community is concerned about it. When the CLP left government there was a full establishment of police – in fact they were two or three over establishment, and we have seen now a reduction in police establishment to the extent that, only a month ago, using his words, police staffing levels, the minister said, were at a critical level. Yet today, when confronted with that, and it was interesting to see that Channel 8 went to the trouble of digging out that file footage with the minister in Parliament House at the Public Accounts Budget Estimates Committee saying ‘police staffing levels are at a critical level’, and then asking him if he in fact said that and having him refute it.
That is the sort of minister we are dealing with here. That is the sort of government we have in terms of what they perceive to be, what they think the people of the Northern Territory should know and what they actually tell people of the Northern Territory. Well, it is fading away in terms of acceptance by the general public. They are fast becoming aware of what the facts really are and the difficulties that we have. We have, of course, the other very embarrassing set of circumstances for the police minister where, on two occasions over the last week, he has been directly contradicted by the police commissioner. Now, I think the police commissioner is telling the truth. I think that the police commissioner is committed to his task and he is trying to do a very difficult job with a very difficult government in charge and an incompetent police minister.
From the point of view of the understaffing, we were told but a month ago, and we were given it in writing and, in fact, we were given it in tabular form, whereby the tabular information that was tabled by the minister clearly demonstrated that over 30% of police stations across the Northern Territory were understaffed. In response to questioning on that particular matter it was then, and at other times, that the minister indicated and clearly advised, quite correctly advised, that staffing levels were at that time at a critical stage. Yet, we now have the police commissioner refuting that statement, and we have the police minister who cannot even remember that he said it. Well, what is going on here? The public want to know; they have a right to know, and they should know, and we will pursue these matters until they do know.
We also have the embarrassment of the police minister saying, as recently as this morning, that he told the Police Commissioner that there was going to be a Public Accounts Committee hearing. Of course, at the same time as telling him, he also approved him going on leave overseas. Then it was revealed in the budget Estimates Committee’s meetings that the Police Commissioner would, in fact, liked to have been here. I can understand that, because he would have been involved in that process, directly or indirectly in the past, with the positions that he has held in South Australia. As a Police Commissioner, responsible as he is, he would have wanted to have participated in that process. I dare say he would have wanted to take the opportunity to inform the whole of parliament as to the circumstances that he faces in the management of his police force. I can take on face value that fact that the Police Commissioner would have desired to have been there. However, because of the negligence of this police minister, he did not even tell the Police Commissioner when the Public Accounts Estimates Committee process was to take place.
That is an astounding revelation. It is astounding to the effect that the police minister was so poorly conducting his duties, but it is even more astounding that a Police Commissioner should be compromised to the extent where he has to state publicly that he was not advised by the government or his minister of something as important in the parliamentary and democratic process as a budget Estimates Committee - and that was elevated to a high level of importance by the government itself. He was not advised about it.
I cannot think of any circumstance where that should happen, and why it should happen, apart from the negligence and the incompetence of the minister; it is quite extraordinary. You have to bear that in mind, and place that in the same context, that this minister cannot say that he did not know the budgetary Public Accounts Committee process, the Estimates Committee, was going to take place. It was this minister, as Leader of Government Business, who organised both the timing and the process by which the Public Accounts Committee Budget Estimates Committee would be undertaken. So, not only did he have carriage of the police force and should have advised the Police Commissioner, but he knew what the dates were, he knew what the process was for the budget Estimates Committee, because he organised that as well, yet he did not advise the Police Commissioner. That is a dreadful derogation of duty. It is an embarrassing circumstance for the minister and I can see that it has also been embarrassing to the commissioner, to the extent that he took the quite startling action of publicly stating the fact that the minister failed to advise him that there was going to be a budget Estimates Committee. What an appalling set of circumstances.
So, in the matter of a week, we have had a Police Commissioner trying to run a police force, trying to ensure that the people of the Northern Territory and their property is adequately protected, at the same time that he has publicly defend his own position because of the appalling and inefficient means by which the minister conducts his business. The relationship that exists between the Police Commissioner, the minister and the minister’s office is obviously clearly not a very good one, not an effective one, and not one where a proper liaison is taking place between the minister’s office and the Police Commissioner’s office and the Police Commissioner. I have to say, having been in that position, that I feel very sorry for the Police Commissioner because I know that, had the former Police Commissioner come to me - and I have no reason to doubt that the current Police Commissioner would be the same - and sought to travel overseas, that he would then have been advised - as I would have advised him - that there was a budget Estimates Committee that was going to be undertaken at the same time that he proposed to be overseas. Then he would not have had to have been asked to rearrange his travel program, because I know this commissioner and the former commissioner would have understood the importance of being here and, as the minister said, his desire to be here so that he could answer for himself and he could answer for the Northern Territory Police Force to the Public Accounts Committee and in the budget Estimates Committee process.
We have a very sad state of affairs where this breakdown of communications has embarrassed the Police Commissioner publicly. It has forced him to make public comments, two within a week, contradicting his police minister and making the job of the Police Commissioner just that much more difficult. It ill behoves the minister to try to fob off the matters that we raise today in this motion to the police commissioner. The buck stops with the minister. He is the responsible officer and he can make all the excuses he can dream up, he can try to fob it off to the police force, he can try to fob it off as he did to the opposition: ‘It is not my fault, it is yours. It is dreadful that the opposition should be trying to denigrate the police force’. Well, we are not. I emphasise that: we are not.
From my point of view, I know how hard the men and women of the Northern Territory Police Force work. I know the demands that are placed upon them on an hourly basis and the difficult circumstances under which they work. I also know that they need the full and unqualified support of a competent police minister and that is where the big void is at the moment with this government. They do not have one. He does not understand the needs of the police force, and he has not been able to pick up how to conduct a proper liaison between himself and the police commissioner to the extent that he does not even advise the commissioner on important matters and approves the absence of the Police Commissioner notwithstanding the need for him to be here and indeed the Police Commissioner’s desire to here.
That is the unfortunate circumstance in which the Northern Territory Police Force finds itself with an incompetent police minister; one who does not understand their operations needs and the high level of support that they require from the government and, in particular, the minister. Not only that, that is underpinned by the fact that this minister is prepared at any moment that he is criticised to fob that criticism off to the police force. Well, it won’t wash. The people of the Northern Territory are unhappy. Even esteemed folks like members of the political science faculty of the Northern Territory University are now speaking out about the appalling set of circumstances. Minister, it is up to you to fix it. It is up to the government to fix it. Do not blame the commissioner. Do not blame the hard working men and women of the Northern Territory Police Force. Undertake your full responsibilities as a government and as a police minister.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was not going to speak in this debate tonight but I could not resist following the drivel from the member for Katherine and the former minister for police. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself for coming in here and again trying to politicise a body of men and women in the Northern Territory who provide such a magnificent service, and one which, like in the debate that we had yesterday in this House, when we had the debate on the contribution that the Defence Forces play in the social and economic fabric of the Northern Territory. There was unqualified and bipartisan support for those people and that organisation and the relationship between the Defence Forces and government.
The police play a similar role in the Northern Territory in our society. If you look at their mission statement it is ‘to protect and serve Territorians’; that is a debate that should be held without the political invective. Unfortunately, the opposition has taken the tactic, certainly in the last 10 months or so, that they are going to play politics with our police service in the Northern Territory and it is no credit to them that they decide to do so. We can see that that strategy evolved from day one when they have consistently attempted to undermine the position of the new Police Commissioner in the Northern Territory, where they publicly vilified the selection process for the new commissioner in the Northern Territory. They went as far as dragging their distorted version of that process into this parliament in very frank and lucid detail in an attempted censure motion of the police minister.
So, we continue on with constant criticism. The Leader of the Opposition in an extraordinary outburst on the radio this morning when - and I will quote again what my colleague, the police minister, quoted from the radio interview this morning:
The fact is that the police budget has increased by $8m between the 2001-02 and 2002-03 budget. We are on track, and we will deliver the 50 additional police officers that we committed to over this term of government. If circumstances change within that term of government, as all governments do, there may be a need to respond accordingly, but it is certainly our intention to meet that commitment.
The other ways where they have attacked the new commissioner is through the release of crime statistics. Again, the unedifying example of the member for Katherine twisting issues to his own warped view of the world, stating that the new weekly police crime statistics that are released in the Northern Territory News were somehow not what we promised them to be. The whole idea of those examples that are in the paper on a weekly basis, and they were explained at the time when they were released – it is a strategy that emanated from the police themselves - was that we have to get more of this detail out into the public arena, of getting the message out that much of the property crime that does occur is opportunistic. Anybody who has bothered to talk to a police officer, or who has even had a rudimentary study of crime, but certainly property crime, much of that property crime is opportunistic.
If you create the opportunity by lax home security, by leaving doors open, windows open on vehicles, front gates open and the dog is down the street, that creates an easier opportunity than the mark next door. The idea of those statistics and examples in the paper are just to remind people that when they do leave their homes, to lock up, and to continue to reinforce the fact that people, unfortunately, and it is certainly not something that has started since 18 August 2001, people do have to be vigilant of home and property security, and if you do secure your home, you make yourself less of a target. But, again, we had the member for Katherine somehow trying to twist this around as being some kind of example of backing away on crime statistics. I thought it was actually a very good initiative. It certainly was a courageous one. It generated a fair amount of discussion around the party room as to whether this was wise or not. But we took the advice from the police force, the professionals in this, that we should be putting that information out there. As the minister for justice said in the House this morning, that a full and comprehensive set of crime statistics, the first that we promised that we would do in our six point plan on property crime, will be published in November this year.
What this government is all about is outcomes. It is not about the politics. It is about the outcomes of reducing crime over the term of this government. We have put an enormous amount of legislation through this House to try to achieve that outcome of reducing crime, particularly drug-related property crime. I am not sure how many pieces of legislation have been put through, but it was an appalling sight to see members opposite opposing a vast amount of the drug-related legislation that went through, speaking through both sides of their mouths on that particular issue. When we came to government we found that there was no money laundering provisions or legislation on the statute book in the Northern Territory and that was certainly something that astounded me. Way behind all of the other states. You have to ask why there was no such provisions on the statute book, because it was certainly brought to our attention very quickly, and we responded to that.
There was no witness protection legislation on the books. Again, one would have thought that that would have been an absolutely fundamental piece of legislation to encourage people to come forward, to spill the beans and make statements to the police. However, that legislation was not on the books and it was something that we had to introduce, as well as a vast array of legislation to try to support the police in their job to get out there and get some of these people who create so much mayhem in our community behind bars. Much of that legislation, if we go back through those second reading debates, were certainly not fulsomely supported by members opposite.
I suppose at the end of the term we will be judged as to the effectiveness of that legislation. But we are certainly not tying one arm of the members of the police force behind their backs when they are trying to deal with the issues of property crime and drug-related crime. We again look at the issue of manning, and pick up on the fact that under the Marshall Perron’s stewardship - and I certainly remember that time; I was campaigning in Nightcliff at the time trying to get the Nightcliff Police Station open as a 24-hour police station and talking to police officers in the electorate. Most of them had not had leave for a very considerable period of time and were being forced to actually have leave bought out. They did not want that; they wanted to take the leave but there was no way that leave could be taken. We certainly went through a time when we did have a totally decimated police force under the CLP, and we are nowhere near where they were under that Perron administration.
Interestingly, the member for Katherine talked about Mr Bill Wilson - I did not hear his comments on the radio this afternoon – I think the member for Katherine said it was reporting about crimes being under-reported. Again, did that just occur as of 18 August 2001? Of course, there are a lot of crimes in any community that go unreported. I cannot recall the number of Neighbourhood Watch meetings that I have attended where the officers from Neighbourhood Watch, as they read out the crime statistics, implore residents to report each and every single offence that occurs. When discussion starts and the lady down the road says that some clothes were knocked off the washing line and she did not report them, or something was stolen out of the car and an individual did not see fit to report it, the police were imploring people that they needed that detail to build crime profiles to give them the information needed to build the pictures as to where they needed to put the resources.
That is something that has been going on for many, many years. It is not something that has just emerged. I remember there was an extraordinary debate that we had in here when the member for Katherine was the police minister. He was trying to explain in debate in this House the rise in property crime rates that appeared in the annual report one year. His amazing explanation was that the property crime rates as reported in the annual report were rising due to the fact that new IT systems and recording systems meant that each and every call that came through to Berrimah had to be logged, therefore every single offence was automatically logged in the system and that many offences, reported thefts and what have you, were just due to people being forgetful of where they had left something.
I think he gave the example one day of little Johnny at home who had mislaid his pushbike. Mum rings in and reports it stolen and Johnny goes down the backyard and finds it around the back of the shed. Mum does not report to the police that she has found it and that remains as an unresolved crime on the books, and that was the reason that the crime rate was going up. The member for Katherine cannot have it both ways and say that there is under-reporting of crime when he was explaining, not that long ago in this House, that due to new reporting and recording systems that was the increase for the crime rate going up.
The cute calls, now so easy from opposition, for a promised review: again, the CLP promised a lot just before the election. They had many years, if things were so bad and so desperate, to have commissioned their own review during their last 12 months of government, but it was a promise. I do not recall it actually; I recall the extra 60 police officers, but I do not recall it being tied to a review. It could well have been, I will take him on his word. It certainly was not trumpeted like the 60 extra police officers, but it was a similar promise in the light of the promise that was made to the Arafura Bowls club just before the election, that look, you’ll be right, we’ll look after you after the election. Well, that did not happen. We have a new police commissioner. He is conducting his own review, and we should allow him to do that as the new commissioner on the block and see what he comes up with.
The member for Katherine made the extraordinary comment that the police force was at over-establishment levels when the CLP left office. Yet again, this double twist with pike that we see coming from members opposite now that they are on the opposition benches: we were over-establishment just some 14 months ago, but all of a sudden, we now need an urgent review to vastly bolster police resources. Well, I do not know what has happened in the last twelve months. You cannot have it both ways and be over establishment just some 14 months ago, and all of a sudden the sky has fallen in and we need to have a vast number of new police officers.
We can hear the hollow words of members opposite. It is sad that we have to debate our police service in this type of debate in the House, because we are not going to lie down and cop this motion that is before us today without putting up a defence. We certainly respect and totally support, fully and unequivocally, our police service here in the Northern Territory. They do a magnificent job. We will work with them, and we will take advice from them. We are absolutely committed to working with the police and working with the community to drive down crime in the Northern Territory in all of its forms, particularly property crime.
We can see what little real policy rigour went into the commitment to drive down property crime when the CLP were in office, when they introduced the mandatory sentencing legislation. Because I know and many members of this House know that when that Cabinet submission on that legislation went to the Northern Territory Police Service, they strongly argued against the introduction of mandatory sentencing here in the Northern Territory, and gave good reasons as to why, as a policy initiative for crime reduction, that that would not work. It was totally ignored by the CLP at the time, by the Cabinet at the time, because the politics of mandatory sentencing was just so irresistible at that particular point in time. It was all about politics, it was not about outcomes.
We are a government about outcomes. We are a government that is striving to reduce crime in our community with the assistance of our police force and the community. We are a government about outcomes which will deliver the resources that our police service need. There is no way that this side of the House can support this motion.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to place on the record my support for the motion from the member for Brennan. Before I do that, it would be remiss of me not to pick up on a couple of comments made by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development. He talked about politicising the police force, and he used the word ‘hypocritical’. If we are talking about hypocritical, I recall when the current Chief Minister was the Leader of the Opposition and it was revealed that a staff member at the urging of the then Leader of the Opposition, made a call to Fred McCue. It turns out the basis of the call was something along the lines of there had been a complaint made to the police that an offence had been committed and there was some delay or some lack of response. And that was false. It was designed solely to enable the then Leader of the Opposition to really politicise the issue, to politically grandstand and bring the police force and the service it provides to the community into disrepute.
Now, when the current opposition and the Leader of that Opposition, the member for Brennan, legitimately calls for an increase in the resources for our police force, and the legitimate call is treated with nothing less than contempt by the government.
Finally, in relation to the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development’s comments, he talked about being proud of the new legislation which have a fallen to be considered by this parliament and have become good law in the Northern Territory. There is really no point passing legislation if you are not going to provide sufficient resources to the police force and to the relevant agencies and authorities which are required to enforce those provisions. You come back to this cycle of legislation for legislation’s sake. To suggest for a moment that the introduction of money laundering legislation and witness protection legislation is an enormous step forward is quite misleading. You are no doubt aware that under, as they then were, both the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act there were provisions which enabled a tainted property to be seized and forfeited by the Crown. There was a witness protection scheme, albeit not enshrined in legislation, but one which certainly was used and utilised effectively by the Northern Territory police.
If the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development really thinks that those initiatives are going to make an enormous difference and are part of this clumsy six point plan, then he is very sadly mistaken.
My father was a member of the police force for nearly three decades and my uncle was a member of the police force for nearly as long. Growing up in a police culture in Darwin I have many vivid memories of police Christmas functions. I recall a sticker which was on the back of my dad’s four wheel drive, and it used to say something to the effect of ‘Protect your police or protect yourself’. It is really the role of this parliament to ensure that our serving members of the police force are properly resourced so they can protect us, they can protect the community, and ensure that we live in a safe place. The role of the police permeates every corner, every aspect of the Territory community, and keeping them properly resourced also has a substantial effect on ensuring that morale is also kept at a proper level.
The government, prior to the election on 18 August 2001, raised the expectations of police. They made promises about increasing the number of police and providing them with better resources. That was certainly the implication: when we get in, we are going to support you; we are going to do the right thing; we are going to enable you to carry out your duties and obligations with even more efficiency and even more resources.
During the course of the Estimates Committee, the member for Brennan asked many well drafted questions and some excellent supplementary questions, and that information, coupled with what was contained in the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment’s Annual Report, it became apparent - and it is a simple statistic – that the government is committed to having 799 police by June next year when there were 811 in June 2001. That statistic really says it all. You can try to couch the excuses like, ‘Oh, there will be more police auxiliaries’, which is of course welcome, and they talk about ACPOs, Aboriginal Community Police Officers, and that is, of course, welcome. But in terms of police officers who have all the power vested in them under the Police Administration Act, there is no escaping the raw fact that the number will be reduced.
Despite all the rhetoric, the Martin Labor government is simply not supporting, from a resources and personnel perspective, serving members of the Northern Territory police service. Our police officers deserve better, they deserve a straight answer and, coupled with their cut in resources which it seems is occurring, they deserve better from the minister. From a police officer’s perspective, think how they feel when they heard the lavish promises that were made prior to the 18 August 2001 poll, and let’s look what has occurred. The socialist Labor government has come to power. They have repealed mandatory sentencing. They have talked about establishing drug courts, the ‘send them home, Sally, courts’ as they describe them interstate. There is now a very back door type method. It looks like the reinstatement of a methadone programme in the Northern Territory: let’s invite the drug addicts back, let’s have them here and let’s make sure that they get their methadone program.
We already have the foreshadowed cut in police numbers. There is talk of abolishing the Marine and Fisheries Unit, or reducing their numbers, and we are talking about regional fisheries officers. There is still no significant, certified seagoing police vessel, nothing that they can use to conduct their duties. They are forced to borrow boats or hire boats. They have had to utilise boats and services of the authorities at Kakadu National Park to conduct their surveillance operations on a number of inland waterways.
And, on top of that, we have the appalling conduct of the police minister who is, I understand, the first person in parliament to use the F-word. An abusive police minister who does not have the capacity to respond rationally to a debate, and the first time you could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps it is a genuine response, but it is the same response, the same words, the same pathetic gestures. It is no wonder that members of the Northern Territory Police Force do not have any faith in their police minister. In fact, I think it is fair to say that the minister for police is probably one of the two worst behaved members I have seen in my short time in this Chamber. It is any wonder that police officers roll their eyes when they hear and see the appalling antics and the way that he conducts himself.
The call by the member for Brennan for an independent review, and similar to the review by Peter McAulay, a former police commissioner, is very reasonable. The review would, as it did in the days when Peter McAulay conducted his review, give police an opportunity to talk to somebody who knows about the police culture, who knows the dangers that they face day in and day out, who knows about the strains and stresses it puts on a police family, and who knows about the rigours of doing shift work. Much of the work that police do is – while not particularly dangerous, there are certainly dangerous aspects to it - but there is a fair amount of work which is fairly routine. We are talking about dealing with the same drunks, the same itinerants and unfortunately going to the same domestic disputes in the same houses.
The Labor government needs to understand, first of all, that there is a need for a review, there is a need for something to occur. It is disappointing, to say the least, that even that message is not getting through. There is not even a concession that something needs to be done. There is only the confused rhetoric from a very poorly behaved police minister who maintains it is under control and that staffing numbers are appropriate.
My plea to honourable members is to support this motion to give the police the review that they want, the review which would give them the resources they need, and protect our police. Otherwise, we might find ourselves in the position where we are defending ourselves like that sticker used to say. With that, I totally and unconditionally support the motion as articulated by the member for Brennan and contained in the notice paper, calling for, amongst other things, a review of their resourcing.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as most members, if not all members, would be aware I intend to be fairly - I will not say obsessed, but rather I am taken by debates which involve the police force because I was a police officer for nearly 15 years prior to entering parliament. I entered the police force at the tender age of 17, as you could still manage it in those days, as a police cadet. That was a very tender age to join the police force and, from that very first day, I entered what was, essentially, a family. Indeed, after I left the job back in 1997 to enter parliament, I have to confess that for about six months I felt a sense of listlessness as a result of leaving the job, because I had been severed from something. It took me a while to put a finger on it. I had been severed from, essentially, my family of many years. Like every family we bitched, we bickered, we clawed each others eyes out amongst ourselves, but if there was some threat from the outside you closed ranks, formed the thin blue line - or the thin khaki line as the case is here in the Northern Territory - and you got on with the business of doing your job.
The police force is different to other jobs because the people you work with are the people that you face danger with on a fairly regular basis. If you are partnered with somebody for some time, then you develop a relationship with that partner that is every bit as intimate as your relationship that you have with your own spouse. It is a very intimate relationship indeed. You spend more time with that person than you do your own partner. At 3 am you are driving around in the patrol car, there is not much happening from time to time, and you are talking about all sorts of things - really personal things - and you cannot help but develop bonds with people, and then those friendships last a lifetime. Every so often, you lose a mate. Blokes like Glen Huitson, who was my partner for five or six months in Alice Springs. We had exactly that sort of relationship, and it is very sad to lose a friend like that. Anyway, that is what a police force is from an emotional level, at least.
The thing is though that the police force affects you in different ways as well. You can certainly talk about becoming cynical. This was another problem I had when I left the police force that I could not understand why some of my very glib comments which I made around my colleagues all the time, a product of graveyard humour in the job, it was a self-defence mechanism, offended people. It took me a while to understand that the police officer’s view of the world does change, no matter how hard you try to maintain a sense of equilibrium, emotional balance, spiritual balance. The fact is that over time you become cynical about things, and you become hardened to people’s suffering. So when I started making comments amongst people outside of the police force, to my astonishment things that were observations inside the job were actually offensive to people outside the job. It took me a while to understand why that occurred. It was not until I was watching a news report about two years ago when I saw a crime reported which on the greater scale of some of the crimes I have even seen over the years was not particularly high on the scale, but for some reason sickened me. It occurred to me that I had joined the ranks of civilisation again. I was out of that totally cynical environment, and I think it is for that reason that often you get crusty, old police officers because over time you build a wall around yourself to protect you from emotional pain and in the process of course, that wall that you build to protect yourself from the outside world is also the wall that ends up locking you in.
I do not make these comments purely as a trip down memory lane. One of the other things I noticed about being a rank and file copper is that one got messages about the processes of management that surrounded you from the minister’s office all the way down through the rank structure. As a police officer you are dealing with people’s lives on a daily basis, and issues of management are almost in a sense an irritating peripheral to the job that you are focussed on. Naturally, they are necessary. Naturally, they have to occur. But in my experience one of the best ways to annoy a copper was to engage in a management process which was less then entirely comforting in terms of sending a message saying, ‘We want you to know that you are respected’.
I remember the McAuley Review because after the review a few things changed – not in a major way. I am sure the government spent quite a large amount of money on some of the things that changed. There were a couple of smaller things that changed as well: we had police chaplains; and police welfare officers had subsequently been established, and the emotional message that sends is worth millions in terms of your happiness and those sorts of things. The police force improved remarkably after the McAuley Review. I also remember improvements in equipment – simple things like handguns which we used to leave in a leather wallet stashed in the glovebox of a Toyota Hilux – well, they went over to the blocks and we were trained in handgun use. My entire handgun training for all the years that I was a copper was that I got to put a few rounds through a 38 and a shotgun when I was in recruit training. Otherwise we had to go to a back track somewhere in the bush with a packet of 50 rounds of 38 ammunition, set up a can, and train yourself. Those are the sorts of messages that came through and a lot of that stuff was a product of the McAuley Review.
We find ourselves now where we take recruits out of the recruit training process and drop them in police stations like Alice Springs. There was a time back in the early 1990s when I was working in the Alice Springs area and if it was not a rape and it was not a murder, it was not in CIB. So if you were investigating an assault occasioning grievous harm, then it was left to the constables on the road. In any other jurisdiction, these are major investigations. When you have major investigations and young police officers trying to learn on the job how to do them, it causes a great deal of pressure because the court system makes no allowances for the experience or otherwise of the investigators, nor should it.
The reason that was occurring was that from time to time in the past, police numbers were pressed. This is a point that the minister has tried to make here today. When that happens, CIB is pressed for numbers, and when CIB is pressed for numbers, many of the jobs that they would normally do would be flicked downstairs, or would not even make it upstairs, from the coppers on the street. Consequently, people would be telephoning left right and centre. We heard the member for Katherine relate a story about people refusing to answer the telephone. I can well understand that because when I was on call and in CIB in Alice Springs, every time that phone rang I felt sick. The reason you feel sick is that it happened every third night - 3.00 am the phone would ring and you would be so tempted to just say: ‘Bugger it, it’s too hard. I am not going to do it’.
As a police officer in those circumstances what I looked to management for was a sense that I am being trusted in the job that I am doing, and that I am being properly supplied in the job that I am doing. The Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development made the point perfectly when he said when the CLP left power the police force was actually over establishment and now it is under establishment and run down. The minister said that he found that hard to believe. Well, I don’t because with an attrition rate of around 8% it is easy to run down a police force very quickly. 8% represents a substantial number of people when you look at a group of nearly 1000 employees.
The police force is thin on the ground. I have been hearing these complaints in Alice Springs endlessly for months now. When I asked the minister during the Estimates Committee about the numbers in Alice Springs, the answer, eventually, from the minister was that 73 out of 89 constables at establishment were available in Alice Springs for patrol duties. But when I quizzed a bit more, that did not account for members who may have been relieving in other bush stations and those sorts of things. So that number may very well have been lower.
Mr Stirling: Built into it.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the minister. That may be the case, but does that make a difference to the person who has to wait for that extra bit longer to get assistance in a town camp in Alice Springs, or in a house in Alice Springs, or in some other instance where they need the police? ‘Oh, sorry we are late getting to you, Mr or Mrs Victim of Crime, but you have to understand, of course, that we have this built in structure so we have members away, and if you would stop bleeding as quickly as you are, I will be able to explain this to you properly’. There is very little succour in that interjection. There is very little reassurance in that interjection. If the system is working the way it is supposed to, but it is still not doing the job on the street, then there is something wrong with the system.
The other part of this is that of the 73 police officers who may have been relieving in bush stations, they were going out to bush stations that were being run down in terms of funding. I appreciate the minister’s announcement - and I think it is a very good announcement, long overdue - that a police station is being built out at Kintore. Allelujah! At last.
Mr Stirling: Well, your blokes would never do it.
Mr ELFERINK: Good. But what has happened to every other police station in my electorate with the exception of Yulara which had some minor new works? Tens of thousands of dollars have been ripped out of those budgets. When I asked the minister about this, he acknowledged it. He said: ‘Yes, that’s true. We have tens of thousands of dollars being allocated elsewhere’, I think was the expression - I cannot recall exactly - but tens of thousands of dollars less for each of these police stations’ budgets. As a result of that I asked for a list of last year’s budget and this year’s budget for every bush station in the Northern Territory. At that time, the minister said, absolutely, we will provide it, not a problem. Well, I have yet to see that list, and I ask the minister on this occasion, if he could table that list? I am sure that the department has it. If he could table that list we can compare how well bush stations are faring throughout the Northern Territory.
Now, when you lose $10 000, $20 000 or more, out of a budget out of some $200 000 or $300 000 which is what it costs to run a bush station, that is a serious slug in terms of the service you deliver. How does a police station, with a budget of about $300 000, deal with a $20 000 hole which is currently left in the police officer’s budget? They look around and say, ‘Well, what is costing us money? If I spent less on fuel, then that would save me a little bit of money’. But that means that that patrol does not happen, that the police officer sits in the police station. ‘I have a Commander telephone system. How much does it cost for each line in the system? Perhaps I can remove a line from the Commander system?’ Which means somebody in urgent need of assistance may be trying to ring a police station with what? One line, two lines?
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, $20 000 out of a $300 000 budget, which is already tight, is an awfully difficult thing to find. And with the responsibilities of police officers in the bush much higher than they used to be, in terms of people in custody having to be managed, there is much greater pressure on the overtime bill than there ever has been. The message that the police officers are receiving from the current government in terms of the way that they are cutting bush station budgets is, (1), they cannot do their job properly and (2), much more importantly, referring to the issue of ‘I have the support of my bosses, I have the support of the government in doing my job’, it is not there. ‘I am no longer reassured as the officer in charge of a bush station, often considered by anybody else to be in the middle of nowhere. All of a sudden I have the sense that the government has forgotten me, is putting the screws on me, is no longer supporting me in a way that I need to be supported to do my job properly’.
Now I ask you, what do you think that would do for a person’s morale in terms of the job? They are a long way from anywhere; the communication they have with their bosses is constantly cut; save, do not go on duty, do not incur overtime. They get pressure from the community to do stuff, and they have to spend more of their own time, their down time, and their own money, trying to maintain the level of service in these communities. Being a copper in a small community is a very important role. It is a lynchpin role in the community.
The minister admitted a few months ago that the police force levels were critical, which immediately puts paid to the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development’s criticism that it is impossible to be over strength 14 months ago, and under strength now. Well, the fact is that the minister himself described the level as critical. That is something he tried to back away from tonight. I can imagine why he tried to back away from it, but it was an honest admission at the time. I do not particularly want to dwell on it, suffice to say that, let us believe that that is the truth.
What I have heard in the debate tonight is interesting, but also what I have not heard in the debate tonight is interesting. This is the question that the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development raised. He said outcomes are the yard sticks by which we measure performance. If I was in the position of the police minister trying to prove that things were working, how would I go about that? Well, the technique that I would use would be to get the crime statistics of the Northern Territory, wherever I could find them, and say, ‘Look, it is working, crime rates are going down. Look, it is working, assault rates are dropping, criminal damage is dropping, theft is dropping, all of these things are dropping. But, conspicuous by their absence, are the crime statistics. If this is the case, that the crime statistics of the Northern Territory are not trending in the way that the minister for police or the government wants them to trend, that they have decided not to use them in debate, then so be it.
I would be curious to see the crime statistics of the Northern Territory. I urge the minister for police to table them - a whole bunch of them - at the end of this debate so that we might look at the success or otherwise of the outcomes that the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development anticipates, that the fine management of the current minister would have for the people of the Northern Territory. Of course, I am sure that the minister for police will put a comprehensive list of statistics on the table.
One last issue that I raised while I was speaking during the Estimates Committee was the issue of sick leave. That is a great indicator as to the amount of pressure on police officers on the road, and it would do the minister justice to come in here and put the sick leave statistics for the police force, for operational police officers, on the table, station by station or division by division, so that we can get an impression from operational police of how they are feeling. Sick leave statistics are a good measure of the morale of the police force and the health of the officers on duty. I will be curious to know what the operational sick leave statistics are.
Of course, I support a review. A review like the McAulay Review will bring positive outcomes and I would expect the minister would be enthusiastic about returning the morale to the Northern Territory Police Force. I certainly hope that the minister would anticipate such a review with open arms. However, sadly, no. The message again to the troops on the road is not one of support, but rather one of placing distance between the minister and those coppers.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the motion and I would like to clarify where I come from in that support. In tonight’s debate, one can see one of the difficulties when you start discussing issues of law and order and police. There can certainly be a lot of politics in it and anyone knows that, during an election campaign, issues of law and order certainly raise the temperature of the debate. One way to try to remove that from a debate is by getting an independent review of police resources.
The opposition has put here up to paragraph (8) a series of opinions on where it sees the numbers of police in the Northern Territory. I presume that the minister for police will respond to those. I suppose we will hear counter arguments later on in other days in this parliament. One way for the public to get an idea of what really is the truth with all these figures - because we all know statistics and figures can be moved and manipulated to suit one’s argument - would be have a independent review. There have been questions raised after the Estimates Committee and I do not think it would do any harm at all.
One of the difficulties with having someone do a review, of course, is if you just did a one-week review the situation could be quite distorted depending on how many people were away on leave or sick. Therefore, I would think that a review over perhaps three months, where there were three samples taken of what the actual situation was on the ground - it may not be three, that might be up to the person who is appointed - would give you at least a fair indication of what the situation really was. I do not see that as a threat to the government. I know the government might see this as coming from the opposition and that anything that comes from this side of the House is looked on suspiciously if you are of the government’s point of view. I understand that too, but it does not mean that good ideas that come from one side of the House should not be backed up by the other. The idea the review is something that the government should take on.
There are a couple of other issues there which relate to the budget; perhaps they are not necessarily the issue that the person reviewing would look at. I would have thought the person reviewing it would definitely look at the numbers which are probably the most important. Those other issues are important but maybe they are matters that could be looked at by the Auditor-General or referred to him and ask him basically what his opinion on those matters were.
I am not going to talk about, I suppose, the contentious issues. I certainly support our police force. They are most important and in fact in the rural area we have now Litchfield-Safe, a small group of business people from Humpty Doo who have got together and it is due to their good work that we have had extra patrols in the Humpty Doo area. In fact, the patrols have not just been driving around. They have actually been getting out of their cars and saying hello to a lot of the business people. Many people have appreciated that. But that does not mean to say that we have a lot of policemen or policewomen. It just means that the police have probably moved these patrols from one point to another. I know that most people would like to have a few more police patrolling in the rural area.
I would just like to finish on that note and say that the idea of an independent review is a good idea. Once again, I say to the government, if we cut out all the arguments to and from, cut out the political rhetoric, an independent review would be good for both sides and will enable the public to at least judge what is the true figure and what is the true situation.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank those who have contributed to the debate in a positive way. It is unfortunate that the debate has denigrated from the government’s side in terms of deriding the opposition for bringing this motion into the House by suggesting that somehow if you make comments about the capacity of police to deal with crime and law and order problems in the Northern Territory that somehow you are not supporting your police force.
The simple facts are this: that when it comes to calling for a review of our police force, that was something that was agreed to by the CLP government prior to the election in association with the Police Association and agreed to with the current police commissioner at that time. It was something we intended to pursue. Soon after the election, whenever the issue of policing or law and order issues arose, the first thing I said was that we should undertake an independent review of our police force. And on every occasion I took the opportunity to say that would take the politics out of the issue. An independent review is required from time to time. It gives you a snapshot of what the additional needs of our police are across a whole range of areas. It can be compartmentalised in some areas that may not be necessary to review, and may be something that the police force itself, or the Police Association, does not wish to review.
But certainly, when it comes to the operational needs of our police force which is what really impacts on Territorians out there – they want to know what the areas of crime are that are most important not only to police, government but primarily to them; what capacity our police force has to deal with them in terms of resourcing, recruiting, conditions of service and all of those other issues.
I said at the outset that this was a way to take the politics out of law and order. It was a way to gain the opposition’s support for any independent review so that when the government then went forward in terms of how it then resourced its police force in budgets in the future, the only thing the opposition would really be doing was checking that that resourcing was consistent with the recommendations of the review. And that would be an area where I thought it took a lot of the politics out of law and order. When the government lampoons that suggestion from the outset, it is no wonder then that the opposition will continue to raise issues that are important from time to time.
It is certainly a responsible act on our part to come out of an Estimates Committee with the answers to questions that have been provided by the government and raise questions as to how the government can answer questions that arise from the simple answers that they have given. Every point of that motion is not something that has been conjured up by the opposition. Every point in that motion comes from answers that have been provided to the opposition through the Estimates Committee or the police annual report.
It is not good enough for the police minister to stand up and say: ‘You claim that 50 police have left the police force in the last 12 months’. We don’t claim that at all. What we do is simply state that in answer to registration number 290 in the Estimates Committee when asked how many police members resigned in 2001-02 and how many were recruited, what was the overall attrition rate in 2001-02? The answer is there. It is self-evident. Constables and above - 50; police auxiliaries - 15; Aboriginal Community Police Officers - 13. How many were recruited? Constables - 27; police auxiliaries - 24; Aboriginal Community Police Officers - 1. One recruit course of 30, followed by another seven recruit courses of 26 each by June 2005 giving a total intake of 219.
This is where we raise the questions and this is where the government has provided the answers. It is offensive to suggest that somehow the opposition is now not supporting police, and the government is all supportive of police. I come from an Army background and, more than many people in this Chamber, I believe unlike my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, that sort of background gives you a close affinity with the concerns of police, the day to day operational matters that they face and how they expect those who are in a position to make decisions on their behalf, how they expect those who represent them, either to politicians on their behalf or otherwise, and how others, such as myself and the members of the opposition, have a responsibility to speak up on their behalf. They are well and truly aware of that; they are not stupid.
Rather than being denigrating of police, the reality is that we have a responsibility on their behalf to put forward areas of concern so that they can be fixed. The government has a responsibility to ensure that those concerns are either met, or those questions are answered. It is not good enough to just come in here and say that the Leader of the Opposition wants to undermine the Police Commissioner - when that is simply not the case - and it is only the government that has this great love of the police.
The classic example of hypocrisy is the member for Wanguri’s statement that somehow we were not supportive of police. The Labor Party, in opposition, demonstrated that support on many occasions. The classic was in order to attack mandatory sentencing, you raise the notion that when police came to a person’s door they first asked the question: ‘Do you support mandatory sentencing’, and if the person said: ‘No’, they said: ‘Well, we won’t follow up that particular crime’. That was just simply disgraceful. It not only went to a statement on air, it went to concerted effort whereby the Chief of Staff of the Leader of the Opposition’s office rang the ABC using a false name and conjured up a story that was not only reported in the media, but caused the Police Commissioner to spend a large amount of time trying to investigate that fabrication and resulted, at the end of the day, in the ABC reporter, who was the producer of the program, getting sacked by the ABC.
This is the same Labor Party, this is the same member for Wanguri, who can stand here and have the gall to talk about somehow not supporting your police force. I mean, come on! Let’s cut to the chase. The reality is that the now Labor government needs to do more than just say: ‘We love you, police’. What you need to do is resource them properly, defend them when you need to, and also attend to their needs. That is what this motion proposed.
The member for Macdonnell raised a very interesting point, that it is one thing to talk about what you are doing about crime and how great a job you are doing - you have been in government 14 months. I have never seen the minister for Justice or the minister for police come in here with anything more than a couple of media reports and give us any statistical information as to how you are faring. If you are so proud of your record, if you are doing so well, if crime is on the decrease, where are the statistics? If they are going to come in three months time, well it is three months too late. If that is the way we are going to get statistics in the Northern Territory in the future, it is a long way short of what we had in the past, and it is a long way short of honesty in terms of what Territorians expect. And if you do not do better than that, you are going to get more and more of these motions, and you are going to get more and more of an increasing perception out there that our police force is undermanned, our police force is under-resourced and, frankly, more and more a perception of a police force that is not being prioritised on the areas that they need to be focussed on.
That was the purpose of the motion. The motion has not been answered adequately by the government. I am disappointed by that. I ask the police minister, notwithstanding the comments that were made in this House tonight, to reflect on the fact that he did support, in principle, in the Estimates Committee that a review might be a good idea. I accept the fact that he may not believe that this is the most appropriate time, but from his comments in the Estimates Committee it does give me some hope that perhaps a review will be conducted. I can only say that at that time he will have the opposition’s support.
In the meantime though, these are serious questions that need answering. In my electorate, in the police station at Palmerston, it is seriously under-resourced. It is not good enough to say that those resources can be provided from other areas around Darwin when an incident occurs, because they themselves are heavily stretched in terms of the work they have to do. We need to look at the actual resourcing capacity of our police force now. The Police Association does not live in a vacuum. As the member for Katherine said, it was our notion before the election that maybe 60 police were needed. That was not something that we were absolutely sure upon, but it was somewhere between 50 and 150, as the Police Association suggested, and we need an independent review to find out what is the real story.
More police on the street do matter. It seems to me that too often nowadays, and unfortunately too often said, not only by community leaders, but too often said by senior police themselves, that this is a whole-of-community problem. Well, we all know it is a whole-of-community problem. The people out there know it is a whole-of-community problem. The reality is that they know that the primary agency that is responsible for their safety is the police, and the success of any police force is the absence of crime, the absence of disorder. A police force is not necessarily doing well if it can point to statistics that say we are doing better this year than we did last year. If that is not impacting visibly on the community, the people are not satisfied, and we need to do more and more to make sure, as you so often say in government, there is a balance.
When I said that too many police are in radar vans and no one is out there doing the real thing, okay, I accept, too often I use colloquialisms. But it is not good enough just to quote that as the definitive statement of Burke, because the average Territorian out there says the same thing. They are not so precise in their language as well. No one suggests that police are not doing a good job. No one suggests that police are not working hard, but I can tell you, in the pub, the colloquial answer would be, they are all in radar vans and no one is out there catching crims. It is a generalised colloquial comment, but it points to the fact that balance is not there in the people’s minds. They want to see the police focussed and visible.
I dispute and will continue to dispute the strategy of the government. I do not disagree entirely that you need to put a focus on drugs, but I tell you what, you need to put a focus on juvenile crime. You need to put a focus on juvenile crime that is not there at the moment. You want to put a focus on break and enter that is not there at the moment either, and what we are seeing is a hell of a focus on cannabis use. Many Territorians would see cannabis use as okay; a problem for some, but certainly not a problem that they are facing in their homes on a day to day basis. What they do see are gangs of 20 or more kids, many of them ranging in ages from about eight up to about 18, roaming the streets, walking the suburbs at will, treating the police with total disregard. The people know that they are the perpetrators of crime on almost a daily basis, and the police are seemingly unable to deal with it.
When they look to see where is some of the most effective areas of crime reduction, they look to their school-based constables. They say: why are the school-based constables seemingly under threat. They do not just get this out of thin air; it is because the school-based constables feel it and know it. They feel that some of their duties are going to be reduced, some of the relationships that they build up are going to be reduced, and more and more of the effect of reducing juvenile crime is not going to be able to be conducted.
It is well and truly out there. We can all talk about individual cases, but I was talking to one business person in my electorate the other day, a seemingly successful business person, who said to me if he cannot sell his business by Christmas he will simply close the doors. His patronage was pretty good. He had high staff and wages problems, but his patronage was pretty good. I said to him: ‘What are you closing the doors for?’ He said: ‘See over there? That is why I am closing the doors’, and he pointed to a bunch of 20 to 25 kids as they were making their way into another suburb. He said: ‘That is what I get every night. I am sick of reporting it. I just get the windows fixed, and they come straight in, they break the glass’. They come straight in and they pinch produce out of his business, and they are gone. That is his problem, and that is why he intends to close his doors. He does not see any relief. He does not see any improvement at all since this new Labor government has come to power.
If they say around the place that this is caused by the now absence of mandatory sentencing, you prove them wrong. Roll out your statistics and prove them wrong. Show where your strategies, your improvements, are actually working because until you can do that it is all just talk.
It surprised me. I live in Marlow Lagoon and it is annoying to me that my own little area of Palmerston is in the NT News. It is disappointing to me that the person herself chooses to speak to the NT News because, in her frustration, she actually lowers the atmosphere of the whole suburb. All of a sudden, Marlow Lagoon is perceived to have a major crime problem. However, in that person’s mind, it has. When kids jump the fence and cut the throats of 20 or so of her chooks - and these are the same kids who have been harassing her for ages - when I walk my dog down the street and every second or third person pulls me up and talks to me about juvenile crime, you cannot ignore it, and it has to be addressed.
This government has demonstrated one thing clearly: you are not dealing with juvenile crime. You have a soft approach to juvenile crime. You talk about it until the cows come home, but you do nothing. Those kids are running wild out there, and I do not believe the police have either been given the powers or feel that they are going to get the political support.
At the end of the day, the whole-of-community problem starts with the strength of the political support. You reckon you have it with drugs. You stand up here in the Chamber; you are going to close these places down, put placards on them and all that. Good on you. Now start moving on a few other areas that really matter. Move on the areas of juvenile crime and tell us what you are going to do there - and do it. Do something about the people who are breaking and entering on almost a daily basis. Do something for those businesses out there. Walk around and talk to some of those businesses and see what they are putting up with. I tell you what, many of them will say to you: ‘Things have sure changed since the government changed’. You have to prove that you did a better job than us, and you have not done it yet. You certainly have not done it in this motion; you have not addressed the statistics that you gave in answers at the Estimates Committee.
Thank you, those who contributed to the debate. I know the government will not support it. I believe it was an important motion to be put and debated in this Chamber this evening. I thank those who contributed.
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.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, and with the indulgence of the Leader of Government Business, we might be able to dispense with this quite quickly. I will read the motion as it stands for the purpose of debate: I move – that:
1. the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory establishes a review panel comprising the
Speaker, Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson to review the
Estimates Committee process;
2. the review panel takes into account, the following matters:
(a) retention of one Estimates Committee;
sitting days;
minister be called on if the preceding minister finishes before his/her allocated time;
written questions prior to the hearings of the Estimates Committee;
prior to the hearings of the Estimates Committee with the relevant minister;
for the Estimates Committee; and
In putting that motion, the aim of the opposition - and in our discussions because the member for Nelson participated in the framing of this motion - was to achieve two things. One, that we establish the new procedures for the Estimates Committee for the budget session next year as soon as possible. It was considerably delayed this year in terms of the nature and structure of that committee and the date and time in which it would sit. That is understandable in hindsight. What we want to do is ensure that the procedures for that committee are well and truly known to all members prior to the budget being bought down.
The motion secondly proposes to the government the concerns of the opposition in terms of the operations of the previous Estimates Committee and intends that the government in any consideration of the structure of the new Estimates Committee takes into consideration the points that are raised in that motion. In doing that, may I say that this motion does not suggest in any shape or form that these issues are the only ones that the government would consider. We accept the fact that the government can do whatever it likes with the Estimates Committee. We are simply reflecting to the government in this motion the areas where we believe the committee was weak on the last occasion and can be significantly improved.
I understand that the member for Katherine and Leader of Government Business have discussed a way though this motion. I am hopeful that we can arrive at that procedure fairly quickly. I will finish there and give the Leader of Government Business the opportunity to put forward the government’s point of view.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have spoken with both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as a way forward on this, and I think I have their support. It is not being, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, indulgence on my part. I think that any time that we can work cooperatively through an issue, I will always endeavour to do that. I believe the amendment has been circulated. I would move the following amendment to the motion to omit all words after ‘that’ an insert in their stead:
a) the Estimates Committee model utilised in September 2002 be referred to the Standing Orders
Committee for review and identification of options for enhancement for Estimates Committee;
b) the committee in its deliberations investigate all viable processes to enhance the carriage of the
deliberations of the Estimates Committee including but no restricted to those issues raised in
paragraph (2) of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion of 9 October 2002; and
c) the Standing Orders Committee report to parliament during February 2003 sittings.
I did consider a later report back to about May to perhaps give the committee more time to work through the issues before it. In terms of everybody being ready for the process, May is too close to June so if we get a February report back here, I think the Assembly would be well placed to have a process in train.
We do not have any difficulty at all with the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition, but certainly that would not be restrictive or exclusive. In relation to the original motion, one of the issues that the review panel takes into account the following matters: the retention of one Estimates Committee and seemingly ruling out the question of two. I understood in the first debate that we had in here after the committee had travelled to Tasmania, there was some interest from some members as to the prospect of having two committees. I would not rule that in or out.
What I would see the Standing Orders Committee’s role now is to take this list and a few issues that I have put on the table, and anything else that any other member, of course, wants to bring to the committee, and the committee work together to identify what they saw as deficiencies, weaknesses, in the Estimates Committee process as it went through, and put up a number of options that they would see as being remediation against the deficiencies so identified, and then report back to the House for a full debate on those deficiencies as so identified against those options.
Some of these the Leader of the Opposition may already have covered, but certainly the one or two committees is the question. There are resource implications for the Assembly and staff if you go to two, and I do not know how the Assembly would handle that. There is the time, which was an issue, of course, last time. There is the time for the committee process overall. The question about whether questions should be in writing at all, and if they remain in writing, and the answers are provided prior to the Estimates Committee actually sitting, should they be provided in advance. If they were to be provided in advance, how far in advance? This caused an uproar when I sought to move this in the Estimates Committee last time. Should shadow ministers have precedence in asking questions, should committee members have precedence in asking their questions? The question of the venue was raised certainly in debate back here, in parliament as a whole, following the committee process. Is there another venue suitable? The Chamber? The Chan Building? I don’t know, I think there are a number of options around there. But certainly those issues deserve consideration as well.
If the opposition is happy to go with the referral to the Standing Orders Committee with an open terms of reference if you like, in terms of the membership being able to look at any issue, any question that anyone has issue with, in terms of improving and enhancing the process, that is what the role of the committee is about. I would be putting before the committee that that is their job, work out what the problems were, put two, three, four, as many options as can be found, that may work against those deficiencies. Let’s get it back in here and debate it and see if we can get a sound process for June next year.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I think it appropriate that we do proceed to put in place some arrangements to pursue this matter promptly, given that we have just been a month ago through the budget estimates process. While those issues are firm in our minds, and before the passing of time sees them fade, it is appropriate that a process be established to consider future estimates committees, given that the government is going to continue with that process. That is evident. I thank the deputy leader of government for the opportunity today to discuss this motion with him, and for taking on board the suggestions that I made. I took the opportunity also to talk to the member for Nelson in relation to this motion, in that I believe that he should be informed and be part of this process too.
We do accept the amendment. We look forward to participating in the process with the consideration in the Standing Orders Committee of these matters. We are pleased that included in the amendment are the matters that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition in this motion. They are appropriate and worthy of consideration, just as the other matters that can be brought up in that process, as referred to by the member for Nhulunbuy. We look forward to participating. It is important that a firm time be put in place for reporting back to the House. Time does pass quickly, and we should be mindful of the process that we went through in relation to putting the last budget Estimates Committee in place, and the fact that time did pass quickly and that there is a need for change. That is not being derogatory in terms of what has happened, but practical in recognition of the fact that we should be mindful that time does pass quickly. We should enact some process smartly, and that is what is being done tonight.
I thank the Leader of Government Business for his support and cooperation in this regard. The opposition will participate fully. We hope that the process that we pursue next year in the budget Estimates Committee works a bit more smoothly, and that we can go through it in an effective way, in a parliamentary process that will benefit the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory, and not have to have a post mortem as we did on this occasion. Of course, it was necessary in that it was the first occasion that it took place. I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for his cooperation, and we will support the amendment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I wanted to say a couple of things as I was involved in helping to put together the first motion. I would like to say to the government that one thing that we have to keep in mind with this whole process is that it is there for two purposes. One is for the public to understand and hear what the government is doing; and the other is for ourselves as parliamentarians to be able to also hear and judge what the government is doing so we can tell our constituents.
One area that I believe we must maintain is that all questions and answers must be read into Hansard. The reason for that is this is a public Estimates Committee. Once you get to the stage where you just hand in written questions and answers, the public then does not know what is going on. One could see that when we moved to that stage in the recent Estimates Committee. There were members of the public there, and I imagine that press was there - I think ABC was there every night. Unless they had a copy of that question and answer, in many cases, there is no way they could follow what was being discussed. They would hear the supplementary to a question they had never heard.
It is very important that this process continues to have as its basis that this is part of an open and transparent government, and it does not deviate from that. Once you deviate from that, the danger is we will get into the easy path, which is: ‘We will write it down, and here is the answer, and good night’. We need to maintain that open transparency right through the system. I hope that the Standing Orders Committee makes sure that occurs when it gives its recommendations to the House.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I support this motion and this amendment. I am glad that both sides have been able to come to an agreement about this. As the member for Katherine said, the estimates process is an incredibly important one for the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory. It is appropriate that it should go to the Standing Orders Committee because, at one stage, it was being canvassed that the review should be undertaken by the PAC which is, of course, the core membership of the Estimates Committee. The review should have been one step removed from the people who actually went through the estimates process, although obviously, the member for Greatorex is on that committee with me, so we will be able to provide valuable insight. I know that Clerk is there, and that the whole Estimates Committee process is a burden for the staff and the resources of parliament. That is something we have to look at.
I am quite happy. The lists that the Opposition Leader has submitted contain things well worth contemplating. There are a few things on the list that I would like us to think about. One is the venue. I do not think that was very suitable. The number of people sitting at the table at the last committee, not that I want to exclude anyone from asking questions, but if we could just fine down the membership where people could substitute if they did have a question it might expedite the whole process. So having said that, I would have to say I do not agree entirely with the member for Nelson. In fact, I probably have a fundamental disparateness about this business of people being able to hear every question that is asked and every written question. It is up to us as the parliamentarians to focus on the major issues and to pick those things out.
There is probably over $2bn of expenditure in the budget so there could be $2bn worth of questions for each dollar if you multiply that by 100 for each cent, so there is a lot of expenditure, there are a lot of items. Let’s just focus on the major issues and I would be very pleased to participate in this. I think there will be a positive outcome.
Just lastly, we probably would even have to review it and tweak it a bit more even after the next time. This is a good step forward and I fully support it.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Continued from 27 February 2002.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 19 June 2002. Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the introduction of the Volunteers Protection Bill by the Leader of the Opposition came in June as the government was considering a whole package of measures to tackle the issues surrounding public liability. That package has been put together. One of them, as we flagged at the time, is protection for volunteers. It is a very substantial package and I believe that it is a much more effective one than simply dealing with volunteers by themselves. We will not be supporting this bill.
I put the context on that it is part of a legislative package that will be introduced into the parliament next week, the Personal Injuries and Liabilities and Damages Bill, and it looks at a whole range of issues to do with tort law reform. It also protects volunteers from being sued for acts done in good faith, providing an indemnity from the community organisations for which they work. The bill also protects good Samaritans who go to the aid of a person in need of emergency assistance and does a many other things.
So with that in mind, not saying that this bill was not one that could have made a contribution, I think it is much more appropriate to have a package of measures. I am sure when we do introduce them next week that they will be supported, when we get to the second reading debate, by the opposition.
I could talk further about the volunteers’ protection and talk a bit more about what is involved in it but no, the Leader of the Opposition is not encouraging me. So, with those few words, it is a good idea. I do hope you will support our package of measures when they come in to the parliament next week. They are important. The whole range of measures dealing with caps and thresholds and other issues to do with pain and suffering really are very much in line with what is happening in the rest of Australia. As I said today in Question Time, we are just 1% of the national insurance market and we have to make sure that what we are doing is really in line so that national insurance market, the premiums can be kept under control on the national level and hopefully the benefits will come to the Territory.
I certainly thank the opposition for putting forward this bill. Ours mirrors it very closely and it will be part of the package introduced next week. But for this bill particularly, we will not be supporting it.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I gather clearly from the Chief Minister’s comments that notwithstanding the fact that they will not be supporting this particular bill, the intent of the legislation will be picked up in their tort reform legislation that they will be introducing in the parliament. It is not appropriate for me to criticise that legislation prior to its coming into the Chamber. I take it as said by the Chief Minister that the aspects that are contained within this bill are either in fact or intended to be included in her legislation.
In that respect, the objective has been achieved from the opposition’s point of view. I do not intend to belabour the point. It was really to alert the government that this is a very important area of protection for volunteers and that at the time we could have moved on that area alone, separately. That opportunity and objective has essentially been overtaken by events. I accept the fact that the government has a right to present its legislation, and I look forward to seeing it.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 19 June 2002.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, unlike the previous bill, this bill is significantly different and we will not be supporting it, not because we are having one that mirrors it within our tort law reform, but we certainly do not believe it is warranted.
The bill was introduced in June and it provides two concessions for stamp duty payable on public liability insurance premiums. The first concession freezes premium levels on insurance policies renewed after 1 July 2002 at 1 July 2001 levels, and that is for the purpose of calculating stamp duty where the insured risk has not substantially altered. The second concession is a stamp duty exemption for public liability insurance premiums paid by a public benevolent institution on or after 1 July 2002.
There are significant difficulties with this bill. To start with, the insurance industry has indicated that there are compliance and systems difficulties with proposed changes, and that any additional costs incurred would have to be recouped by higher insurance premiums. As such, it is possible that any benefit from the reduced stamp duty is absorbed by an increase in premiums, at least in the short to medium term, which is why you have to be very careful, if you want to look at having selective stamp duty exemptions, that some of the administration costs do not mean that you actually have a rise in premium. There would be similar excessive administration costs for Territory revenue management.
As it is drafted, the first concession is not likely to apply where there is a change in the level of insurance cover. Similarly, the concession would not be available where the person has changed insurers. If you were insured, say, with HIH and HIH had collapsed, or if you changed insurers to get a more competitive premium or a better terms, we do not think it would actually apply then. There is no clear policy reasoning for excluding from the concession persons who have altered their insurance arrangements to reduce their insurance premiums. In effect, this would appear to penalise good commercial practice and could act as a disincentive to people actively seeking to reduce their premium levels.
The bill also discriminates between a person insured under a pre-existing policy and a person who obtains insurance for the first time after 1 July 2002 to the detriment of newly insured persons. This leads to an unfair advantage being given to existing businesses over new businesses seeking to compete in the same industry or location. Furthermore, businesses and organisations, where they are eligible, are only likely to significantly benefit from the scheme in circumstances where stamp duty on their public liability insurance premiums makes up a significant portion of their total expenses.
A final point: the bill provides an exemption for public benevolent institutions from stamp duty on policies of public liability insurance issued or renewed after 1 July 2001. However, the second reading speech would appear to be at odds with the bill as it clearly states that the aim of this concession is to exempt every charity, every sporting body and every community group in the Northern Territory from stamp duty on policies on public liability insurance. The common law definition of ‘public benevolent institution’ is far narrower, and would exclude some charities and many community groups and all sporting bodies from exemption.
So, even whilst I can appreciate why the Opposition Leader thought to look at stamp duty on public liability insurance premiums for certain community organisations, for the PBIs, it has not been a well drafted bill. In terms of what we want to do in tackling public liability, that level of change would impact on insurance companies, and would impact on Territory administration. And really, when you look at what the difference would be to a public liability premium, it is absolutely marginal. Cabinet did look at some kind of stamp duty exemptions such as this and decided that, because it does not tackle what the real issue is, which is the rising premium, and the stamp duty exemption was absolutely marginal, that it was much more worthwhile pursuing the premiums and doing the whole range of things that are wrapped up in the public liability package that we are introducing in torte law reform into the parliament next week.
But some of those other things that we have already done are the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act amendments which are here before the parliament waiting on changes to the federal Trade Practices Act; and some of the other things that we are going to introduce are court processes, legal costs, and legal advertising will be looked at. Currently we have a party, including lawyers, taking a look at how we can successfully put those in place. Some of our other initiatives are facilitating the entry of Territory not-for-profit community organisations into Queensland’s group insurance scheme through the operation of information line and web registration service. Approximately 80 Territory organisations have registered for the scheme. We are hoping, because again, we are small, that being able to do group insurance with like organisations in Queensland we will see some advantage for those Territory organisations. The advantages will be there for the 80 who have already joined the scheme or are interested, and hopefully if successful with that, we will have other organisations joining.
We have also the telephone hotline to provide public liability insurance and advice both to businesses and community organisations. We have held a series of risk management seminars for business and community organisations right around the Territory, and we have had very positive feedback from those risk management seminars. Certainly, when you talk to insurers, they really do assess many small businesses and community organisations and not-for-profits on just what their risks are. Many of those organisations had never looked at their risks, and so those risk management seminars, and we are continuing with risk management information, will certainly make a difference to the premiums paid for public liability.
We have a public liability insurance home page on the government Internet site. In relation to government contracts, looking at changes to the standard insurance clauses to reduce the cost of the required insurance while ensuring government interests are reasonably protected, and at this stage reviewing the level of cover required relative to the risk involved if you have a government contract. We are looking at that mainly in relation to supply rather than construction and service contracts.
We are looking at many issues, a range of issues. Many of those are already in place; some are being finalised. We are confident from the advice received from other states, from the experts being used by both the federal government and us in the Territory, Trowbridge Consulting, that the measures being put in place will actually reduce premiums. So, we are not going to support stamp duty exemptions as proposed by the opposition because, really, for the effort that would have to go in, the benefit is very marginal. So, government does not support the bill.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am disappointed the government has not taken the opportunity to give a little something back to those organisations. It is amazing that, when government wants to raise revenue, it does not seem to ever have the administrative burden attached to it. If you think of a principle, you will find a way, but all of sudden when it comes to giving back money, there are all sorts of problems as to why you cannot give that particular money back.
I heard the reasons that are being put forward essentially by the insurance organisation to the Chief Minister in her reply. I have been apprised of those reasons. I do not accept any of them, frankly. I believe that the principle should be established. The principle is that, notwithstanding the fact that all of these tort reforms will be put in place, the Chief Minister said that one thing they could not guarantee is that these tort reforms would lower public liability insurance premiums.
What this bill sought to achieve was that, in an area where government could have direct intervention, where the government has made a windfall profit at the expense of those who are being penalised by higher public liability insurance claims, they should get something back. It is not unlike the argument against caps on the CPI on fuel prices. Similar arguments were put forward as to why it was too hard to cap the CPI on fuel prices but, in terms of rising public concern, eventually a way was found and the federal government forwent that revenue.
This is a similar situation. The Northern Territory government is receiving a windfall and unfair profit at the expense of rising public liability insurance premiums. You are entitled to 10% stamp duty, rightly so. But that 10% stamp duty is now after GST and rising as public liability insurance premiums rise. What it says is that certain organisations should be exempt from that stamp duty and for businesses, government could make a gesture and say that from 1 July 2001 when this crisis first arose you would pay a stamp duty on your premium similar to the stamp duty that existed at that point in time.
If that is administratively impossible, I just do not accept it. Clearly, the government has decided that more revenue is the better way to go - what is it? - revenue is good, greed is good, money is good? I believe it is an opportunity lost. It is an opportunity to demonstrate that, in the same way that organisations are suffering, government can make a similar gesture and say that, notwithstanding whatever type fiscal environment you believe you are in, there are some things where a leadership role is appropriate. The leadership role in this particular case is simply to say: ‘We believe that the amount of revenue that the government should take from public liability should be capped, and it is capped at that point in time. That is the amount well take, and that is only the amount we will take’. Government has chosen not to do that and frankly, I find that disappointing.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 19 June 2002.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the opposition wanted to further debate on this bill, so I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, my purpose today is to make a commitment to this Assembly and to the people of the Northern Territory. That commitment is about our young people and our families, and the values that motivate me in the work that I am privileged and proud to do for them.
The portfolio of Health and Community Services is diverse. It deals with the most intimate aspects of people’s lives on a daily basis, and with the full range of their most extreme emotions; with preventing disease, disability and misery; assisting people to live independently and wisely; and caring for them in times of crisis. Reducing disadvantage and counteracting marginalisation; growing up our children well; making sure they are well-equipped for the present and for the future; and celebrating the energy and the new ideas that young people bring to our society - all fall within the province of the policies and services of this portfolio.
Today, I am going to address the very specific issue of illicit drugs which relates to all and every one of these themes. I am providing this Assembly with a more detailed brief on the report of the task force on illicit drugs and its 51 recommendations, which I released publicly on Thursday, 19 September. The task force membership brought together broad local knowledge and national experts in the field. Between March and May, their investigation took them to each of our five population and regional service centres to hear people’s stories first hand. They have analysed 79 submissions, and have rigorously assessed the national and international evidence.
All this has been synthesized into a report that recognises the complexity and interrelatedness of the issues. The report identifies immediate action in areas that require more thorough scrutiny. It also confirms existing directions and sets priorities for the wide ranging social development and public health agenda for the government. Government has made the report publicly available together with the details of the first, most urgent phase of our response including immediate resources to make it happen.
As I stand here today, maintenance pharmacotherapies are at last available to people who need them. They have been available since 25 September, the last Wednesday of last month. Finally it has been possible to redress an aspect of disadvantage and marginalisation enshrined in Northern Territory law that has been applied to those who have developed a dependency on opiate drugs; to rectify a source of frustration and distress that has been needlessly suffered by their families. It brought to an end an area that has been immensely difficult and deeply disturbing for health professionals who have been confronted on a daily basis with people in need of proven therapeutic intervention but one which they were prohibited from using. An era that made the Northern Territory the only place in this country that denied access to treatment that has been repeatedly and rigorously demonstrated to benefit the lives of opiate-dependent individuals and their families, and to deliver social benefits for the wider community. This is what the task force found.
Of course, we would all prefer to have a remedy to hand that could free people from opiate addiction. The people who suffer from it would welcome it most, but there isn’t one that works for everyone, and in the absence of a single approach we have exactly the same straightforward, unarguable ethical duty of care that we have to anyone to whom we are unable to offer a straightforward cure. A duty of care to make available what has been proven to assist a substantial proportion of people to live as normally as is reasonably possible and treatment that is known to assist them to heal their lives and to progress towards the time when they are able to live without the drugs on which they have unfortunately become dependent.
The most immediate steps have been taken. I have rescinded the ministerial guidelines that prohibited doctors from using proven therapies and replaced them. The new guidelines are based on evidence, not on unsubstantiated personal opinions or postures. Doctors in the rest of Australia have been able to prescribe Buprenorphine for maintenance since August of last year. Here in the Northern Territory however, it was limited to six or 12 months for withdrawal only. While that has been helpful, some patients will need it for longer and there is no sensible rationale for the restriction. The task force documents the evidence that Buprenorphine is a safer and better option than methadone for most clients. It has a lower risk of overdose, is easier to withdraw from and because of its longer action, the vast majority of patients can take a dose every two days instead of every day. Buprenorphine is therefore the preferred option and will be the frontline pharmacotherapy. However, there are a small number of clinical indications including allergy to Buprenorphine with methadone as an alternative. Doctors will therefore be able to prescribe it on the basis of accepted clinical guidelines.
A comprehensive set of clinical guidelines for doctors who become registered as pharmacotherapy prescribers in the Northern Territory has been developed. It is based on the related national policies and clinical guidelines, again as recommended by the task force. They have been distributed to doctors who are already registered as prescribers. Also in line with task force recommendations, I make the commitment that early in 2003, I will be introducing a legislative framework that corrects both the injustices and the deficiencies that have existed up to this time. The Northern Territory will then join the rest of Australia in having legislation and mechanisms for proper control of S8 medications or indeed any other medication that may become a concern in the future.
As part of the control system, a clinical advisory panel will be established to provide the chief health officer with expert advice on a range of issues related to treatment with Schedule 8 medications including pharmacotherapies. It will be chaired by the Territory’s chief poisons inspector. Clinical expertise will be invited from the divisions of general practice and the College of GPs. There will also be a doctor with specialised experience in alcohol and other drugs, and a doctor with expertise in pain management. There will be a non-medical practitioner and alcohol and other drug treatment. The chief health officer will be able to appoint other members if and as needed. Membership will be reviewed every two years.
The task force recommends that the delivery system for pharmacotherapies be both private and public. In the private sector, general medical practitioners have advocated strongly for the professional freedom to make a clinical decision on the issue of patient need for maintenance pharmacotherapies in the same way that every other GP in Australia has been able to do. The President of the Northern Territory AMA made the statement on several occasions that doctors in the Northern Territory were effectively trying to do their jobs with one hand tied behind their back. No longer. GPs are now able to prescribe on the basis of clinical judgement. Like their colleagues across Australia, they need to have undergone some specified training to be qualified to do so. So far, of the nine doctors qualified in the Northern Territory, six are GPs. Many GPs have not previously taken up training because their capacity to use the skills they acquired would have been constrained. This is now changing. GPs vary in their particular areas of interest, and no one expects that all or even a majority will suddenly decide to make this a particular area of sudden interest, but the department is already receiving increased calls seeking training.
At the same time, our GPs need assistance and support in this work. That was recognised by the task force, and in line with their recommendations, the specialised public Alcohol and Drug Service resource has been boosted in Darwin and Alice Springs to provide specialist bureau support to both GPs and community pharmacists. An additional up-front allocation of $412 000 has been provided in this financial year, with a full recurrent effect in out years of $431 000. A full-time doctor was recruited to the Alcohol and Drug Service in Darwin from May this year, and this has been boosted by funding for an additional doctor half-time dedicated to pharmacotherapies. The service is also getting an additional psychologist and a nurse. There is also an additional nurse for the Alice Springs service. An extra position is also being provided to assist the Chief Poisons Officer with the new control and monitoring system for pharmacotherapies and S8 drugs. Stage work is in progress to establish a computerised data base to better monitor S8 drug approvals and contracts.
It is recognised that the private sector network of GPs and community pharmacies cannot be expected to meet the need for prescribing and dispensing at once or alone. Some GPs prefer to handle patients from the initial consultation through to stabilisation and ongoing care. Others, having ascertained that there is a possible need for pharmacotherapy, will refer a client to department’s services for the initial stabilisation period which is quite intensive. They can then return to the GP for ongoing care. The stabilisation period is also resource intensive for pharmacists. Pharmacists supervise dosing, observe the client, and provide clinical input to the treatment regime. Funds have therefore been provided for a small, on-site dispensing function to be attached to the Darwin service. It will relieve pressure on community pharmacies during stabilisation, and from any clients with particularly complex needs on a longer term basis.
There is much to do to establish streamlined data collection systems and to work through the issues that always arise when new services are brought on stream. We have therefore funded a professional liaison worker to assist over the first year of operation of the new system to take pressure off the GP and pharmacy network.
Most of the $0.5m of new funding that we have provided up-front from this year has been directed to the immediate action recommended by the task force to make pharmacotherapies available as a priority, but not all of it. An estimated $47 000 annually will provide new information services for the community and for the health and welfare of professionals.
The task force found a need for better public access to general information about drugs, and on what kinds of help and support is available both for people with a drug or alcohol related problem and for families. It also found that service providers across the system need a great deal more help and recognition including immediate access to more expert advice. These kinds of services are provided in larger jurisdictions by telephone, quite literally 24 hours a day and seven days a week. My department has investigated the potential for accessing such a service and will soon advertise a tender. We anticipate that the service will be available 24 hours a day and seven days a week in November 2002. It will be widely promulgated to the community and to service providers.
The report makes a number of other observations and recommendations related to treatment services. While the task force consulted widely, its members were not able to establish a comprehensive understanding of either the adequacy or the effectiveness of the treatment services presently available across the Territory. But it does make some very clear observations and recommendations in the area. First, as an overarching issue, most drug users access a range of services such as general medical practitioners, mental health, housing and family services long before they seek, or would consider seeking, specialist drug treatment. Further, many people with a drug problem have other co-occurring health and social problems which also need to be addressed. It is therefore critical to ensure that these first points of access have the capacity and support to identify the full range of client issues and to offer them effective, drug specific interventions.
Secondly, in relation to specific drug and alcohol services, a spectrum of services is needed in all major urban centres including assessment, withdrawal and counselling. These would not necessarily or ordinarily be residential. In addition, access to some long term rehabilitation is important. Specifically in relation to residential services, the task force noted that residential services are not the treatment of first choice in most instances. The costs are significant and it is not practical to have one in every location. While there have been representations to both government and the task force in relation to additional residential services, the task force concluded that there is already an appropriate range of residential services in all major urban centres in the Northern Territory, and in this context no completely new service appears to be required. Instead, existing services will be assessed to identify whether enhancements are required.
In relation to families - families and family relationships are significant in every area of drug and alcohol abuse, from prevention through to recovery. The families of young people who use drugs can play an important role in supporting change for the user. Service providers recognise the importance of including families when working with young people, and have requested further training and support to work in this way. However, family members often need support themselves, and family members attending the community consultations emphasised the difficulty of finding services to meet their needs. The new community information service will contribute to meeting this need.
In relation to young people, the task force made its most substantial comments: that young people, particularly those under 18, experience problems with drug use; need support from services that are designed specifically for young people; and that it is rarely necessary for these to be specialist drug agencies. Young people have particular needs, and placement in a specialist drug treatment service targeted at adults can have a detrimental effect. It can also ultimately deter them from seeking help, with the added danger of exposure to more entrenched drug use.
Youth services are confirmed as the first point of contact to access information and support for many young people. Youth workers are particularly well placed to reach young people who use drugs. Disturbingly, it appears to be primarily crisis accommodation youth services that are attempting to provide services. Some young people are in danger of being excluded from services altogether and are slipping through the system due to limited resources. Also, throughout the Territory there is a general lack of capacity among youth specific and generic services to deal with alcohol and drug issues. The task force observes that Outreach is a way of breaking down barriers to accessing services and allows for continuity of care. In essence, Outreach works with young people in their own environment rather than expecting them to come to a particular building and/or service.
These conclusions accord with findings of my own department and representations from the non-government sector. The complexity of the issues handled by agencies working with young people and with families has increased dramatically across the entire service network, and has stretched our services beyond their capacity.
In response, the task force recommends that resources should be committed to an intensive assessment of a whole spectrum of treatment interventions, and what is available to the different groups of clients. The exact kinds of interventions and intervention models being offered, and to whom, the extent to which they are based in best practice evidence, and able to be delivered to best practice standards, additional training required and where redirection of funding and major redevelopment may be required. There should be a priority focus on strengthening the capacity and quality of existing service networks to meet contemporary drug problem needs, with an emphasis on training, assistance with accreditation, accountability, and service development where required.
These observations confirm work that had already commenced in my department, and an additional staff resource is being provided for 18 months to advance this substantial work more speedily. In line with task force recommendations, the investigation will include ways of improving access to treatment for drug using parents of young children, building on extending the capacity of existing services.
Finally, in this area, the task force recommends that the resources of youth agencies should be supplemented to allow them to respond adequately to young people’s use of drugs and harmful substances. Services identified as providing assistance and treatment to young people under 18, should be resourced to be able to provide adequate care planning, assessment, treatment, and after care for young people with drug related problems. This area will therefore be a priority for the project.
This government’s position on illicit drugs is crystal clear. It has no time for those who profit from the misery of others. It has introduced laws that make that quite unambiguous. At the same time, it shows compassion for the distress suffered by people and families, and the need for measures to alleviate it. It also recognises the need for a comprehensive approach to prevention, and is explicitly linked to the government’s policy statement on supporting families.
This leads me to other issues of substance addressed by the task force, and the synergies with this government’s social policy program. The policy directions and specific initiatives of the government recognise that Australia has been facing a steadily growing problem of compounding social harms that affect the lives of young people, their families, and the community in the Northern Territory. Risk taking behaviour such as intoxication with mind altering drugs or substances that are injected, ingested, or inhaled, is one part of this complex issue which encompasses: unprotected sexual activity; increasing depression and other mental health problems; attempted and completed suicide; bullying and even violent behaviour in our schools; poor educational attainment and compromised potential for useful employment; alienation, antisocial and criminal behaviour; family violence; and the neglect and abuse of young children and teenagers.
These all have interconnected pathways of cause and result that have now been well documented in recent national plans and reviews such as the Anti-Crime Strategy, strategies addressing mental health promotion, suicide prevention, youth homelessness, partnerships against domestic violence, and a monograph on Structural Determinants of Youth Drug Use published last year by the Australian National Council On Drugs. These pathways are clearly well recognised by the community. Common themes in these documents and the task force consultations are the importance of the family environment and the significance of early childhood, with frequent demands for more services to identify and support families who need help, well before a child reaches school age.
The evidence is clear that the years of early childhood, up to the age of seven years, and most particularly, up to three years, are crucial for brain development. During this period, basic templates are laid down for the emotional responses of the baby, child, teenager and adult, to life stresses, as well as for basic language, conceptual and mathematical capacity. This ‘biological embedding’ of life experiences offers key opportunities to favourably influence a range of life outcomes. This early childhood period has been shown to return the best results on investments in what we can describe as ‘core’ interventions, because they deliver such an array of social benefits.
The evidence also indicates that periods of life transition are particularly important to target. Adolescence is widely acknowledged as the period of greatest transition and turbulence; again, therefore, a time of great opportunity. It is critical that we provide services that can engage with the specific needs of teenagers, rather than treating them as either older children, or as younger adults.
A child’s experience of school is likewise known to be a powerful influencer, and the task force acknowledges school as a key setting for both social learning, and for a range of evidence-based intervention opportunities. Schools are an excellent example of a key setting that is recognised by everyone as important, and people attending the community consultations were particularly vocal about the importance of school-based drug education. However, views varied about how this should be achieved. The task force observed that research has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of some popularly supported school-based drug education programs, and indicates others that are more effective. Also, that the literature also emphasises the inadequacy of relying on the school curricula to promote prevention of harm. Evidence indicates the crucial need to pay attention to the broader school environment and its potential connections with family and community.
This comprehensive systemic approach is frequently referred to as the Health Promoting Schools model, which is recommended by the task force for implementation and monitoring in all Northern Territory schools. These recommendations essentially parallel the conclusions of a recently completed review of health and drug education in Territory schools, Strategic Directions for Health and Drug Education, recently completed by the Northern Territory Department of Employment, Education and Training. A number of joint approaches are being developed between DEET and my department to progress these shared conclusions.
Madam Speaker, our responses to the report are strategic and cohesive, and integrated with existing commitments and directions. Let me provide further examples. The Office of Children and Families will be established in my department next year. A ‘Desk’ is being set up this year, to establish the linked Family Services Advisory Council with extensive non—government stakeholder representation. The work of the Office will be based on two themes: ensuring that children get the best possible start in life; and tackling the more serious problems of family life. Associated initiatives include a family support Helpline and Internet site in 2003-04. As well as being information points themselves, they will be linked to ensure a gateway to the new community alcohol and drug information service.
My department is also finalising a parenting support plan to deliver on the government’s mandate to develop and coordinate access to a range of appropriate parenting skills enhancement programs across the Northern Territory. It will maximise the role of community health, and care and education services. That plan is based on parenting programs such as Triple P, that has been designed and well evaluated in Australia.
The task force makes two explicit and critical recommendations in relation to the many issues raised for young people and families, and, as I indicated earlier, identifies significant gaps in the service network for these groups. It recommends that Youth Outreach Workers are placed with existing youth services in each of six urban centres, that is Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Palmerston, Darwin, and Nhulunbuy, together with Family Support Workers similarly attached to youth services, and to schools. The task force envisages a broad role for the youth workers. They should work with young people in their own environment, across early intervention, prevention, advocacy, support, and, where appropriate, referral. It stresses the importance of an integrated approach, and linkages with the range of government and non-government services, schools and community patrols. Other key issues are that workers need a supportive team environment, and the capacity to work flexible hours to access young people. The family support workers are seen as a major step in involving families in the treatment, education and support process, developing better support networks for parents and families, and to supplement more systematic parenting support approaches advocated elsewhere in the report.
Government has asked my department to investigate these recommendations as a priority, with clear directions and parameters for accountability. The particular mix of problem issues identified by stakeholders in the different regional areas needs to be matched with the evidence base for interventions that work, also in accord with the different existing service networks and supports for young people and families.
I have referred previously to a key theme for the task force around its finding of a substantial gap in the capacity of the existing service network in relation to drug and alcohol issues generally, and problems facing young people and families in particular. It recommends a comprehensive workforce development strategy to encompass all frontline workers, particularly alcohol and drug, youth and school support workers. This kind of approach has been a priority for the Alcohol and Other Drugs Program since 1999. Its training section has been steadily developing training and education across the span from pre-service to in-service, and the groups identified by the task force are already recognised as a priority: workers with young people and families; in remote communities; and with indigenous people.
Cost and accessibility barriers are addressed through flexible assessment and training delivery at no cost to frontline workers or agencies as it is provided by the program. Options are provided to meet short and long term needs, to ensure that it is accessible to all frontline workers, across prevention, early intervention, treatment and after care, and to those living and working in rural and remote settings. In line with requests from workers, training is nationally accredited and can contribute to attaining formal qualifications. The task force considers this kind of approach to be a key vehicle for extending the responses that young people and families need, and suggests as main areas: risk and protective factors; engaging young people; cross-cultural training; and brief intervention techniques.
The Northern Territory Alcohol and Other Drugs Program is a member of a consortium with TAFE New South Wales, and Next Step Specialist Drugs and Alcohol Services in Western Australia. The consortium won a national tender by Commonwealth Health and Ageing in 2000, to develop training for frontline professionals responding to the needs of youth experiencing drug problems.
Pilots in June and July 2002 included Darwin and Alice Springs as well as Tamworth and Sydney. The resources should be available in early 2003. Extensive research and consultation with a broad range of agencies and young people in the Northern Territory as part of the development process has ensured that the 13 modules and resources will be suitable for the Northern Territory. The issues identified by the task force are integral to the training. The outcomes of the more intensive work that has been funded around service mapping and needs, and youth outreach and family support workers will inform the future directions of the Training and Development Strategy.
I have outlined the action in progress, and the approaches being taken in the main areas related to the task force report. Before closing, I would like to deal with the one recommendation of the task force that I have been asked about which we have decided not to action at this time. That is to establish a coordination unit to develop a comprehensive drug and alcohol strategy with an associated high level coordinating committee. The task force makes the statement that issues associated with illicit drug use cannot be dealt with in isolation. Rather, a coordinated whole-of-government and community response is required. The complex issues underlying drug use and associated harms require a comprehensive approach to the promotion of protective factors, reduction of risk factors, and prevention of harms.
This is agreed and has been recognised. The government has established the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community to provide a comprehensive report on drug and alcohol issues, on future directions and priorities, and the related expertise, processes and structures to progress them. The task force was explicit that it had not been able to adequately address indigenous issues, and recognised that the work of the select committee will be critical in this area. Given this situation, it would clearly be pre-emptive to create a structure to develop a comprehensive drug and alcohol strategy at this time. The task force report has been presented to the select committee and a briefing provided to assist in their ongoing deliberations.
I would now like to end this statement with the task force conclusions about illicit drug use in the Northern Territory. In relation to this, I note the Leader of the Opposition and member for Brennan has recently attempted to promulgate the nonsense that the government has somehow invented a drug crisis in the Northern Territory. I hope that he now understands that this government has always recognised that illicit drug problems are an element of a complex of social issues impacting on families, young people, and community life that need to be tackled together if we are to be effective.
The terms of reference for the task force were correspondingly broad in their intent and in their expression. The report is similarly comprehensive and far reaching. The conclusions of the task force are that:
illicit drug issues and associated harms continue to be major issues for governments at all
levels in Australia and throughout the world with the Territory being no exception;
an estimated 1000 to 4000 people in the Territory use illicit drugs other than cannabis, and
usually do so for a relatively short period of their lives. However, there can be substantial
burdens of associated or long-term harm: involvement in crime; community and family
disruption and distress; transmission of blood borne diseases; and overdose related deaths;
drug use is primarily poly-drug use, with people using more than one drug at the one time; and
increasing numbers of young people are reported to be injecting throughout Australia and in the
Northern Territory, particularly amphetamines. And yes, the continuing major drug problems in
the Territory remain alcohol, tobacco and cannabis.
This government has never sought to dispute that the primary concern for the community is alcohol. We have supported regulatory measures requested by the community in Alice Springs, and provided the complementary measures identified by the Liquor Commissioner as necessary for the success of the regulatory measures. My department prepared a successful submission to the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation on further supportive initiatives identified by local stakeholders. Many of these are based in the broader approaches that deliver a range of social benefits such as meaningful activity for young people.
This government is introducing legislation that finally provides the people of the Northern Territory with the same level of protection from environmental tobacco smoke as the rest of Australia. At the same time, the task force is clear that we have an increasing number of people in the Territory using and experiencing problems related to their illicit drug use.
The Northern Territory is in a unique situation in being able to intervene to stop major illicit drug problems escalating to the scale experienced in other states. This is being pro-active about a recognisable problem. The government does not believe we should wait until there are large numbers of heroin overdoses, unfettered public drug dealing and injecting, and the extreme levels of drug-related crime to become overwhelming before we take action.
Certainly, the report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on the 2001 National Drug Household survey, which has just been released, provides no grounds to be complacent. The Northern Territory figure for illicit drug use is 12.3% above the national rate, and 7% above the next highest in Western Australia. The strong message from the task force is that we do have illicit drug issues here in the Territory, and they are on the increase. It concludes that we are in a unique situation in being able to prevent illicit drug problems from reaching the scale that it has in other jurisdictions.
I extend my thanks to the members of the task force for their commitment, to all those who gave their time to make submissions and attend forums, and to all the people who work tirelessly every day in this very important area.
The government has recognised the opportunity that exists, and we are taking the action that is needed, action that is progressing the government’s policy commitment to a cohesive, meaningful and lasting approach to the complex issues of linked social harms that incorporate illicit drug misuse, and that have been of mounting concern to our community. And, to return to my opening pledge, that is the commitment that I make here today on behalf of our young people and our families.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I understand that given the lateness of the hour this statement will be held over to be debated at a later time. I think that is a good idea. Although I have some preparatory notes here, I think it is probably good that the time is taken to digest this report, the Task Force on Illicit Drugs Report, and for other members to participate in this most important debate. This is an insidious problem that will affect probably all of us. Madam Speaker, I would seek to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, last night in the Chamber I made some comments about the judicial system and how the laws of the Northern Territory are being applied, with an eye on customary law. I do not wish to revisit my comments last night because I have only just been made aware of Paul Toohey’s article on the front page of today’s Australian. I have to say that what I was talking about yesterday seems to almost pale into insignificance in terms of the staggering - which is the only word which I can use to describe how I felt when I read this, staggered - this staggering decision that was handed down in relation to the issues that were raised during Question Time today.
We are, from time to time, reminded of some of the pronouncements that come down from the courts in this country. Over the last few years or so, we would all remember pronouncements from various Supreme Courts, quotes like ‘no sometimes means yes’, and in another particular case ‘the rougher than usual handling seemed to be an appropriate behaviour’, or from another case, ‘a woman who was unconscious at the time she was sexually assaulted would not be unduly traumatised’. We are once again visited by such an occasion, and I am just astonished. I can still barely believe what I read in Mr Toohey’s article. It needs to be read to members present so they understand what has been handed down from the bench in the Northern Territory. I will read a large section of the article because I think it bears reading:
Well, that much we are aware of as a result of today. However, this gets stranger. Justice John Gallop said that Jackie Pascoe Jamilmira was exercising his conjugal rights in traditional society and the girl ‘knew what was expected of her’.
Since the girl’s birth in 1986, Pascoe had been paying off her parents with gifts, spears, food and, more recently, cash so that she would be handed to him upon her coming of age. As the girl’s family was concerned that she was playing up at night with the local boys in the home town of Maningrida in western Arnhem Land, they decided it was time for the promise to be fulfilled and for her to learn her duties and responsibilities as a wife. The article then goes on to describe how a dispute broke out between the two families.
I then turn to the appeal process, and this was appealed from the lower courts where this fellow was placed in gaol and received a 13 month sentence. I quote again from the article:
However, we have an instance here where the victim in this matter has turned to the laws of the Northern Territory for succour and has been resoundingly rejected by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The argument goes that we have multiple cultures, or several cultures operating in the Northern Territory. I do not deny that, and I accept that there is traditional law operating inside the Northern Territory. It is immediately apparent we have many cultures – scores, literally scores of different cultures - all of which operate under traditional indigenous law within the borders of the Northern Territory.
The system of Westminster democracy that we have has been built up and fought for with blood so that people might be represented in this system and that they can turn to this system for succour, and that every Aboriginal person of age in the Northern Territory can be a participant in the parliamentary democracy and, if cultural law needs to be brought to the attention of this parliament - and I heard from the Attorney-General this morning that cultural law was an issue that the government is going to turn its attention to. Indeed, I said last night that a comprehensive review is needed to examine these sorts of issues. I do not deny any of that. What I do have a problem with, however, is that the laws that are made by this parliament need to be enforced by the courts in a way which reflects the intention of this parliament. This decision and the comments that are quoted in today’s article do not reflect, in my opinion, the intentions of this parliament.
Multiple cultures beyond traditional cultures are also represented in the Northern Territory. Yet each and every one of those cultures can become participants in the collective, political system which exists in the Northern Territory, and that is called parliamentary democracy. There are some very basic human rights issues at the most fundamental level which are called into question in this particular instance. I can only start to say that this parliament has decided that a person under the age of 16 years is not capable of having consensual sex. For the judge to say that she was consenting, or even to intimate she was consenting, this parliament has said in the Territory that is an impossible thing to occur. And if you want to argue the toss that it is a clash between cultures, then bring it into this parliament by all means and we will find a mechanism by which cultural law and traditional law can be adhered to. But there are points when the legal system of the Northern Territory, the laws of this parliament, and certain cultural laws, will come into conflict. The question we have to ask then as a community, as a whole community, is what aspects of law we want, and that is what this Chamber is for.
This decision by the Supreme Court is essentially a rejection of those principles. It is a rejection of the systems of governance which have been developed in the Westminster system for many hundreds of years. Those systems of governance are littered with battles, literal and otherwise, where people have sought to be able to get their own rights protected. I am not entirely certain that the rights - in fact, I am certain that the rights of the young lady involved in this have not been protected by the courts. And, until such time as this parliament directs that the other systems of law are going to be acknowledged and are going to be accommodated, then the laws that this parliament decides are paramount.
We heard the expression yesterday from the magistrate in Alice Springs that Aboriginal custodial laws are of the utmost importance. I would argue again, that unfortunately, and as difficult as this may be for some people to understand, the fact is that as far as the courts are concerned, the laws which are of the utmost importance are the laws which are formed in this Chamber. I can only say that I am staggered that the Supreme Court has chosen to depart so radically from some of the most fundamental principles that we have talked about in this Chamber, and some of the most fundamental holy grails that we hold sacred, in an attempt to appease a system which does not give proper recognition to the rights of all people involved.
I would urge the courts in the Northern Territory to think about their policies. If the courts have decided that there is a policy where traditional law is going to be recognised, what other penalties and what other processes are brought into question, and what long standing traditions and principles are brought into question; because the results of these sorts of decisions to me, are derelict.
I hope that the courts listen to these warnings. I know that the relationship between the parliament and the courts can be torrid at times. However, I think the comments from the court on this occasion need to be visited and need to examined because if this is the sort of protection that we are going to offer to the children of the Northern Territory, then we have to seriously, seriously, seriously reconsider our position.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have a couple of points that I would like to make tonight. One is about an organisation in Alice Springs, DASA, but before I get to that I would like to address a matter about the Alice Springs hospital, and I am glad that the Minister for Health and Community Serivces is here to listen to this. I have mentioned this on previous occasions, and it is about John Hawkins lecture theatre.
The John Hawkins lecture theatre space, which was in the central section of the Alice Springs Hospital, was taken over and converted into part of the main entrance to the new redesigned, refurbished hospital. I believe some $500 000 was put aside to enable another space at the hospital, within the central section of the hospital to be converted into the new John Hawkins lecture hall. Unfortunately, that has not occurred. When the John Hawkins lecture theatre was initially taken away, a temporary premises was provided in the old dining room at the northern section of the hospital to house the makeshift room where the staff can have their Friday lunchtime clinical meetings.
I believe the room that is currently being used as makeshift premises is now in the Liebig Building which is even further away from the main part of the hospital in the very old, wooden part of the original Alice Springs Hospital. You have to remember that the Alice Springs Hospital is a teaching hospital. It has medical students, nursing students who have now started their training at the Alice Springs Hospital for their full degree in nursing. We have young doctors coming in for their internships, and medical students from around the country also coming to do their short-term attachments.
If you have a teaching hospital, you are going to be classified as part of a university campus, then you have to provide proper facilities. Minister, how are you going to tell the staff of the Alice Springs Hospital that yes, you are committed to providing the best quality of care and the best quality of training, and you do not even have proper facilities that the staff can use for training in a location close enough to the main part of the hospital so that they can come from their wards, attend the clinical meetings and get back to work fairly quickly? When they are called on an emergency, they can rush from the lecture theatre to the wards. That is very important and something that you must seriously reconsider.
By ignoring this aspect of it you are going to make recruitment a lot harder, and you are going to make retention of your staff a lot more difficult. Young doctors choose their jobs because of training, because of exposure to clinical material, because they can improve their clinical skills. When you do not have those sort of facilities, those doctors will ultimately not stay in Alice Springs, and you will be forever behind the eight-ball in terms of retaining staff and it will be costing a lot of money to recruit staff every year. I have been in medicine long enough to understand the issue about medical training. The Alice Springs Hospital has one of the best pools of clinical material available, and you just need to provide the right sort of environment for the training to occur, and I am sure you would be able to retain both your medical and nursing staff.
The other matter, that I want to speak about is about the Drug and Alcohol Services Association in Alice Springs, or DASA as it is commonly known. I attended a Special General Meeting held on 26 September at 5 pm at the DASA facilities. This was a special meeting to amend the DASA constitution. I am glad to say that letters were written to past members of DASA, and to other interested parties to attend the meeting, and notice was given of the meeting some four weeks prior. So people received adequate notice of the meeting and had plenty of time to read through the constitutional changes that were proposed at the meeting.
I do not exactly know the numbers that turned up at the meeting, but the DASA meeting room was full. It was attended by many people who had particular interest in the alcohol industry, the alcohol service industry, the alcohol support industry, to discuss the proposed motions. I would like to go through in detail the various motions that were put to the meeting. But before the motions were formally put to the body of the meeting, a proposal was made initially to say that they were limiting the debate on the changes of constitution to two speakers for and two speakers against, and there was the opportunity to debate. It was suggested that the person who proposed the motion and the seconder would be the two who would be speaking for the motion, and then those who planned to speak against the motion would quickly go into a huddle, decide who the two persons might be to then be nominated to speak against the motion.
I thought that process was not very desirable. I thought it was restricting open, full and frank debate over any of the motions there. I felt that when you go to a special general meeting to consider the constitution there should be full and open debate. I am glad to say that Mike Gordon from the government’s Central Australian office was there, and he thought likewise - that it would be only be fair if there is open debate on any of the motions that were suggested.
After a lot of toing and froing, and in recognition of the limited time that the meeting had to consider 11 motions altogether, we agreed that there would be an open debate, with speakers for and against each motion for a maximum of 20 minutes per motion. That was a suitable compromise, and helped somewhat to move the meeting on. I felt it was most unfortunate that the initial proposal that there be only two speakers for and against was raised without prior warning to the people attending.
The first three motions, essentially, were housekeeping, using gender-neutral language throughout the constitution, and that was passed readily, not with an absolute majority but almost 95% majority. The fourth motion was, and I will read this out in full:
That motion, as it stood, meant that anybody who worked for an alcohol outlet, or a club, or a pub, or any licensed premises, or anybody who owns one or who is a proprietor or a licensee could not be a full voting member of DASA. I questioned the validity of that motion. I thought that in a small community like Alice Springs, a community organisation needs the help and assistance, support and membership of everybody in the community as full members with full and equal rights, as any other member in that organisation.
There was a lot of debate on this matter. Some were very scathing saying that if you are a licensee or you are in the alcohol industry, you could never be objective about the aims and interests of DASA. I believe that to be untrue. I believe that it was important that, as I said, in a community the size of Alice Springs, every member of the community should have equal and full rights with every other person. However, it went to the vote and it was a reasonably close vote. Remember that to change a constitution you need to have a two-thirds majority before the change can be made. It turned out that the voting was 38 for the motion versus 17 against. Once that was passed, the wind was taken out of many of the people there who were members of the alcohol or liquor industry. Many of them at the meeting were actually just employees, but they were interested in the welfare, or the good performance, of DASA also. When it came to the 5th motion, and I will read it in full:
That again, means that all those people who were allowed to come and talk about it but when it came to making decisions, they were not going to be part of that.
I strongly support what organisations such as DASA are trying to do in providing services for people who are alcohol and other drugs dependent, who want to use the sobering-up shelter, to seek counselling services from DASA. I think DASA provides a very good service. But again, it is unfortunate that some of the members of DASA were out to social engineer. To use a small organisation like DASA, which requires the strong support of the community, to try to bring about an outcome, not through its services but through social engineering, is most inappropriate.
I seek leave to incorporate the next five motions in Hansard, if I may, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and then just address two other motions that are in here. I seek leave to do that.
Leave granted.
Dr LIM: With the three motions that were also contentious was motion No 9, which was that at least half the elected committee members should be persons of Aboriginal descent. What this said was, if the committee had 10 people, then at least five must be Aboriginal people, irrespective of whether there were five nominations of Aboriginal descent or not. In the event where there were only two or three people of Aboriginal descent nominated for positions on the executive, then the two other vacancies, for instance, would be left unfilled. That effectively emasculates the committee. Instead of having a full core of 10 members on the committee, you are going to have eight, or seven, or six, or even five, because half the membership of the committee must be Aboriginal people. Fortunately, in this instance, the vote was lost. It went to 33 votes for and 14 against, with three informal, which were counted as against the motion. So it did not get a two-thirds majority and that lapsed.
The next motion, No 10, was that only the President shall be directly elected by the membership at the Annual General Meeting and that other office bearer positions shall be appointed from amongst the elected committee members at their first meeting. That is most unusual, where the executive is not fully elected by the AGM but only the President and the rest is done behind closed doors. That was also defeated and that was defeated quite resoundingly. I thought it was the best thing they could have done, because that would really be something done behind closed doors, without open and accountable actions by DASA.
It was a difficult meeting that night, and I hope that DASA does well out of this. But I am concerned that there might be repercussions because of the unjust way they dealt with it.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to share with the Assembly tonight a long overdue report on the study trip that I took to southern and northern Queensland from 12 December 2001 to 7 January 2002. I considered I could benefit in my professional development, and improve my skills as a local member and as a member of several parliamentary committees by meeting with my Queensland colleagues who had a greater experience than me in the various fields of endeavour. I also arranged to meet with some newly elected members so that I could compare my experiences with them and look at the strategies they were employing to service their electorates. To this end, I met with the following Queensland MLAs while in their fine state.
I met with Veronica Barry, the member for Aspley, who was elected on 17 February 2001. Her parliamentary service is as a member of the Estimates Committee, and as a new local member, I spoke to her about how she gets around the different office systems that she uses, and the different way she communicates with her electorate.
I also met with Margaret Keech. She too was a new member elected on 17 February 2001. Margaret Keech’s seat is at Beenleigh, down around there, the seat of Albert. Margaret also is on the Estimates Committee and on the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. As a new member, I thought I would take the opportunity to find out how these new members were settling in, to see if they were sharing the same experiences, to strike up a common bond, and also to see if we had some sort of, not so much mentoring, but mutual support. Her electorate also has a large marine facility and aquaculture presence. It also has all the theme parks that are in that area. As a matter of fact, she calls herself the ‘member for Dreamworld’. While I was there they had a ride opening up called the Cyclone. It was opening on Christmas Day. I heard about this, and I said to her that I thought that was a bit of an unfortunate timing given the effects of cyclones on Darwin. With that, she had arranged for me to meet with the manager of Dreamworld. I went there prior to the ride opening up to the public, and Dreamworld told me all about the ride, what it meant, and where it came from. It is actually the old Big Dipper from Luna Park. They told me of the anxiety they went through thinking of a name. They were going to give it names of people and get their names on T-shirts but they did realise that Cyclone Tracy was a bit traumatic for people, so they moved away from that.
I met with Peter Lawlor from the Gold Coast who was also elected in 2001, in that great Labor victory. Peter is a member of the Turf Club there, so the amenities are pretty good. He communicates with his electorate through a newsletter type, newsprint electorate magazine. I found the content to be excellent. The messages that he imparts to his people, and actually, I am not on my own; my own electorate newsletter, on his style and content.
I met with David Watson, a Liberal Party member. He is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and has been around since December 1989. He is a man with a great wealth of experience, both in and out of government. I found him quite personable, and quite knowledgeable. I met with him and Ken Hayward, who is the chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Ken has been a member since 1992. Both of these men have great experience of Public Accounts Committees. They sat down and spent the best part of a day with me going through what the parliamentary accounts committee does in Queensland. They were very helpful and I still have relationships with these men, and I know that I can contact them any time I need mentoring on any Public Accounts Committee issues. I think that that is great.
I also arranged a meeting with Dr Lesley Clark, the member for Barron River in Cairns. I saw many synergies between Darwin and Cairns because of issues such as air travel and tourism, the siting and the size of the town and I thought it would be good to talk to her as a local member working environment very similar to our own, and a person who has been around since 1989 when she was first elected. Unfortunately, due to family illness, I was unable to meet with Dr Clark.
Apart from meeting with her parliamentary colleagues, I took the opportunity to inspect the amenities provided by the Queensland government and the Townsville City Council along that city’s famous Strand. The amenities available to citizens of this city in this particular place are impressive. So impressive that the water feature there was one that was part of our pre-election commitment to the improvement of the Leanyer recreation area. So I went over to Townsville and I had a look at that feature and I am pleased to say that that is the one in the advertisements. That is the one that we will be putting in Lake Leanyer. It is a great facility not only for the immediate people living around the Leanyer recreation area, but it is going to be a great facility for the people of Palmerston. That facility will be put in on Vanderlin Drive, a direct road to Palmerston. I look forward to providing amenity which is for all of the greater Darwin area. It is not just for the people of Darwin or the people of the northern suburbs. I look forward to members from the Palmerston region coming and have a look at this, and I invite them along to any of the displays to have a look and I will happily walk them through the whole of the concept plan. I would like to say, by the way, it is a concept plan and there is room for improvement and if any of the local members from Palmerston way see anything that they want put on to that plan, please, be my guest. Get into it.
The information and knowledge that the members in the Queensland parliament were prepared to share with me has assisted me greatly over these last few months to fulfil my role on parliamentary committees and to be an effective and efficient local member to my constituents.
As you recall, the tourism sector in Australia suffered a double blow in September 2001 due to the collapse of Ansett and the terrorist attacks in America. The impact of these two events was considered at the time to presage a severe downturn in tourism to the Northern Territory. Not only was incoming air traffic affected, outgoing flight availability and seat cost also suffered as a result of the events of September 2001. As a result of conversations with some of my constituents, I considered these events would have an effect on families within in my constituency who might not be able to afford or book an airfare out of Darwin over the Christmas holiday period, and they would have to take up the option to drive out. I therefore felt than rather take up the option to travel business class on the study trip, I would self-drive in order to understand the difficulties that others in my electorate might well face on such a trip. It was primarily for these reasons I decided to travel by road to Queensland.
I also saw other opportunities of undertaking this trip by road. Some of these were the opportunity to personally assess the volume of road traffic both entering and exiting the Territory on the Camooweal-Darwin route at that time of year; personally assessing the road conditions including road surface, road fringes and animal hazards along the route; inspecting and considering the driver fatigue program sponsored by the government in the form of the Driver Reviver Program; and gathering first hand experience of the frequency of cane toad incursions into the Territory along the route.
In relation to the first objective I set myself, I must say that it is very difficult to actually gauge traffic volume when travelling on the road. This is quite plainly due to the fact that if you are travelling at roughly the same speed as all other traffic going in the same direction, then the count is likely to be limited to either the traffic being overtaken or traffic overtaking you. I did manage an approximate account of traffic coming toward my vehicle and over an hour’s period at two different times, passenger vehicles were approximately 25 between Pine Creek and Adelaide River and about seven between the Stuart Highway and the Barkly Homestead. I must admit that while I did carry out these observations, I do not believe much can be made of them. I do not think there is a study in that.
I do, however, feel quite comfortable in my assertion that the road conditions, including the fringes on the roadway, were in good condition. This is a credit to the employees of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. The condition of roads also had a positive effect and I did not overtire or fatigue while driving. I did utilise the driver reviver stations at Dunmarra and Barkly Homestead, and I had a brief chat to the staff at these places. They advised me the cup of tea and coffee and a chance to rest by motorists was quite welcomed. This appears to be an effective program from the feedback I got and I believe we should look to extend it this holiday period.
Indeed, in Queensland these rest points are quite numerous and roadside signage warning of fatigue are quite common. There are a lot of lessons to be learnt from Queensland, and perhaps Health and Community Services should consider a partnership with their Queensland counterparts if they have not indeed already embarked upon this path. The quality on the Territory side of the border of this length of the east coast is something we can be proud of and was certainly something that tourists I spoke to in my travels commented positively on.
I can also recall that I saw very few road kills on the side of the road. Indeed, the only place I saw large carcasses was on the Camooweal/Sturt Highway leg of the route. There were numerous small animals along the stretch of the road between Three Ways and Darwin, the majority of these were, unfortunately, cane toads. From around Dunmarra to Adelaide River, I observed cane toads on the road. As a person who has lived in north Queensland, I am aware of the effects of a motor vehicle body on the cane toad. I am pleased to say that I got a few of these pests; however, a lot more got away. I do believe we are facing a real problem in the Top End in the very short future, and I look forward to any initiative our government is prepared to make to find a way of ending this scourge on our local fauna, as well as the threat they pose to pet owners in the streets and suburbs and community centres in the Top End.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to commend the member for Araluen today for raising the topic in Question Time about the issue of the 15 year old girl and the case that has hit the headlines about that. I don’t think anyone in this House really condones what the sentencing judge did in overturning the previous decision by the magistrate in sentencing the Aboriginal man to 13 months’ gaol. The judge, in overturning that decision, has said that the man had been exercising his traditional rights because the girl was his promised wife, but I think this case raises serious questions of which law has precedence in this country, and whether people can really argue that the accepted law of the country does not have priority over customary law.
It concerns me that we have had a couple of instances where laws of this parliament and the federal parliament have been almost ridiculed by the courts. I realise the courts do not like parliamentarians to stand up and criticise them, and I agree with many of the comments that the member for Macdonnell has made about the previous case of the gentleman who was released for payback. In our society, what happened to him was plainly assault, and the man is now in hospital. I think there has to be some clear distinction between what is right and what is wrong in Australia in 2002. Some of the customary laws now are plainly outdated, and we have seen that happen in other cultures.
For instance, this Territory parliament a few years ago passed a law banning female circumcision. It is something that we would not tolerate in our society, and people who migrate to Australia have to understand that, under Australian law, that practice is unacceptable. Likewise, sexually assaulting young girls under consent age is not something we would condone. I am quite sure that all of us who have children or grandchildren, or have been teachers, have preciously safeguarded our children from that sort of attack. If it ever happened, we expect the law to uphold the law and bring the perpetrator to justice accordingly.
I really think what happened in this case does raise serious questions. We have had another incident recently where Michael Mansell has suggested there should be a separate court for Aboriginal people. It is almost as though he is saying that this Aboriginal court may not treat Aboriginal people as offenders as they would if they were in a normal court, and I don’t think we should be getting into this divisive game of having Aboriginal people outside of the law – it is as simple as that. It is time we started questioning what is acceptable customary law, and what is not.
Some of the women who are traditional owners of Alice Springs have said to me on occasion: ‘Why do you defend people in court when they have done something wrong? If it was our law and they had done something wrong, then they would be punished. Surely your law can see that too? You do not stand up and pretend they did not do it, or find an excuse for it and let them off’. Somehow or other we are getting all these laws confused.
I am really concerned that this young girl’s rights have been devalued. I am concerned that there is no one there standing up for what is her right also. Surely she has the choice of husband in this day and age. She did not want this husband; she did not want this act to happen. If we, as politicians and people who pass laws, cannot say to the courts: ‘These laws should be implemented’, then who will? I would like women to make their voices heard, to make sure the courts hear the message that they must protect our young children the same way as we expect them to protect any victim against an offender.
Getting that off my chest, I want to move onto another matter which was the protestors at Pine Gap this week. Interestingly, we have had protestors here in the parliament. My rule has been: everyone has the right of protest, but you should do it in a legal manner. Once you step over those boundaries and do something illegal, then you pay the consequences. There were things that the protestors at Pine Gap were protesting about that I could agree with. For instance, I do not agree that America should be the aggressor and start a war with Iraq, and that our Prime Minister should then assume that we will send our children, our sons and daughters, into war. I do not agree with that. I do not see why we should be the aggressor on a country, because we do not really know yet what this war is all about. We have seen instances in the past where America has become the aggressor, such as Vietnam, and have left the country in a mess and have not really completed the job or patched up what they did. So, some of the things the protestors were protesting about I could agree with but, when they overstep that mark of doing something illegal, obviously you cannot agree with them totally.
I support the base and I want to make comment about the base tonight because it is there for a purpose. Although I would not know the technical ways they do their job, it is obviously an intelligence facility that has a fairly major role to play in America’s and Australia’s defence. However, from an Alice Springs point of view, remembering that Pine Gap has been there for some time - and I know people say you should not argue it on economic grounds but there are economic and social benefits for the people of Alice Springs with this base. It is built amongst the ranges. Pine Gap is actually the entrance to the facility. There are 4000 acres of land, and the land borders on Owen Springs Station, Old Kramer’s property, as we call it, and land belonging to the Parks and Wildlife including the Kyumbah Park reserve. Hatt Road is the public access and that is where the protestors were camped along the road into the base. The base has actually raised their fence considerably so that there was a new nine foot fence erected along most of the front perimeter.
The base employs approximately 816 employees of which over 50% are Australians. There are 400 Americans, many with families, estimated at about 1200 people. Might I add, expenditure by these employees is estimated at $32m. Boeing and the Defence are the employers. Boeing employs approximately 200 Australians. The Australian Defence Force own approximately 46 houses in Alice Springs and the Americans own 550 houses or units. That is a considerable investment in real estate. I know the minister gave his statement yesterday on Defence, but he failed to recognise the component of Defence in Alice Springs.
There were 30 houses built just four years ago by the base and they used local contractors. You can imagine that a lot of work has been generated by them. They also have accommodation for about 180 people out on the base. All their mess requirements, for instance, are purchased locally. They have a large warehouse in Wesson’s precinct in town, and they also have a medical clinic in Wilkinson Street with one American and one Australian doctor. It is estimated that over $6m is spent on purchasing in the town each year, and over $6m is spent on airfares.
It is interesting that back in 1998, Bob Hawke stated, ‘The base is an intelligence facility and its primary role is to protect the nation’s security and that of the United States by treaty monitoring, and use of satellite technology. The Defence support program using infra-red technology is centred on early warning missiles’. I have a speech that Bob Hawke made at the time as Prime Minister, and interestingly, John Howard, as Leader of the Opposition, also spoke in support of what Bob Hawke said. So it certainly has had bipartisan support. If you read as far back as 1988, you will say these two gentlemen are talking strongly in supporting the base.
We have been lucky to have a very involved American population in the town. It is very heavily involved in a number of sporting and art activities, and there are sports that have flourished under their care such as baseball, so much so that we have Alice Springs players now playing in the States. The Art Society also has benefited from their involvement and recently they were given a bequest left to them by the father of Tammy Kingsley, an American who was tragically killed in Alice Springs. Involvement in other clubs, such as soccer, astronomy, quilting, swimming, school councils, Red Cross and so on, all benefit from the participation of the American people. They are considered to be active, good citizens of the town who have really made a commitment to our town.
It is a little bit sad that they were also targeted and picketed by these demonstrators and had to undergo some of the nasty part of any demonstration. People do have the right to demonstrate, but they do not have the right to break the law. It is as simple as that. I just believe that we can show our support for Pine Gap by stating publicly that they are good neighbours, they are good citizens and they are good residents, and we welcome them to the centre of Australia.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I just rise briefly to speak about a couple of matters tonight. It would be remiss of me sitting here at this late hour not to comment on some of the things that the member for Macdonnell said. I am not going to comment on two particular cases that have come before the court in the last few days, that have obviously caused controversy around Australia. I will just briefly talk in general, that obviously the issue of customary law and its relationship with mainstream European law, or Australian law, has been a difficult one over many years. It is reflective of the relationship in many cases of Aboriginal Australian relations. It has not at all times been a close relationship, and definitely, it has had its bumps and bruises.
But what I will say is that at this present time in the Northern Territory, and you could argue, in Australia, not just because of the clash between customary law and mainstream law, but certainly a lot of the social issues that are affecting indigenous people in this country, including alcohol abuse and drug abuse, domestic violence, and the marginalisation of a group of people within this country, that is it is reflected in the outcomes. Many of the outcomes unfortunately for indigenous Australians are very negative, let’s just say that. Health wise, men and women are dying at earlier ages than non-indigenous people, large numbers of people incarcerated, high amount of substance abuse problems, sexual assaults, domestic violence, etc. These are the negative things that are affecting indigenous people and anyone who knows me knows that I am a very positive thinking Australian. I am also very positive that if properly addressed, these things hopefully can be fixed.
I am also a great believer that it is going to take many, many years unfortunately, because this problem has been developing over 200 years. Definitely, relationships and experiences from around the world will show that not only in regards to indigenous relations between mainstream cultures and indigenous people, but certainly different ethnicities between groups of people inside countries causes conflict. But, there are many examples around the world of where different laws do co-exist and work together. and I would just like to mention to the member for Macdonnell in this House and to put on record that in no way has my mind been made up. I am still open to suggestions about what is the way forward. In discussions with other members of the government and people in the general public, my feeling is that any change that we bring about has to be for one purpose and that is to benefit society.
So, whether it is an understanding or a recognition of a role for customary law, or whether it is a total denial, or whether it is a total acceptance of it, whatever that extreme might be, the end question must be: is it going to benefit the community? At the moment, all the evidence suggests that the status quo definitely is negative and the status quo shows that people will more than likely run into domestic violence, substance abuse, and incarceration in high numbers. I don’t pretend to know all the answers, and I don’t think anyone in this House does. But I would just like to flag that - and I am definitely not commenting on the two decisions that have been raised in this House by the member for Macdonnell - it is well recognised that the courts have, over many years considered many different things when they sentence people, whether it is their age, their background, their sex, their good record, the community work that they have done, all these things come into play when a person is sentenced.
Over the next few years, the challenge for any government in Australia is how we are going to implement things that are going to improve people’s outcomes, improve people’s community standing. Definitely, the status quo cannot remain. There has to be some change to it because obviously what is happening right now is not satisfactory. I believe that over the next few years, it is a challenge to all members of parliament and certainly all Territorians that this issue has to be looked at.
I put on record that I am very open minded about which direction we are going to be taking. I have not made up my mind. I will hopefully be working with the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee as a parliamentary committee on addressing many issues. Hopefully we can develop items there. I know that there are many advocacy groups representing indigenous Territorians that might be interested in having input into this. Definitely, of course, there are the non-indigenous people of the Northern Territory who make up the majority of population. They have to be consulted as well.
If we were to propose to people the argument that at the end of the day, what is the status quo is not working, then they would say – and I truly believe this – ‘Well, what can we look at to make it work, to make people’s lives better, to protect people who are young and innocent, to protect people who are at a disadvantage either physically, mentally, sexually, who are in circumstances where they fear for their lives, who are looking at incarceration rates?’
The general population would agree with me that whatever it took in a positive step to improves these people’s outcomes would be a benefit to everyone. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that is all I have to say about this matter. It would be remiss of me not to put my view on the record, and I am definitely hoping to work with every member in this parliament to improve people’s outcome and lifestyles.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Hon John Gazzola MLC, a member of the Legislative Council of South Australia, accompanied by Mr Brenton Williamson and Lucio Matarazzo. On behalf of honourable members I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Community Cabinet
Community Cabinet
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, my government is committed to being accessible to all Territorians and one way to achieve this is by taking Cabinet to communities and regional centres throughout the Territory. So far this year, community Cabinet has travelled to various locations including Nhulunbuy, Alice Springs, Yulara, Tennant Creek, Parap, Wadeye, Palmerston, Kalkarindji, and Katherine, just to name a few.
I wish to report to the House on two community Cabinet meetings held last month. The first was held in Kalkarindji on 2 and 3 September and the second in Katherine on 23 and 24 of the month. The Kalkarindji and Daguragu communities welcomed the opportunity of holding a community Cabinet on their land and we were warmly received during our visit. A plaque commemorating our visit was presented to Justine Paddy, who is president of the Daguragu Community Government Council.
Cabinet members, chief executive officers and advisors arrived at Kalkarindji - many carrying their swags - for two days of meetings with community organisations, government agencies, private enterprise and individuals. The visit concluded with a formal meeting of Cabinet on the second day. During the meetings, we heard first-hand from committed council, Health, Education, Police and Essential Services staff on the concerns facing them in the delivery of services in remote localities.
Ministers left these meetings with a better understanding of issues and giving an assurance to follow-up a range of concerns and suggestions. Cabinet was invited by George Hewitson, Principal of the Kalkarindji Community Education Centre, to walk through all the classrooms. Each room was filled with colour, light and enthusiasm. An impromptu performance of Paul Kelly’s song, From Little Things Big Things Grow, by a class of primary school students was a highlight. We came away with that tune in our hearts and our heads.
We met with a number of senior students at the Kalkarindji Community Education Centre undertaking the first secondary school trial of an innovative strategy called Secondary Provision in Remote Schools. The aim of this program, which implements recommendations from the Learning Lessons report, is to keep secondary students at school longer and, as far as possible, in their own community.
No two community Cabinet visits are the same. Each community visited presents its own dynamics, issues and highlights. Katherine community Cabinet provided me with an opportunity to announce, during a Chamber of Commerce and Industry lunch, this government’s determination to have a closer working relationship with the people of the Katherine region. Work on the regional development plan for Katherine has been reactivated. A high level steering group consisting of representatives from council, indigenous groups, business, Defence, primary industry, tourism and government agencies has been formed. They will have the responsibility of identifying key projects and finding the right balance between social and economic priorities facing Katherine and the region.
After our visit, Jim Forscutt, Mayor of Katherine, was quoted in the Katherine Times as saying: ‘Personally, I have a vote of confidence in the overall governance of the Chief Minister’. Thank you, Jim. My government and I look forward to working closely with Jim Forscutt and all people living in the Katherine region to achieve business growth, and to address quality of life issues identified by the community.
Following the Chamber of Commerce and Industry luncheon, the Australian Red Cross provided their hall as the venue for a successful seniors’ afternoon tea. Clients from Red Cross and Missionaries of Charity hostels joined Katherine senior citizens and Cabinet for a cup of tea and a scone. The time spent with the seniors allowed us to introduce ourselves, to hear of their various life experiences, and to listen to their points of view on a variety of issues.
A number of individuals and organisations made appointments to see ministers during the one-to-one meeting sessions on the Monday afternoon. One woman drove more than 200 km to present her concern to a minister. Again, ministers have taken on board the issues arising from these meetings and they will be following through and responding to every issue raised, and to those constituents.
In order to further raise awareness of the community Cabinet program, newsletters will be produced and circulated after each community visit and, shortly, a community Cabinet web site will be established. I encourage all Territorians to take full advantage of community Cabinet visits, and use the opportunity to raise issues with ministers face to face. In this way, I look forward to leading a government which continues to be in touch with, and responsive to, the needs of all Territorians.
Business Month 2002 Events
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I rise to brief members on the program of events under way for October Business Month 2002.
I had the pleasure of launching October Business Month in Alice Springs on Tuesday, 1 October, and in Darwin on Wednesday, 2 October. Fiona O’Loughlin was the keynote speaker on both evenings. I am sure all members here would have enjoyed Fiona O’Loughlin, a wonderful comedienne and Territorian from Alice Springs, who entertained over 250 people at both of those events. It was a fantastic evening and a bit of a plug for Fiona. Her first full show in Darwin is on 19 October. Unfortunately, it is the same night as the Export Awards. However, if you are not going to the Export Awards I would urge you to get along and see Fiona; she really is a great laugh. As a polly there, you will certainly be targeted, but we are all used to that. Total attendance at both events exceeded 250 people, with over 200 attendees being local business people. Feedback from the launches indicate strong business sector support for the evening and the OBM program.
By way of history, October Business Month is a month-long program of events predominantly aimed at providing professional development opportunities for the people who run small to medium sized established businesses operating in the Territory. OBM is promoted as one of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development’s premier marketing and training events. Following an extensive evaluation of the 2001 OBM, including feedback which strongly indicated a need to reduce the number of events in the OBM program, the revised program has been developed featuring more targeted events with keynote speakers.
The four business topics of most interest to business in 2001 were marketing, finance, e-business and human resources, hence their pride of place in the 2002 calendar. The budget for OBM 2002 is $100 000.
Other events included for the month include the eBusiness Roadshow, introduced in 2001 as a new initiative. The information provided was so well received that the roadshow has been continued in 2002. The roadshow is travelling to all regions throughout the Territory and features a range of experts in the field on e-business and e-commerce including Dr Hugh Bradlow, Chief Technology Officer with Telstra, and it was great to have Hugh committing his valuable time to the roadshow in the Territory; Mr Jochiam Schoen, Marketing and Information Manager of Original IT Investments; and Mr Hugh Lovesy, a recent National Telstra Business Award winner and Managing Director of Pangaea Pty Ltd. It was a fantastic achievement for Hugh and that small company to win a major national award. Hugh really is committed to building capacity in the Northern Territory; a fantastic fellow.
The high number of registrations for the eBusiness Roadshow and the other scheduled events in the area of marketing, human resource management, and finance is a strong indicator that the decision to develop a program focussed on these four key business areas, and to feature keynote speakers - experts in their field - will be appreciated by the business community. The marketing expert speaking in Darwin, Katherine and Nhulunbuy is the keynote speaker, author and television personality, Mr Barry Urquhart. Barry is a regular on the Small Business television show in Western Australia. He speaks in easy to understand terms about the importance of marketing and business. Ms Catherine De Vyre was selected to present throughout the Territory on human resource management with a particular focus on the importance of service and nurturing customers. Catherine, a former Executive Business Woman of the Year, has recently released a book called Good Service is Good Business. And finally, in the area of finance, Mr Andrew Griffiths was selected to present a series of workshop style presentations in all major centres of the Territory including Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. Andrew will be providing all attendees with a copy of the book, 101 Survival Tips for Business, a book every small business owner would be keen to read.
Madam Speaker, I am sure that you would agree that October Business Month program is shaping up to achieve its purpose of ‘Helping Business do Business’. I encourage honourable members to avail themselves of the opportunity to participate. I place on the record this morning my thanks and congratulations to the very hard working staff in my department. It takes a lot of time and effort to put this schedule of events together for the month. It is about eight months work every year and they do a magnificent job and it is well received by the business community.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. As you know, the CLP actually initiated the October Business Month idea. It is certainly a great initiative and it is good to see the current government continuing with it. The assistance it provides to small and medium size businesses continues to reap rewards for the Northern Territory, not just through the professional development in the workshops, but very much the networking which occurs at many of these October Business Month functions.
The Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development should be commended for the way it conducts itself and the professional manner in which it sets up these workshops; an important aspect to October Business Month in that it takes these workshops to the people. It is in a number of regional centres, not just in Darwin and not just in Alice Springs. That is something which I have had positive feedback about. The CLP will continue to do all that it can to support small and medium size businesses. It is good to see the minister taking an interest in this important sector of our community.
Northline Speedway – Closure
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, this morning the NT News carried a report indicating that the Territory Motor Sports Board has ordered the closure of Northline Speedway. Sadly, this is another example of a sporting organisation getting itself into financial difficulty and not being able to manage its way out of trouble.
In September 2000, under the previous government, the Territory Motor Sports Board was formed to operate as the leaseholder of the Hidden Valley Motor Sport Complex, and as the peak organisation for motor sports in the Territory. As part of that arrangement the Darwin Speedway Riders and Drivers Association has held a licence to operate at Hidden Valley along with several other motor sports clubs.
It was reported this morning that the speedway owes a considerable amount of money to the Territory Motor Sports Board for insurance, infrastructure costs and previous debts. I am advised that the Territory Motor Sports Board had issued the Speedway Association with a Notice to Quit due to the escalating debts owed and that termination of the licence to operate agreement had been foreshadowed. At the same time, I understand that the Business Affairs Unit of the Department of Justice has issued the Darwin Speedway Association with a Show Cause notice in accordance with section 25AU of the Associations Incorporation Act due to the unmanageable debt of the organisation.
This is a symptom of wider issues confronting sporting organisations and other community groups throughout the Territory. Good governance and competent financial management are essential for all clubs and associations. In that context, my colleague, the Minister for Justice, has this week announced that the Associations Incorporation Act, which governs bodies like sporting and community clubs, would be overhauled. The bottom line is that the 2000 or so clubs and associations operating in the Territory need to be self-sustaining, but the government will ensure that there is a proper framework in place to help those organisations which contribute a great deal, as we know, to our community and are part of Territory life.
The proposed legislative changes will protect club members and the wider community. In parallel with this legislative reform, the government will provide training and education to clubs to help them understand the responsibilities of office holders and to implement better management.
I recently met with the Motor Sports Board and raised concerns about the financial difficulties being experienced by the Motor Sports Club, and the perception that there existed a great deal of antagonism and turmoil within the motor sports community. I indicated at that meeting that I would be arranging to meet the Motor Sports Council, a group which represents the users of the Hidden Valley complex. That is because it is important to seek the views of all relevant stakeholders in this process.
It is regrettable that the Darwin Speedway Association has found itself in this situation, but I am also encouraged that the Motor Sports Board will be seeking a solution that enables speedway racing to continue at Hidden Valley. I am committed to working with the board and the clubs to ensure that motor sports develops a strong and sustainable future in the Territory.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. I am particularly interested that you are saying that the government will work to ensure that speedway continues at Hidden Valley. In your response, would you tell us how you foresee this will occur? There is no doubt that speedway has been an important part of the amenities and almost an icon in the Darwin area for many years. There is no doubt that it is a sport that is attracting fewer spectators and therefore less revenue. Equally, those clubs are facing themselves increasing costs in using the Hidden Valley facility.
There are, as you rightly say, antagonisms within the whole of the motor sports bodies associated within Hidden Valley. There are certainly concerns that are visible, too. If you have a look at Hidden Valley, the place looks unkempt. It is one thing to have that place prepared beautifully for the V8 Supercars; it is another thing to have the amenity as a suitable amenity maintained right throughout the year.
Ms Martin: Why didn’t you think of that while you were in government?
Mr BURKE: This is not an issue of trying to form a confrontation with the minister. I am simply saying that if you say the speedway will continue under the consultations and arrangements that you intend to put in place, can you tell us how you envisage that occurring without the speedway association?
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow opposition sports and recreation spokesperson for his comments. I am committed, as I said, to working with the board and the clubs to ensure that motor sports develops a strong and sustainable future in the Territory. Under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and the former Chief Minister, it is similar to yesterday; they have to be careful in going into this sort of area because once we dropped the letter yesterday, the wind went out of their sails.
Mr Burke: I met with them. I met with the bowls. I didn’t just write them a letter.
Mr AH KIT: We have another situation here, Madam Speaker. This bloke has, as the Chief Minister, allowed the establishment …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: You haven’t taken your tablets this morning, have you, fellas? See! I just have to rattle the bucket.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker …
Members interjecting,
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr AH KIT: Well, let’s quickly go to the history if you want and look at where and how the Territory Motor Sports Board was established, and where it was funded from and how it was put together, so you can have a look at that because you did not set it up properly and you left another mess and I am going to tidy that mess up.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I make the comment that it would be nice if in response we did not waste so much time with interjections. Minister, if you just stuck to the point.
30th Anniversary of Diplomatic Relations
between China and Australia
between China and Australia
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial report on the Northern Territory’s part in marking the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the People’s Republic of China and Australia.
On 21 December 1972, an agreement was signed between the Australian government and the Chinese government. That agreement stated that:
- … the two governments agree to develop diplomatic relations, friendship and cooperation between the
two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity,
mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit,
and peaceful co-existence.
Now, 30 years later, all Australians can see the benefits of that action so long ago. In the Territory, events will held this month to mark the 30th anniversary. On 11 October, the Northern Territory government will welcome a delegation of 13 senior Chinese officials to Darwin. This visit will be both part of an ongoing development of closer relationships with China and mutual recognition by the Chinese government and the Territory government of the importance of the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between China and Australia.
The visit by the delegation highlights our connection to the principles of friendship and harmony advocated by the 1972 agreement. The delegation’s visit to Darwin was initiated by the Northern Territory Branch of the Australia-China Friendship Society. The Society, Australia-wide, has been a key player in fostering interest in China and maintaining friendly relations between Australian and Chinese people. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Society. I particularly thank the Northern Territory Branch of the Australia-China Friendship Society for its efforts in organising the delegation’s visit.
Members of the 13 person delegation include:
Mr Guo Fucheng, the head of the delegation, Deputy Director General of the Standing Committee of
Baotou Municipal People’s Congress, Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region;
Mr Shi Peide, Director General, Shangqiu Municipal People’s Congress of Henan Province;
Mr Pang Liping, Secretary General of Hunan Provincial People’s Friendship Association;
Mr Wang Chongmin, Deputy Secretary General of Baotou Municipal Government, Inner Mongolian
Autonomous Region;
Ms Ma Hairong, Secretary General of the Chinese Delegation, Director of the Division for Oceanian
and Canadian Affairs of the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries;
Mr Shi Jianmin, Director General of the Committee on Science, Education, Culture and Public Health,
Shangqiu Municipal People’s Congress, Henan Province;
Mr Chu Qingfu, Honorary President, Nanyang People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries,
Hunan Province;
Mr Li Jinwang, Director General, Nanyang Municipal Planning Bureau, Henan Province;
Mr Sun Jianhua, Deputy Director General of the Construction Committee, Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region;
Mr Wang Xudong, Deputy Director of the Gardening Division, Baotou City, Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region;
Mr Wang Jianjun, Deputy Director General of the Standing Committee of Dongcheng District People’s Congress,
Beijing;
Ms Jia Feng, Deputy Director, Miyun County Foreign Affairs Office, Beijing; and
Ms Wang Lidan, Interpreter, the Division of Canadian and Oceanian Affairs, Chinese People’s Association
of Friendship with Foreign Countries.
The Northern Territory government will contribute to the delegation’s two and a half days Darwin program. On 11 October, the government will host a reception and a dinner to welcome the delegates and honour the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations. On 11 and 12 October, the government’s Protocol Branch and the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development have arranged briefings and tours for the delegation. These include a briefing on the Trade Development Zone on the new wharf development and the railway, and a visit to the Northern Territory Marketing Centre.
All of the activities supported by the government will promote the economic and social value of links between the Northern Territory and the various provinces of the People’s Republic of China.
The agreement’s context, 30 years ago, was reconciliation between China and Australia, and the aim of the reconciliation was constructive relations with each other, and also with our region of the world.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement on the coming visit of the Chinese delegation to the Northern Territory. I am pleased to also support the point that the Australia Chinese Friendship Society of the Northern Territory has been instrumental in organising this visit. It is an indication of the strong links that the Northern Territory has had with China for so many years under the guidance of the CLP government. We have had great links with provinces such as Ningxia, Anhui, and the capital, Beijing, and the many visits that our ministers have made to places like the Guangdong Province. Through efforts of the Northern Territory Chinese community over the many years, the relationship has continued to grow and it is pleasing to see that the government is recognising the friendships that have been established and affording the delegation with an official reception in Parliament House.
The minister is wont to say that, whenever there are ethnic functions organised in Parliament House, his office always extends the shadow minister for Ethnic Affairs an invitation. Minister, it is only two or three days away from the reception - no invitation has been received on my desk. That happens now. The minister can brag about it. If he brags about it, then tell the truth or do it right, otherwise just tell people you do not get the invitation and that is also fine. However, I will be there.
Mr VATSKALIS (Ethnic Affairs): Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his comments. I apologise if he has not received an invitation. He certainly will receive one. He had better check with his office in Alice Springs.
However, this is a strong commitment from the Martin government for our links with South-East Asia and China and other regions in our area. This is not only to reinforce those links between the Territory and China, but to help celebrate the 30th anniversary of the diplomatic relations between Australia and Asia, thanks to the then Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Gough Whitlam.
At the same time, I acknowledge the member’s comments and, yes, we will continue the previous government’s policy with our relations with Asia. However, we are not going to actually keep our relationships with the Asian countries just on paper; we are going to be actively participating in functions in our area. We will forge economic links and we are not prepared to sit here in our offices and send letters and faxes; we are actually prepared to travel out there to sell the Territory and to invite people from other countries to come and see our Territory in order to develop stronger links within the Territory and other countries in our region.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTION
Postponement of Business
Postponement of Business
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I move that consideration of General Business Notice No 1 relating to variations to activities to agencies be postponed to a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Notices of Motion – Member for Nelson
Notices of Motion – Member for Nelson
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we proceed to call on the member for Nelson, I am informed that, with the agreement of the Assembly, there will be a debate on Notice No 2, together with the following Notices Nos 3 and 4. On completion of the debate of Notice No 2, the question will be put on Notices Nos 3 and 4 without further debate. Do you understand what I am saying?
Members, the debate on this motion , that is No 2 on the Notice Paper, will be taken together with and inclusive of debate for Notices Nos 3 and 4 standing in the name of the member for Nelson. On completion of this debate on this motion, the question will be put on Notices Nos 3 and 4 without further debate.
So, we are basically having debate on the three motions in one debate. It is my understanding that that was the agreement of the Assembly.
MOTION
Rezoning of Land for Inclusion in Future National Marine Conservation Park for Darwin Harbour
Rezoning of Land for Inclusion in Future National Marine Conservation Park for Darwin Harbour
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move – That sections 1812, 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791, Hundred of Ayers excluding the Phillips LNG site are ‘rezoned open space – conservation’, and included in a future national marine conservation park for Darwin Harbour.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table these documents and if they could be handed to members.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, whilst those documents and maps are being handed out I would just like to make some general comments. One of the reasons I raised this motion was I felt there was not enough debate in parliament in the last 12 months about a very important issue that many people in the Darwin area have an interest in and more so with the development of the LNG plant.
The debate about the harbour does go back some time. In fact, I think the original vision for the harbour was developed in about 1984, and it was put into more concrete plans, you might say, in 1990 with the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan. That is the conceptual plan that was put for the development of the whole Darwin region and it was developed because of the Kenbi Land Claim. One of the difficulties with that was that the public did not really have an opportunity to have a say in that. It was developed fairly quickly because the Kenbi Land Claim was being heard at that stage. I only recall one meeting on this particular matter and I am not sure whether there were any public meetings about it. So there has been this large plan for the development of Darwin that has never really been debated fully by the community.
When you look around today you would have to say that things really have not changed. I recall the government, when it was in opposition, saying that this document should be reviewed. This document is nearly 17 or 18 years old in one form or another and when you look back, very few things have changed except perhaps for the Elizabeth River Dam and some movement towards development of Glyde Point.
What I am doing today, I suppose, is taking a section of Darwin Harbour to highlight some of the problems that I see occurring at the present time. What I see is a lack of vision by the government for the whole of the region. I hope from this debate that something more will come from it.
The land I am referring to in the motion is on that map with the green border, all the sections of land as I quoted, except for the LNG plant which naturally is not up to scale there, but it just gives you an idea of the Wickham Point area where the LNG plant will go. So we are excluding that, we are excluding a couple of pearling leases and the aquaculture farms.
I suppose the questions is, why am I asking for that land to be protected? There are a whole range of reasons. The first one, the obvious one, is because of the environment. Now the government has made a statement that it intends to protect the mangroves of Darwin Harbour and they expanded the boundaries to Darwin Harbour and I congratulate them for that. But mangroves do not just survive on their own. Mangroves are not from the high tide to the low tide. Mangroves live in association with uplands and woodlands. They are part of a total ecosystem. You just cannot isolate them and build down to the edge of them and say they are okay, they will survive on their own. There are many animals and birds that rely on a movement between the eucalyptus forests, the melaleuca wetlands and the mangroves. So you need to have a vision that not only are you going to protect the mangroves, but you are going to protect the biodiversity behind the mangroves.
The idea of developing this land into industrial goes against that notion. If you have a look at the coloured maps, you will see that the Ware Peninsula has a section that is coloured in purple, and that purple is all the high ground that you see on the other map right down to the edge of the mangroves. I should note that the minister did make a statement recently that some land would be not used for industrial. This is the map out of the new Litchfield Land Use Objectives and it still shows some of that land as industrial, so I hope this map is just an aberration, but it does show that land as still being industrial.
Until now, before any real decision had been made, quite a bit of this land in this area has been used for extractive mining which was quite premature because until there had been a proper debate and until the minister had decided this land would be industrial or something else, it has purely been a conceptual plan. But in the mean time the Department of Mines, basing its advice from the Department of Lands which based its advice on this land being conceptually industrial, have been allowed to take quite a bit of …
Mr BURKE: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I am just trying to refer land in question. Can the member refer me to section 1819?
Madam SPEAKER: To clarify where it is? Yes.
Mr WOOD: What I think section 1819 is, it may be the new section that was developed with Wickham Point. Yes, I make an apology there. These maps are the latest maps I have but now with the …
Mr Burke: So it is the point? Part of the point?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I think part of that land now has a new section number, so it makes it a little bit difficult there.
Mr Dunham: It would not be 1819, then, Gerry. It would have a higher number.
A member: It could not be that one, I wouldn’t think.
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps the minister could …
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not have a new map. I only have the map provided by the honourable member, Madam Speaker, but 1819 is land that was identified for disposal of ash when the Channel Island Power Station was going to be a coal-fired power station so it could be a portion of the Channel Island land.
Mr WOOD: No, I did not include any of Channel Island in this.
Mr VATSKALIS: I will inquire and I will find out.
Madam SPEAKER: That would be good.
Mr WOOD: But I can double check on that. It was included in this area.
Madam SPEAKER: We will just get some clarification on that.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I can find that out for you. So basically, if this land was industrial according to the plans that are in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives, then all the land that is within that green area, perhaps with the exception of section 1813, and the remaining land around Phillips, will become industrial.
What are the other reasons for not having industrial zoning? Besides the environmental reasons, which are very important, there are cultural reasons. This land is still used for Aboriginal uses, especially for traditional hunting and I have raised this in the House before: a gentleman, John O’Sullivan, used to take many of the long grass people from Darwin there on the weekends where they could go crabbing, get long bums or just enjoy a little bit of peace and quiet in the bush. It is an area that people did use and still use for Aboriginal uses, so it is an important area. It highlights the fact that if you can keep an area like that in the centre of your city, you have an opportunity for some of these traditional uses to still be maintained close to Darwin. It also sends out the signal that this land was and still is Larrakia land and it does say to people that here is some land that we have kept more or less in its natural state in the centre of our harbour. It does have traditional and cultural reasons for staying as it is.
Mr Henderson: We have already agreed.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but you have also bought native title which signals the reason for using it for industrial.
Mr Henderson: With agreement.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that might be, but that does not stop the rest of us also hoping that it will be maintained as it is. We are part of a total picture; I am looking at a holistic approach.
Mr Henderson: The Larrakia agreed.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but I live here, too.
The economic benefits of leaving this land as it is are great. From a tourist aspect, by retaining this pristine area in the centre of the harbour, you are giving people the appearance that the harbour is still in a pristine condition. You are not putting industrial development in the centre of your harbour where it will be most seen and not needed. The tourism industry is huge, the fishing industry is big, bird watching, sightseeing, boating, diving are all done in Darwin Harbour, and most of that all depends on the maintenance of the biodiversity of the harbour. Some of it relates to just how the harbour looks. That is just as important. You do not say, that’s a beautiful mountain, and then fill it up with industrial. It does not quite look the same thing. We have a beautiful harbour; it won’t be so beautiful if it is industrialised.
There are other aspects, what I call the social aspects, and they are aspects, I believe, not covered by planners. The planning map will not show you the effect of the retention of Darwin Harbour in its natural state. We are going to have three cities fairly close to the harbour. We actually have Darwin and Palmerston already, and we will have a new city of Weddell. Those people need places to get away from it all. Why should they have to go out to Shady Camp, Kakadu or Litchfield? Why can they not also have an opportunity to have a place which they can enjoy right on their doorstep? One of the reasons you keep land like this is to allow people some space. We live in a mad, helter-skelter environment. People need to have sections of land set aside for basically peace and quiet, for some solitude, for enjoyment. I always used to say, Dad and Mum can take the kids up one of these harbour estuaries and throw a line in; that is important. Whether they catch fish or not probably is important too, but they get away from it all, they have a place for the family to go to and have a day out, and they do not have to go miles to do it.
So, having the centre of the harbour protected has important social aspects. It also gives the city some sort of soul, because we have been clever enough to leave some of the city as it is, we have not developed every square inch, and that is important. But people forget that, and I would ask people who may not know this area to go out and have a look and ask: does this area need to be developed for industrial? It is a beautiful area, it was well treed until some of the extractive mining was allowed there, and it is sad that some of the extractive mining, until recently, was allowed to go right to the mangroves. They are now restricted to the eight metre contour, so at least there is some conservation being allowed there.
Development: well, development is what the government wants to do with this area, and you have to ask them: is this piece of land really suitable for development? If you went back to the eight metre contour, which I am told by Mines and Energy is the land that is not to be mined simply because of the tidal surge, then if you took a 100 m to 200 m line around that area, the high ground, you would have very little land in there to develop in the first place. There is minimal land that can be developed there, and you have to ask: why not look for another site where you can develop it properly?
The government recently said it is intending to protect 5000 hectares of mangroves which will create a buffer between the LNG plant and any other development. But the 5000 hectares of land to be protected is actually 4737 hectares of mangroves that the minister has already declared that he intends to protect, which leaves you with about 263 hectares of land which is the little bit of land at Wickham Point and the island that the GTL LNG plant was going to go on. It still leaves you with a considerable section of the middle of the harbour to be industrial.
I have been listening to statements by the government as to why that land should be developed, and it has been fairly confusing. The Chief Minister, on Stateline a few months ago, said that that land could be set aside for Winnellie-type development. The Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment said at the AFANT meeting it could be used for benign industries, and he mentioned a container terminal. Lately, we have heard that the land will be set aside for LNG associated industries and a railway infrastructure development. Now you have to ask, why the heck would you want to put a Winnellie-type development in the middle of the harbour? This sort of industry does not need to be sold in the middle of the harbour; it can go anywhere. Bridgestone Tyres, Fred’s Ice Cream, the aluminium welders, they do not need to go in the middle of the harbour; there is no need for them to be there. The harbour is not essential for them to be successful.
On the issue of containers, the figure I had is that if we need land for containers, you can put around about 4666 containers on one hectare of land, stacked six high, and that is about 21 train loads. First of all, why would you want to then put them in the middle of the harbour? - you do not need very much land. And why put containers so far away from East Arm Port?
Then we have the LNG associated industries. Well, what are the LNG associated industries? Unless methanol and Methanex are coming back, the only other associated industries, I would have thought, would have been maintenance-type industries. They, surely, would come out of other industrial areas in Darwin. They do not have to be close to the LNG plant.
The last one, of course, is the railway. Why would railway associated industries be in the middle of the harbour? We have developed the East Arm Port as the area where the rail will terminate. We have set aside a large amount of land and, sadly, a large amount of mangroves are going to be filled in - and that was specifically set aside for the rail. I find it confusing and I still have not received an explanation as to why we are not using the proposed East Arm Port area for rail development and rail industries. I thought there was plenty of land there.
So what are the alternatives? I have said why I do not particularly like industry in the middle of the harbour. There are alternatives. You have to realise that if you look at the map of proposed land use concepts, and the land on this map in Middle Arm where the word says ‘East Arm’, if you go below the word ‘Arm’, you will see a purple area there. That piece of land is 32 km from East Arm Port. At the same time, the government has said it is going to put a 100 m corridor from the East Arm Port to Glyde Point. Again, you will see a brown and orange line going from East Arm Port to Glyde Point, and a small diamond on the picture there; it just goes under that area. The diamond area is the regional dump site. That corridor is going to have a rail spur on it. I presume it is going to have power and water, and part of it will have a road from Palmerston to Glyde Point. If you take the same 32 km distance from the middle of the harbour right around to East Arm Port, you will end up at Koolpinyah Station. I am not saying we need to build things out at Koolpinyah Station, but there is land along the way closer, and that land is to the east of the Robinson Barracks where that diamond is. There is land in there that is now used as extractive mineral areas - it is actually zoned EX for that use - that could be developed carefully for industrial development. It is also having the railway on it. If you are going to develop this corridor, why not use the corridor to the best of its usage? You could develop land up near Koolpinyah, because the Koolpinyah area is marked as grazing and agriculture.
So, there is land up there that surely would be available for some industrial development along the way to Glyde Point. There are alternatives. The distance to go to work along that way is the same distance that you have to drive from Palmerston around to East Arm, so the proximity to employment is still very similar.
The problem I have with all of this is that it seems that this industrial development has been set in concrete all the time, and there has been no public debate on alternatives. Even though the Litchfield Land Use Objectives have now, I presume, been declared, they still set this in concrete and there has been no debate. The Litchfield Council has always opposed this development and basically the answer we got back from the department was, ‘Well sorry, that is where it is going to go’. I have heard people say the other alternatives are not suitable but there has been no debate as to why they are not suitable, and why you could not look at alternatives.
If we are going to have a vision for Darwin we have to start looking with a long-term vision. We have to say, ‘Can we make our city special?’ This is a special place. We do have not the build up of other cities. We have a beautiful harbour that I reckon can make this city spectacular. All right, we have got the LNG plant and I have not opposed the LNG plant and I have always said that I believe you should be able to have development of the harbour, it is essential. But no one in the government has said why you would want Winnellie development in the middle of the harbour. What is essential about that? What is essential about having benign industries in the harbour? It is not about whether they do any damage necessarily to the environment, it is about why they have to be there in the first place. If they were going to cause damage to the environment I would use that as another argument. But why do you have to destroy the aesthetics of the harbour for an industry that does not have to be there? It can go somewhere else. The LNG associated industries, why? We put the LNG plant there specifically so it could get access to water. No other reason. That is why it is there and that is what the argument has been all along - they needed access to deep water. It does not mean everyone else has to go there.
I believe we have a chance to develop a city which has a national or marine or conservation park - that would have to be worked out - right smack in a middle of a city and that would be something unique and would be something that people would find very attractive when they come to this city. I have mentioned before to people, you take Sydney, four or five million people today. Someone had the vision and the foresight many years ago to have Royal National Park - which I believe was the first national park in Australia – to have Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park and they have a little park, it is not the greatest park, they have the Botany Bay National Park which is all right, it has a fair number of big oil refineries and development around it, but someone at least had some vision that we needed to protect some areas so that our city would have these special places in it.
If we do not have that vision now we are going to develop this city just like every other city. We will lose an opportunity and this is the opportunity to do it. If we miss it now it will be ruined. Once you have filled up your mangroves, once you have cleared the land, that is the end and I said to a lot of people when it came to issues of land clearing in Litchfield Shire, it is not about the amount of land clearing it is about the quality of land clearing.
The decisions we have to make today are probably decisions that should have been made by people who came here, Europeans who came here 200 years ago. They are the ones who first changed Australia’s landscape permanently. Aboriginal people might have burnt the place and they might have gone hunting but they did not change the landscape considerably. Even our pastoralists, I suppose, the graziers in the Northern Territory, did not change our landscape considerably. But we are the first people in this century to start to change the Northern Territory permanently and we do it by clearing and development. Once you have cleared the land and once you have developed the land you generally cannot go back from that point. So the decisions we make about the development of this region have to be taken very seriously and very carefully because there is no turning back once we make those decisions. If those decisions are being made behind closed doors, if those decisions are being made without at least alternatives being put to the public, then I feel we are limiting the chances of making the right decisions for this area.
My vision for the Darwin area is to have a harbour which is retained as a park including the Wickham Point and the Ware Peninsula; to develop a series of towns as part of greater Darwin which are close to the harbour but do not impinge unduly on its beauty and environment; to use the harbour as a key component to attract tourists to the region - and that it is very important because tourism will continue regardless of LNG plants. We can have the big development things, the rail and the LNG plant, but underneath that you need an economy that is bubbling along. These ones come and they go and the economy goes like that, you need something operating within the economy that ticks the economy over continually and one of them is tourism; and the harbour, surely, is one of the great tourism potential areas in the Northern Territory.
Why go to Kakadu? Why go to Shady Camp? Why go to Litchfield? Great places, but for some people who might drop in here overnight and stay at a hotel, there is an opportunity to go out into a pristine development and try to catch a barramundi within sight of the hotel! What a great attraction for people to come here. Go down to Indo-Pacific Marine and have a look at all the corals. You might have heard the discussion from the gentleman who looks after all the corals and sponges in the harbour. He was on the ABC, I think, the day before yesterday. He was just describing the colour and beauty of a lot of the sponges and corals that will be seen on a very low tide that occurs next week. I don’t think people realise what a great harbour we have.
I remember doing a study on the harbour when we were debating the issue of the Elizabeth River Dam. I went to the museum and I got some of their books and I looked at some of their material. Up until last year, or the year before, 440 species of fish – that is just fish - have been identified in Darwin Harbour. Then you start to include your worms, corals and sponges, and Lord knows how much else is in that harbour, and you realise we really have a top grade harbour sitting right here amongst us.
We should be doing our darndest to make sure that it is not wrecked. I am not saying the government intends to try to wreck it, but you should put in place a solution that will make sure that we do the very maximum to minimise any harm that we could do to that harbour.
I also believe that we should only allow essential development of the harbour. My argument has always been about the LNG plant: it was essential; it required deep water. I probably could say I would love it to go somewhere else, but the reality is it needed to go where there was deep water. Harbours are for shipping. I am not saying that we should lock the harbour up, but it is a harbour, and ships come in to harbours because they are safe, and because they require deep water and safe access.
I do not agree that development should include things like housing and marina estates. Those days should be gone. I have said before if we need marina estates, then we should be looking at things like either floating marinas, and you live back on the high ground, or, if you have to have them, and I still query whether you have to have them, then you develop a canal system that goes through the mangroves into the high ground and you develop the canals from digging out the high ground. Why bring half the cattle station down to the harbour and dump it on top of the mangroves? It seems a very clumsy way of doing things. If you need them, look at alternative ways of doing them. I prefer not to have them because there are dangers with them and I think that black striped mussel is one of the dangers of having these land locked or enclosed, you might say unnatural, water next to natural water systems.
You could have development, for instance, eco-tourism. You could have things like jetties. A lot of people don’t have boats and might want to go fishing. Perhaps we could have access to some small jetties into some of the estuaries so people could have a weekend there or just a day fishing. And there are restaurants, museums of the cultural and environmental type.
In the end, we need to develop alternative sites for industrial development away from the harbour and in appropriate locations which are within reasonable access to the workforce, and sited on land suitable for such development. I do not believe we spent enough time dealing with that issue.
We really have to set the vision up first, and I don’t think that vision is what I call ‘modern’ at the present time. It is 27 years old. It needs revision. It needs the government to say. ‘Well, we are not the same government as when we were in opposition. We are going to come here with new ideas.’ But I have not heard new ideas. This plan is nearly the same as all the other plans except that Weddell has been moved away from the Elizabeth River. That is about the only major change in this whole development.
I am just hoping that the government will look at the whole of Darwin Harbour, that they will use this small part of Darwin Harbour as an example of what they are going to do, that they will retain that as conservation land, that they will not put zone industrial in there because in the long-term that is the way that Darwin people want it to be.
I might not agree with some of the sentiments from the Save the Darwin Harbour campaign as regards the LNG plant, but behind all that is a sentiment that many of us agree with: they do not want Darwin Harbour ruined. You can argue those bits and pieces about the LNG plant and little bits here and there, but in general, people want the harbour protected. The government has to recognise that. I hope they listen to what I have to say. I hope they listen to what those people are saying, but I hope more so that they represent, in what they do, the people who are going to come in 100 years’ time, the people who will look back and say, we made the right decisions.
Mr VATSKALIS (Environment): Madam Speaker, I can respond to all three motions put by the honourable member because he mentioned he is going to roll them all in one.
Madam SPEAKER: Sorry?
Mr VATSKALIS: My understanding was he was going to roll all the motions into one, so I can respond to all three motions in one go.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr VATSKALIS: First of all, I appreciate his decision to actually roll all the motions in one, so it makes things easier for us. I also welcome his point of view. I always welcome his point of view. There are many things we agree on, there are also things we disagree on. We agree on certain things like the LNG plant site, , we disagree in some of the areas where it is going toward the harbour, and the location of the plant, the location of the harbour associated industries.
I know he is very passionate about certain issues. He is very passionate about the environment, and I also know that he has a very good knowledge of the Planning Act, having been the President of the Litchfield Shire for many years, and being involved with the planning action groups and other groups that have a particular focus on planning.
As I said before, we share common ground, and also we disagree in certain areas. However, I would like to speak on his motion, taking one at a time. First of all, the member for Nelson calls upon the government to cease any further industrial development in the Wickham Point area, especially land and sea covered by sections 1812 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791 Hundred of Ayers, excluding the Phillips site. I would like to approach this section one at a time. I have no idea what the member for Nelson intends to do with section 1819. There is an extensive tract backing the Elizabeth River; I have a document here which I am prepared to table that identifies section 1819 exactly opposite Virginia. Currently this Crown Land is zoned for future use, and is zoned for proposed land use objectives and planning concepts for future open space. I have to point out that the previous government was forced to rule out any development in that area, and also this government has promised no weirs in the Elizabeth River, so nothing is going to happen there. It is already planned to be open space, so that covers some of your concerns.
Section 1791, which is here on the map, the section I referred to before, was actually considered by the previous administration to be an area to dispose of fire ash should the Channel Island Power Station be powered by coal. This has not happened, and my department is now negotiating with PowerWater to acquire this piece of land, and most likely it will be returned to conservation estate. But part of this land will be used for corridors, road, railway and future electric lines and gas. There is no proposal for industrial development of this land and, as I said before, it most likely will be returned to an industrial estate, apart from the corridor that is required.
Section 1813: this land is within the area where the former government applied native title for Phillips Liquified Natural Gas, the LNG project, and possible future natural gas based industries. I need to explain that the Phillips project started within the former section 1812, and both sections of 1812 and 1813 were within the acquisition area. On 26 September, the Chief Minister announced a general prohibition against future gas-based manufacturing in the Middle Arm Peninsula industrial estate. That means no urea, no fertiliser, no plastics, nothing that will require breaking down LNG and reconstructed to produce other material or chemicals. There is not going to be any further industry in the Middle Arm Peninsula apart from the LNG plant and other industries required to support the LNG plant. We are not talking about power stations or anything; we are talking about industry directly linked with the LNG plant. She specifically ruled out any development of that land that is described as section 1813, and this one will also return to the conservation estate. That area will accommodate the road and service corridors required for the Phillips site. We have actually provided the road and service corridors to the LNG plant. Some of this area will be taken away to provide for the corridors and, also, this corridor probably will accommodate the pipeline from Sunrise when it will come onshore to Darwin because that will be the only developed corridor to put the Sunrise pipeline and then to continue it up to Glyde Point.
This section contains an area of dry monsoon rainforest which, I presume, is the matter that the member for Nelson is concerned about. I also remind the member for Nelson that this is the area that was identified by the British company GTL Resources for a methanol plant. I believe that the member, in his previous capacity as the President of the Litchfield Shire, gave some support at the time. Following the government’s decision to exclude this area from future development, the department is now in discussion with Phillips about possibilities of an enhanced conservation management program. We are discussing with the company to provide conservation money for a program for the area that contains dry monsoon forest.
Section 1812, as previously noted, is the actual site for the Phillips LNG plant. For some time now, it has been proposed to subdivide this site into sections 1860 and 1861. The actual plant will be constructed on 1860, and 1861 would serve as a buffer. It is this section, an area around 120 hectares, that the government has now determined will be zoned as conservation.
Finally, section 1814: this area of land, together with part section 1817, comprises former section 1, Hundred of Ayres, that was originally granted as freehold in 1884. One hundred years later, the government acquired this land for the purpose of developing an industrial estate. This land has been identified in planning documentation for nearly 20 years now for industrial purposes. Even now, within section 1814, there is a small area zoned industry, an areas set aside around 1992 for a petroleum industry proposal that never took off. The government intends that this area be appropriately zoned for industry. It is envisioned this area would be accommodating businesses established in the Middle Arm Peninsula industrial estate to directly service the LNG plant. No refineries, as I said before, no petrochemical plants, no urea manufacturers, no plastics manufacturers, no power station, nothing that will actually breakdown LNG components to manufacture other materials and chemicals. The only development at Middle Arm will be the LNG development and any other industry that will support the construction of the LNG plant and support the LNG in that place, so liquified petroleum …
Mr Wood: What are those LNG industries?
Mr Burke: Like GTL?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, we said no methanol and we stated clearly that the only thing that will go in Middle Arm will be the LNG plant. That is the commitment we gave.
Mr Wood: What are the associated industries?
Mr VATSKALIS: We will need industries to construct the plant. We have to have it there. You might have associated industries later. When the Sunrise pipeline comes off the sea, before you pump it to Glyde Point you will need to either pressurise it or take water out of the gas. These are non-noxious benign industries; they are not manufacturing industries, they are not industries that would take the LNG to break it down to manufacture other chemicals. They will be only associated with liquified natural gas, the Phillips plant, are the only ones that will be associated with natural gas.
Mr Wood: What will be associated with …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson. We are not in committee. The minister has the floor.
Mr VATSKALIS: I am prepared to give you a briefing should you require one, but as I said to you before, I cannot foresee what is going there. But I stated before and I say it again: no refineries, no petrochemicals using natural gas as feedstock to manufacture products such as ammonia, urea, methanol, or methanol derivatives such as solvents and plastics. None of these industries would be permitted in that area.
So, let us start again. Section 1812, 1813, 1814 and 1791, excluding the Phillips LNG site, these are the sections that the member for Nelson calls on the government to cease any further industrial development. Section 1812 contains the LNG site, the balance of some 120 hectares will be zoned conservation. Apart from the necessary service corridor, section 1813 will be zoned conservation. Section 1814, along with section 1817, will be zoned development to accommodate transport related and general industry, but gas-based manufacture will be excluded.
I note very much your comments: there is Koolpinyah Station; why don’t we take the industries there – the distance is the same? The reality is, until now, everybody who talked to us or talked to the previous government, wanted the area to accommodate freight industry or freight connected industry very close to the East Arm wharf. Unfortunately, the physical design of the harbour is such that people would like to see it very close. The previous government, in some of their planning documents, even designed a bridge to bridge the sea between East Arm with the Middle Arm Peninsula. It is something we have to consider. We can take all the industry and put it at Koolpinyah Station; it might be cheaper, but that cannot be guaranteed because we have to acquire the station, the pastoral lease. The moment you start acquiring large tracts of land for other purposes than pastoral leases, you immediately have problems with native title, you immediately trigger demands for compensation. This place is already clear of native title. It was freehold in 1884; that means the government does not have to pay a dollar.
So what is the point of me spending money to acquire native title rights when I can put this money to develop a clean estate related to East Arm wharf? Not me personally, but I am talking as government. What is the point of government spending that money? I believe the previous government had exactly the same idea as this government and pursued the same development in the same area and we will continue to pursue that.
The government is trying to strike a balance between economic development and preserving the environment. We are very, very serious about it. We came with this platform to the election and we have already taken steps to show the people that this is what we are going to do. There are limitations about the position of the LNG plant and we discussed that before. We said before that there is a commitment by Phillips; Phillips has already spent money there. The government has given a commitment and it is very difficult for the government to step back and order or ask Phillips to go somewhere else without paying compensation. That compensation could run to millions of dollars because do not forget Phillips acquired some of the native title rights directly from the traditional owners. Phillips have spent money to conduct surveys and studies. Phillips have signed a 30 year agreement to supply gas to a Japanese company. If this government, or any other government, said to Phillips, pack up and go somewhere else, any company would have the right to sue you for millions or hundreds of millions of dollars and certainly I do not want to spend the next 20 years arguing with Phillips about this. The easiest position for Phillips or any other company is, ‘Well if you can’t have your land developed like that, we’ll go to Western Australia. They already have a gas industry and we will give the advantage to them, so goodbye’. And they would be absolutely right.
Let me turn to issues raised in the other two motions. I have to say that I am surprised by the position taken by the honourable member in relation to the alternative industrial sites. The site selection criteria for the type of industry we are considering, which is gas-based manufacturing, is quite simple. They require excessive areas of relatively flat land for large sites including sufficient area to provide buffer zones and separation between the facilities; proximity to an available and feasible deep water site, as you acknowledged; an available and suitable source of water, both potable and industrial standards; absence of environmental constraint that will preclude development; manageable level of hazard risk with regard to other land users; physical workforce options for the construction and operation phases; and proximity to existing or economically extendable support, infrastructure and community services.
The site selection process carried out by Phillips Petroleum took these factors into account. This process is detailed in the company’s original environmental impact statement and the later public environmental report. At the time of Phillips’ site selection process there were no other proposals for Glyde Point. Phillips was the one that wanted to come to Darwin, to come to the Territory. The reasons that Phillips used to reject Glyde Point included the exposure of the coastline to winds, the waves and the strong currents; the shallow seas requiring extensive dredging; and distance to deep water and also the particular situation with the port. Glyde Point is an open area. That’s okay. But this government has committed that if any other industry would go to Glyde Point, and we have allocated $1.8m to do all the necessary environmental studies to collect atmospheric data, environmental data, and hydrographic data, so when the time comes for other companies, other industry to come to the Territory, they will be directed to Glyde Point and we will have in place a database with all the important information that industry will require to do the environmental impact statement and the environmental reports.
The Phillips site selection process has been extensively published. However, many other companies have gone through a similar process: Shell, Woodside, Methanex, Multiplex, Alcan, Wesfarmers, Pechiney and many other companies. All have concluded that Wickham Point or other locations on the Middle Arm Peninsula offer the best opportunities.
Now, we have a range of companies from gas companies to aluminium smelters, to urea manufacturers to alumina refineries, that have said the best location anywhere in the Top End is Wickham Point. But, you cannot let industry like Pechiney or an aluminium refinery or any other industries to be put in Wickham Point for obvious reasons. First, they are polluting industries. Second, they require extensive areas to site their factory and associated power generation equipment and stations. They would require about 200 hectares of flat, clear land to put something like Pechiney there without taking into consideration all the problems with atmospheric conditions, effluent and everything else.
Wickham Point was chosen by Phillips, and Phillips was the first one to be chosen for Wickham Point for the LNG plant because it was the first to be established and, first that came to the government to suggest putting the LNG plant in the Top End and, second, at Wickham Point. As I said before, we are not going to allow any further development in Wickham Point. All other development will go to Glyde Point. However, there are going to be other developments there and these developments would be associated with liquified gas, they will be associated with the freight industry and certainly with the East Arm Port development.
We are going to acquire some corridors in order to bring liquified gas from Sunrise to Glyde Point. These corridors have already been identified and we have initiated the acquisition process and will continue to do so, so when the gas arrives in Darwin, we are going to be ready. We are going to provide these facilities to the industry and we will facilitate the development of industry to Glyde Point.
Of course, you might ask why don’t we put all of them together somewhere in Koolpinyah. I don’t think the people in Litchfield Shire would be very pleased to have a Pechiney factory located about 30 km from their front door. You would disagree with that, and many other people in that area. In addition, some of these industries can pollute not only the atmosphere, but can pollute the ground water supplies and they will be located in the industrial estate identified and which will progress now to put in place at Glyde Point.
In the third motion, the honourable member presses his claims that the Darwin Harbour ought to be a national marine conservation park. I have argued many times with people, and I am not afraid to argue again, about Darwin Harbour being a pristine harbour. Darwin Harbour is a working harbour. Darwin Harbour ceased to be a pristine harbour when the first settlement of Palmerston took place on the shores of Darwin Harbour. Today we have two major urban centres, Darwin and Palmerston, on the coast line of Darwin Harbour. I only have to take you down to the creeks after a heavy storm and show what our pristine harbour receives after a heavy rainfall. Not only does it receive a lot of silt, but it receives petrol additives, carbon from diesel, emissions from industry that they wash out. Don’t forget we have a major operational airport at the RAAF base with vast areas of bitumen that wash down to our pristine Darwin Harbour. Our harbour is in very good condition, but I will not call it pristine. It is a working harbour that has been operating since the 19th century and will continue to operate in the future and it will get even better.
With the train coming up and the prodigious work in the industry, the traffic in our harbour will increase at least five times. If you think that the harbour now is busy, wait until the train arrives and wait until Darwin becomes a transport hub for Australia and South-East Asia as predicted by the people who are coming and talking to us, and certainly they talked to the previous government, about the benefits that the railway will bring to Darwin.
Mr Wood: It can still be a park. That does not stop it. It does not stop it.
Mr VATSKALIS: If the harbour is declared a park you will not even be able to fish in it. We have taken steps to protect the harbour. We have appointed a committee to produce a management plan for the Darwin Harbour, and this committee is comprised of members of AFANT, members from the Environment Centre, representatives of the people who use the harbour, such as shipping companies. The harbour is used by everyone; it is not used by an exclusive group. It is used by everyone in Darwin, Palmerston, the Top End, through the Territory, and these people have been asked to contribute in the development of the Darwin plan of management for the simple reason, we do not want to degrade our harbour. It is in our best interest to keep the health of the harbour as it is today - in very good condition.
We already have baseline data from previous studies and we will continue to monitor the health of the harbour. We will continue monitoring, and I have stated publicly, when the LNG plant is built and starts operating, we will continue to monitor the effect of the LNG plant in the harbour in order to maintain the health of the harbour; a parallel monitoring system with Shell or other industry.
We are determined that the harbour is not going to be turned into an environmental disaster. I agree with you, we do not want this kind of development if it has a heavy impact upon the health of the harbour, the marine developments, or some development that has a direct impact. We cannot stop Darwin Harbour being a working harbour, but what we can do, with the knowledge we have, and the knowledge we will continue to acquire, is to continue to maintain the harbour in a very good condition. You do not have to declare something a national park to protect it, and we have even moved away from protection of biodiversity, protection of flora and fauna only in our national parks. I have stated publicly in parliament that protection and conservation now extends to the whole Territory. Our national park is called the Northern Territory, it is not Litchfield, it is not Uluru, it is not Kakadu. It is our responsibility to maintain the biodiversity in the whole estate of the Northern Territory, including creeks and waters, and we are going to do the same with the harbour. The harbour, a working harbour, will be monitored closely in order to maintain the condition of the harbour as it is today. We will make every effort to ensure that the harbour remains as it is but, again, we cannot stop the harbour being a working harbour, it is impossible. That opportunity was lost in the 18th century when the first settlers settled in Palmerston.
The member for Nelson wants certain areas to be declared a conservation area, and one of them was section 1812; on 26 September the Chief Minister did exactly that. Section 1813 – we have done that one as well. Section 1814 was zoned development and will accommodate general and transport related industries. The member for Nelson wants section 1819 zoned conservation. Now, apart from the fact that this is an area of Crown Land, the Elizabeth River, and there are no plans to do anything here, there are actually plans to return it to the conservation stage. This will happen in the near future.
In all that the member for Nelson has asked, he has to consider, because of the continuous industrial development in the Top End, and in Darwin in particular, there will be requirements to apply corridors. The corridors will be acquired, and quite rightly as you pointed out, that brown line from Glyde Point all the way to East Arm, and all the way to the Middle Arm Peninsula. These corridors are required because, as we said before, the industrial estate will be in Glyde Point and would be required to somehow to bring the gas from the landing point, which is going to be Wickham Point, up there. Somehow we have to put the electricity lines up there, the railway first, and the roads. However, considering the total area of the Top End, that corridor is very, very small, but they are very important to provide the functions that are required. We will acquire these corridors, and I might have to argue to have to extinguish native title rights, and we will have to pay for it, and a significant amount of money because it is so important we are prepared to spend the money.
But, for us now to say we declare the whole Wickham Point, or Middle Arm, as a conservation zone, apart from the LNG, and take the whole lot and put it somewhere else, first of all, we are going to create problems for the sovereignty with the Territory government and Phillips. The other thing is, if Phillips is asked now to go to Glyde Point and put the LNG plant there, they will need another three to four years to produce an environmental impact statement. Phillips has signed an agreement to deliver gas in Tokyo in about three years. Phillips is planning to start construction immediately after the signing of the agreement between Australia and East Timor in order to meet this supply.
I know you support the LNG plant in its current position, and we understand the reasons for that, but this is for me to stress in parliament that the LNG will be at Wickham Point, however, no other industry will be in Wickham Point, apart from industry that supports the construction of the LNG plant and industry that is required for the LNG plant to operate, or the Glyde Point LNG plant.
At the same time, with the East Arm Wharf nearing completion and the railway line coming to Darwin well ahead of schedule, this area would be required to develop freight industry. This is appropriate industry because the storage of containers does not pollute the harbour. Empty containers do not pollute the harbour. The other thing is that we know very well at the moment that they have problems with space in South Australia. These people require space to put the containers. Not only South-East Asia. The financial report from down south is that the Melbourne Port Authority now has to transport containers to a site 50 km away from the port just to store them. That creates enormous difficulties for the industry and adds to the cost of the whole operation. For us, hypothetically, storing containers if there is a suggestion of storage for those in the Middle Arm Peninsula would be complementary to the operations of East Arm and would help in reducing the cost. What we are doing now, is put the benign industry that is not going to have a negative impact upon the environment.
The other thing you mentioned is the train. Trains will be coming from Adelaide to Darwin, 42 hours. Trains will be required to be serviced. Trains will be required to be shunted, to be moved around. The problem is, if you put them at East Arm Wharf, you really give away very valuable land, because everywhere the freight companies want to establish the facilities – storage facilities, quarantine facilities and other facilities - will be very expensive. That is why the government has resisted giving away or selling land in East Arm and TDZ areas, because we want to have planned development and to maximise the return for Territorians. It would be very easy to give land away in East Arm to put containers there. But at what cost? In three years time, when the railway will be up, the value of this land will be multiplied 10 times, 20 times, of what it is today. People know that; that is why they are queuing, asking for land. I am pretty sure the previous government or the Leader of the Opposition can say in parliament, that he had the same demands from people when they realised the potential of development in Darwin following the arrival of the railway and the completion of East Arm.
The government will be opposing each of the motions put up by the member for the reasons I explained. We believe that the government has done everything possible to maximise the return for Territorians; at the same time protecting the environment in Darwin and in Darwin Harbour - protecting the environment not only for the people who live in Darwin and Palmerston and surrounds; who go fishing or sailing in the harbour, but all Territorians, because that harbour does not belong to Darwin, or Palmerston, or to Litchfield, it belongs to all Territorians.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, can I say that it was not a debate I particularly intended to get involved in, but I have listened to the arguments that have been expressed by the member for Nelson, and also by the minister. It seems to me that there are very good points being made on both sides. There is no doubt that the comments that the minister has made in giving - not only assurances as to how the parcels of land that the member for Nelson is concern about, will be reserved - are said in all genuineness, I am sure.
However, the sentiment that is expressed by the member for Nelson is not probably fully progressed in these motions. If you look at the motions themselves, there is no doubt that motion No 2:
- That sections 1812, 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791 excluding the Phillips LNG site are rezoned open
space conservation and included in a future National Marine Conservation Park for Darwin Harbour
as a motion asking for support in this Chamber today, it will have to be called premature to say the least. It may be that, as things evolve in regard to gas onshore, it may be quite appropriate that in due course that land is rezoned open space conservation - all of it. It may also be the case that the arguments that the minister has put that certain land needs to be reserved for benign industrial use, are quite potent. Certainly, just listening to the minister’s arguments in terms of the areas of land that the railway will need to have reserved for shunting purposes and other off-loading and on-loading of containers certainly are the areas of land on Middle Arm that are proximate to the railway line, have some argument.
There is no doubt that the arguments that the government are putting forward have strengths certainly in their debate in this Chamber today. What I also think is worth reminding the government though, is that in this Chamber today the minister has stood up said that the government is absolutely firm that there will be no more petrochemical development on Wickham Point or anywhere in that Middle Arm area. It was the same government - it was the same minister, Vatskalis, and the same minister for industries and development who lampooned me in this Chamber only a few sittings ago for suggesting that no more petrochemical development should be on Wickham Point. It was you yourselves who pointed to conversations in Team NT, said that the position that the Opposition Leader took in saying there should be no more petrochemical development in Darwin Harbour, could only be interpreted …
Mr Henderson: They were your maps.
Mr BURKE: The member for Wanguri is obviously sensitive on this point. The member for Wanguri and the ministers made great play of saying it could only be interpreted as the Opposition Leader not wanting gas onshore. Isn’t it strange …
Mr Henderson: I did not say that. Point to the public record, I did not say that.
Mr BURKE: … that the same two ministers now come into this Chamber and swear on their hearts that there will be no more petrochemical development on Wickham Point or on that Middle Arm Peninsula area. This is there sentiment, this is the way they have always felt. What garbage!
How can you expect the member for Nelson, and how can you expect the general public, to take that point of view as being the actual sentiment of the government? No wonder there is suspicion out there that the land that is reserved for industrial development will in fact not only lead to benign industrial development but could lead to actual petrochemical development because the ministers themselves know that part of the rationale for reserving that land, as the member for Nelson well knows, was precisely for that situation to occur.
In that regard we have to understand what the member for Nelson is saying. And what he is saying essentially, and what I expressed in the Team NT position and what I have expressed publicly, is that times have changed. When the firm position on putting petrochemical development or industrial development on Wickham Point was most likely, it was at a time when the Australian government was negotiating with the East Timorese government for the unitisation agreement of both Bayu-Undan and Sunrise fields. A unitisation agreement that was progressing because the three developers, Phillips, Shell and Woodside, had agreed to a joint sharing facility for a pipeline that would land at Wickham Point and that there were base load customers who were necessary to take that gas from both those fields. One of those customers was Methanex which had done its environmental impact statements and feasibility studies on Glyde Point. Whilst Methanex was still considering both options, Wickham Point or Glyde Point, it was very strong in the pressure that it was putting both to the federal government and to the Northern Territory government that Wickham Point was the preferred location. It was in that atmosphere that Wickham Point in terms of petrochemical development became more and more a reality. And it was at that time that the member for Nelson was quite vocal in saying even at that time it was unnecessary and should be relooked at. Certainly, he and I had many arguments about the logic or otherwise of that particular point of view.
GTL was a methanol producer that frankly did not necessarily require to be at Wickham Point in terms of their business case, but was essentially linked closely with Phillips and was a foundation customer essential to get the base load of getting those two fields onshore. We were very close to getting there and Wickham Point was firming up as being not only the place for the LNG plant but certainly the place for the essential foundation customers. That is why those purple lines came there from the planners; that is why those purple areas became more and more firmed in the planners’ view and in the government’s view at the time.
The point the member for Nelson is making - and the point I made in Team NT - is that times have changed. Shell and Woodside are not in bed with Phillips. The joint venture arrangements have broken down. They may, in fact, come together again; we all hope they do. But at the moment they are broken down. At the moment Shell and Woodside are looking at different feasibility options and Shell and Woodside are not looking at Wickham Point to bring their gas onshore, and Methanex has gone. Pechiney, as your base load customer, as the minister himself said in this Chamber, will not go to Wickham Point. So it begs the question: who will go to Wickham Point? Who could go to Wickham Point? Why, in fact, should you have that land reserved and determined in the public eye that that is the fact of the situation, that is why it will stay?
You may be right. The government has good arguments, as I have said. I do not oppose those arguments. I simply say you have lost the strain of what the member for Nelson is trying to ask. He is not asking, in fact, as his motions say, that we should make determined decisions today. I would suggest to you that what he is asking is for people to discuss it, and in that discussion you will bring Territorians onside if your arguments are as sound as you claim. At the same time, it will not only give Territorians a chance to understand the logic behind it, but also give them a chance to express a point of view, points of view that he has made today which, on the face of it, are quite sound.
In that context, I foreshadow an amendment I wrote out during this debate which I would like to have photocopied and distributed as I am speaking because I would like to speak to that amendment.
In speaking to the motions as they exist now, first, motion No 2, does not stand. I hope the member for Nelson understands that. It does not stand because it is premature. There are too many undetermined factors as to what could happen with regards to bringing Sunrise gas onshore, what could happen with regards to bringing Blacktip gas onshore. What could happen with regards to the needs of the railway; all of those arguments that the minister put forward, really say that motion, as it is written, cannot stand in this Chamber today and the opposition will not support it.
In motion No 3, the member for Nelson says:
- To move that the government cease any further industrial development in the Wickham Point area,
specifically land and sea covered by Sections 1813, 1419 Hundred of Ayres excluding the Phillips
LNG plant.
This cannot be supported by the opposition for the same reasons. It is a definitive statement that says: no more industrial development in those areas, full stop. Again, it is premature because the arguments that both the member for Nelson and the government put both have substance, but certainly neither side’s arguments could be dismissed at this point.
The third motion reads:
- To move that the government initiate a public assessment of alternative industrial development sites in the
Darwin region along the proposed corridor from East Arm to Glyde Point.
In fact the government is doing that, in part, as the minister says. They are undertaking feasibility studies on Glyde Point, rightly so, and environmental impact studies preparing for the corridors, and so that motion as it stands does not really get to the heart of what the member for Nelson requires, I would suggest.
Perhaps there is a compromise solution in here somewhere which is this: the land has been set aside for industrial development, benign, as the government says, for good reason, as the government says, but essentially as a planning method only. There is no industrial development that is going to occur in that area outside of the LNG plant. Whilst we are confident construction of the LNG plant itself will start some time next year, it still cannot be determined absolutely that it will, but there is going to be no industrial development, benign or otherwise, in that area in the immediate future. Why not take the opportunity to do exactly as the member for Nelson is saying? Give the public the assurance that it is more than the fact that you have drawn a few new lines, you have made a few new conditions in some areas of Middle Arm, but give the public the assurance that you are going to suspend the notion of any industrial development on Wickham Point, in that Middle Arm area, in those areas covered by the parcels that the member for Nelson has decided, until such time as a public discussion process has been completed.
It would seem to me that that still gives the government the opportunity to debate with the public, to discuss with the public, to look at alternative developments. And also, by the force of their argument and the support, I would hope, from the people that they already claim, as the minister said, support them, organisations like AFANT and those who are involved in the preservation of Darwin Harbour, it would seem to me that a public discussion process would serve two very good ends. Firstly, it shows that the government is not simply running along the same arguments and planning objectives that the previous government did, without adequately explaining why; it gives the government an opportunity to convince Territorians that, through public discussion, it is logical and obvious that these parcels be set aside in the way they have been set aside.
It also gives the member for Nelson, and other supporters and other interest groups, to convince the government and the planners that there are other options, that they have not been explored sufficiently, that the predetermined position of benign development or otherwise on Middle Arm is premature to say the least. Other options have not been suitably developed, and you could get a change. And I would suggest you would get a change that would have strong public support. So, what I am suggesting is that, rather than just dismissing what the member for Nelson is saying, why don’t we have a compromise position, it is a position the opposition will certainly support and, as the member for Nelson said when he started his comments, the sentiments that are out there cannot be ignored.
I remember years ago, when the notion of the LNG plant was first decided by the CLP government at Wickham Point, there was a lot of debate in Cabinet that said, ‘When the reality of this LNG plant arrives on Territorians’ doorsteps, you watch them get upset’. And I can tell you, there is no doubt that that is happening. What we have to do, together, I would suggest, is manage the future development of this whole petrochemical industry and give assurances to the people that where there is further development on Middle Arm, it is essential, it is logical, it is not harmful and it carries the public with it.
It is one thing, and we can all stand proudly and say we did this to get the railway and we achieved the railway for the Northern Territory; we are all very proud of it. The Chief Minister can say, ‘I am going to get Sunrise Gas onshore and that is a great achievement of the Labor government’. The best achievement that we can do for Territorians is to set aside land for future Territorians, for their enjoyment, as national parks, as the member for Nelson suggests, in as many areas of the Territory as we can possibly do it. That Middle Arm area, the Wickham Point area, is an area of opportunity. It may not be practical, at the end of the day after public discussions, that what is being suggested can be accommodated at all. But it is equally not the case that what the government is saying will occur in terms of the way the land is set aside is also absolutely necessary at this point in time.
Why not simply look at the amendment I have suggested, combine motions 3 and 4, which basically says that the government cease any further industrial development in those areas until such time as public discussion has been completed. It seems to me that that is an area where all of us can agree. It seems a simple compromise for the government to accept, and to not accept it, to my mind, really puts yourself in a position where you are locked in prematurely and makes it even more difficult to carry the general public. I might say, the general public in many respects on this issue are well and truly represented by the member for Nelson. If that has not come through to the government yet, it has certainly come through to the opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: I am aware that members of the government would like to consider your amendment …
Mr BURKE: I would like to move it now, it that is possible.
Madam SPEAKER: It you do not move now we can debate both the motion and the amendment at the same time, rather than just the amendment.
Mr Stirling: Leave it on the table and we can talk to it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The advice I am receiving is that we are, in actual fact, debating item No 2 on the Notice Paper. If you foreshadow these amendments, we will later on then be able to vote on those. So, just foreshadow this motion at the moment and it will be circulated for everyone to look at.
Mr Stirling: To ensure clarification and understanding, any member may speak to that foreshadowed motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, at the moment, that is right. At the moment, we are looking at item No 2 and, because they were cognate motions, we were basically allowing discussion across the board. If we foreshadow this motion we can then discuss it later on.
Mr Stirling: At any time?
Madam SPEAKER: So you are happy with that?
Mr Stirling: As long as it can be discussed.
Madam SPEAKER: It will be circulated so you can continue the discussion if you want to on Notice No 2 at the moment. Otherwise, would you like to adjourn for lunch? Yes, that seems to be the feeling, so I will adjourn for lunch.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw attention to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Michael Beahan, former President of the Australian Senate. On behalf of all members I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: We also have in the gallery Mr John Kerwan, the Commissioner for Public Employment, accompanied by his family. On behalf of members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
MOTION
Rezoning of Land for Inclusion in Future National Marine Conservation Park for Darwin Harbour
Rezoning of Land for Inclusion in Future National Marine Conservation Park for Darwin Harbour
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, we are debating Notice No 2 on the Notice Paper. The member for Nelson is going to conclude the debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I just thought I would make some comments on what the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment said earlier. I have taken a few notes. The minister raised the issue of native title and said that because native title had been purchased, the land was free, therefore it was much easier for the government to develop in that area. I do not believe that that is necessarily the reason why you should develop some land. Just because native title holders decided that they want to sell their rights to that land does not mean the land should not be kept for environmental reasons.
We are all part of this community, both the traditional land owners and the citizens of the Territory, and we have as much right to ask that that land be protected. If some people felt that that was not of great importance to them, that does not mean that that land is not important. I certainly am one of those, and I think a lot of other people, who believe the centre of the harbour is important. I also would like clarification from the minister at some other time as to the extent of the native title acquisition, or what area was covered by the purchase of the native title rights. I do not believe that it covers the whole area.
The minister made a statement also that he thought I supported GTL. I may be wrong but that is what I thought he said. I certainly did not support GTL, never have, never will. I just do not support the Methanex project either, and I know the Leader of the Opposition and I differed on that at times, but that was clear. When I gave my support - and my support, when I say that, was through the Litchfield Shire Council – it was simply because the LNG original plans were for gas in and gas out, and we were told nothing else was going to occur there. That is why we agreed to it and that is the position I have stuck with ever since, and that is why I do not support other industries being there, because they do not have to be there.
There was a mention about the corridors. I know there are two main corridors. There is a corridor that goes south around the base of Elizabeth Valley and up through Black Jungle and across to Glyde Point. There is also the other corridor that runs from East Arm Port to Glyde Point via south of the barracks and goes up through the Howard Springs Shooting Reserve. I need to make it clear, the reason I believe there are other options - it is not seen clearly on this map - is that there is a rail spur intended to go to Glyde Point along that corridor. I could not afford another 25 coloured copies of your other one, but on the other map, in this Litchfield Land Use Objectives, it shows the rail spur going from East Arm Port along that corridor to Glyde Point. And that is the very reason I think, well, why cannot you put your rail infrastructure along there? Why, for instance, couldn’t the land to the east of Robertson Barracks be used for some of that rail infrastructure? It could be used for containers. Surely that small rail spur there which, at a guess, is about 6 km, could be available for use for that type of industry. I know we have an amendment coming up which may allow more discussion on that, but what I am saying it that the corridors that the government has decided to put there certainly look like there is an opportunity for alternative development.
The other question I have a problem with is, that if natural gas comes to Wickham Point, why can’t the natural gas that has come some 400 km from Bayu-Undan, go under the Darwin Harbour and along the northern corridor, which would then allow gas industries who want to use natural gas, to use that natural gas along that corridor? If we can bring gas under water for that distance, it seems to me strange that we cannot put it under the harbour and along that corridor. I have heard people say it is not safe, etc, etc, but natural gas is piped along Wishart Road at the present time, I thought. So why should it be any more dangerous than it is at the present time? Why can’t we use that corridor to its fullest extent?
I should also explain that I was not just talking about Koolpinyah Station. What I was trying to emphasise by saying Koolpinyah is that, if you measure the distance from the middle of the harbour right around to East Arm Port, that is exactly the same distance as going all the way out to Koolpinyah, and along that corridor there are opportunities, I believe, to use land for industrial purposes that will not affect the environment, will not affect residential. It may not all be in the one spot, because as you know, most of this area here has wet areas in it. You just have to get the water logging map of the Litchfield Shire, and you will see that 50% of the Litchfield Shire is subject to seasonal inundation. No matter what you do, you have to select your site carefully. You will not always get large sites, but you may get a series of smaller sites on which you can develop your industry. That is where I was coming from. I certainly was not putting an emphasis on Koolpinyah by itself.
I have never supported the idea of methanol, or the aluminium smelter, or the fertiliser factory, or any of those things ever going in the middle of the harbour. I always presumed they were going to Glyde Point. Therefore, I do not think that issue is relevant to the issue we are talking about at the moment. We are talking about an issue which I still think is confusing; that is, the issue of what does the government intend to put in the middle of the harbour. As I said before, there does not seem to be a clear strategy from the government. It talked about the Winnellie-type industries, benign industries, containers, LNG associated industries - which are what? If they are associated with the construction, well, they should be gone. Construction will take four years and they will be gone - and the railway. What the government is talking about certainly needs to be very clear.
With regard to the park, the minister raised that the idea of having a park where you have rubbish run into the park: you have oil from off the airstrips, you have chemicals run into it. If you are talking about wilderness, fair enough. This is not wilderness where no man shall set foot; this is a park like a lot of other parks that people work in. However, just because they have some pollution, because there is some wear and tear on the park, because there are some development, there is no reason for not making it a park. That is why I think the government can do something that is unique. It can say: ‘We can have a park’ – that is why I have never given it a proper name of national, marine or conservation, because a lot is sometime interpreted and seen in the terminology used. You could produce a park which says: ‘This is a type of park we are going to put in Darwin Harbour, and it will allow development’. By calling it a park, what you immediately say to developers is: ‘If you want to develop in this park, here is the criteria. You will make sure that whatever you do will not have this side effect on this park’. So the park becomes the goal line, the goal post, and they have to reach that level if they want to develop there.
At the present time, if there is a development in Darwin Harbour someone has to go out and pretend they are a supporter of mangroves to save them, or a supporter of something else to save them, because it is development that comes first and everyone else has to come in later and hope that they can save the harbour. I say you put the ‘save the harbour’ concept up first and allow development to reach the goals that you have set. I believe you can have a park with development. That is why I think Darwin could be unique. The government should really give that some serious consideration. We are a territory, we can make up our rules about a park; we do not have to be told that the park will have to be A, B, C, according to international guidelines. We will say: ‘This is a Territory national park or a Territory conservation park and these will be the guidelines for it’. That would show some leadership for many other parts of Australia in developing their foreshores.
Foreshores in Australian surely have been one of the most subdivided and developed parts of Australia, because people all say, ‘We should live next to the water’. How many areas in Australia are now costing us a fortune to repair because we developed too close to the water on very sensitive land?
I thought I would put those explanations in, minister and, once again, ask the government to not necessarily worry about what the planners say. They are very good people; I know they are great people. Sometimes, governments have to have the vision and tell planners, ‘That is the vision, now you fit within that vision’. Sometimes we have gone the other way around; the plan has come before the vision. That is what we need to look at.
Madam Speaker, I have covered all the points that I would like to cover today, and I will finish on that note.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that motion No. 2 on the Notice Paper be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Take Notices together
Take Notices together
Mr WOOD (Nelson) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that notice of motions No 3 and 4 relating to Wickham Point and East Arm development standing in my name be taken together.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Wickham Point and East Arm Development
Wickham Point and East Arm Development
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move:
That the government -
(a) cease any further industrial development in the Wickham Point area, specifically land and
sea covered by section 1812, 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791 Hundred of Ayers excluding the
Phillips LNG site; and
(b) initiate a public assessment of the alternative industrial development sites in the Darwin region,
for example, along the proposed corridor from East Arm to Glyde Point.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion and the amendment is as follows: Omit all words after ‘That’ and insert:
‘the government initiate a public assessment of alternative industrial development sites in the Darwin region,
for example, along the proposed corridor from East Arm to Glyde Point; and whilst that assessment is occurring
the government ceases any further industrial development in the Wickham Point area, specifically land and sea
covered by sections 1812, 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791 Hundred of Ayers excluding the Phillips LNG site.’
Madam Speaker, I will not labour the issue because we have essentially covered the issues involved in the previous debate and the members involved in this debate are well aware of the issues here. The two motions, whilst they are being taken together in terms of debate, cannot be supported I believe in this Chamber as if each motion stands alone, in that ‘the government cease any further industrial development of the Wickham Point area, specifically land and sea covered by sections 1812, 1813, 1814, 1819 and 1791 Hundred of Ayers excluding the LNG plant’ is a definitive motion in itself. It essentially says that no more forever is the government to involve itself in any further industrial development.
As I said in the previous debate that is premature because of the various unknowns regarding what sort of development, benign or otherwise, might be considered necessary for a whole range of reasons. Those reasons have been discussed in the Chamber, not the least being, as the minister said, benign industrial to support the LNG plant, benign industries also to support the East Arm Port or the railway. It seems to me that there are good reasons for checking a definitive motion of that type because of those unknowns.
Equally, it seems to me that the other unknown is whether those industries may be needed at all. That is the point of the member for Nelson’s motion: that not enough public debate has occurred, not enough discussion has occurred regarding alternate sites, and in particular, the fact that the primary reason why any industrial development was ever considered was essentially for petrochemical industries and then very definite petrochemical industries to support the gathering up of the Sunrise and Bayu-Undan fields. Those circumstances have changed. The government claims that there is a need to put land aside for some industrial development in any case. The member for Nelson’s arguments, which are quite sound, is that those arguments have not been substantiated at this time in order to firmly establish that land should be put aside for industrial development.
In order to try to achieve some sense of compromise in the Chamber - because I think it is an opportunity to secure the support of all members of the Chamber; it is an opportunity for the government to show that it is well and truly consulting on the issue; it is an opportunity for the government to also remain confident and secure by virtue of what it has already done with regards to Wickham Point, that their hand is secure, their rezoning has in fact already been done; the minister has already indicated in a press release that land use objectives rezoning that land have already been signed by his hand, so the government is secure in the action that it intends to take in this Chamber now.
What the member for Nelson is suggesting, and what I am supporting with this amendment, is that until a full public discussion occurs, that industrial development itself, benign or otherwise, does not occur. To my mind, that is a great compromise and a win-win situation for everyone. That is the purpose of the amendment, that essentially the government initiates a public discussion, an assessment of the alternative development sites which include not only the work that the government is doing and has committed money to, also the areas that have been identified and the options and alternatives suggested by the member for Nelson, but also takes note of the changing environment that has occurred since these land use objectives were put in place because those reasons, in a number of peoples minds, have well and truly changed.
It has nothing to do with gas onshore. Specifically, in the member’s motion the LNG plant is set aside from these considerations; it is secure. But it is the issue of the other land right throughout that Middle Arm area. So in that regard, I am looking to get a sense of compromise, and I commend the amended motion to members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the amendment. It is a good compromise. I admit that the reason the three motions were proposed was that I knew that the chances of them being passed by this House were probably fairly remote. But the reason I proposed them was because there was a lack of good debate about this very important issue.
Nearly two-thirds of the Northern Territory’s population live in this area. It is an area that is developing fast. It is an area that I live in, and many people live in. I want to make sure that we plan and develop it correctly. I support development, but I have been around Australia too long to see the legacy of poor development where things were rushed. I will give you some examples in Darwin and Palmerston. I always felt there was an opportunity to retain that entire escarpment. But it seems to me that there was a rush to get suburbs developed and perhaps there was not sufficient time given to look at the overall retention of what is really a beautiful area. Now it is a remnant of what it was and, to some extent, it has even become a fire hazard because we have houses on top of a ridge and that ridge is on the south-east side of those houses, so that is not really good planning.
What I am saying is let’s not repeat those mistakes. We can do better, and this amendment is a good start. I should say to the government that even though the amendment mentions the example of the proposed corridor from East Arm to Glyde Point, I am asking to government to look at all the alternative sites. For instance, there is land at Lloyd Creek and if you were to look at Lloyd Creek, it is the grey area to the east of Noonamah where the corridor will go past. There is no development there at the moment. It is, I think, mainly Koolpinyah land. I am not saying that is where it should go, but what I am saying is that you should look at those alternatives, bearing mind that you are now putting a corridor right past that land. That is not very far out of Darwin. For Darwin people it might be, but it is not very far from my place and it is not very far from Weddell. The people who live in Weddell would probably find that if there was some industrial development there, so will be opportunities for work.
We have to broaden our vision. We have to look at alternatives. We have to be very careful of what we do because, as I said before, the development is permanent, it will not go back to what it was. Once we make the decision and once we go ahead with it, that is the end, it will never be the same. With those few words, I support the amendment.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I will oppose the amendment, and I will oppose the amendment after careful consideration. The proposed amendment is:
- … the government initiate a public assessment of alternative industrial development sites in the Darwin region,
for example, along the proposed corridor from East Arm to Glyde Point …
Let us have a look at what is the proposed corridor: land east of Stuart Highway to the Gunn Point peninsula, three areas of land west of the Stuart Highway to the Middle Arm peninsula for corridors, and land south of Alverly Road to the Litchfield Shire boundary; land from Middle Arm peninsula to Stuart Highway through Palmerston; land from Temple Terrace to Gunn Point peninsula; and land for service corridors in the Berry Springs and Blackmore River localities. I don’t think these people will be very happy if we decide to develop industry along those corridors. In addition, about the public consultation, the Litchfield Land Use Objectives have been on the table for seven years. There were two rounds of public consultation; one as late as a few months ago and I believe you took part in that one. Most of this land was actually decided by the previous administration. What we have done is made minor amendments to incorporate the land use objectives into the planning scheme.
On this map the corridors have been identified for the gas industry as early as 1992-94. We have, quite rightly as you point out …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister has a map that the public has not been able to have. This map, which is written …
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr WOOD: The point of order is that map is not available to the public, and if the minister would like to table it, because …
Mr VATSKALIS: I am prepared to table it, Madam Speaker. I do not have a problem with that. Then it becomes available to the public.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister will table it.
Mr WOOD: It is the same map?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes. The only difference with this map is where it indicates that the open space conservation that has been decided and already announced, and was widely publicised, north and south of the Wickham Point development, and minor changes from the original land use objective map you have there. The corridors are already identified.
What do you want to do? You want to stop any development in the Middle Arm peninsula. That includes any development with regards to the railway, any development with regards to the freight industry. The Leader of the Opposition can go out there and tell the people that he has been talking to for all these years, that I am sorry, you are not going to have a freight industry development because now we decide to put a stop on it until we go out once again and talk to the people.
I understand your concerns, and the member for Nelson pointed out earlier, people out there do not trust the government. We did not develop it; we found it the way it is. We did not put the LNG plant there. It was there before we came into government and there is a commitment for this, and I explained to you why we cannot get out. We cannot get out for reasons I said before about the LNG plant, and your proposal to go to Koolpinyah, go somewhere else, on a very close observation of this map you will find out there is very limited land around the East Arm wharf. That is the only land that is, at this stage, free of native title, free and available for us to use. If we go to Koolpinyah, and we decide to take the pastoral lease away to develop to freehold for development of industry, immediately we trigger a native title issue. That means that the money we are going to spend on developing the industrial estate has to be paid to the native title owners, and quite rightly so, they will ask for it. Now they don’t, but if we decide to make it freehold, they will ask for it.
Another thing, developing land in the Middle Arm peninsula is not going to happen over night, or without any controls. Everybody who comes with a proposal has to gain the approval of the Consent Development Authority. During the approval process, a test will be triggered to find out if this proposed industry requires assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.
The other option is that, under the land use objectives that would be incorporated into the town planning scheme, this is industry - not noxious industry, not offensive or hazardous industry – industry. If you notice, it is the same colour as the industrial areas around Palmerston and around Winnellie. This is not going to be petrochemical industry. This is not going to be industry that will emit atmospheric pollutants or effluent. We stated before, the only industry that will go there will be the Wickham Point LNG plant and gas industry associated with the LNG plant.
The member for Nelson asked before why we cannot put the pipelines through somewhere else. The original plan was the pipelines from Sunrise will join the pipeline from Bayu-Undan so there will be one pipeline landed in Wickham Point. We still hope that this work will happen in the future; instead of getting two pipelines coming through we will only have one because, hopefully, the companies will sit together and talk to each other and make a sensible decision.
The other thing is, where are we going to develop industry? Industry that will potentially be developed requires open space, plenty of water, services, and deep water. Koolpinyah is a pastoral station that has lots of land but not much water, or much deep sea. If you look around …
Mr Wood: Robertson Barracks are not in Koolpinyah. They are east of Robertson Barracks.
Mr VATSKALIS: Well, I do not think the Army would be very happy with developing industry near the barracks. At the same time, looking at the map you see that a lot of the area has been identified as horticultural land or for small rural developments. This is valuable land that we will not waste to hazard industrial land. I will invite him to have a look closer at this map that will be tabled immediately afterward.
It is very difficult for me to support this motion for the simple reason it does not make sense.
Mr Wood: It makes perfect sense.
Mr VATSKALIS: It does not make sense.
The marine park was mentioned. You do not have to call something a park to protect it; it would be a Clayton park if you declare it a park and you decide to put more industry. This government has decided to protect all the mangroves; the mangroves were subjected to the Planning Act assessments. You will not be able to clear mangroves; you have to give us a good reason why you would have to clear 1 m2 of mangroves. We increased the area of the mangroves. We protect the harbour by not declaring a park but with taking active measures to protect the harbour. We have extended the area of the harbour. That has increased the size of the protected mangroves. We put a plan of management in place. We have put in place an independent Office of the Environment and we are prepared to put more staff in the Office of the Environment to do monitoring to make sure that the harbour remains in good health.
I do not have, as a minister, to put my signature in an official paper that declares a Darwin Harbour marine park, and do nothing about it after that. I am prepared to do the things that tend to protect the harbour, and that is what I am going to do.
Madam Speaker, I cannot, and I will not, support this motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): I will be brief in my comments on this motion, Madam Speaker, in supporting my colleagues comments.
Where we have to get to in all of this - and the word has been used a few times in the debate - is balance. That is what we on this side of the House are trying to achieve: balance that will provide for the future economic growth that we so desperately need in our economy, to allow us to diversify our economy, to provide for jobs and investment into the future with an absolute responsibility to the community for the protection of Darwin Harbour and the protection of our environment. That is what we are looking to: balance.
Whilst we have been trying to work towards that balance, we have been doing that within a climate of a very mischievous and misleading public campaign that has really plumbed to the depths of putting a lot of very misleading and quite frightening information into letter boxes in every house block in the northern suburbs. Totally false and misleading allegations in those letter boxes has generated, as expected, a significant amount of community concern. We have been trying to address that and those issues that have been raised within that misleading campaign: everything from LNG plants exploding to massive pollution in Darwin Harbour and noxious omissions and fumes flying over Darwin which is going to trigger huge amounts of asthma in the population. Really, in light of those types of allegations being quite misleading and mischievously spread amongst the community, you could argue that we have not done enough to put some of those issues to rest.
We have done an enormous amount in terms of response; full page advertisements in the paper and putting stuff back into letter boxes. But once the genie is out of the bottle in regards to those types of those allegations, it is very hard to put that to rest, but we have to be responsible as a government to try to balance the needs of the community in terms of economic growth and environmental protection. A huge amount of work has been done to date. The member for Nelson said that we did not have any vision for Darwin Harbour. Well, certainly it is like …
Mr Wood: It is the same plan as 1984.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, it is the same plan as 1984. So, where was the management plan for Darwin Harbour in 1984 that encompassed and expanded the harbour from Charles Point to Gunn Point? Where was the fact that all of the mangroves in Darwin Harbour have now been put into a conservation zone? Where was the absolute commitment from government that we would monitor the water quality and the health of the water in our harbour and make that information publicly available? Where was the commitment to work with the communities to stop the runoff from massive and significant population growth around the harbour, and a harbour which is several times larger than Sydney Harbour? Where was the previous commitments to do any of those things?
I do think that we have a vision. Our vision certainly does not extend to damming the Elizabeth River, but we do have to provide for industrial developments that will come as a result of bringing gas onshore. We cannot continue with an economy that is primarily supported by public sector spending and tourism in the retail industries and continue to have a boom and bust economy. We need a normalised economy. We need to have an industrial base. We need to develop a manufacturing base. The only way we can get that is with a cheaper energy source. That is going to come from the gas, and that has to be landed somewhere, and Wickham Point has been the place where it has been determined that it is to be landed. Once you land that type of energy source at a particular headland, there is going to be some industrial development around it.
We have the Minister for Lands and Planning absolutely committing that we will not see petrochemical industries, heavy metal industries, heavy base-load industries there, but supporting industries. I suppose we do have a choice which we have to make. I can certainly say as business minister, as well as a local member of parliament that we have not done any polling on the issue and there is a debate out there, but I can certainly tell you that there are a hell of a lot of people in the business community who are very, very keen to see this gas to come onshore and want to see the growth that is going to come with it. We do have to be sensible. This government is not hellbent on being environmental vandals and wreckers as some of the community would have us believe. The balance that we are talking about - and the member for Nelson’s talking about in 100 years’ time we want to leave something for future generations - well, yes, we do want to do that, but we also have a responsibility as members of parliament to provide for generations much closer in than that. Certainly, we need to be providing for investments and for jobs and in an orderly and in a managed way.
I think we have come up with a compromise solution. We have gazetted areas north and south of the Phillips LNG plant to provide a buffer zone. There is an absolute commitment that there will be no heavy industry; that we will move any heavy industry to Glyde Point. If we were to accept this amended motion that is before us today, that is only going to create and whip up expectations in the broader community that okay, nothing is going to happen out there. Then as soon as all of the analysis is done again for the umpteenth time, that with the availability of land around Darwin to attract the investment here to support the railway and the port developments, much of that investment in part is determined by the availability of land and the price of that land in the market place. I am sure if we do the reviews for the umpteenth time, we will come to the same conclusion and certain people in the public will be disappointed yet again.
We cannot say no to industrial development once we have made an investment of over $250m in a new port, a $1.3bn railway and then turn around and say: ‘But all the land around that area we are not going to touch for any supporting industry’. It is a case of managing development; it is about balance. I think that we can achieve that, and I am certainly very disappointed with certain sections of the community that are still peddling totally false, mischievous and misleading information designed to scare people. They will absolutely not be satisfied, even if we accepted the member for Nelson’s three motions today that we have just defeated. They would not be satisfied with that. They will only be satisfied if they saw the Phillips project scuttled. That is what this is all about in terms of the people who are running that campaign. That is what it is all about for the people running that campaign: they do not want to see the Phillips development at Wickham Point.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister has said this is all about scuttling the LNG plant. I have never, ever said that this should be about scuttling the LNG plant. The minister should explain that.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, there is no point of order and I am sure the Hansard record will bear me out because I did not say it and I did not intend to say it, member for Nelson. It is not the member for Nelson who has that agenda, and I totally accept his credentials in saying he supports the LNG plant at Wickham Point. I have heard him say that publicly at the AFANT meeting that the lands minister and I attended along with the member for Goyder who was there and was conspicuous by his silence. The member for Nelson is on the record. But there are other people in the community who will only be satisfied when they hear Phillips announce that they are not going ahead with the LNG plant at Wickham Point. I believe that that would be an enormous loss for our community and would certainly be a detriment to any investor confidence of any significance ever wanting to do business with the Northern Territory for many, many years.
We have to achieve some balance in this debate. I believe that the commitments that we have made for no heavy industries, petrochemical industries or pollutant industries at Wickham Point along with the concessions - we have listened to the community and created that buffer zone around the LNG plant. Through the Development Consent Authority and with the environmental regulations in place with a management plan for Darwin Harbour, we can achieve that balance. That is what this debate is all about: balance. That is why we on this side of the House cannot support the amendment.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the member for Wanguri spoke about balance. If there is any indication of balance, it is probably indicative in this Chamber, and that is that arguments were put by the minister to the member for Nelson and the end result of his arguments was the member for Nelson saying ‘shame’.
There is no balance there. There also is no substance to suggest that anything to do with this motion has, in any way, shape or form, any effect on getting gas onshore and getting large quantities of gas onshore and getting appropriate areas for industrial development put aside to accommodate that gas. There is no suggestion whatsoever in this motion that anything caused by this motion could have any effect on those projects. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.
As the minister himself said, if the development on Wickham Point goes ahead, it will go ahead in an incremental fashion other than the LNG plant which we all hope starts construction as soon as possible next year. There is no problem for government to engage in further public discussion to convince the public that what they are doing is the correct move - that is all the motion suggests - and give those that are against some of those proposals the opportunity to truly voice their concerns and for the government to show they are listening.
I listened to the minister and I’ll tell you, all the arguments you put, if I was in the room I would be sitting back saying they are pretty effective arguments. Lots of them are logical and it may be that at the end of the day that is the way that everyone agrees it goes ahead. All this amendment asks you to do is, not only give yourselves an even break, but I would have thought give yourselves a real opportunity.
The member for Nelson does not express a sentiment that is simple to him. He does not express a sentiment that is alone amongst those who are the rabid arguers against the LNG plant. This is a sentiment that I am hearing in my electorate. I am hearing it very strongly within the CLP. They are incredibly concerned about the fact that this thing has now arrived on our doorstep, and as I said in the earlier debate, that was something that we spoke about in Cabinet many years ago. I can remember Barry Coulter saying when it was Aquatain, in fact, looking at the Petrel Tern field that we first looked at Wickham Point and it was Aquatain in fact that caused the CLP government at the time, I think under Marshall Perron, to first identify Wickham Point as a site for an LNG plant. And it was after those initial proposals that Phillips started to look at Wickham Point. It has been there a long while. But in all of the drawings that came from the planners was this single warning: you wait until the day arrives when this thing starts to become a reality, and then you have to carry the public with you and carry them very carefully.
The member for Nelson, in many respects, is a very potent representation of the sentiment that is in the community. That is not a rabid sentiment, it is a very concerned sentiment. It is a sentiment that, I can tell you, I wish that I had listened to far more carefully in the past, and I can tell you, I am going to listen to it far more carefully in the future. But it is also an indictment on the present government to not live up to what you promised. The Chief Minister said, ‘We will look at other options’. And the Chief Minister has ridiculed me publicly by suggesting that Burke was against gas onshore …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Listen. That Burke was against gas onshore. You have gone out publicly, along with your ministers, given away confidences that were given in supposedly a Team NT meeting, and ridiculed me on the radio for simply suggesting that there should not be further petrochemical development on Wickham Point; that Burke was against gas on shore.
Ms Martin: Never said it.
Mr BURKE: At every opportunity you have said it. Now you have the gall to walk in here and say, ‘This Labor government is definitely against any more petrochemical development on Wickham Point’. Well, thank you for listening to me, because I was starting to listen myself to what people are saying out there. And I am starting to say to you people, there should not be any more petrochemical development on Wickham Point, so hear the message.
Ms Martin interjecting..
Mr BURKE: And I said to you if you want to know what was said in Team NT, if you want to know what was actually said, because the Chief Minister knows what I said, and the member for Nelson knows what I said. I drew a line in the sand and I said, ‘As far as the CLP was concerned, other than that LNG plant there would be no more petrochemical development on Wickham Point’. You went out there and ridiculed me and said I was against gas onshore in the Northern Territory, and what happens? What happens when you feel the pressure? You draw a few more green lines on the map, you call that consultation, you call that the proper response to the public, and if you are successful in that regard, fine.
All this amendment says, all this motion says to you is this, give yourself a chance to be what you said you would be. Give yourselves a chance to put those arguments. For the minister to go out there, to say to the public, as he has been speaking to the member for Nelson, all of those arguments that are for benign development that might be required for the railway, put those arguments to the public. You do not have any threat. You already have your land use objectives signed off. It is not as if there is a problem here. It is not as if you are not secure in what you are going to. Your land use objectives have already been signed off. You have already rezoned the way you want to go. You can listen to the public and take no notice of them at the end of the day, if that is your view.
All the member for Nelson is saying, and all this amendment is saying is go out there and convince them; convince them that what you have now designed for Wickham Point is the appropriate way for Territorians to go with regards to that development, that is all it says. You can knock this over in six months. There is not going to be anything out there in six months time, but what have you done? You have won the public support entirely. You have won the member for Nelson entirely; your arguments have been substantiated in the public mind and you have the opposition with you.
But you do not want to do it? If you do not want to do it, that is fine. If you do not want to do it, all I can say to you is: sadly, you have lost a great opportunity – and minister, you in particular. You are a great one for coming in here and saying: ‘This is what I will do and I will do it’. It is – what? - Kon the Roman or whatever. Why don’t you do something in fact? That is, go out there and actually talk to the public and say to them: ‘I believe, the government believes – we have listened to your concerns, this is the way we have decided to go. But, I am going to put it in abeyance for six months, I am going to have more public discussions. I want to convince you that this is the best thing to do …
Mr Vatskalis: It is going to be out there for public – it is going to be out there before it can operate.
Mr BURKE: Don’t say - been out there for seven years is garbage. Look, we have been playing around with those maps ourselves for years. Been out there for seven years is garbage.
What you have done, minister, is this. To the planners you have said: ‘We have a problem, do something with Wickham Point, draw a few more green lines, make the thing look better’. The planners come back and say: ‘What do you think of this, minister?’ ‘Yeah, we can sell them that, let us go with that’. That is what you are doing, and in arguing about what you are doing, the end result is: the member for Nelson says: ‘Shame!’
This is the man who I reckoned had a fair amount of respect and expectations of what he would get out of this government. I will tell you, the man is being disillusioned daily, like many Territorians. You said you would listen; you would consult. You must be able to hear the sentiment. There is no threat whatsoever to you in what you want to do. You have already done your land use objectives; you have signed them off. Make a gesture. Go out there and say: ‘Look, we have had a motion today. They have talked about consultation. It seems like a reasonable thing for the government to do. We are a listening government, we are going to spend six more months and listen’. What have said, though is: ‘No, we will not listen; We do not care’.
You are going to defeat the motion, do so at your peril. I have tried to help. All I have done is I have tried to help; I have tried to get a compromise. The opposition wants to work with the government and the member for Nelson. We have done our best. You are being arrogant. It is your problem.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the amendments be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mrs Braham Mr Ah Kit
Mr Burke Mr Bonson
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Ms Carter Mr Henderson
Mr Dunham Mr Kiely
Mr Elferink Ms Lawrie
Dr Lim Mr McAdam
Mr Maley Ms Martin
Mr Mills Ms Scrymgour
Mr Reed Mr Stirling
Mr Wood Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that Notices Nos 3 and 4 be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Note paper – Casuarina Coastal Reserve Management Plan
Note paper – Casuarina Coastal Reserve Management Plan
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I move –
That the Assembly take note of the Casuarina Coastal Management Plan tabled on 14 August 2002.
The Minister for Lands and Planning, and Environment, came in on that date in ministerial reports and laid on the table a management plan which is some 61 pages long. As I have heard from his response today in relation to a question I put to him during question time that the plan is formulated under the Crown Lands Act and not under the Parks and Wildlife Management Act. That is fine; I do not much care. The fact is that the minister has brought the document to the attention of this parliament and I presume for that reason brought it to the attention of Territorians. Whatever act the report is being made under, the fact is that the minister has come into this Chamber, a Chamber which is by its very name a parliament, it comes from the French word meaning talk, suggests debate and he has chosen specifically on this occasion to use Ministerial Reports to drop a 61 page report on the table for us to peruse, read and comment on in the space of two minutes. That is clearly unreasonable and as a consequence of that I now find myself in the unusual position where I now have to do the minister’s job and move a motion so that this matter can be properly debated. That is what I am here to do today.
I find it curious that other management plans seem to make it onto the Notice Paper for discussion. I notice that on the Notice Paper the Nitmiluk Management Plan stands in the name of the minister for a full, complete and comprehensive debate. So the question you have to ask yourself is what is the difference between the Nitmiluk Management Plan which requires a fulsome and complete debate and this particular management plan which seems to be something that can be dealt with in the space of five or six minutes of this Chamber. I then become a little bit curious and as a consequence of that find a way, through the assistance of the Clerk - and I thank him and the assistance of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I thank him - for finding a way to put this on the Notice Paper so it may be debated properly.
I notice in the preface that the document is dated August 2002. I find it curious that today in Question Time the minister said that he has had this report in his possession for 12 months as a result of a question that was raised by the former administration about concerns on how the reserve was being managed. So the former administration already was aware of some concerns in the area. As a consequence, the minister receives a report shortly after coming into office and then advises this House today that he has been sitting on the document for 12 months despite the fact that it is dated August 2002 which was two months ago. It is curious to know why the minister has been sitting on this document for 12 months.
In the preface to the document signed by the minister himself, and a more hairy photograph of him appears at the bottom of the page, the minister makes the important point that as the highest visited reserve in the Territory it is clear that the Casuarina Coastal Reserve plays a vital role in the life of the local community. Indeed, the local community visits that reserve seven times over for every man, woman and child every year: 700 000 visitors. This park receives more visitors than Ayers Rock nearly twice over. That is the number of people who visit it. Most of those visitors are repeat visitors from the Darwin community, people from the minister’s electorate, from the member for Drysdale’s electorate, from anybody who has an electorate here in Darwin.
The minister acknowledges the values of the reserve on page 2 of the document. He talks about the aesthetic values, the natural values, the Aboriginal cultural values, the historic values, education and interpretation values, recreation and tourism values, and conservation values of the reserve. It is indeed an important place. I know that the former administration is very proud to have established the reserve for the people of Darwin and tourists to come and enjoy this reserve. Needless to say many, many people do.
However, as I read the document I find on page 17 other principles which guide the government and the people who manage in the park - in this case the Parks and Wildlife Service - which are effectively the management plan of how the park should be run. On page 17 at paragraph 5.1 bullet point number four:
- The safety of park visitors is of paramount importance in the development and management of the park.
I am curious about that comment, not so much because it raises anything in itself, but on the next page in paragraph 5.2, Management Objectives, the very first management objective is:
- To provide safe and high quality visitor experiences.
There is a trend that is starting to appear in this document and as a consequence of that trend, I then start to read this a little bit more carefully because obviously safety seems to be a very important issue and high on the mind of the government of the day.
As I keep reading through the document, I come to page 28 which deals with the free beach and nudity. There is nothing new in that; there is nothing exciting in the Free Beach. It has been around since I was a kid growing up in Darwin. As I read the paragraphs on the Free Beach zone, whoever has written the management plan has found it necessary to quote bits of legislation. This person quotes - and the minister, I presume, approves it because his name appears on this document - schedule regulation 2 of the Nudity Act 1980. It reads:
- A person in or on the waters or in the view of free area shall not behave in a manner that is sexually
lewd or obscene.
There is, further down that page, a quote from of the document:
- No significant objections were received, however, a number of issues related to people behaving in
obscene and a sexually lewd manner were identified and this issue is discussed in paragraph 7.4.
I come to the heart of where the minister was coming from in how he was approaching this issue. I take the minister back to what he said in the media release when he released this document after sitting on it for twelve months. He said:
- In addressing antisocial behaviour the plan stipulates a restricted alcohol consumption within the main
picnic areas of the reserve between 4pm and 10.30pm on weekdays, and 12noon and 10.30pm on
weekends and public holidays.
The only other comment he makes is when, during ministerial report, he makes roughly the same sorts of comments in relation to how the park is going to be managed. I am concerned because he seems to be glossing over the antisocial aspect. He acknowledges that it is there and then promptly ignores it saying only that we are going to change the number of places and the hours in which one can consume liquor.
When I finally turn to 7.4, as directed by the document, that takes me to page 35. This is where we find buried a matter of great public concern. Remember that the park is used by 700 000 people every year. It is not a small number of people who come to this park, and the vast majority are Darwin residents. On page 35, we come to issues such as illegal camping:
- Illegal camping occurs in the coastal reserve. Camping is not permitted in the coastal reserve and the lighting
of fires other than barbecues provided or by permit is not allowed. Itinerants regularly camp in the reserve
sometimes taking over picnic shelters in Dripstone Park and Lee Point. But they also camp in the bush away
from public areas or along the beach. In most cases, illegal campers are quickly removed from the reserve.
Sometimes, the size of the groups and their aggressive behaviour makes it difficult and dangerous for
Commission staff to remove these people. In these cases, the police may assist in removing illegal campers.
The minister’s response in this instance is to change the liquor hours. I am just curious as to how he thinks that changing the hours and some places where liquor may be consumed will prevent this sort of behaviour from occurring. Indeed, the report is quite damning about the issue of public drunkenness, which is the only issue that the minister has turned his attention to in either his statement to this Chamber or in relation to his press release. Public drunkenness is often associated with illegal camping and itinerants: ‘Rubbish, aggressive behaviour, fighting, defecating, and urinating in public and disturbance and harassment of other users are some of the problems associated with public drunkenness in the reserve’.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I took the time on Monday at about lunchtime to slip down to the park to see if there really was a problem in the area, to see if I could find any campers or drunks, and you would think that at lunchtime on Monday that would be a fairly difficult thing to achieve. But lo and behold, on Rocklands Drive, I stopped and talked to some people who were kind enough to allow to me to take their photograph. I sat down and explained to them why I was taking their photograph that I was making a presentation to parliament, and they agreed. This photograph depicts several people sitting around and they had wine casks and liquor with them. I would like to have these photographs handed over to the minister. I shan’t seek leave to table them. But I would like the minister to have a look at this photograph so he is aware of the situation down at the beach. Interestingly, in the background in this photograph there is a sign that says ‘Casuarina Coastal Reserve’.
This then takes me to the next area on page 35
Dr Burns: Did you report it to the police?
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up the interjection. I actually did! I did what I had to do. Unlike members opposite, who so regularly come into this Chamber, spot offences, and don’t report them to police. And I would remind the member for Johnston about the comments from the member for Sanderson, when he was making points to demonstrate what illegalities he saw in the community. And did he report it to the authorities? No, he did not, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is very cute for the members opposite to try to score a political point. I am not scared of doing my job. When my job is to report offences, I do report them and I did on this occasion.
The next item on this page deals with lewd sexual behaviour. What evidence could you possibly find at lunchtime on Monday of lewd sexual behaviour? This is a time of day when normal people travel to the beach.
Dr Burns: What time was it?
Mr ELFERINK: It was about 1 pm for the information of the member for Johnston. As much as the member for Johnston does not want to hear this because it affects people who live in his electorate as well, it is very important that these matters are aired.
Now what evidence can I find? I went to a lavatory in the …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: This may be very amusing to the members opposite but I wonder if they approve of what is in this particular photograph, which was written on a public lavatory wall. Once again, I shall not seek leave to table it. However, I would like to have an attendant take this over to the minister or any of the other members who want to see this particular unspeakable piece of filth.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, if you are not going to table it can I suggest that you put it in an envelope and just send it to them.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will make sure that the minister receives it. What is written on that is clear evidence of something fundamentally amiss in the reserve. Those members opposite may find it particularly funny, but I do not. I am concerned that the people who do these sorts of things are doing it in places and in times which it is just not appropriate to do those sorts of things.
As I travelled around the reserve, I also found evidence of damage in the area. Why would the minister come in here and deliberately drop something on the table in an effort to push it through so he can get all the kudos out of the fact that there is a good and great reserve available to the people of the Northern Territory - but only allow two minutes of debate on it? I will tell you why: because he knew this was in here, and he deliberately went out of his way to try to push through a nice little press release saying: ‘We are going to do something about a few public drunks’, and ignore a fundamentally serious problem in, probably, one of the most visited public places in the Northern Territory.
The minister and the members opposite should be ashamed of themselves for trying to interject in such a fashion where they belittle this particular issue. If this is their attitude to public safety and public order – okay, so they are doing things with drug legislation - but there is a whole aspect of public safety which has very little to do with drugs other than alcohol. That is the issue I am trying to raise here today. It is the issue that I face the moment I walk out of this parliament and through the Bennett Park across the road; it is the issue that I see on a daily basis in the Mall; in Bicentennial Park; and in the Todd Mall nearly every day. That is the issue which concerns many Territorians. It concerns people in my electorate as much as it concerns people in the electorates around Darwin and the rest of the Northern Territory.
The minister wants to avoid it. His answer to this particular problem is not to have it opened up for debate. His answer is not to try to talk about it, but to try to push it through under the door. He has been caught out on this occasion, and I can tell you something: he has been caught out badly and he should be embarrassed by the way that he has proceeded with this.
As a consequence of this, I would like to move an amendment which is in addition to the motion that I signalled:
- That the Assembly refer the Casuarina Coastal Reserve Plan to the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning
and Environment …
These words are to be added onto the tail end of the motion:
- … so that the safety issues raised in the Assembly today may be properly addressed and that the plan
be returned to the Assembly at a later time for consideration.
The reason I bring that motion before the House is for the reasons that I have outlined today. The fact is, the minister should have done his job properly, and now I find myself, as the shadow minister on the other side of the House, doing his job for him.
Mr Henderson: Sneaking around public toilets. He is a bit busy for that you know.
Mr ELFERINK: Doing his job for him and the levity of the members on the other side of the House just clearly demonstrates how flippant they like to be about these issues. Well, I wonder how flippant they will be when they have to deal with the drunks at the beach when they have done nothing to sort the matter out.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as I explained in Question Time Casuarina Coastal Reserve was declared under the Crown Lands Act not the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. I did not have to table the document. I tabled the document in the public interest. Someone must be a real idiot to table a document if they want to hide something. That logic is beyond my understanding. I certainly cannot comprehend what the member for Macdonnell said. Why would I want to put something in the public record if I want to hide something? Not only that, that I was sitting on that document for 12 months. Now, that is funny. It was released for public comments in April 2002; 12 months before brings us to April 2001 - we were not in government. We came to government on 18 August 2001.
This document was drafted by the department. The department did not release it according to their excuse because it was election time, and I can understand that, but they needed time to draft it. So the department had control of the document over a period of time and when I asked for the release, it was released in April 2002, and it was out there in the public arena for people to have a look. If I wanted to hide something, would I put it out? No. But if I had put something because the law requires me to do so, would I put all this information in? No, I would try to cover it. I did not cover any information. What is there is what is reported. It was drafted by the department. It is what went out to the public.
But let’s go back to the plan. I tabled it in the parliament; I did not have to do it, but I did. The management plan has been developed for the reserve as a proposal of a plan of management which is a requirement of various reserves under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. As I said before, there is no statutory requirement for me to table a document for the Casuarina Coastal Reserve.
The plan is a clear statement of government’s intent in managing the reserve. Nobody denies there are problems with Casuarina Coastal Reserve. There have been problems for years now. The drunks did not just suddenly turn up on 19 August 2001. The people in the nude did not make start doing lewd acts suddenly on the 19 August 2001. People did not start writing things on toilet doors on 19 August 2001. People at Rocklands Drive have been sitting there for as long as I have been in Darwin, which is 10 years; probably not the same people but I have no problem if they were same people. I have seen them time after time, most of us have seen them time after time. People are sitting down in the centre of Darwin drinking and they did not start drinking there on 19 August 2001. But what we did is now face the problem and try to address it. What we did we said we identify there is a problem and we tried to address it.
Let’s go back and see what we tried to do with this management plan. We have set up a direction for management of the reserve over the next five to ten years and we focus on the management of natural values and cultural values, control of weeds, fire and feral animals, regulation of recreational and visitor use of the reserve, and the requirement for a site development plan to guide future development within the reserve over the life of the plan and involvement of the community in the management of the reserve.
The final Casuarina Coastal Reserve Management Plan was released on 15 August 2002 following an 18 month period of development. During the 18 month period of development there was repeated consultation with the public. I went to some of them; I attend some of them. People were there and they spoke in April 2001 about the very same issues the member for Macdonnell brought to the attention of the House today. People talked about the threatening behaviour of itinerants, people talked about drunks in the park, people talked about people on the nude beach, or the sand dunes around the nude beach, who were behaving in a lewd manner. In April 2001, this behaviour was there.
The department called for submissions. Eleven submissions were received after the public meeting in April. These submissions and all the issues raised at a public meeting were considered during preparation of the draft plan. Visitor surveys took place in the reserve in June 2001. Of 1800 vehicles, 900 people returned the questionnaire. These responses were taken into account.
During preparation of the plan, stakeholder groups were invited to provide representation. Discussions were held with groups such as the Casuarina Coastal Reserve Land Care Group and the Larrakia Nation. The Draft Management Plan was released for public comment in April 2002. It was publicised widely; it was distributed to different offices; it was available from the office of Parks and Wildlife; people knew about it. If I had something to hide, would I distribute it like that? I doubt that very much.
The plan addressed management issues that were identified during the public consultation process, such as itinerants and antisocial behaviour. I have been there myself. I have been there regularly. I am a patron of the Life Saving Club, and very often I go together with members of the club, cleaning the area and having a look at what is happening.
I have seen for myself a groups of people drinking and making a mess. I am also aware that members of the Larrakia Nation have gone there and have been very unimpressed with the condition of the reserve, and themselves exercised their cultural authority and asked people to leave; and they left. This is what I want to incorporate in the running of the reserve, that the Larrakia rangers will work together with our rangers, exercise their cultural authority to tell itinerants who come from other areas of the Territory either clean the area or not to make a mess.
Following the call for public comments, 28 submissions were received in regard to the Draft Management Plan. I had a number of people coming to my office. Their main concern was the dog exercise area. There was a small minority who came to me and expressed concern about lewd behaviour for the simple reason people did not cross the boundary of the nude beach, they did not want to go there, they did not care. A small minority of people went there and we have had complaints about some offences and we contacted the police or we contacted the rangers. Also, the rangers patrol the reserve regularly, and we have had cases where rangers moved some people and we have had instances where the rangers exceeded their authority and people complained to us about the way the rangers behaved. That happens sometimes. People actually misunderstand situations and they can overstep the boundary.
The Domestic Animal Regulations were of concern to the public. As I said before, many people were not happy with the new arrangements. They came to me and asked me to actually go back to the original plan. I consulted with my department. My department consulted with these people and they decided that when the final plan came out, they would reinstate the previous arrangements.
The plan for the first time provides for the establishment of a Community Advisory Committee to ensure there is continued input from the community to the Management Plan. We wanted people who actually live around Casuarina, people who visit Casuarina, people who have an interest in the reserve to actually form that committee to help the department run the reserve the best they can. These people will identify these issues, they will continue to identify these issues, and they will come to us and the department will respond. I give my promise that they will respond because these same people talk to me regularly. Or, even better, I go to them and speak with them regularly because nearly every weekend I am out there doorknocking. Many times, I get this first hand information from people living around Casuarina Reserve.
I know antisocial behaviour occurs. People talk about it. We know that itinerants are a complex issue, but it does not happen only in Casuarina; it happens around Darwin and it happens at Lameroo Beach. We have problems at Nightcliff Beach. Itinerants go there and sit around the barbeques and that is the reason why the government has allocated $0.5m this year to implement an Itinerant Strategy. Even better, ATSIC and the Larrakia Nation now are working together with the government to resolve some of these issues because the itinerant problem is not new; it is long standing. The member for MacDonnell comes from Alice Springs, and I bet that they have itinerant problems. I know they have because I have been there many times and I have seen it with my own eyes, and I am pretty sure that he is faced with the same problem in his own area in Central Australia.
Parks and Wildlife will continue to work with itinerant groups to address some of the present problems. We have changed the way we maintain the reserve, so we will remove certain areas of shrubbery so they cannot hide. We have regular patrols - we do not harass people, we tell them that they have to clear the area and they have to move their camp. A lot of these people listen and then move, other people can be recalcitrants, but we continue to disturb them so eventually they will move. But, as I said to you before, you did not resolve the antisocial behaviour and the itinerant problem by stomping on them and pushing them out all the time. We have to find real solutions. We can move them from Casuarina Reserve, they will go to Nightcliff. You move them from Nightcliff, they turn up somewhere in Leanyer and behind Shoal Bay. You go from there, they will go somewhere else, so you move the problem rather than resolving it. Our intention is to resolve it.
We did exactly what the Darwin City Council has just done - reduced the time of alcohol consumption that is permitted at the reserve. You can go to Nightcliff beach at the rocks and have a glass or wine or two at certain times, other times the council rangers might come and apprehend you and tell you that you cannot drink wine …
Dr Burns: We have our branch meetings there.
Mr VATSKALIS: That is right, and I have been there with many people, from both sides of politics - I have friends on both sides of politics - and we have a few drinks together. Sometimes we might be a bit early, or sometimes a bit late, but most of the time we are within the limits set by the Darwin City Council.
The department works very closely with the police and the night patrol, and I acknowledge that the police cannot be at Casuarina Coastal Reserve 24 hours a day, and certainly the night patrol cannot do that. However, we have a very good relationship with Casuarina Police, and also the night patrol, and we resolve most of these problems.
I also point out that we have resolved some of the problems of itinerants, and especially people who are abusing alcohol, by making sure now that people cannot buy alcohol by leaving their key cards with a particular supermarket, and then having money automatically withdrawn from their key cards. Something like that creates terrible problems in some of the areas in Casuarina. We have people even from Port Keats going there and they have their key card there. The supermarket buys the alcohol, and the proprietor has the key card and the pin number and withdrawing the money. This is just perpetuating this tragedy. We have people who were caught in that system living in Palmerston, having to catch a minibus to come to the supermarket to buy a packet of biscuits, at a significant cost to them, not only the packet of biscuits, but also the cost of the minibus. We have problems, we are not denying that, but we are trying to solve them and we will work very closely with the police and also with the night patrol.
The same thing applies to the nudist beach. It is a very popular place for many Territorians. Unfortunately, some idiots find it an ideal place to go and do what they want to do. We do not condone these actions, and certainly we have now worked closely with the police and will encourage the public to advise them to call the rangers to call the police. I will not condone this kind of behaviour in the reserve. I do not condone this kind of behaviour anywhere, but in the reserve it is under our control. We will take active measures to remove these people, to make sure people can go to the reserve safely. To increase safety, we have now modified footpaths, removed vegetation, and mowed the long grass so people can see a longer distance. We have made sure the parking areas are closer to the beach so people do not have to cross vegetated areas over long distances so people feel safe.
We developed alternate car parking facilities; put solar lighting in; conducted a safety audit; upgraded, sealed and realigned the single road leading to Rapid Creek; and upgraded beach access where appropriate, including disabled access. The plan will be publicly exhibited in the community and reserve users will be invited to comment. The community that uses the reserve will be part of the development of the reserve and we invite the community to have input into the reserve.
The management strategies will be continuously reviewed. Some of them might not work. We want to go back and have a look at them. We want to go and change them and, again, these changes will not be the work of a bureaucrat, but it will have to be the work of the community, to take the advice of the community.
In reality, I did not have to table the Casuarina Coastal Reserve Management Plan. I did not hide it, it has been out in the open since April 2002 for public comment. It was widely publicised. Obviously, the member for Macdonnell missed the advertisements because he would have an opportunity to look at them. He would then have been able to put some of the comments he brought to the House formally to the department. The department certainly would have considered his comments, as it has considered other comments. The truth of the matter is, we never tried to keep it secret. We did not table it here for the members to have a look for two minutes because, in reality, the draft management plan was out there for much, much longer and any member who wanted to have a look at the management plan had the opportunity to have a look and contribute to the management plan.
I will consider your points; I will take your points on board. I will bring them to the attention of the department and make sure that the department responds appropriately. Even if it is a bit late - it is October 2002 and it was put out for public comments in April 2002 - I welcome any comments from the public and members of this House on the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and, certainly, we will take them into account.
I thank the member for Macdonnell for taking the time to visit the toilets and speak to the people at Casuarina Coastal Reserve. I consider there are people who are living - well not living, but at least drinking - I have seen worse situations than this, where people actually have erected temporary shelters, have fires and they have eskies with food. These people said to me they are not in Casuarina Coastal Reserve now because they are continuously being moved on by the rangers. I thank the member very much for his comments, but once again, I assure the House that the Casuarina Coastal Reserve Management Plan was tabled for the information of the public and the House and, certainly, not to hide anything from a member of the public or the members of the House.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the minister, in his foreword, describes the Casuarina Coastal Reserve as a ‘rare park’. Indeed, in an Australian capital it would be a rare park. It would be very rare to find such green belts as extensive, and as varied as this, in any of our Australian capitals or larger towns. It is not rare in the NT, however. We have five significant parks in close proximity to Darwin, and I am in the happy position, as the member for Drysdale, of having all of them, with the exception of this one where it only part fits, in my electorate. Indeed, Holmes Jungle Nature Park, the Leanyer Recreation Park - which might be a surprise to the member for Wanguri - the Charles Darwin National Park, and Knuckeys Lagoon are all within the electorate of Drysdale. This particular park is partially in my electorate and, ironically, partially in the electorate of the minister. I would have thought this would have been something he would want to sing loud and long about, and make a great amount of noise about.
The Buffalo Creek management area is entirely within the Drysdale electorate, so I am very pleased to be able to speak on behalf of my electorate and constituents on this particular matter. I am very familiar with the park as nearly everyone in Darwin would be. Indeed, as has been pointed out by not only this management plan, but by the member for Macdonnell, this is the big one - this is the park that most Territorians visit. It is the park with the highest rate of visiting that enables a great variety of uses including water vehicles, some walking, and some cycling. There is a great natural endowment there and ample flora and fauna variation in this park area.
It is necessary to debate it in this parliament, minister, with due respect. To run the case that it was available prior to the election but sat on because of the election, I think you immediately contradicted that because then you went on to say: ‘But they needed time to draft it’. Now, it is one or the other: it was ready before the election or it was not. In the event that it was not ready before the election, I can see exactly why Parks and Wildlife could not have proceeded with the thing.
Now that it is available to us, this should be a document that is used. It is a document that sets out a number of significant concerns for the commission. Those elements of concern have not been addressed, and many of them are within the province of the minister because they relate to resources. They are issues entirely within the capabilities and capacity of the Parks and Wildlife people. They are issues that they are extremely adept at. However, in the absence of resources, it will always be problematic for them.
This government is very proud of this park, and as I said it is a potentially an icon for Darwin. It is already highly patronised. I live about 700 m from the Buffalo Creek management area – or a portion of it. It is an area that will provide ample open space for people for many years to come. But the previous government has often been pilloried for the things we did, did not do or did differently. But I am quite happy to talk about the things I was associated with. Certainly vector control, I was present when the then minister supervised some engineering works to get rid of some breeding habitats particularly for aedis vigilax which, as the minister would know, is a nasty mosquito beast that carries Ross River. We had done some works in the small creek near Tiwi, which is also in the minister’s electorate. When I lived in Tiwi, I experienced mosquito plagues the like of which I have never seen in Darwin, and in fact were much more dense than what is seen in Leanyer. So it is an issue of health for the minister to look at some of those vector control issues that are not talked about other than generally in this submission.
Recreational access, multi-user access, came out of the original plan that was done by the CLP. It was a vexed debate and quite contentious. It was dogs versus horses versus various other things. I remember in the 1970s, this beach was used by dune buggies and trail bikes and the like. It is a highly erodable area. The soils are very friable and the primary dune is the only protection for a significant stand of casuarinas and other floras that is there. The access now includes horses, equestrian people, people who take dogs there, fishermen, obviously bathers, it has a significant barbecue area, and a clubhouse, of which the minister tells us he is patron. It is an area, particularly when you get down to the suburb of Nightcliff, that provides a convenient transport route to the university and to the hospital for people who are inclined to ride. These are things that have been put in place.
The heritage site too, I recall in 1992 with the 50th anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin – there is significant signage placed there for people. The original access road dating back to the 1940s in fact traverses a part of my block in Leanyer. The barbecue infrastructure, including free barbecues, were put in by this government. The boat ramp to Buffalo Creek, even though it was Defence land, was put in by the previous government, and the toilets were done also. They were featured in election campaigns and other issues about putting a toilet there. At the time we were concerned because we did not have the managerial capacity to look after them because it was a matter we had to negotiate with Defence, and we had a problem with the vexed issue of itinerants using it as a habitat basically to live, eat and drink at.
Erosion control was put in by the previous government, some fencing, and significant planting. The beach accesses are much defined now. They have boardage to prevent erosion. Weed and fire control is also significant elements of this plan. The walkway, the small bridge across to Rapid Creek which is used by fishermen, people watching the sun go down, commuters to the university and the hospital, were also put in by this government. So this is not something that we were shy about. It is something we would have gone to the election quite willingly to talk about.
But, the problems were occurring and they were growing. And the management plan does point that out. This is the second management plan aimed to build on the achievements of the first plan, whilst addressing those management issues which remain or have arisen since. So some of these are emerging problems, and that is exactly why the previous member for Casuarina took it to his colleague, the minister for Parks and Wildlife, and said I would like it to address those issues. So don’t assume we were shy about this; this is something we would quite happily have paraded before the people before the election.
Those issues which have arisen, the complexity of domestic animal regulations, illegal camping, drunkenness and antisocial behaviour, traffic flow and access, visitor facilities, visitor information and it goes on with a number of others. Mosquito patrol, protection of fore dunes, but the rising number of itinerants using that area, the levels of drunkenness, the threats that have been exhibited to Commission staff are in this report. They are emerging issues and are not addressed in this report. It is a matter of resources; it is a matter for the minister to tell the people who use it that the resources will be sufficient for them to have amenity of this park which is their heritage and which is their right.
There was some jocularity attending upon my colleague’s discussion about having a look at the public toilets. Well, I can tell you a lot of people who go to these parks do take small children to public toilets and, indeed, I was in the habit when my children were small of accompanying them to the toilets because you never knew what you would find in the place. It is a matter of some concern that the government finds this a frivolous issue; the fact that in looking at the infrastructure and the resources at the park that my colleague happened to go to the public toilets. That is what they are there for; they are there for the public. They are there for small children, they are there for women and other people who might go singly or in groups to the beach.
If that is an issue that the government finds funny, I can understand why people who want to park there, who want to live there, who want to drink there, who believe that there is an issue of anarchy about this because, after all, what the heck about the laws and the regulations? They are of no consequence. The government does not really care, anyway, so why should we worry?
The issues about fixing the problem, really, if you look at this, what the minister is saying is: ‘We are going to put some signage up saying: “You might get stuff pinched out of your car”. We are going to get a few more patrols to go through the place. We are going to prohibit drinking hours down there’, and I would suggest that there are a number of statutes that already prohibit drinking in certain places there that is already taken place.
None of that is going to be done to fix this. The first issue is a resource issue and it is a resource issue that is well and truly the peoples’ due. There are 700 000 people visiting this reserve, and they are all in our electorates. In fact, they are predominantly in electorates of the members of government. It is something that should be taken back to them and said: ‘Look, we think it is so important, the obnoxious behaviour of many people who are drunk and camping in the rough down there, the behaviour of people who have dogs off leashes and the unfortunate combination often with equestrian people and dog people; these are matters that we will take into hand in a way that we will enforce regulations’. It is not just a matter of saying: ‘Educate, educate. Stick signs up saying that stuff is going to be pinched out of your car’.
Mr Bonson: Lock them all up.
Mr DUNHAM: You also need – well, lock up is what you say, maybe. What I am saying is that if you have laws, you should enforce them. If those laws are being flagrantly breached, you should do something about it. It is not a matter of saying that the Parks and Wildlife Commission has adequate resources because they do not. This report will tell you that and it will tell you that the resources are stretched.
I would also ask the minister to consider another matter that I suppose I probably should have done by submission but it has only come to me lately, and that is on the southern boundary of Royal Darwin Hospital there is a little finger of this reserve that comes out that is non-contiguous. It is broken by the access road into Royal Darwin Hospital. But it is an area that has been notorious from time to time for people camping there, swimming in the creek and playing cards and whatever. I would suggest that in a future plan or maybe some discussion should be entered into that that reserve should come under the by-laws of Royal Darwin Hospital because it is more likely that they will have the capacity to supervise, oversee and enforce regulations in that area than would the Parks and Wildlife Commission.
That is something that could be considered. I would entreat the minister to look at issues relating to his electorate, particularly vector control on that small sandy creek. It is a breeding site for mosquitoes that are carrying a number of diseases that are problematic in our society, and it is in close proximity to the hospital where they may also be having a blood feed off people who are carrying those diseases. So it is a series of coincidences next to suburbia that should be looked at.
While it is an easy thing to be off-hand about matters relating to the Free Beach, they are matters that do cause concern. Whilst I have never been a nude bather myself, I can understand that some people find this particular activity attractive. I would say - and I know anecdotally that many of our staff at the hospital have used this beach, including for that purpose, and I would hope that some duty of care would be provided by people who would look at some of the predators and other people who hang in the forest there and do something about moving them on. It is a difficult issue, obviously, because it might require unconventional vehicles like motorbikes and horses but it is something that has to be addressed. It comes out loud and clear in this report and is not something that should be buried.
On the issue of the appendix lists of the number of creatures that live at, or visit, the reserve, I notice in relation to some of these that there are some members of this parliament who could be well named in there, including a ruddy turnstone and a bar-tailed godwit, both of whom I think could be evident in some of the people opposite, including galahs and spangled drongos. There is even a tree martin that lives there, and the Attorney-General might be interested to know there is even a bilingual frog down there. The hump headed batfish is there, and a gobble-guts, along with grinners - so I am sure those members of the government who go down have been spotted by the various nature lovers and they have found their names in this appendix.
However, I do digress. This is a very serious issue. It is an issue where it effects the electorates of at least 10 of us in this room directly, in the case that we are either adjoining it, it is part of our electorate, or our constituents frequent this place. I would ask the minister to take the motion seriously and I strongly support the motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened with some heart to some of the things that the minister talked about. I am glad to see they have so many programs that they are working on to try to reduce some of the problems out there. The only problem I have, of course, is that much of what he has talked about does not appear in the management plan, and there should be references in the management plan. If the minister brings a management plan to the parliamentary Chamber, then the minister should make that a comprehensive plan.
I also pick up one other comment in relation to the matter, and that was the comment that the minister made about a safety audit. A safety audit on the timelines that he has provided in this management plan is going to take two years. What happens for the next two years in the reserve, let’s say if the audit is completed? I would hate to think that people were going to be exposed to drunkenness, lewd sexual behaviour, and theft and criminal damage in this particular park and I hope that the minister would seek to redress these problems more completely. It is for that reason I bought this amendment before the House to the original motion.
I think the matter has been fleshed out enough. I listened to the member for Drysdale; I am grateful for his contribution. I appreciate the minister is casting a wider net than he has provided for in the management plan. I hope the park continues to be something the residents of Darwin can enjoy safely, and I hope the residents of Darwin will continue to have long and complete use of this park in the future. So to that end, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the amendment be put.
Amendment negatived.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this then brings one of the anomalies of having a member of the opposition do a ministers’ job, because now I find myself in a situation I have because of the ridiculous way that this report is brought before this House. I find the ridiculous situation where I have moved that the Assembly take note of this report, when I clearly feel that there are shortcomings in this report. That is something that the minister is not prepared to deal with.
I place on the record now that I am not entirely happy with this report in its current structure. If the minister was to incorporate all of the things that he said here today into this report, then I would be a lot happier with it. I would be much more convinced that this was an appropriate plan of management in terms of safety management of the park. Consequently, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have to withdraw the motion.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Education and Health Expenditure - Concerns
Education and Health Expenditure - Concerns
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move - That this House express its concern at the deliberate misleading of Territorians about how much of their money will be spent by the government and, in particular, in such vital areas such as education and health and calls on the government to:
1. apologise to Territorians for spending at least $60 000 of taxpayers’ money on brochures,
advertisements etcetera, that do not paint the true picture about how much money is being
spent on such items as education and health;
2. acknowledge that the headline figures they have used are inflated by the use of book entries such
as depreciation and state taxes – for example $527m for health and $505m for education have been
inflated by more than $46m for depreciation and more than $18m in state taxes; and
3. commit to publishing along with future budgets a transparent set of figures and an easily understood
document that explains exactly to Territorians what the government will spend and on what.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as you and members are well aware, a large part of the Estimates Committee hearings was taken up with members on this side of the House trying to establish exactly how to compare the figures published in the budget papers for 2002-03 with the previous budget and mini-budget. We believe such a comparison is essential information if any Territorian is to understand what this government intends to do in 2002-03. If there is no point of reference, no understanding of what happened in 2001-02, then how do we know that the government is increasing spending or decreasing spending? How do Territorians know whether their government is misleading them or telling the truth? How do Territorians know how their money is being spent if they have no way to compare with how it was spent in the past?
We acknowledge that the change to accrual accounting has presented problems in providing this comparison but we also know that, when the Chief Minister saw fit, she was able to do it, as she explained herself during the Estimates Committee hearing and I quote:
- I did indicate that we would have two exceptions; that is, to provide in comparative cash figures. Looking at
these ministerial office expenditures was very important and we did those calculations and, as I said, the
other cash figures are being audited now.
There were other occasions when departmental officers had the opportunity to truthfully answer questions and provide the comparison figures. Otherwise, it was a continuous mantra of:
- The cash figures are not available. The cash figures are being audited and will be available in the
Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement and department annual reports.
This was despite the fact that Budget Paper No 3, at page v, said: ‘Actual results for 2001-02 are available on a cash basis’. This denial of the facts and figures was a deliberate attempt to mislead not only this parliament but also Territorians. It began, you will recall, with the examination of the Office of the Auditor-General. The Chief Minister told the Estimates Committee that the actual figures for 2001-02 were not available because they were not audited. The Chief Minister said, ‘They have not been fully checked by Treasury, they have not been audited, and they will be in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and that accounting will be as every previous year’.
Yesterday, the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s office financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2002 was deemed to be tabled in this Assembly. The figures have been independently audited by PKF Chartered Accountants and signed off by them and the Auditor-General. The figures are comparable to those presented in the previous budget and the sorts of figures that we were looking to get in answers in the Estimates Committee process. They are comparable to those presented in the previous budget and in the mini-budget and in the Auditor-General’s annual report for 2000-01. But the crucial point is that the sign off by the chartered accountants is addressed to both the Chief Minister and the Auditor-General and is dated 13 August 2002. Now, 13 August 2002 is seven days before the Chief Minister and Treasurer brought down her budget and more than a month before the Chief Minister sat before the Estimates Committee and told us that such figures were neither available nor audited. She either had these figures all along, or she has no idea what is going on in her own office. She either had these figures and deliberately chose to mislead the parliament or she was so intent on maintaining the faade of misleading Territorians that she had to ignore them.
You would recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you were there, the laborious process we went through to try to find out whether these figures were actually available as audited figures. It is quite instructive to look at the Hansard and reflect on that particular day, because the amazing thing was we had the Auditor-General himself, the brand new Auditor-General for the Northern Territory, in the chair, with the Chief Minister next to him, in an Estimates Committee process, trying to find out whether or not audited figures were available. I will simply just reflect, for members, part of that discourse.
Mr Reed was asking the Chief Minister about whether or not these cash figures were available and the Chief Minister replied, ‘They are not audited …’. This is referring to the Auditor-General’s office: ‘They are not audited and they will be in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report’.
Mr Reed: ‘But they are available? Your document here tells me they are available. The figures are
available. Yet you tell me you do not have them. Which answer is correct?’
Chief Minister: ‘No, they are not available’.
Mr Reed: ‘Oh. They are not available?’
Chief Minister: ‘They are not available’.
Mr Reed: ‘So this book is in error; this is a printing error?’
Chief Minister: ‘No, they are not available across government, they are not available across government
and they will be in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report’.
- Mr Reed: ‘Okay, next question. I ask the Chief Minister …’
and it goes on about if she would
‘ … explain to me what 2001-02 estimates while actual results for 2001-02 available on a cash basis actually
means, what does that mean?’
- Ms Martin: ‘Can I get you to repeat that question?’
Mr Reed: ‘Can I refer you to the book?’
Ms Martin: ‘Yes, no, no, go for it’.
Da de da. I think rather than reading it all, I will refer members to the debate of Tuesday, 17 September 2002, pages 52 and 53. It is in that debate that the Chief Minister consistently says to Mr Reed that audited figures for the Auditor-General’s department are not available. That is consistently said by the Chief Minister. Mr Reed continues to push the Chief Minister suggesting that they are available and in fact says to the Chief Minister that it appears that she is either misleading the House in her budget book or she is misleading the House in the answers that she is giving now. The Chairman himself interjects and says that is a very serious allegation coming from Mr Reed.
It is a very serious allegation indeed when you pick up the Auditor-General’s Office financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2002 and you find out that all of those figures not only were available on a cash basis, on a comparative basis as we were asking in the Estimates Committee, but those audited figures were available to the Chief Minister as early as 13 August 2002, at least one six-day sitting period before the Estimates Committee took place. I can tell you that on the face of that information, it appears prima facie that we have a case here where the Chief Minister has misled deliberately in the Estimates Committee by the fact that she was in possession of those audited documents.
So at some stage it was decided that Territorians were not to be given figures that would allow them to accurately compare the activities of 2002-03 with 2001-02. Why the government would want to practice such a deception escapes me, but the decision having been made, everyone had to stick to it, with the notable exceptions that I already mentioned.
The deeming of this report yesterday begs the question of how many other reports are waiting in the wings. How many other departments have the figures ready to be tabled in this parliament, and how many, in fact, had those figures audited and available to be presented to the Estimates Committee, but it was decided not to produce them, even though they were consistently asked? But more than that, not given the answer: ‘We have decided not to give them to you’, but deliberate and emphatic statements to say: ‘Those figures are not audited. Those figures are not available’. It appears to me to have been a deliberate campaign to mislead Territorians. It has been a deliberate campaign to spread the government story and to hell with the real information. How ironic that this has happened while the government is busy patting itself on the back for providing freedom of information legislation. One day, we will find out if the facts will ever match the rhetoric of this government. All this open, accountable and honest government really believes in, is its freedom to provide whatever information it wants to provide.
The Chief Minister and Treasurer made it quite clear at the Estimates Committee hearings that between the budget being brought down on 20 August 2002 and 17 September, in just four weeks, she spent $61 230 promoting her budget to Territorians. Those advertisements and brochures made headlines out of the figures her government was spending on health, education and law and order. I seek leave to table some examples of those advertisements that accounted for just part of that $61 230.
Leave granted.
Ms Martin: They were great ads. Let’s have them again.
Mr BURKE: Well, arrogance. Just keep it up, Chief Minister. One thing you have learnt is how to be arrogant in the chair.
The figures claimed were $527m on health, $505m on education and $142m on police. Now, not one of those figures accurately reflects how much this government is spending on those particular areas. It was made quite clear during the Estimates Committee hearings that these headline figures are made up of large amounts of book entries, money that these departments certainly do not have to spend on Territorians. The major offence is the inclusion of depreciation and amortisation in the figures. Whatever may be claimed about the need to put these figures in the books because of the accrual accounting system we have now adopted, it is no excuse for the government to use them to mislead Territorians. That $527m for Health and Community Services includes a figure …
Ms Martin: Of providing services to Territorians.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister says that $527m for Health and Community Services is the cost of providing health services to Territorians. Well, let’s see if Territorians agree with that at the end of the day because it includes a figure of $16.969m for depreciation and amortisation. It is nothing but a book entry; it is nothing but an accounting device. It will not pay for one pill, one nurse, or one doctor. It will not contribute one cent to ensuring the health of Territorians and it is certainly not the case, as these brochures and advertisements claim, and I quote from the brochures:
- This government has committed a record $527m to the Northern Territory Health and Community
Services budget.
That is plain wrong. It is a blatant con perpetrated on Territorians and, what is worse, Territorians have had to pay more than $60 000 for the privilege of being conned. An open, honest and accountable government would have told Territorians that the real figure for spending on their health is some $17m less than the $527m that they claim. But that is not all. The deception continues. The Department of Health and Community Services will also pay more than $4.5m in state taxes and fees – again, a book entry. The Treasurer says we will give you so much so that you can give it back to us. It is nothing but an accounting device and nothing to do with how much money will be spent on the health of Territorians. The reason given for including this book entry in the Health and Community Services budget, in fact, it is right across all government departments, is that these are all competitive neutrality reasons.
Who is the Department of Health and Community Services competing with in the Northern Territory, you might ask? The simple fact is, it does not compete, but the inclusion of a state taxes figure allows the government to further inflate its headline figure in its claims on how much it is spending. If you remove that figure and the depreciation figure, you end up with $502m for Health and Community Services. Is that then the amount that this government is spending on Health and Community Services? The parliament only appropriated $377.6m for the Department of Health and Community Services, but that includes the money to pay for those state taxes and fees. It would be nice if the government, in its open, honest and accountable way, would tell us exactly how much real money is going to be spent on the health of Territorians. It would be even nicer if they could tell Territorians the real figure instead of using taxpayers’ money to peddle some made-up headline figure.
The situation is repeated, but even more so with regard to the education of our children. This shameful deception is there again in the ads and brochures, which say:
- The increase sees education funding rise to $505m this financial year.
But let’s look at the figures. You need to take off $29.490m from the book entry of depreciation and amortisation because that will not be funding one pencil, one teacher and one brick for a new school. You then take off the $14m for state fees and taxes. You then take off the $18m for repairs and maintenance that has now been included to inflate the figure, but was not included in previous years, and what do you get left with? It is not $505m, but $443m, and how does that compare with the figure given at the Estimates Committee by officers of the Department of Employment, Education and Training who said that last year $442m was spent on that department. That was one of the few times we were able to get some real cash figures. Whatever the comparison, it was, and it is wrong, to spend $60 000 of taxpayers’ money to tell taxpayers that $505m will be spent on education. It is just plain wrong.
But there is more. These advertisements, these creatures of the great spin factory on the 5th floor, claim Education has increased by $14m to the mythical figure of $505m. In the budget detail, and of course we have to remember that the Chief Minister told us that these budget books provide all the information, all the details anyone would want to know about the budget. In the budget detail on page 65 of Budget Paper No 3, the policy initiatives are listed for the Department of Employment, Education and Training. So here we will find how the extra $14m will be spent. Unfortunately, the initiatives only add up to $9.64m, so I ask – where is the other $4m plus that has been lost to state taxes, or is it just part of the fibbing?
It is also worth noting that these fraudulent advertisements refer only to Education as being the recipient of the $505m, and even that is incorrect because, according to the budget books, $16.7m relates to outputs named ‘employment initiatives’, and outputs named ‘regulation of occupational health and safety’, and $57.8m is allocated to the output group, ‘vocational education and training services’.
On their own figures, Education receives a global figure of $430m, and that is a hell of a lot different from the $505m. It is not a figure that you will find in any one of the advertisements or the brochures. Not one cent has been spent by this government in telling Territorians this figure. They should apologise to Territorians for trying to con them; for wasting taxpayers’ money in perpetrating this con trick; and for failing once again in their core promise to Territorians to be an open, honest and accountable government.
Let us look at some of the other claims in this virago. I quote: ‘$432m for infrastructure investment’. That $432m is made up of $119m of repairs and maintenance which, according to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, is slightly less than last year.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, do we sleep in the Chamber nowadays, or not?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not believe anyone was asleep, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: I find it interesting that the Chief Minister has such a response to this motion and the comments therein, which I consider to be serious. I would have thought a Treasurer and Chief Minister who received an editorial that said: ‘You did not even understand your own budget’, would do a little more than laugh or pretend to sleep while this motion is being put forward. Rather than laugh, you want to get across your own budget, because that was one of the major problems in the Estimates Committee.
Some of the other claims: $432m for infrastructure investment. That $432m is made up of a $119m of repairs and maintenance which, according to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment is slightly less than last year. From that $119m, the fees paid by the Construction Division must be deducted and, according to at least the Department of Legislative Assembly, those fees are about 11%. So, presumably, $13m comes off the $119m cash to be spent on repairs and maintenance. We need to deduct that $13m from the $432m, which leaves $419m. The government says that $99m of the works program will not be carried out this financial year, but revoted until next financial year; so, that gets us down to $320m. Of that $320m for infrastructure development, $25m goes to ‘program delivery charges’; that is, one department paying the Construction Division its fee. That leaves $295m for infrastructure investment. Of course, we also need to take a further $9m off that, because that is where the monies paid this financial year was for various completed projects. So, the real infrastructure investment for 2002-03 is $286m. That is a long way removed from what these advertisements and brochures so proudly but falsely claim. In fact, these advertisements overstate the expenditure - the actual real cash that the government intends to spend on infrastructure investment - by some 33%.
Yet another claim is and I quote: ‘Reducing the cost of living’. Under that heading, it specifically mentions the freeze on power prices but makes no mention of the increase in water and sewerage charges which are subsidising that freeze. How a 7.5% increase in water and sewerage charges is not considered an increase in the cost of living, escapes me - it certainly would not escape the average Territorian. However, its omission from these advertisements and brochures is no mystery. It is just another example of how this government has wasted $60 000 of taxpayers’ money in its deliberate campaign to mislead Territorians.
I now move to paragraph (3) of my motion. It is very clear that not only do Territorians need a transparent set of figures and an easily understood document that explains to them exactly what the government will spend and on what, but the ministers themselves need that type of documentation as well. I return to the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Let me quote the minister from the Estimates Committee hearings. He was replying to a question about how the budget improvement cut affected his department budget and he said:
- The budget improvement measures are included in the Budget Paper No 3 for 2001-02 and 2002-03, so it
is difficult to quantify across all the separate areas of the agency - but it is $4.2m out of a total of $504.7m.
The minister is clearly saying that, out of his $505m budget, he is expecting to have to take about a $4m cut as part of the budget improvement measure. A few exchanges later, the Under Treasurer tells the Estimates Committee and I quote:
- The $505m of operating expenses is inclusive of the budget improvement measure, so it does not come out
of the $505m. The $505m is inclusive of the savings methods.
Clearly, we have a situation here, when it comes to understanding this so-called accrual accounting method, understanding the initiatives of this government, rather than ridiculing the opposition it would be helpful if the ministers themselves could answer the questions clearly and accurately.
Members would be well aware that this exchange was replicated right across a number of departments, as to whether the budget improvement cuts were part of their operating expenses or had already been taken out. The Under Treasurer is quite clear on how it works but the Minister for Employment, Education and Training had a contrary view and so do other departments he administers, if you look at the Hansard records. For example, the written answer from Police, Fire and Emergency Services says:
- The cash relating to the budget improvement cut has been included in the agency’s budget and it has been
applied to the bottom line of the agency’s budget for 2001-02 and 2002-03.
The written answer from DCIS states:
- The reductions imposed by the budget improvement cuts are reflected in the budget.
That is, the budget for 2001-02 and 2002-03 has been reduced by the effect of the cuts.
Many agencies did not even bother to answer this particular question, which simply asked, ‘Is the cash relating to the budget improvement cut included in the agency’s budget, and if so, how is it treated, in the 2001-02 2002-03 figures?’ The time constraints imposed by the government on the Estimates Committee hearings prevented those answers being tested, but if we had a clear set of figures that even ministers could understand, then perhaps there would not be this confusion. Certainly, there would be less room for the government to fudge and fuddle and fix the figures.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the government has mislead Territorians about its first budget, it has made Territorians pay for being misled, and it needs to get its act together so that in the future not only Territorians will be able to understand the Labor budget but so too will the Treasurer and her ministers. I commend the motion.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I find the motion a very bizarre one and I have found the Leader of the Opposition’s response adds even a more bizarre element to it, indeed. I do not think it has necessarily contributed to any level of discussion about the budget nor anything constructive. It is very disappointing. Here it is, general business day and a chance to actually look at what government is doing, or for the opposition to raise some useful issue, and this is more of the same of what we heard in Estimates. More of the same that reflects the chronic condition that we have from the Country Liberal Party, reflected after nearly 27 years in government, that budget books are not worth the paper they are written on and that you simply can not take them seriously.
Let me say that these budget books are to be taken seriously. The figures are put together, the whole framework is put together, under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, something we did not have before. We hear the squeaking from the member for Drysdale, who spent the entire Estimates Committee not looking at policy, not looking at funding of direction for Territorians, but trying to find typographical errors in the budget papers; and boy, was he happy when he did. Like a primary school kid, he said, ‘Wow! I’ve found a typographical error!’ Well done, member for Drysdale. In the transition school of life you have an A. Well done. In the transition school of life, but no more.
This is a very bizarre motion and the interesting thing is that had there been no election - because the whole basis of what we are hearing from the Leader of the Opposition is about accruals, it is about accruals that confused him, accruals that you cannot trust, accruals that are somehow deceiving Territorians. But if there had been no election last year or if there had been a different result, we would have still had a budget brought down in accrual terms exactly the same as we see now. That is the irony of it. A CLP Treasurer would have been telling this parliament what a wonderful thing this budget was, expressed in the new accrual format. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The commitment had been made to move towards accruals within that Working for Outcomes framework, and it was one that we embraced and won, and that the now opposition had also embraced, and the move had been happening. We had some parts of government that were already working in accruals. The Auditor-General’s Office had been producing reports in accrual accounting since, I think, 1996.
Instead, what we have today, is a somewhat desperate sounding Opposition Leader trying to turn back the clock. It was obvious that he never understood budgets when he was Chief Minister and he shows, over the last 15 or 20 minutes, no more understanding now. Desperate Denis, I think we can call him, believes that every other Australian jurisdiction is wrong to adopt accrual budgeting and reporting. That is your bottom line: they are wrong. Desperate Denis believes that the Australian Accounting Standards Board which called for accrual accounting for governments more than five years ago is also wrong. Desperate Denis, despite his mistrust of politicians last night when debating the FOI bill, believes that the CLP way of having Territory Treasurers determining accounting rules for budgets is best rather than abiding by external national accounting standards.
It is a serious issue. I might be making light of it here, but his is a reflection of the Country Liberal Party that believes it is okay, as we saw with the 2000-01 budget, to write the bottom line in the Treasurer’s office, in the Cabinet room. It is fine. It is absolutely fine to write the bottom line like that, and not by proper accounting standards.
Desperate Denis also believes that it is acceptable for the Northern Territory Auditor-General …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister may act in a childish, school-girly fashion, but there are procedures in this Chamber where you refer to members by their title or by their electorate.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been allowing a bit of latitude on this, Leader of the Opposition, in that she is not directing comments at you.
Ms MARTIN: I am sorry. I do apologise. The member for Brennan - I won’t call him Desperate Denis any more - believes that it is acceptable for the Northern Territory Auditor-General to be forced to issue a qualified audit report on the government’s finances each year because in the cash format they were in breach of the accounting profession’s accounting standards. By failing to adopt national accounting standards, the Opposition Leader as Chief Minister, presided over one of the biggest rorts and deliberate manipulations of budget data in 2000-01.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The word ‘rort’ is a connotation of illegal activity which has not been demonstrated in any way, shape or form against the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think it is a point of order, member for Drysdale.
Ms MARTIN: I will actually speak to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, because it is an interesting point.
Mr Dunham: We will talk about rorts. No rorts.
Ms MARTIN: It was not a technical rort because there was no law that was broken. There is now. But it was an absolute rort for Territorians, an absolute rort of this parliament and it was a deception of this parliament. That was when the CLP decided to bring a former off-budget entity, that is the Conditions of Service Trust, within the budget as it improved its budget bottom line by a cool $150m.
Then, of course, we all know about the black hole in the budget for 2001-02. They are still trying to reinvent on that side of the House that it did not happen at all. Well, it did. We saw what happened and we know what this government has done to make sure that never happens again. What we have seen, and what we saw through hour after hour of Estimates, is a pathetic attempt by the now opposition to somehow justify that they had not perpetrated a major deception on Territorians in their last budget, trying to pretend that every budget must be doing this, and spent - rather than useful hours in the Estimates Committee - all the time trying to prove that you could not trust budget papers, a real reflection of what their attitude was in the past, but not in these budget papers. I say again: a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act that will stop rorts going on and has been applauded across the country as us leading the way. And we are certainly very proud to be doing that.
It really does take extraordinary gall and hypocrisy to bring this motion to this House today. For the first time, this government has produced a set of budget papers that show Territorians the total cost of providing services. Sure, some of those costs are not reflected in the cash outlay in a particular year, but they are nevertheless real costs of running government and every other jurisdiction has recognised it. We lagged behind but we are there now, and so now we understand the real costs of providing services. The fact that the CLP deliberately avoided moving to accrual accounting for years actually mislead Territorians as to the real cost of service provision. That is why our unfunded employee entitlements were able to rise to such a disastrous level. Did we ever hear a CLP Treasurer actually tell us what those unfunded liabilities were, or ever have any kind of strategy in place to tackle them? No, no, no. Never went out and told the public that they were well over $1bn, now $1.4bn. Never told this, never said what kind of strategy was in place, just pretended it did not happen. How can you then say that we should not be talking honestly about the real cost to Territorians of the services provided? Unfunded employee liabilities - they are not a cost? They are not something we have to meet?
Mr Dunham: They are a contingent liability.
Ms MARTIN: Really, talk about head in the sand. That is why the capital works program was not clearly targeted as a proper and prudent asset management, but it was rather, as we saw from the CLP, a pork barrelling set of promises.
Depreciation is one way to attribute the cost of using assets to provide the services of government. Previous budgets in the Territory had no way of assessing the use or value of these assets, and therefore provided no focus on asset management. And yet, we had the Leader of the Opposition standing in here criticising that kind of approach, telling us we were trying to deceive by using that kind of approach. In fact, this approach, this move to accruals, actually shows in detail, which we have never had before, the actual cost of providing services, the cost of asset management. And, what we need to do is to manage our assets. You are trying to tell us that you can actually provide education without classrooms, without managing the refurbishment, the renewal of classes. Of course you cannot, don’t be so ridiculous.
I turn now to specific items in the motion. Paragraph 1, and we heard a very sanctimonious approach from the Leader of the Opposition, refers to the amount spent on advertising the budget. This amount is not significantly different in magnitude to what former governments have spent if you look at the money spent by the previous government in advertising their budget of deception in May/June 2001.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: The magnitude of deception in 2000-01. The gall to have a motion like this, the gall to have it when we know that hospitality for the previous government was not a problem. The former member for Karama could spend the equivalent amount we spent on advertising what was an excellent budget for Territorians, telling Territorians about the budget, could spend that on himself on long lunches and dinners in just a year. It is entirely appropriate that the actions of government policy decisions be transmitted to Territorians. I would certainly welcome any opposition suggestion as to how this can be done for free. It cannot. It is very important that government tell Territorians about the initiatives in the budget, the biggest expenditure in the year, the major focus of government, the direction of spending, and Territorians deserve to know, and I think $60 000 was a modest amount to spend.
The second paragraph of the motion, and I don’t know if it is the words that are out of order, but I think it is simply stupid and the Opposition Leader should know better. Perhaps, as he likes to see himself as such an expert, he might like to answer the following question. And I hope, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you give him some licence to answer. A question to the Opposition Leader: in recent CLP budgets were state taxes included in the expenditure of agencies or were they excluded? Does the Opposition Leader have a clue as to what the answer is? I can only assume that he does not, because if he understood CLP budgets, he would have known that the treatment of state taxes was conceptually no different in this budget than it was in theirs. For the information of the Opposition Leader, both the CLP and this government have included the costs of paying Territory taxes in the expenditure of agencies. The Opposition Leader went on and on about the deception being perpetrated, about including these taxes: ‘Did we want to have agencies like Health or Education being in a competitive environment? No, this was ridiculous’. And yet your own budgets did it, year after year - the cost of paying Territory taxes was included in the expenditure of agencies. It only highlights the desperate nature of this motion, that the Opposition Leader would try to paint as devious something that his own government practiced for years.
In case the very quiet Opposition Leader did not hear it the first time round: including depreciation in the cost of service delivery for government agencies is enhancing the information available to the public, not hiding it as we saw in budgets under the CLP. In providing information to Territorians, we stated accurately the headline costs of providing services in a number of key areas. We also stated clearly the amount of additional resources allocated to these vital areas of government expenditure, and we did it on an apples and apples basis. We did it transparently and we did it on an apples and apples basis …
Mr Dunham: Rubbish!
Ms MARTIN: The member for Drysdale can sit there saying ‘rubbish’ as many times as he likes, but that is the fact - that is the fact. Sadly, the member for Drysdale was so obsessed with finding the typographical errors in the budget papers that he could not look at the bigger picture, and he simply could not trust that these budget papers were telling Territorians about what expenditure there would be for this year.
That apples and apples was simply the reason we adjusted the numbers to take account of the fact that, from 2002-03, each agency’s repairs and maintenance expenditure would be recorded against the agency rather than with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. Essentially, the Commonwealth Grants Commission processes delivered an additional $76m in this financial year to the Territory’s coffers, over and above what we had been anticipating at the time of the mini-budget. That money was provided because the cost of providing services in the Territory, especially in the areas of health and education, had risen, largely due to the fact that other jurisdictions were also spending more in these areas lifting standards of service Australia-wide - which is the principle underpinning horizontal fiscal equalisation.
Quite legitimately, we utilised this extra funding to ensure that Territorians were able to get the services they deserve as citizens of the nation. In the priority areas they agreed, via the 2001 election, that they needed more funding. This really underpins the idiocy, the stupidity, of the opposition’s argument. You stood in this place, you put brochures in my letterbox saying things like: ‘Hey big spender, you have all this extra money’. We received $76m extra and that is terrific. It really recognises the additional cost of providing services in the Territory.
Then you spent hours and hours in the Estimates Committee, come in here and repeat the fraud by saying we did not get extra money and we are not spending it on Territorians. What do you think we did with it? We even had the absurdity of the former Treasurer, the member for Katherine, trying to pretend that we had found some hollow log to put it in. On one hand you tell us we have more dollars to spend - you tell Territorians in a brochure in every letterbox that I could be best described as ‘Hey big spender’ and then you spend the rest of the time …
Mr Burke: Therefore, why do you tax them so heavily if you have the extra money?
Ms MARTIN: No, no, don’t try to change what the fundamental argument is.
Mr Burke: Why don’t you lift the rego tax off them if you are such a big spender now? That was the thrust of it.
Ms MARTIN: No, no, don’t try to change the fundamental argument. On the one hand he says: ‘You have extra funds’. We had them in here quizzing us about what we were going to do with those extra funds, the $76.1m. He sent every letterbox in the Territory - or many letterboxes – saying: ‘They have all this extra money; they are going to spend it’, and then spends most of the time in Estimates trying to prove that somehow or other we are not spending that money. It is extraordinary when budget papers clearly articulate where the extra funding is going; when we show extra funding across those key areas; when we look at the extra funding going into capital works; how we are on target for our deficit reduction strategy; and accountably say where all those dollars have gone that we have an opposition wasting the time of the parliament, wasting the time of the Estimates Committee, trying to prove that that money is not there and, somehow or another, I have slipped it into some hollow log we are keeping for the future.
We have changed the rules of things like the Community Benefit Fund so you can not do the rorts that you guys did over the last few years. We have changed the rules. You kept your piggy-bank. You called it the Community Benefit Fund. But we do not. Those extra funds from the Commonwealth Grants Commission were spent on services for Territorians; on health, on education, on community safety and building our Territory, on infrastructure, from repairs and maintenance through to building, for example, new schools. Accountable, open, transparent, in a budget framework that is accrual and shows what the real cost of delivering those services are. So we have it right, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we have it right.
So I am proud to restate that the operating …
Mr Dunham: Rubbish, it is a fraud!
Ms MARTIN: Don’t you mention fraud.
Mr Dunham: Tell us again how much the Commonwealth gave.
Ms MARTIN: Don’t you mention fraud. The man who when his CEO of Health went to him as health minister and said, ‘They are fudging my budget bottom line, do something’, said, ‘I can’t even hear it. I can’t even hear it’.
I am proud to restate that the operating expenditure of Health was increased in this budget - you only found the typographicals, you did not find the rest of it, sadly – was increased by $20m; Education was up $14m; and that community, safety and justice was up $9.6m. The rest of the additional money was in the main allocated to increasing our capital works spending, in cash terms, and the largest cash expenditure we have seen to upgrade essential infrastructure and to assist in the process of economic recovery.
I started off describing this motion as bizarre and it still is bizarre, and what makes this motion even more bizarre is that virtually every business and community group has widely endorsed this first Labor budget. I am grateful to the many Territorians who approach me in the street, the groups I have spoken to, the people who say in the supermarket, ‘It’s fantastic’, who have really praised the budget. The only negative comments we have been able to find come from the opposition. The only negative comments. The opposition really is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. His deputy is desperately trying to find some handle upon which he can criticise this budget. He is desperate to find some kind of black hole in the same way his own budgets contained them. But he has failed.
As for paragraph (3), it is about time the Leader of the Opposition and his party moved with the times. Under his government, commentators like Access Economics placed the Territory last in terms of budget transparency. We have already moved up the list considerably with the mini-budget and Access Economics have flagged that the introduction of full accrual budgeting will increase our ranking even further. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that budget presentations, whether in cash or accrual terms, will never be easily comprehended by the novice. That is why we produced the budget overview, and it is a good document. The new book, Building Our Community, and the regional highlights, presented the budget data in ways that could be more readily understood by Territorians. We should again compare, when we have the opposition trying to pretend that somehow or other the previous budgets were more understandable; I mean, I stood in here year after year, and what you had in budgets was some line items, and no explanation of anything that seemed to be a variation. No explanations.
We would stand in here during the committee stage of the bill and say, ‘Can you explain the difference in this allocation; there is a difference of $5m?’ And we would have no idea from reading the budget papers what that difference was. Much of the time those questions would be simply about, ‘can you explain the difference’. You had ministers standing on that side of the House, saying, ‘You are really stupid. Don’t you understand there was a one-off this or a one-off that’. But the budget papers did not explain what those variations were. Compare them with our budget papers that do explain that. I do not know how much explaining you have to do, but we had the Opposition Leader saying: ‘Turn to page 65 of Budget Paper No 3 and you look at Employment, Education and Training policy initiatives for the budget. You said you put $14m extra into Education. Those only add up to $9.6m’.
It was not the whole list. They were some of the major policy initiatives. We would have had to have a book seriously thicker than that to have everything listed. What we did was give you the major highlights, explain where those extra funds were going and even then, you grizzled. Compared with your budget papers, this is a PhD! It explains where those dollars are going. It explains what the initiatives were and it explains the significant movements between 2001-02 and 2002-03. It explains that.
Compared with previous budgets this has detail. This has explanation and it is a much more open and accountable document, full of information. I know it is difficult. I know accruals are difficult. I do not pretend they are not. We are spending significant time training and working with agencies to make sure that the new processes of accrual are understood, and of course it will take time. To have the previous government spend their time in Estimates trying to disprove accrual accounting was an absurd exercise; it was a waste of what Estimates was about.
You resisted accruals but you knew you had to go to them. I think that, rolling on, you would have done accruals this year, or maybe you would have put it off for another year if you were still in government. But you knew it had to happen. You resisted. You were way behind the rest of Australia. We were rated so lowly in terms of our budget performance because we did not have a transparent budget process. We have moved there now. And like King Canute, the head is still in the sand, along with your mates. It is in the sand. And, we have to put up with silly motions like this in the parliament, and we had to put up with hour after hour after hour of Estimates Committee - 17 hours, and I was asked the most ridiculous, pointless and sometimes stupid questions!
Mr Baldwin: Only because you couldn’t answer the questions.
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: The questions mostly did not make sense.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as a final gesture on my behalf in reference to paragraph (3) of the motion, I refer you to the Budget Overview. It is a very simple format, very simple.
Mr Henderson: With pictures, just to help you.
Ms MARTIN: With pictures! Thank you, Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development. It actually explains what the budget does. So, if it is so confusing, then this will help you out. But your motion is ridiculous. In light of what I have said, I move that the motion be amended to reflect the following changes: replace all the words of the motion that follow after ‘deliberate misleading of Territorians’ with:
- … by successive CLP governments which failed to promptly introduce accrual reporting and budgeting in
line with national standards thereby deceiving Territorians as to the true cost of the delivery of government
services, and calls on government to:
for Outcomes Plan,
(2) subject to the economic and social conditions faced by Territorians continue the deficit
reduction strategy as announced by the government at the time of the mini-budget in
November 2001; and
(3) to continue to improve the budget documents and other reports of government and to inform
Territorians appropriately of major policy initiatives decided on their behalf.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if we have difficulty with the Chief Minister saying: ‘Look it is a cash accrual problem’, we should go to the figures where that has been factored out. One of these papers provides it for us. The Chief Minister happily gave us a paper signed off under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act saying: ‘This is the hunky-dory paper’. This paper is one where it compares year for year, totally devoid of anything to do with cash or accrual accounting, and that is at page 80 of Budget Paper No 2, Uniform Presentation, Northern Territory general government sector expenses by function: Health, estimate 2001-02, $432m; budget $427m, a cut of $5m. Now, that has nothing to do with accrual. It has nothing to do with cash. It is to do with a comparison. Now, when we asked the question it was flicked to the Under Treasurer, for obvious reasons, because the minister could not tell me why, when you had a health budget with every item going up, there should be a comparison like that that showed a $5m reduction. What I have done is, I have gone to ABS, because she said, well, these are very complex things, ABS do this stuff, and ABS has given me the subcategories for general purpose classification for health. There are not many of them here, and I would ask the minister to tell me, when she contributes to this debate, which one is going down by at least $5m.
The first category of Health is acute care institutions and that has some subcategories of psychiatric units, nursing home-type patients, other admitted patients, mental health institutions, nursing homes for the aged, community health services, public health services, pharmaceuticals, medical aids and appliances, health research, and health administration. I would have thought that somewhere in there somebody is missing out by $5m. Forget accrual and cash. In that classification, signed off by the Under Treasurer, Health has dropped $5m. It could be the hospitals, it could be acute care, could be mental health, could be nursing homes; I don’t know. I would just like to know which one it is, because on that particular paper I find it quite confusing. All the rest of them are trying to lead us to believe that Health has gone up from $447m last year to $527m this year; an increase of $80m. That is a significant amount of money and it still cannot be reconciled by the minister, by the Under Treasurer, or anybody else who gave evidence to the Estimates Committee.
Let us start with the easy one. The easy one is the statistical device to measure health effort in the Territory compared to every other state, and that statistical device has us losing $5m. There are not many items there. I am sure one of them, the minister would be able to tell us, is the person who is missing out by a big lump of money, probably $5m. That is one where we can take away all the mystique about accrual.
The other thing we need to do is find out how much was spent in the department last year. This is an enormously difficult amount of money to find and identify. The reason for it is that, for some reason, while the members on the government side were quite intense about tracking down $8m about this time last year, if I recall, they do not seem to exhibit the same degree of fervour in finding the missing millions this year.
So if a question was put to a department, and we did put this question, in fact, to the department, we asked if the data for the agency differed materially from that understood by your agency to properly reflect best estimates available to the agency at the time the budget papers were compiled. A twin of the question that was prepared for departments presenting to the Public Accounts Committee. Answer – no. So what we have been told by the department, or the minister, is that the budget papers will reflect accurately that which we provided to Treasury.
We had the former CEO of Health, Mr Bartholomew, tell us that he would achieve his budget target of $481m last year. Now, if we go to any of the documents that are here, you will see that that amount was significantly overshot no matter how you want to look at it. In a way we could be pleased about this, this is good government giving more money to health, great initiative. On the other hand it could be seen as a blithely ignorant minister, totally incapable of understanding that her budget had blown out by some millions. Certainly, by a significantly larger amount than that which my colleague, the member for Katherine, was accused of. We have asked for these numbers and they are purported to be coming.
But let us look at a couple of culprits for the end of financial year expenditure. It could well be $499m. That figure appears on a couple of documents, including this one here. If you go to this one here, the extra $20m comes from $507m, and $7m has been tucked into repairs and maintenance, so there is your $20m. What it is telling you is that they hit a final outcome target of $499m last year. That is a lot more than $481m. In fact, that $18m would seem to put Mr Reed’s alleged misdemeanour well and truly into the shade.
So, when the Chief Minister talks about fraud, the incapacity to trust budget documentation, how oblique our documents were compared to the great clarity of these documents here - they are falsehoods; they are untrue statements. What we have here is a series of numbers that show that the minister - despite twice being asked in this parliament and giving an assurance that she would come in on target - not being able to do so; and her CEO being told that the $481m represented best estimates and was overshot. We now have a parade of documents - a charade of documents rather - which would show us that that was patently untrue. The minister, in trying to reconcile it, told me that she got an extra $4.6m from Treasury. Surprisingly, Treasury gave me a document saying she had an extra $8.3m. So, we have some great difficulties in trying to reconcile these clear documents that have been given to us by the current Treasurer.
I do not really mind if, at the end of the day, it comes out that it was $499m that was spent in Health. I do not even mind if they are able to give us a series of items that show why that was overrun - not a problem. Because some of these things, as we have discussed - in fact, several previous CLP ministers gave evidence to the PAC that this was a very difficult thing to quantify, to manage and to sometimes bring in on target. That was seen as some sort of a quaint excuse, whereas at the moment, it would appear that we are not being able to get a close look at some $18m.
The Chief Minister also called on us to interject about taxes. ‘Come on, come on, tell us about state taxes’. Well, that is true. State taxes did appear; they did feature in last year’s budget. In fact, for this particular area they were $4.3m 2001-02 and they are $4.56m next year - line ball. What the Under Treasurer is saying is: ‘You are parading a myth out there by saying that these taxes are somehow some sort of a change in circumstances because they were there last year’. Yes, they were.
Let us look at some of the others. Let us look at repairs and maintenance. Repairs and maintenance in 2001-02 was $2.3m and for the current year is $9.7m. We can see there that some several millions of dollars that have gone into this area that were not there last year. Depreciation and amortisation has also gone up nearly $2m. There is $9.5m sitting there that used to be described thus last year and is now being described in a different way next year: total accrual basis on each end - this is her apples and apples discussion - and there is an additional $9.5m What some commentators would say is: ‘Well, that is a more accurate number. What we are doing is we are more accurately describing what those costs will be’. Perhaps. But the Leader of the Opposition’s point is still made. Notwithstanding you are more accurately describing them, that money is not available for services. That additional $9.5m in Health will not be available for services.
I ask that some efforts be made to reconcile some of these documents. It behoves the minister to commence her journey with a figure that we all know and love so well. That is the figure from the mini-budget of $481m. That $481m has somehow turned into $527m. Yet, in the descriptors, it talks about an additional $20m being provided for Health. So we are going to find somewhere in there that there are some numbers that need describing and they need describing in such a way as to give some confidence to people who would read these documents.
The documents are described by the Chief Minister as being fulsome, transparent, and able to be understood by anybody who read the budget overviews. That is patently not the case. These are obscure documents. They were meant to be obtuse and they are certainly opaque rather than transparent, and I believe that that is calculated. I believe that the thing that is being produced in parliament yesterday on behalf of the Auditor-General, where he produced his audited figures which have somehow been shelved for some significant amount of time, notwithstanding a legislative requirement that they are here within six days, puts a lie to some to the things that have been said about this budget.
While we are on lies, let’s talk about the lies in this thing. So out we go with a piece of paper to people in the community with lies in it. The difficulty I have with it is that ...
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, a point of order! The member is talking about publications put out from the government which would directly implicate, so they have been authorised by the minister, that the minister is lying. I challenge that he can only do that by way of substantive motion.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. When I have brought this to the attention of the minister she knew nothing about it so her authorship is obviously not readily apparent.
Madam SPEAKER: But what you have accused the minister of doing in the previous comment is lying, is that right?
Mr DUNHAM: No, I said that this document contains lies, Madam Speaker. I am not deflecting on anybody in this house.
Madam SPEAKER: You should rephrase it so it does not reflect upon the minister.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay. I am happy to read a quote here which is untrue. It is attributed to Paul Nieuwenhoven who is not a member of this House although he valiantly tried to be one. This quote says: ‘For the first time in a while we’ve had a real increase in health spending’, Paul Nieuwenhoven, Australian Nursing Federation. Now, I do not really mind that Paul Nieuwenhoven lies; I do not have a problem with that, I understand his job.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, point of order! That is deplorable.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I do not think we should reflect upon someone who has no right of reply within this parliament.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, I am quite aware of my parliamentary responsibilities and I am able in this House to call Paul Nieuwenhoven a liar, and I will do so.
Madam SPEAKER: You have to be very careful that you are in fact reflecting on a member of the public who does not have the right to come in and challenge that.
Mr DUNHAM: Not a problem, it has been done before. I have heard various debates about Mark Textor and other people in this parliament and I am merely saying …
Madam SPEAKER: I will just caution you that I believe it is inappropriate.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, it might be inappropriate. I can understand they are trying to defend someone who has close …
Madam SPEAKER: I am not trying to defend someone. I am saying that …
Mr DUNHAM: I am saying the government is.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, listen to me for a moment. Although you have the right of reply, and I have said this before, you also have a responsibility with it. To make comments about someone who is not a member of this House, who cannot come into this House and defend those remarks is, in my opinion, unparliamentary. You have to be very careful. I said it this morning when referring to questions about public servants. You are making comments about them that are reflective of their personal behaviour. I caution you about that.
Mr DUNHAM: It is definitely reflecting, Madam Speaker. Thank you for your opinion.
I will read for you, Madam Speaker, and for the benefit of Hansard, the actual expenditure in Health starting 1995-96. These documents are available publicly because they were provided to the Public Accounts Committee: 1995-96 - $331m; 1996-97 - $354m; 1997-98 - $396m; 1998-99 - $403m; 1999-2000 - $433m; and 2000-01 - $447m.
Everybody can see that there were increases and we can even go back further, but they were the documents that were provided to the PAC to demonstrate how each year there has been a real increase in this portfolio area. So when you read a document that quotes a person saying, ‘For the first time in a while we’ve had a real increase in Health spending’, I do take offence to that. I believe that that is not something that can be sustained by the facts. I believe to include it in here is obviously done by some sort of spin doctor who has access to this information or it has been done deliberately to give an authorship to this, a credibility statement to this, by somebody who is speaking something which is not true.
Dr Burns: Is it the whole sentence, though?
Mr DUNHAM: I am quoting from your document.
Dr Burns: No, is it the whole sentence?
Mr DUNHAM: I quote from Delivering Today, Investing for Tomorrow. There is a black box on an unpaginated page that says:
- For the first time in a while we’ve had a real increase in health spending – Paul Nieuwenhoven,
Australian Nursing Federation.
Mr Stirling: Your budget was erroneous.
Mr DUNHAM: It is true – that comment is erroneous. You have published, if you want to use legal terms – you have taken a quote, you have taken it far and wide knowing it to be wrong. Now, how would you know it is wrong? Well, there are a couple of ways. The first is we have had a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into this, and those figures are readily available. In fact, the figures I read out are figures that were provided by Paul Bartholomew on 29 November 2001 and they are figures that are available through Treasury. I assume they are figures that are available to the Health minister, so one would wonder why you would seek an endorsement which is so erroneous.
I am aware of my duties in this parliament. I have spoken before about people who defame others in this House. I do not believe I have defamed Mr Nieuwenhoven. I believe that if he wants to take this further and if he wants to demonstrate to me how there have been health cuts across those years, I would be happy to listen. But that is not the problem; Mr Nieuwenhoven has other barrows to push. The problem is that this fraud was promulgated to every household knowing it to be wrong, so we either have an ignorant bunch of people up there putting this thing together so that it can be deceptive to the people in the community or, alternatively, they knew that to be wrong and still included it. That is a big problem.
There are a couple of other endorsements. I have talked about a lady called Jane Alley, and she is talking about the same area, and I quote:
- This is a really positive budget for us. It shows real commitment by the NT government to reinvesting in
what was a previously neglected area. It not only gives increases in immediate terms for health, education,
employment and training, but a commitment to long-term reinvestment – Jane Alley, NT Council of Social
Services. ABC Radio. 20 August.
I have written to the minister about this and I hope in her contribution she can provide some answers because in these papers that were provided, the minister has said the provision of funds for disability will be about the same as last year. Now, if they are at about the same as last year, the submission from the same Jane Alley asking for 11% obviously has fallen on deaf ears, and I am surprised with that level of endorsement from this lady, when she is seeking 11% as a survival level of funding, that she would be so endorsing of a budget that is not increasing.
I would be interested to know, too, whether the budget figures which show a reduction in the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement, a reduction of $1.35m, I would want to know whether that is in fact correct because certainly I heard Amanda Vanstone on the radio use a totally different figure which showed an increase. These are significant numbers. They are millions of dollars. They are for services for disabilities and hospitals, and they are wrong. To make matters worse, they have been promulgated in an incorrect format with incorrect endorsements to the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I support the original motion and I think the Chief Minister should hang her head in shame.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): It is interesting, Madam Speaker, the ones that always protesth the loudest have seemingly the most to hide in these kinds of matters because we well know the lack of courage that the member for Drysdale and the former minister for Health showed in standing up for his department when it was quite clearly pointed out to him …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! While I would disagree with your ruling about my capacity to talk about people other than parliamentarians, there is now a parliamentarian reflecting on myself, and I believe that is out of order to reflect on my courage or otherwise, to use words like fraudulent and deceptive …
Members interjecting.
Dr Burns: Oh, precious dear.
Mr DUNHAM: And to be called a precious dear is something that would offend the Chief Minister, because that term of endearment from the member for Johnston indicates several things, but it probably indicates a little bit of sarcasm. I suggest that I be afforded some protection in this debate from people who would choose to impugn my good name.
Madam SPEAKER: I refer all members to Standing Order 62, which says that all personal reflections on members shall be deemed to be highly disorderly. That is the point the member for Drysdale is making. The remarks made by the Leader of Government Business are deemed to be offensive. I ask the Leader of Government Business to rephrase what he is saying and to not make personal, offensive remarks that would be deemed to be disorderly.
Mr STIRLING: Far be it from me, Madam Speaker, to be disorderly.
If I could go back to the transcript of the Public Accounts Committee in May 2002 and the committee has Mr Clarke before it. The Chairman says:
- If I could just start off with your written submission in that you detail a conversation that you had with the
Treasurer, Mr Reed. It occurred at the height of the budget finalisation process and basically, just
paraphrasing what Mr Reed has or what you have written there, in your written submission, you said that
in May 2001, Mr Reed, as Treasurer, became concerned about the lack of growth in the 2001-02 numbers
for health, education and police. Is that correct?
Mr Clarke: Lack of growth. He was concerned about the comparison between one year and the next. Yes,
I guess that is correct.
Mr Chairman: Yes, and subsequent to that meeting at Mr Reed’s direction, ultimately at his direction,
the estimated expenditure for the 2000-01 year for health, education and police, that were originally
circulated in May or March were reduced so that growth could be apparent.
Mr Clarke: So that growth could be apparent. I suppose that is technically correct, yes.
Mr Chairman: So I guess at the bottom of it, my question is, without Mr Reed’s intervention, would
those budget estimate figures have gone forward into the budget papers unchanged?
Mr Clarke: Yes they would have.
Mr Chairman: Okay, thanks, Mr Clarke. I’ve got a couple of questions following on from this about …
Dr Lim: Can I just follow on the question you just asked? Would a Treasurer always intervene on Treasury’s
figures, on any budget, in the sense that he gives directions to Treasury.
Mr Clark: Oh, no, no, no. I mean, this was a particular concern for him and this is what he said to me, ‘It was
a particular concern’. I interpreted it as being because it was an election year although he did not actually say
that, and we had the same issue in it for a number of years. I interpreted it as being because it was an election
year, although he didn’t actually say that’.
A member: That’s right. Fraud.
Mr DUNHAM: Keep going, oh, it gets better, keep it up. A point of order! That is not a demonstration of fraud, and that comment has been used outside this parliament and I think it is actionable.
Madam SPEAKER: Who made that comment?
Mr Henderson: I withdraw.
Mr STIRLING: I thank Dr Lim for his timely question. I will go on.
During the Estimates Committee sessions, questions have been raised about the financial impact on the budget of this transition from a cash accounting environment to this accrual accounting environment. The Leader of the Opposition now proposes, by way of a motion, to debate this out, and that is fine. Now the transition from cash to accrual accounting - and I am pleased that these matters are raised, and I think it is a great learning for all of us.
Mr Burke: The Chief Minister reckons it is a waste of time. Ah, so he gets the credit, good thank you, thank you, she reckons it is a waste of time.
Mr STIRLING: No, she knows all this because she is the Treasurer. I think it is good for all members to get a feel for this. You guys might have been on the path toward this, as was clearly indicated, but it is good for all members to understand what this fundamental change from cash to accrual actually means, because it involves a change in thinking by every user of the budget. With accrual accounting, it seeks to record absolutely everything: all the revenues, all the expense transactions that are required to provide the service; not just the cash that changes hands in any given process to deliver a service.
The Leader of the Opposition has a couple of issues, but he seems to have a fixation, in the first place, on the inclusion of depreciation expenses in the budget papers. What he has to bear in mind is that the inclusion serves to provide everyone with information about the extent to which fiscal resources themselves are either consumed, or worn down, or worn out in the process of the provision of services, and the likely impact that will have on future taxing and spending. Schools and training centres are used to provide services in education and the cost of consuming the asset needs to be measured to reflect the real cost - the bottom line, actual, real cost - to government of providing that service for employment and education and training.
It is notable that the opposition, when they were in government, chose to ignore the extent to which the Territory’s assets were being consumed and run down in providing services, so there was no basis upon which to plan for asset replacement. There was no basis. If you do not know what you are running down, if you do not how your asset base is being eroded, how much has depreciated in real terms, you can not plan for the future to replace it.
Police boats are a classic example because, if you go back - and I can remember a decade ago, the Salloo at Nhulunbuy was a large vessel. There have been large vessels in Darwin for police use over years, and boats right across locations in the Territory at government disposal. They were never on the books in terms of an asset and how much it was depreciating each year, thereby alerting government and the agency for the need to look to the future and say, in eight years time: ‘That boat is going to be beyond economic repair’, or, in five years time: ‘It would be economic to get rid of it and replace it’, and thereby preserve the government asset base and, of course, still have a police boat there.
I do not blame the government in the sense that 10 years ago accrual accounting was not being employed across all governments, but it does alert and put governments and business on notice that they are continually wearing down their assets. We got to the situation - I think it was pointed out by the executive officer of the Police Association just the other day on radio in relation to this question about boats where he said: ‘Well, the government came to us and said: “It is a boat or a plane. You can have a boat or a plane, but you cannot have both, so which do you want?” Of course, the decision by police management in the end - or the decision by government – was, in fact, to purchase the Pilatus plane for police use in the Top End. And so: no boat. If accrual accounting had been in the system those years ago, with a proper replacement plan against the gradual erosion of those assets, then government would not be caught out in any given period having to face major capital replacement to the tune of millions of dollars in relation to police boats.
But it is no different if it is a school building, or any other asset that government runs. The current policy for depreciation is for building assets to be depreciated over a period of 50 years. In the Territory environment, it is a reasonable estimate of the useful life of a school or a training centre. So DEET, with an asset base of some $1.5bn, at a depreciation rate of 2% - that is one year divided by 50, coming to 2% - derives a depreciation cost of $30m per annum. That expense is included in Budget Paper No 3, for both 2001-02 and 2002-03. It has not caused an artificial variation between the years because it is simply reflecting the true cost of providing the whole service.
In his motion, the Opposition Leader also suggests that the budgets, in the case of health and education, have been inflated by including state taxes as expenses – they have always been included. They have always been included in agencies’ budgets. Why is it that it is wrong for our budget to go in with state taxes in it when it has always been the case for previous governments, previous Treasurers and previous budgets? There has been no change in policy. The point raised seems to suggest a lack of understanding of just what expenses are in agencies’ budgets.
The Leader of the Opposition refers to state taxes as a book entry. Government agencies are required to pay payroll tax on the basis of proscribed rates contained in the Pay-roll Tax Act and that is 6.3% on proscribed areas of expenses, namely salaries and allowances, and it has been incorporated into every Territory budget since the introduction of the tax. On the matter of the format and the content of budget papers, the government has committed itself to a policy of openness and transparency. I can understand some criticism in and about the budget this year in terms of comparison because of this transitional phase to accrual accounting. You would expect those issues not to be there in future years as the need for having cash in there as you move completely to accrual, you have absolute transparency and a much fuller understanding. Everyone should have a much greater understanding and fuller understanding and appreciation of just everything that has been used in the process of delivering services.
The budget papers for 2002-03 in this transition phase to accrual accounting are a great first step and the same thing would have occurred if our predecessors had still been in government because the commitment to go to accrual accounting was there.
I would always argue for the greatest simplicity that you can possibly obtain in putting budget papers together. I am probably with the majority of people, figures do not come easily to me as an individual and I think there are many in that category – the more simple we can get the budget papers in a way that you can very readily compare year to year, the better off we will be. The 2002-03 budget papers have been a great start.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I support the original motion for a very good reason. The purpose of this parliament is to ensure that those whom we serve have a clear understanding of exactly what is going on and the role of opposition is to reverse the spin and perhaps we have a mechanism that reflects quite accurately and genuinely what is being put in place for Territorians. I understand it is the prerogative of those in government to do whatever they wish with regards to this, but ultimately there will be an election and our role on this side is to ensure that those who make these decisions, who are being served by this government, know exactly the true nature of things.
It did not take too long for the budget to be responded to. I heard my colleague, the member for Drysdale, speak of offence that was committed with regards to inflating the notion of the magnanimous contributions made by this wonderful government. It was the federal Minister for Education who very promptly responded to this grand announcement by identifying the magnitude of spin that had been applied to the announcement of the great contribution made by the Northern Territory government to primary and secondary education. It did not get by the federal minister. Money that has been contributed by the Federal Treasury to the students in the Northern Territory, we were led to believe by separating these figures that there had been an increase of 11.4%. It would have gone through if we did not have the federal minister and his department quickly spot that which we knew to be the case: that repairs and maintenance had been included in the whole package unfairly and dishonestly distorts the process. So you have a figure of 11.4% presented as being the increase when in fact if you compare apples with apples, remove the repairs and maintenance contribution which was not there in the previous budget, the real amount is perhaps not as spectacular. But nonetheless, it is an increase, but it is an honest increase that is reflected of 5.6%.
It is just a simple matter. It is just a few percentage points, but it goes to the very heart of what this issue is about. You can apply spin. You can make yourself look good, but the fact is you have to be honest at the same time and you have to be able to report accurately the actual nature of the case.
Mr Stirling: The schools are happy with their increase, Terry.
Ms Martin: Yes, school supplies, 22% increase.
Mr MILLS: In the case of those comments that have just been made, you will not find my comments detracting from that point of view. I acknowledge that the schools appreciate the additional support that they have received. That is not the issue here. The issue here is $60 000 of taxpayers’ money being spent to promote a distortion of reality and to paint the current government in the best possible light. I find that offensive, too, in the sense that the paper on good government and fair and honest and open government is compromised by the very reality of $505m that Territorians have been told that has been given to Education. Well, it has not been given to Education – there was an amalgamation of agencies: employment, education and training.
I know Territorians are busy with their lives. It is difficult sometimes for them to get their mind around the complexity of budgetary matters. The fact is that even those in government found it incredibly difficult. We found it taxing, too. The reality is those whom we serve are dependent and need to excise an element of trust in understanding what decisions are being made for them. You can throw smoke screens, smoke grenades and to try to shield this whole strategy, but the reality is of the first smoke screen that is thrown up: ‘Oh, you do not understand accrual accounting. That is really what this is all about; it is accrual accounting’. You can toss that phrase around all you like, but the fact is that has given a very genuine distortion to the representation of this budget.
But I notice that $60 000 good, honest money goes into making sure that that smoke screen is well and truly alive and anyone who attacks it is accused of not understanding accrual accounting – as though many of those on the other side there really do understand it! I tell you what: the issue here is what is being done in Employment, Education and Training? The average Territorian thinks: ‘My goodness! That is fantastic! $505m is being spent on education. That is a significant increase’. Well, it is not just education. It is a bit of a complexity there that might escape the casual observer. It is not all in the one place. It is spread over a number of agencies. They do not let the facts get in the way of a good story. The good story is that we all know that education is the highest agenda item when you do public polling. These days education is rising right up the list. Everyone is concerned and interested in education, so being aware of that, you pump out the story that there is $505m for education. I am sure that those who think their best interests are being served would accept that, and think that is good.
Well, that is not quite the accurate story. This original motion actually addresses that very important issue. To change the motion to suit yourself further emphasises the very spirit of this. Once again, I really believe that Territorians are being given a disservice by this whole exercise. It is our role in opposition to play an honest game and to ensure that the fact is presented. For any one who is interested, they will be able to read the Hansard and get a fair idea of this.
Another issue that needs to be attended to - in fact, I have been going through some of the past reviews that have been conducted in education, and another one just arrived then. They will make good reading. The first one I opened up said, ‘We must do more than talk’. We must conduct a review with the clear, confident purpose that you are going to do something with that review. I have been in the business of dealing with people, and I know how you can get short term gain by saying things like, ‘We are going to have a serious look at this’. And everyone says, ‘That’s fantastic, we are going to have a serious look at that’. Well, that is only a short term gain, because the expectation then notches up, and in that flurry of initial rush of excitement that something is going to happen, you may fail to notice that the party goes a bit flat after a while because nothing actually does happen. Or, some time later something occurs but it does not quite match the original euphoria. There have been a number of reviews conducted, and reviews are to be conducted. Granted, in all the excitement of coming into government, almost every active agency within Education seems to be under review. I found one, during Estimates, that was not under review, and it seemed to me remarkable that this area is not currently under review. There was a rider, if you read the Hansard, it said, ‘yet’, and that was school sports.
Now, with the issue of reviews, being so many of them, once again, this is the same sort of thing. It is like the sense that something is happening. Coming down to a comment that was made earlier in this debate with regards to the review in secondary education, that creates the impression, fairly, that secondary education is important. It is in need of review, we need to get lots of information, and then opposition comments will say, you know, just hang on, let us just be careful, we are messing around with people here. When we look at the school based constable review, we find that that has been going on for an inordinate amount of time, and still there is no result.
Secondly, we find that SHAPES - sport, health and physical education - has been under review and it concluded, I believe, in April, and still there is no outcome on that. The minister says it is quite cute to compare that sort of review with the great review that is going to take until 2004 with secondary education, as well, it probably should. However, when you have a track record already of 12 months of review, there is a sense of activity, and people are going about their busy lives saying, ‘Actually, what did happen with that review?’ People start to ask these questions. They start to find that their confidence is reduced in the whole exercise. That is one thing I, and members on both sides, need to fight against, that the people feel that they are actually being served and not being conned. So, you can see why there would be an undermining of confidence in the review process, because it is more than talk, it is action.
Why do I go down this line with regards to this motion? It is for this reason: the NTU. Going through estimates, and this is all to do with spin once again, promises were made of $7m to the Northern Territory University in recognition for the fine contribution they make to the Territory, etc, etc. You know all the rhetoric, all the sort of stuff that has been spoken. The trouble is it has been spoken a bit too much. We had speeches given at graduation ceremonies by the Chief Minister that fell a bit flat, I would have to say, with the same sort of talk many months ago about the great partnership arrangements that will be forged between the Territory government and the Northern Territory University. Fantastic words, but after a while, they start to fall a bit flat. When we had the investigation of the estimates we find that there is $5m that has been given to the Northern Territory University. On closer inspection, we find that that is $5m which is an ongoing amount which was committed previously. The $7m, it is recognised in Hansard from the Estimates Committee, is actually a completely different amount, and it still has not been activated and is still not included in the budget, because we are still waiting to forge this great partnership between the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory University, modelled on the Tasmanian experience.
Mr Stirling: It is coming together.
Mr MILLS: Well, that is fantastic. However, we still have talk but we do not have the action to match it up. The election date will be coming and I reckon some chickens are going to come home to roost when the party will be over and people will feel that that was actually a bit of a let-down in fact. Notwithstanding that there has been a certain contribution made to educate - and I will never walk away from that - but what I am concerned about, as I referred to right at the outset, is the spin aspect of this; the dishonesty of this - the spending of $60 000 to go that extra step to put it into people’s letterboxes and to pump it up for all it is worth. That I find offensive, and I think we do our fair duty to make sure that that issue is clearly addressed. I support the original motion.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak in support of the Chief Minister’s amended motion. First, I would like to say that I believe that the Chief Minister and Treasurer and the Deputy Chief Minister have already very satisfactorily explained the budget, both here today, when the budget was brought down, and during the estimates process.
As the Treasurer has said tonight, the motion brought by the Leader of the Opposition is, indeed, a bizarre motion. It seems that no matter how many times the members opposite ask and are told the message, it never seems to sink in. I understand it is hard for members opposite to face the fact that this government is spending a record amount on Health and Community Services. Let me repeat – a record amount in Health and Community Services.
As the Treasurer has pointed out, Health and Community Services received an increase in its budget of $20m. It is pointed out in the budget papers and in numerous estimates documents, that Health and Community Services budget for 2002-03 is $527m. What these figures represent and what is for members opposite to accept is that this government has a real commitment to improving the health of Territorians. There has been an increase in the Health and Community Services budget. Once again, the 2002-03 budget provided a record $527m. This was an increase of $20m over the last year, and an increase of 4% over last year’s budget. It was with pride that I was able to announce this increase in August this year. I responded to the member for Drysdale during the estimates process about this one particular issue.
I repeat that the motion brought by the Leader of the Opposition is bizarre. It shows that the members opposite do not actually understand the basis of budgets in the accrual format, and how meaningless it is to try to convert it to the cash, which they are asking for.
The member for Drysdale, when he was speaking earlier, raised a number of matters in his speech. I have to say that each one of the matters that he raised was actually answered in the Estimates Committee - each one of those questions were answered either by me, the CEO or by the Under Treasurer. So, I refer him to those answers. He also refers to the fact that he wrote to me on 25 September about disability funding. I have already responded to the member for Drysdale and I will read the answer:
Dear Mr Dunham
I am writing in response to your correspondence dated 25 September concerning funding for disability
services. The Northern Territory and other states and territories have not signed the CSTDA because
the Commonwealth offer of $125m nationally over five years is grossly insufficient. The offer is
approximately half the previous Commonwealth offer under the CSTDA 2. The Northern Territory
government will be committing …
Mr Henderson: What is Tollner doing about it?
Mrs AAGAARD: I do not believe the member for Solomon is doing anything at this stage.
- The Northern Territory government will be committing to the third CSTDA by way of indexation, unmet
need and growth funding, and I have formally advised the federal Minister for Family and Community
Services, Hon Senator Vanstone, of our contribution.
I will now address the specific matters you have raised. There will be a significant increase in disability funding in 2002-03 in the vicinity of $850 000 in growth funding and ongoing commitment to the $1.2m unmet need funding. Further, disability providers will be recipients of a proportion of the $6m funding increase in the budget for the non-government sector.
Commonwealth funding in its entirety, including bilateral agreements, has yet to be included in these figures, therefore it appears as a decrease in funding in Budget Paper No 3. Based on national figures provided to the department by the Commonwealth, I was operating under the assumption that the offer for the Northern Territory was an amount of $125 000 per year, or $625 000 over five years. This was clearly not the case as articulated by Senator Vanstone in her ABC radio interview on 13 September 2002. In this interview, Senator Vanstone stated that the Northern Territory offer equates to a mere $181 000 of growth funding in the first year with additional growth funding in subsequent years of around $60 000 per year totalling $423 000 over five years.
This is unacceptable and even less than the standard proportional funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory of 0.5%. All state and territory ministers are urgently seeking a meeting with Senator Vanstone this month to work through the anomalies in CSTDA 3 and I am hopeful that these discussion will result in a realistic offer from the Commonwealth. In the interests of people with disabilities in the Northern Territory, I would encourage you to lobby Senator Vanstone to meet with the ministers to resolve this situation. Ministers from states and territories have agreed to meet on 18 October 2002; at this stage we have had no commitment from Senator Vanstone and I encourage the opposition, and particularly the member for Drysdale, instead of criticising the government to actually get in there and work with his federal colleagues to try to solve this situation so that Territorians with disabilities can actually receive a realistic funding arrangement for the next five years.
Madam Speaker, words will not fix peoples’ health; resources will. And that is what we are actually providing in this budget. For 27 years of CLP government we have witnessed progressive decline in the health of indigenous Territorians. This government is determined to halt that decline and improve in real ways the range of services offered not only to indigenous Territorians but all Territorians.
We have just come through an exhaustive Estimates Committee process. The Treasurer spent 14 hours before the committee. Ministers provided endless amounts of statistical and financial information; senior members of the public service were made available. This Labor government has absolutely nothing to hide. But still the message has not got through. Madam Speaker, when they ran out of time because of their own arrangements of time, we provided them with all the documents so that they could take them away and pore over them in their own leisure time. Yet only yesterday we had the Opposition Leader putting up this motion which clearly shows that no matter how much information we provide them with, they are simply not able to comprehend the information.
If the opposition cannot grasp the fact that we have allocated more money in this year’s budget then let them try and grasp this: We have allocated $3m for a new stand alone hospice at the Royal Darwin Hospital; we have provided an addition $6m in funding for NGOs; we have provided $500 000 for extra family and children services; we have also provided money for additional nurses and for child health teams; the list goes on. We have also set aside money to implement the findings of illicit drugs task force, and there is more. There is more money for hospitals, more money for primary health care, there is more money for community services, for ambulances, for public health interventions. There is simply more money, in fact, $20m more.
It is deliberately mischievous of the opposition to claim that this government has not committed additional funds to health and community services. Let me again remind the members opposite, this is an open and transparent budget. It does not get simpler than this. Let me also remind the House that only yesterday in this House, freedom of information laws were passed and it is a scandal that we were the last jurisdiction in Australia to have these laws. This is the government that introduced a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act which has set new high standards in the presentation of budget information in the Territory.
It is time for the opposition to move on. August was the budget; September was the estimates; we are now in October. What are we going to have in November? How long will it take for the opposition to grasp the fact that we have increased spending in the budget? In fact, we are already spending the money.
The opposition has tried for three consecutive months to undermine the budget and mislead Territorians about what is happening in health and community services. It has not worked; it will not. It is time to move on.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the opposition’s original motion. I am concerned that taxpayers’ money has been used to deliberately mislead Territorians over how much money the government is going to spend, particularly in the area of health. During the budget process we have learnt more about accrual accounting. With regard to the pamphlet that was sent around the community about your budget, you have used the term ‘record $527m in health’, but of course this includes, for example, depreciation. Money that does not actually exist and money which will not actually be spent.
We have had the comment from Paul Nieuwenhoven that for the first time in a while we have had a real increase in health spending. As you know, the shadow minister for health a few moments ago went through the amounts of money that have gone into health over the years and for the five years that he gave every single year under the CLP government there was a significant increase in the budget being spent on health. So for no moment was Paul Nieuwenhoven’s comment accurate because under the CLP government, just as you have, there has been an increase in health. My concern is, however, that the amount of money that you are claiming as a record amount is not accurate because you have not removed from that figure depreciation of assets because those sort of funds cannot be spent per se on health.
You made big in your election promises. Your promise to increase nursing numbers by 75 during your term in government, and as you know from my previous comments in this House, I have a real concern about your ability to deliver on that promise and I will pursue it during your term. You have mentioned it again in this flier, and I quote:
- … funding for an additional 75 nurses over the term of the government
As we know, nursing in Australia is in a crisis as far as the provision of nursing numbers goes and I will argue that it is also in crisis here in the Northern Territory. There is an article in this month’s Australian Nursing Journal, a publication of the Nursing Federation of Australia, that if nothing is done to recruit more people into nursing courses or to retain nurses already in the system, by 2006 - only four years from now - we will be facing a nursing shortage in Australia of around 31 000.
So, minister, obviously we have a major problem with the provision of nursing services here in the Northern Territory and also in the rest of the country. It is really a vicious cycle, and I know that from my friends who are nurses. The problem is, of course, that when you do your nurse training, your nurse education, you learn how to provide a good service. When the reality hits of what is actually happening on the wards, you are not able to provide the standard of care that is required and that creates a great deal of stress amongst the nurses who work there. The expectations and the workloads are horrific, and they are deteriorating every day.
I believe that your election promise to provide 75 extra nurses, and once again promised here and highlighted in your budget document, that you have tapped into that concern of nurses by highlighting it, but I do not believe that you can deliver on that promise and I do not believe your budget and this pamphlet are going to reflect the reality that is required. I really think it is unfair because you are making promises that you cannot keep. You claimed in a media release on 21 August that you will boost nursing levels here in the Northern Territory and employ these extra 75 nurses during your term as stated on the flier.
Through the estimates process, by looking into the figures that were provided - and once again, I thank you for those figures and the department for doing that - they really just reinforced the problems that we are facing here in the Northern Territory. These happy photos that are on this flier, the $60 000 flier that went out, I would argue are not actually reality of the people on it which could well be nurses.
When you make the promise of 75 extra nurses, it implies that these extra nurses are going to work in the work places so that work loads will decrease. That is why nurses would have voted Labor, thinking, ‘Yippee! We are going to have somebody coming in here to attack the nursing shortage and to really reduce our workloads by providing these extra nurses’. What we found out through the estimates process was that is not accurate, and that in fact the extra nurses are going to go into places where there has been, and I quote ‘a growth in demand’. It appears that during the year 2001-02 only two new clinical nursing positions were created. This is disappointing. The Labor promise of extra nurses would have been interpreted by many nurses as meaning their current heavy workload would decrease. Instead, it appears that the extra nurses will be placed so as to provide extra services.
One way that shifts are covered at the moment is through double shifts. From budget information we were provided with by the minister, we can see that a significant number of double shifts were worked by nurses at Royal Darwin Hospital, for example, last year. It appears that over the 12 months the occurrence of double shifts is trending up. This is a concern with regard to fatigue which can lead to errors and illness. As conditions deteriorate, sick leave, of course, amongst staff, claims for sick leave and claims for worker’s compensation will tend to increase. From the budget estimates process I am advised that mental disorders - and I assume that probably means stress - as a valid claim for worker’s compensation make up almost 25% of successful claims by nurses working in Health and Community Services, and mental disorders are the second highest form of worker’s compensation occurring after sprains, strains, etc. The health of the staff, and obviously the stress they are suffering at the moment is a very serious matter.
From what I learnt during the budget process, sick leave is also trending up at Royal Darwin Hospital. In January of this year, the rate of sick leave was 5%. It has now gone to 7% of nursing staff rostered on shifts in June 2002. We can see that the stress, and the workloads, are starting to have a real impact on the staff in the hospitals in the Northern Territory. Also, one of the causes of sick leave is fatigue, and this is caused by having to work great lengths of time and the shifts that people are working. The use of overtime is also trending upwards at Royal Darwin Hospital with 1245 hours worked in July 2001 now gone up to 2680 one year later. That is a significant increase in the amount of overtime being worked by nurses at Royal Darwin Hospital. The picture is not good, and it is certainly not being reflected in documents like these that have been sent out.
There has also been an increase in double shifts. The concept of double shifts is a real concern to me. This is where somebody obviously works one shift and then due to shortage of staff in the following shift they are asked to stay onboard and work an extra shift. From the information I was provided during the estimates process, there appears to be a reduction in the use of agency nurses and an increase in the use of double shifts. For example, in July 2001, there were 86 double shifts worked, while in June 2002, a year later, there were 137 double shifts worked. So there is a pattern there of increased work load for the nurses who are already there working in the hospitals.
I believe a number of measures should be taken to address this staffing problem. Of course, one of them is to do all the very most that can be done to retain the staff that you already have. However, these problems are not getting any better and it appears that the retention of staff is deteriorating quite markedly. As I mentioned earlier, the unhappiness of nurses is increasing rather than decreasing, and the fact that these budget promises are coming through is not going to do anything to help because the actual nurses who are already working on the wards are not going to get extra staff to reduce their workloads in that regard.
Now, you market your budget to make nurses think that help is going to arrive at any minute, but of course it will not. Your promises raise hope. The budget totals you market are inflated by including such things as depreciation of assets. By claiming that Health will receive $527m as a record implies to nurses that an additional 75 nurses will arrive shortly. They will not be coming in to actually reduce workloads. They are going to go into staff new areas, such as, I would suggest, the new A&E, the Oncology Unit and the Hospice, whereas it has been marketed to imply that workloads will actually reduce. That is the devil in the detail. There will be no reduction in workloads, turnover will remain high, and sick leave will remain high. Nurses should not be duped by the clever manipulation of figures and the provision of information in that manner.
Therefore I do support the original motion of the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that you should apologise to Territorians for spending about $60 000 on advertisements such as this which do not paint the true picture; that you should acknowledge that the headlines figures have been used to inflate, by the use of book entries such as depreciation; and that you should commit to publishing along with future budgets, a transparent set of figures that can be easily understood so that Territory nurses can gain a real understanding of the truth.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for quite some time this evening, and tossing up about what has been said. I must admit I will not support the motion, except for paragraph (3). I put it in simple terms, that when you …
Ms Martin: Budget for dummies.
Mr WOOD: I will not be supporting the amendment either.
If you look at paragraph (2), we are talking about book entries being inflated by depreciation and state taxes; and for sure they are. When I worked on the Litchfield Shire Council which had accrual accounting one always expected that to be in the figures; that was par for the course. I do accept that maybe the government could have said how that figure was higher than last year, but at least it did not put that figure in.
Ms Martin: We did.
Mr WOOD: I am sorry, I am using this paper as reference, this one here. In the previous year, for instance, Health was $499m compared to $527m this year. The statement by the government said that that went up by $20m. When you look at the budget papers, it actually says it went up by $27m, and that $7m of that was transferred from other agencies.
With Education, it went up from $472m to $505m, which is a difference of $32.6m. Transferred from the agencies was $18.7m, which left you $14m; which is in the statement there. The police went from $131m to $142m. That was an increase of $10.48m. Transfers of agencies is around the $2.6m, which left you roughly $8m; that is what was mentioned in the paper. Notwithstanding, one could argue whether for the extra teachers, police and nurses, the money is solving that problem or not. I am talking to paragraph (2) as it stands. There may certainly be arguments as to whether the extra money for nurses, teachers, or police is actually making a difference; but that is another argument. The debate tonight is over whether those figures were misleading.
My understanding of the manner in which the extra money was worked out - that is, the $20m, the $14m and the $8m, on the health, education and police departments - was based on a figure that was also inclusive of depreciation and taxes …
Mr Burke: And carry overs, lots of carry overs.
Mr WOOD: Yes. But I feel that …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I should say that I will be looking forward to next year’s budget, because it is going to be a lot easier to compare next years with this years because of the change over, and I might have a bit more experience in reading this document. That is why I support paragraph (3) because, even though the Chief Minister talks about having a document for dummies, there is certainly a document for the community that is required which really bases itself to some extent on the old cash flow-type budget. Many people really want to see how much money was spent on the hospitals, the roads, and on other capital works. Even though that may not give you an indication of whether that was efficiently done, or whether it has achieved the purposes, it is still a valuable tool for people to discuss with their electorate and I think the paragraph (3) is certainly worth supporting.
Even though I believe the government needs to be careful when putting out those figures, I think it would have probably been better if there had been some note even that these figures are now based on accrual accounting, and perhaps even if you had a hotline number if people wanted to understand what the budget was about. They might even want someone to answer the question, ‘What is accrual accounting?’ As long as they did not ring me, they were pretty safe.
I won’t say any more. I just feel that, in general, what the government put out there is reasonable. The guts of it may be debatable for sure, but that is another debate. It is not part of this particular motion. I will not support this motion, but neither will I support the amendment from the government.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am going to speak to the amendment. Clearly, I am not going to support the amendment. It is the only chance I will get because the government is obviously set on its way, so it gives me a chance to say a few brief words only because I do not intend to labour the point. But it is interesting that it is only the Labor government that understands accrual accounting. It is one thing to sit over there and bag us and say, ‘You dumb CLP, you have no idea about accrual accounting. Why don’t you seek a briefing? Why don’t you get some understanding of this practice because it is the world’s best practice?’ The only problem you miss when you do that is you capture – as you captured the poor old member for Nelson as well, because he is obviously of a similar view as we are, that there are some inaccuracies and misleading statements in this budget that need far more clarification and that was the point of the original motion.
This motion is not about accrual accounting. It is not about the costs to government that have to be captured up in the accrual accounting procedures. It is about you telling Territorians that you were spending certain amounts of money on their behalf and you clearly were not spending those amounts of money on their behalf. That is the substance of the motion. It is not a bizarre motion. It is not a bizarre motion because some of the comments that you claim are so nonsensical and I can tell you have come to me from accountants, and I have said that before. These figures – when you sit up there and you say that you are spending $142m on police this year, up $8m, you know that is not true.
It is simply not true, particularly when in your own answers in the estimates, you clearly showed that a great deal of that money was either carry over money from previous years’ budgets - so it is money that should have been spent the previous year but was not spent - so it is not additional money, it is simply money that will be spent in that year but not new money. And included also are large amounts of money that came from the Commonwealth that were not being spent on anything related to police activities directly in the Northern Territory.
The minister for health in reading her prepared script made much of how little the CLP understands about accrual accounting and how very sad it is that no matter how many times they tell us, the CLP will never understand this accrual accounting, this new procedure, will never move forward into this great and enlightened future; and what an exhaustive estimates process it was as they had to explain to us, and she in particular had to explain to us, all about accrual accounting and the procedures and spending in her budget. Can I tell the minister for health if she thought this last estimates process was exhaustive, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. She was in the chair for what? For a couple of hours. Had to be a couple of hours. The minister for health would have been in the chair for at most a couple of hours because we had not even finished with the minister for police before mid-afternoon. The minister for health has not seen anything yet because one of the disappointments of the last estimates process is that we did not get an opportunity to question weak and incompetent ministers such as the minister for health – weak and incompetent and totally unable to be across their portfolios.
Ms Martin: But you got the Auditor-General, didn’t you? Two and a half hours for the Auditor-General – well done.
Mr BURKE: As the Chief Minister and Treasurer wants to interject, I can promise the Chief Minister and Treasurer this: you will not be in the chair for anywhere near 17 hours because one thing is true - questioning you is certainly a waste of time and effort, because it takes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 pages, laborious effort by the opposition to even try to get or attempt to get any sort of an answer that goes anywhere near the substance of the issue. A good example of that was frankly today in Question Time when a simple yes or no response took numerous interjections by members of this Chamber before we could even weasel anything out of the Chief Minister closely related to the question that she was being asked.
The issue here is that this government has misled Territorians with the publication they have put out by telling them you are spending these large headline amounts of money in their interests on those particular areas of government spending this financial year. No matter which way you try to spin it, no matter how you try to abuse the opposition about not understanding accrual accounting, you are not spending those amounts of money.
I accept these are costs to government. I accept that depreciation of assets is part of the new accrual accounting process, but what I do not accept is you suggesting that just because you have depreciated something, just because it is a cost to government, you are spending money on that particular area this year. Nothing will convince me that that is the truth and, frankly, your own budget papers show that it is not the truth. If you look at the depreciation and then look at the nett worth of government over the period of this term in government, you have actually depreciated the nett worth of the Territory estate, as I said in my budget reply, from $591.435m to $100.367m.
Ms Martin: Oh, look, read the right page. Honestly!
Mr BURKE: Now, the Treasurer – well, you may laugh …
Ms Martin: I am not; I am despairing.
Mr BURKE: … but I can tell you that when this ignorant so-called nonsensical, bizarre Leader of the Opposition goes to one of your accrual accounting briefings and asks your own accountant expert consultant to explain to me how on Budget Paper No 2, page 64, figure 3, the nett worth of the Northern Territory could be devalued over that period, do you know what happened? He went silent. Then he sat down with me for about 10 minutes while he looked at those figures and said: ‘There is something wrong here’. The eventual result was that you are going through a transition process in terms of how you depreciate assets in the Northern Territory and, clearly, you will have to quickly re-look at it and start revaluing assets. That will pop up, too, under your own accrual accounting procedures. We will see when you start revaluing assets. We will see then, very quickly, how quickly you say: ‘Oh, we are actually spending money’. But we will know because of course you will simply be revaluing.
That is the substance of the motion, Madam Speaker. The substance of the motion is simply that $60 000 of taxpayers money was put out there in the public arena, saying that in this financial year those headline amounts of money were being spent in this budget and if you believe you can lie straight in bed and say you are spending that amount of money this financial year, well you have a lot to learn.
You have a lot to live up to in terms of your own promises. I can accept the abuse that you don’t have any understanding, Leader of the Opposition, of accrual accounting, if that is the way you want to run it. But please, sit down and do a bit of homework yourself and at least in your own minds, even if you do not want to admit it in this Chamber, accept that a carry over from one financial year to the next financial year is not an additional spend in that year. No amount of accrual accounting mumbo jumbo can change the simple fact that if you put a cost of depreciation and you do not spend money in some other area to account for that depreciation cost, you have not spent any money. All you have done is recorded a cost. The fact that you are not reinvesting in the assets that you are quickly depreciating in your accrual accounting methodology will have to be rectified because it simply makes no sense if you see the way your trend figures are under this new you-beaut accrual accounting method.
It is a pity that the government only wants to heap abuse on the opposition for this motion. It does have substance. I take some comfort from the fact that the member for Nelson has a similar mind in terms of his …
Dr Burns: That’s a worry.
Mr BURKE: I am sure he will be pleased to hear that. I suppose you need in the Labor Party to have some sort of a doctorate, do you, to understand or have any common sense?
Dr Burns: Stop being elitist.
Mr BURKE: You are the patronising one. You are the elitist one. You are the one who sits here and peddles out your so-called professional qualifications. How many methadone prescriptions did you give out as a pharmacist to drug addicts? Tell us, how many? One? Two?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is it Standing Order 62 that refers to denigrating a member? I think the Leader of the Opposition is attacking the professionalism of the member for Johnston.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not really think these remarks offend the member by the look of the smile on his face.
Mr BURKE: The sensitivity of the government!. It is amazing, the sensitivity of the government. You can come in here, you can laugh and cackle and call us frauds, call us rorting the system but if one tickles the sensitivity of saying something about our academic qualifications, all of a sudden it is unparliamentary! Grow up. Grow up. God damn.
Madam Speaker, the other part of the motion that I thought was interesting was that part of my motion reflected on the fact that the Chief Minister, in my opinion, has clearly misled the Estimates Committee. I can give notice now I intend to pursue that in terms of the fact that clearly she is on the record, on many occasions, of saying that audited accounts from various departments, but in particular, and the area that I refer to, the Auditor-General’s department, were not available to the Chief Minister at the time that that Estimates Committee was in process. Categorically stated that fact, on the Hansard record, when the Auditor-General’s financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2002, and for the enlightenment of backbenchers, it is not a bad document to get hold of, it was deemed here yesterday, another one that just slipped through unless you go out the library and try to find it – not a bad document, because when we talk about clarification of the information that we required in the budget for an uncomplicated department, in terms of reporting actuals for the financial year past and a comparison to the budget, the Auditor-General’s department expresses that clearly.
That is what we were after in the Estimates Committee, in terms of getting us a baseline area, in terms of getting a comparison between actual spending and the accrual accounting figures. That is all we were after. The member for Johnston would be well aware – he was certainly well aware of the questions that occurred in the Estimates Committee; this sort of documentation, this sort of clarification was what we were after in the Estimates Committee, and they were the first line of questions we asked at the outset.
The Chief Minister categorically, emphatically, after repeated questions on this particular Auditor-General’s department said in the Estimates Committee that those accounts were not audited, and because they were not audited, they were not available. This report is shown as being audited and presented as early as 13 August 2002. There is a problem here in how long the Chief Minister was aware of this, when these documents were ordered, and the misleading statements that were made to the Estimates Committee. The Chief Minister chooses to be abusive but it would help if she went anywhere near that particular question.
Madam Speaker, I thank those who have spoken in support of the content of the motion which was essentially to get some sort of clarification as to what were the real spending amounts. For those who feel that it is far more beneficial to abuse, that is sad. For the Chief Minister, who would say that to use a General Business day to reflect on the budget is a waste of time, is also disappointing. I would have thought that reflecting on this important budget at such a time, our first real opportunity after the Estimates Committee, would have been considered by anyone to be a reasonable motion to put.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the amended motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Establishment of Independent Review of Police Resources
Establishment of Independent Review of Police Resources
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
- That this House to call on the government to urgently establish an independent review of police resources in view of the information revealed during the Estimates Committee hearing that:
1. the government has cut the actual numbers of police rather than increasing them as promised
during the election campaign and since;
2. the government is only committed to having 799 police by June next year, when there were
811 in June 2001;
3. there were only 761 sworn officers on 31 August this year, compared to 811 in June 2001
(according to the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report 2000-01);
4. the government does not plan to exceed the numbers that existed on 30 June 2001 for another
two years;
5. the target outlined by the police minister of 830 police by June 2005 is an increase of 20 on the
strength of 811 in June 2001, whereas the government has promised an increase of 50;
6. the government’s figures are based on an annual attrition rate of about 8% a year (about 200 police
over the next three years) and its recruitment policy will add only 219;
7. 50 police of the rank of constable or above left in 2001-02 and only 27 were recruited to replace them;
8. Alice Springs is short 16 police officers which along with leave, rostered days off, etc, leave it down
by 54 officers on any day;
9. at least 12 other stations are presently under strength;
10. $2.8m of carry over funding is part of the claimed increased budget for police;
11. increased salary costs such as superannuation is part of the increased money provided to police to
make the community safer;
12. the police budget has been cut by more than $2m since the mini-budget; and
13. the headline figure for the amount of money to be spent on actual policing this year includes such
book entries as $6.8m on depreciation and $6.1m on state taxes.
And further calls on the minister to explain the contradiction between his evidence before the Estimates Committee that
the police force is well under strength and the commissioner’s reported comments that it is at strength.
Madam Speaker, there can be few more important issues involving government than providing a system of law and order for its citizens and a police force to ensure that system is carried out. It is the first substantial clause of our Constitution, that is the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act of 1978, that this parliament exists to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory. If this parliament, this government, this executive cannot do that then we have failed in our duty and we have failed the Territorians. Unfortunately, the details of how we are failing to ensure that we have a police force capable and adequately resourced to enforce the laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory were revealed in the Estimates Committee hearings of last month.
The litany of facts listed in this motion is only part of the story. In the annual report of the Police, Fire and Emergency Services presented to this police minister in September last year, the figures for the number of police as at 30 June last year is given as 811. This does not include Aboriginal community police or police auxiliaries. In the graph provided to the Estimates Committee by the police minister, this number had dropped to 761 actual estimated strength against a projected strength of 789. On these same figures, the actual estimated numbers dropped further to 753 in September this year and are expected to slowly increase to 802 by June next year, still under the number of June 2001. In fact, on the figures provided by this graph that was given to the Estimates Committee, and I have a copy of the graph here which I will table for the assistance of honourable members and Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, I will also table the extracts from a Police, Fire and Emergency Services annual report. I seek leave to table both those.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: On the figures provided by the graph, police numbers will not exceed the June 2001 figure until July 2004, and the target for June 2005 is for a total planned strength of 833 against a total police establishment of 819, although the minister stated elsewhere in his evidence that his target for June 2005 was 830. So, try as much as I can I am unable to see how it is that there is an increase in police numbers of 50 over the life of this Labor government. An increase that was promised by this government during the election campaign and a promise it still clings to despite what is revealed in the numbers it provided to the Estimates Committee and through that report. The numbers show that the June 2005 establishment figure is only nine above the figure for June 2001, and the total planned strength figure is only 22 above the 2001 figure.
In Question Time today, the police minister revealed an even worse story. He switched his numbers to the total figure of police, Aboriginal community police and police auxiliaries. The establishment for all three was a total of 940. He said, and I refer you, minister, to look at your own report, when Labor achieved government he intended to increase this by 50 to an establishment of 990 towards the end of 2005. However, the figures of the annual report presented to him last year show that at 30 June last year there were 984 sworn police officers. At page 20 of the NTPFES annual report it says:
- As at 30 June 2001, Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services employed a total of 1343 people.
Of these, 223 were civilian personnel, 984 sworn police officers, and 136 members of the fire and emergency
service.
However, if the annual report that the police minister brought to this House is correct then we have the shocking revelation that the government is in fact only going to increase police numbers by six over the term of this government. How on earth does that fit in with the promise of 50 extra police? No government in Australia could count on only increasing its police numbers by six over four years. It is an appalling situation. I cannot believe even this government is prepared to so limit the police resources of the Northern Territory.
So, the minister’s figures must be wrong. They have to be wrong for the sake of your credibility and for the sake of law and order in the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, the less pessimistic picture painted by the evidence before the Estimates Committee and the figures I earlier quoted from the graph fit with the other testimony provided by the minister to the committee. While a subsequent graph indicates attrition over the period July 2002 until June 2004 is estimated to be 137, the minister also stated that that the attrition rate for 2001-02 was 8.58%, which his answer said was consistent with previous years, and he reinforced that in the House today.
If that rate is applied, then the numbers leaving our police through normal attrition will be much higher, in fact closer to 200 over the next three years. The planned recruitment for the same period is 219, and that does not allow for any dropouts from the recruit courses. The lower attrition figure would provide an establishment far in advance of the minister’s target of 830, while the higher and more likely attrition figure means recruitment is barely keeping pace with replacing the numbers that we already have.
Something in this case must be done to retain our experienced police, and to increase recruitment. What should never be repeated is this government’s action of cancelling a recruit course in 2001-02 and allowing police numbers to drop dramatically. The minister’s own figures showed the result. In 2001-02, 50 police of the rank of constable and above left the force, and only 27 were recruited to replace them. It is not only the loss in numbers but also the experience that is being drained away. Fifty experienced police leave and they are replaced by 27 raw recruits. It does not matter how fine a body of men and women - and those recruits were - they cannot be expected to, nor should they be expected to, individually attempt to replace two experienced officers each.
That is what will be demanded of them because the situation out there is at crisis point. The minister revealed just how bad it is with his table relating to the establishment versus the actual numbers at police stations across the Territory, a snapshot that was taken on 31 August this year. In the northern division, Nhulunbuy, Wadeye and Alyangula are under establishment; in the central division, Maranboy, Lajamanu and Kalkarindji are below establishment. Alice Springs is down 16 on its establishment; and in the southern division, Ntaria, Kulgera, and Yulara are short. In the Barkly, Elliott is under establishment.
But the raw numbers do not reveal the real picture. As the minister explained in his answer to the Estimates Committee, on any given day about 20% of the police work force would be absent on leave, training or rostered days off. The situation becomes starkly clear when you look at Palmerston, which on a snapshot day of 31 August was listed as one over establishment with 44 members. In his detailed answer, the minister says the establishment is 45, and the current strength is 40. But there are only 27 members available in the station for full operational duty, and when the minister was speaking quite a number were acting in higher duties. The minister tried to suggest this enormous difference between an establishment of 45 and actual numbers available of 27 was due to members being on leave. But only seven are required to be on leave, not 18. If we were to examine every police station, would we find a similar situation?
For example, we know that on 31 August, while Alice Springs was supposed to have 89 constables, it only had 73. Presumably, about 15 of those were on leave or on rostered days off, or training, leaving less than 60 against an establishment of 89. We cannot expect our police to continue to carry this burden of lack of numbers and lack of resources. Minister, I accept the fact that you will defend the force but I say this: this is a serious motion. No defence of the information that has been given at the senior officer echelon level will abrogate the fact that the reality is that things are very bad out there, particularly in terms of strength numbers. I know you can play games with establishment, but this is real strength compared to those who are actually on duty on any one day. It is quite critical.
The government claims in its advertising to have added $8m to its police budget in order to deflect such criticism. However, when you examine those figures it is a very different story. Beginning with what they claimed to be spending on police, $142m, we know that the figure is incorrect because it includes the book entries of $6.8m for depreciation and $5.6m in state taxes. I accept their costs, but they are certainly not spending. Again, the claim is made that agencies have to pay state taxes for competitive neutrality reasons and, in this case, who are the police competing with? And it certainly is not spending. Perhaps it is the private security firms that business and others are finding they have to turn to because this government is failing to adequately resource police.
When we look at the $142m for police, now less $6.8m for depreciation and $5.6m for state taxes, the headline figure is less than $130m. That figure includes a repairs and maintenance budget of $2.6m, which was not included in last year’s figures, and I wonder if that is part of the $8m increase. The figure also includes $846 000 increased personnel costs relating to the increased superannuation levy, a Commonwealth requirement of increase 1%, and you really have to be stretching the truth to try to claim that an increase to resources, which is a statutory regulation, is somehow beneficial in terms of increased spending for the benefit of policing to Territorians.
The figure also includes a carryover of $2.8m from the year 2001-02, and I ask the question, is that part of the $8m increase? Those three figures alone add up to $6.2m of the supposed increase. Plus, you have to take into account that the police budget has been cut by more than $2m over 2001-02 and 2002-03 because of the Budget Improvement Levy. And according to the minister’s own answer before the Estimates Committee, this year’s cut of $1.329m has to come off the headline figure of $142m. You may wish to correct that, minister, because there is certainly confusion between your answer and the Under Treasurer’s opinion on these things.
If you add that on, though, to the other spurious increases, you can write off any $8m increase in real terms in the police budget. What makes matters worse is that the need for a well resourced police force has never been in more demand by Territorians. Only this morning we heard yet again about the level of criminal activity. It was said on ABC radio this morning that incidences of property damage have more than doubled since the abolition of mandatory sentencing.
Dr Toyne: Drugs are pretty bad too.
Mr BURKE: That was – well, you just continue. The minister for Justice interjects, Madam Speaker, and I say to the minister for Justice, you pursue your strategy of introducing methadone into the Northern Territory to aid drug addicts. You pursue with your strategy; if you follow some of the other states, you introduce drug houses in the Northern Territory.
Dr Toyne: We are getting rid of it, remember?
Mr BURKE: I am sure it may even be part of your tourism strategy, minister, that you want to get more people to visit and in fact stay in the Northern Territory, and for those who need extra assistance, why don’t we give them free drug injections courtesy of the Northern Territory taxpayer? So, you pursue your strategy of attracting drug addicts to the Northern Territory. You pursue your strategy of continuing to try to suggest that 50% of property crime in the Northern Territory is caused by drug addicts. You pursue that strategy, because I can tell you that the businesses I speak to you out there have given up on reporting lots of crime to police because they simply do not get the response they need, notwithstanding the promises you made prior to the election. They do not get the forensic people out there, like you said they would be, quickly taking fingerprints. They do not get the special squads that come out to deal with every incidence of property offence that you promised before the election, and they have not seen the people with the brooms arrive yet to help them clean up the glass which you promised also before the election.
What they are seeing is a lack of response, a lack of recording, and if you talk to some of the people who work in the aluminium and glass industry, who are the ones you really get a fix on what is going on, and ask them about what has happened since mandatory sentencing, you might get a bit of a surprise. And you will also get a bit of a surprise if you walk out to places like Palmerston and other parts of the Northern Territory and see gangs of kids of 20 or more wandering the street of a night, committing crime on a nightly basis in every suburb in the northern suburbs, and the member for Johnston is in this Chamber, and I know the member for Karama has all sorts of problems in her electorate.
Mr Ah Kit: You should be fixing it up. You are the local member.
Mr BURKE: The member for Arnhem might want to be aware that when they were fixing the ATSIC offices the other day and putting in new darkened windows, the stones were hitting the windows while the repairers were still in the place. When they rang the Casuarina Police Station, which was about 300 m away, do you know what happened? They came with their sirens blaring and their lights flashing, and the kids spotted them a mile off and they were gone. Those are not drug addicts. You pursue all of those drug addicts who are in the Northern Territory …
Dr Toyne: All I said was drugs are bad. We have had a half-hour tirade. A bit sensitive about it, aren’t you?
Mr BURKE: You pursue that strategy in your efforts to reduce property crime by 50%. What I and the CLP wants to see, is that property crime under your strategy will decrease by 50%. That is the benchmark you set yourselves. You said drug related crime was responsible for 50% of property crime in the Northern Territory. Your drug strategy was going to address drug related crime. You then reduced property crime by 50% and you have a bit of ground to make up. You have a bit of ground to make up already, because green signs on the odd drug house does not mean that you have got rid of drug related crime, or even attempted to get rid of drug related crime in the Northern Territory.
The minister for police has a major problem on his hands too, because he cannot even match this years attrition rate in terms of better policing. I can understand that some police may be under pressure to do their basic policing job, but they do not have time to do all the paperwork. However, as I said, there is definitely crime that is being reported that is not going recorded. There is clearly evidence that that is occurring and, in that regard, the minister for Justice has continually promised these statistics that he is going to run out and give us a true picture of what the crime level is in the Northern Territory. You, in your comments today in your ministerial report, seemed to know what those figures are going to be months in advance, which I find suspicious at the very least. We want to see those figures, not only when you periodically report them and massage them, but we want to see them on a regular basis. We want to make some comparisons on what is really there, because if you do not do it properly, if you are only reading police media releases, you will have a problem in terms of crime being apparently not recorded when it clearly is being reported. So, it casts doubts over the crime statistics.
In essence, that is the situation across the Northern Territory. We have a crisis in police resources; a crisis that is largely of this government’s making. You can blame the CLP government and you will continue to try to blame the CLP government. We left this police force at strength, at the promises that we made over our term of government, and they are nowhere near that in terms of your efforts so far. You can point squarely to the cancelling of that police recruit course as part of your budget efficiency measures, as part of making that problem.
So, you are going to address the crisis. You are planning to address it by either increasing police numbers by at best - as far as I can see on the numbers - 23 and, at worst, six over this term of government in real terms - in terms of effect out in the street, of strengthening stations, of what extra effort is going to be out there to help Territorians.
Something must be done and that is why I am urging the government to set up an independent review of the force and its resources. Police today have many more duties than they once did. Many of those extra duties are of politicians’ making, and politicians have to ensure that they are adequately resourced - and I say that for both sides of the House. We need an independent review to establish how those resources should be deployed across the traditional roles of police and their added responsibilities.
We had intended to pursue a review prior to the election. We had promised to conduct it soon after the election and the Police Association supported us at that time in such a review and continued to support that review. Even the minister conceded during the Estimates Committee debate that a review might be a good thing. He said, and I quote:
- I am not opposed per se to a wholesale review; I think it is something you need to do on a fairly regular basis.
- …in principle not opposed to review, but I would not jump all over the top of the commissioner in what he is seeking
to do at the moment. Whilst I respect the commissioner’s decision in that regard, I certainly, as the police minister,
would not be subordinate to such a decision in my capacity compared to his. If I want to conduct a review, I conduct
a review.
I can see that it is probably not a good idea to jump all over the commissioner, but I do think it would help matters if the minister and the commissioner could get together on whether the police are under strength or not. Throughout his evidence to the Estimates Committee, both oral and written, the minister and his senior police officers provided extensive detail on just how under strength the force was. This motion is based solely on the facts provided by the minister himself.
Yet then we find the commissioner, on his return to Darwin last week, told the media the police were not under strength, and the minister seemed to concur with that opinion during Question Time today. One recruit class graduation of 25 last week could not have solved all the problems the minister revealed only three weeks ago. I hope the minister takes the opportunity of this debate to explain to Territorians whether the assessment put to the Estimates Committee by himself, the deputy commissioner and the assistant commissioner, that the force is under strength and they are attempting to address it with a recruiting program, is correct or not.
Certainly, the picture they painted then makes my call for an independent review urgent. The minister’s shocking figures today make it extremely urgent. With all due respect to the new commissioner, we have a situation now that requires more than a continuous improvement program. The commissioner can continue with that because it is something that should always be in place, continuing to improve and develop the police force. What is urgently needed now is independent analysis of the resources we have, the resources we need and how best to deploy them for the safety and security of Territorians.
If the numbers of police will only increase in real terms by six in four years, then we must have a review as to how those numbers are going to maintain law and order in the ever growing Territory. A police force already stretched to breaking point must be given help in allocating its resources. I urge the government to adopt this suggestion and I commend the motion.
Mr STIRLING (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, sometimes you might get angry with this sort of information coming into the Chamber from the other side. But maybe because I am a little tired, I am more saddened than angered by the attitude of the opposition to the police in the Northern Territory. It seems to me that since going into opposition the Country Liberal Party, and most notably, the Leader of the Opposition who has responsibility for police on that side, have gotten into continually bagging the police force from the commissioner down. That has included criticism of the selection process for the new commissioner; the commissioner himself - probably because he came from South Australia and not from here; and the commissioner’s plans for a continuous improvement program. He says tonight, well, that should be going on anyway.
But these are the attacks and criticism that continue to come from the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson for police. He climbed into the commissioner for not attending the Estimates Committee on the day that I was before the Estimates Committee minutes before he left the place to get a plane south to meet with his Liberal mates. Only minutes after criticising the Commissioner of Police for not being there at the Estimates Committee, he bails out, grabs a plane to go to meet with his Liberal mates down south.
That is about the height of hypocrisy, the height of hypocrisy. You criticise someone for not being there, who is on professional business, on international travel, and he jumps on a plane three minutes after. Not only that, he sat there, as the Leader of the Opposition and said, ‘I am finished with you. I want to get some of those ministers from upstairs, hiding up in their offices down here’. Well, he might have been, but his mate, the member for Macdonnell had not, because Mr Elferink proceeded to ask questions for about 20 to 25 minutes. The member for Goyder, Mr Maley - I don’t know if cannot hear, if he has a hearing problem, but his own leader and the spokesperson for police on that side said I am finished with you, I want to get some of those ministers that are hiding upstairs, and the member for Goyder, Mr Maley, had another 15 or 20 minutes worth of questions. So here we are about 40 minutes after the leader says I am finished with you, I am still there copping questions from his own side. Some leadership, some direction, some strategy. Of course, five minutes after that, having criticised the Commissioner of Police, he climbs on a plane to meet with his Liberal mates.
All this comes into the category of political game playing from the other side, not games that we used to get into, criticising police; but criticism of myself and criticism of the Police Commissioner, I guess you take it on the chin. The Leader of the Opposition crossed the line today because it was not criticism of myself and it was not criticism of the Commissioner of Police, it was criticism of our police force. When you get into that, you have crossed the line. When he says that there are no police out there doing the jobs that police are supposed to be doing, he is attacking every police officer out there. Considering the job that they do to enhance and create a safer Territory, he is undermining that role. He told Territorians on ABC Radio that there are plenty of police manning speed guns but there is no one out there doing the job that really matters. Well, I say you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong. That is your quote from ABC Radio. You can dispute it if you wish. I will get a transcript for you.
To me and this government, the police are out there doing what really matters every day. The Drug Enforcement Unit, doing what matters, when they shut down those drug houses selling speed and cannabis for profit; when they shut down that illicit laboratory in Karama that was manufacturing speed. These are jobs that do not matter. Well, I tell you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it matters to the surrounding households. It matters to the neighbours of those residences where there are cabs coming day and night, buying their supplies of illicit drugs. It matters for those householders who have been knocked - property crime - to have their VCR and TV and whatever knocked off to pay for these illicit habits.
We see our roads safer as a result of those speed guns. Now, there was criticism of the police and government over these speed guns because they are a revenue raiser. The police have been advertising on a regular basis through the media, on what streets and major roads they would be putting those speed guns. What has that meant? I can tell you what it has meant. It has meant reduced numbers of speeding tickets being issued and it has meant reduced revenue for government, and this is the criticism, that it was all about raising revenue. I will tell you what else it has meant: a 32% reduction in road traffic accidents on those roads targetted by those speed guns - 32% less injury, 32% less trauma for people that would have been caught up in those accidents. This is a job that does not matter! This is a job that does not matter, creating a safer Territory! Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I ask, is this not a worthwhile result?
Did the work that the police and the response group did in relation to the apprehension and taking into custody of one Matthew Page not matter? A fairly nervous Territory we had in the Top End there for a little time. Great work by police on that occasion.
But I draw the line because it is unacceptable for the Leader of the Opposition to bag these people and I put him on notice that every time he tries to play games with the effort and work of the Territory police, we will be there, and we will be stomping on him to make sure that Territorians know what he is up to.
In relation to the motion, on television the other night he talked about leopards changing their spots, and it is a pretty accurate description of what he seeks to do with this motion because when he was in a position of power as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory government, did we hear anything about an urgent need for a review of police?
Mr Burke: Yes. Prior to the election. It was an election promise.
Mr STIRLING: Just prior to the election, was it? Just prior to the election. It was a promise that got lost or swamped or something because I never heard of it. Did he think that there was a crisis at hand and we needed an urgent review? A crisis in the police force? I do not recall. I can recall the CLP and the Chief Minister making a commitment to Territorians to increase police numbers by 60 - by 60 you said during last year’s election campaign. We had on the record that we would increase it by 50. He was saying 60; the CLP were saying 60. The Police Association were then saying an extra 150, and today they are still saying 150.
But he made this commitment at a time when he had all of the information of government at his disposal. He had the information and advice of the Police Commissioner and senior police management; he had Treasury, he had an idea of what was in the coffers, or should have had, if he was being accurately advised by the Treasurer. And with the benefit of all of that information, from the position of Chief Minister, he was arguing that there needed to be 60 extra police. Well, what in the world has changed? What in the world has changed that we need this urgent review right now. It is a hypocritical stance, and it lacks credibility, because people know what the now opposition said and did when they were in government, and they now know what they are saying and doing when they are in opposition.
The Opposition Leader had fun throughout the Estimates Committee trying to scare Territorians but, as I said, we did not get to finish that debate because he said, ‘I’m finished with you,’ but his colleagues had not. And I wondered who was the leader there for a while, because the questions kept coming despite the fact that he had finished with me. He was watching that clock because the engines were starting out at that airport and he needed to get on that plane to meet with his Liberal mates.
I did not see a press release from the CLP. I did not see a press release from the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow opposition spokesperson about the graduation squad 71/02 last week. He was there, he saw those 25 trainees come out in the system, he had the booklet the same as I did, he knows where those recruits were going.
Mr Burke: They sat me down the back.
Mr STIRLING: I acknowledged you. I saw you there and your good wife, Annette, and I was very pleased that you were there, and I hope you are there …
Mr Burke: You said you did not see me.
Mr STIRLING: I just said I saw you. I acknowledged you. I do think you have a hearing problem. Next time when I am speaking, I will face you and acknowledge you. I certainly acknowledged yourself and your good wife, as I said.
I wonder whether there will be any acknowledgement or recognition next Monday, 14 October, when 29 further recruits start training. And I wonder what he thinks about through January when the next recruit course comes on. So 25 last week; we are talking 29 into training next week, and conceivably up to 30 – 27, 28, 29, 30, going into training in January. That is a total of 81 between the end of last week and June next year – 81 new recruits coming out as constables. Will they be celebrated by the Opposition Leader, or again don’t they matter?
A good deal of the motion is dedicated to creating this illusion that the police force is in deep crisis and a whole wave of problems were created by the change of government last year. Of course, the Opposition Leader does not want any facts here because they do not suit his game. Most of his motion is riddled with distortions. He is into scaremongering and they really are baseless, as indeed are criticisms of the Police Commissioner and the police, or up to digging up scares.
For the sake of the record, some of the distortions - there is no case for a new, independent review of the police, something now I learn that they thought was a good idea in the last days before the election. Of course, had they been successful at that election, I wonder if that commitment would have been made a bit louder than it was at the time, because I certainly do not recall anything other than a commitment to 60 new police. If he has not had a briefing from the Police Commissioner, he should have one, but I do know that he has spoken to the commissioner about the continuous improvement program and the review process that the commissioner is carrying out with senior management over this first 12 to 18 months of his term. It is a modern approach to modern management in an organisation that knows it has to move with the times, but it has in the past – there is nothing stick-in-the-mud about our police force.
The government is sticking to its commitment to grow police numbers, and I repeat again – the government is committed to increasing the police establishment progressively over its term of office by 50, and to provide sufficient funding for increases to staffing to meet the establishment as it is progressively increased. In June 2002, the establishment was increased to 950 from 940. In 2002-03, the establishment will be increased to 960 and, by the end of the financial year staffing will be at the establishment level. In 2003-04, a further increase of establishment by 10 will occur and will be funded. In 2004-05, 20 additional positions will be available bringing the establishment to 990-strong staff.
The Opposition Leader claims that 50 police at the rank of constable and above, left in 2001-02 and only 27 were recruited to replace them. The fact is, during 2001-02, 53 police at the rank of constable and above left, 65 constable recruits were in training in July 2001 and were supplemented by a further 27 in April 2002. The Opposition Leader says Alice Springs is short 16 and could be down 54 officers on any day. He seems to make mileage out of this question of the numbers on deck at any day knowing full well those sorts of reasons an officer may not be on deck on a particular occasion. Of course, this never occurred prior to 18 August 2001 - simply never occurred that you ever had a police station in the whole of the Northern Territory for 27 years that never had more or less than its absolute full quota of police at that station. What utter nonsense! There was a time here, when former Chief Minister Marshall Perron was minister for police, that we barely had a police force left. I give credit to Chief Minister Shane Stone, at the time, and the member for Katherine for the work he did with the police force because, being Treasurer at the same time, under him we saw those numbers up somewhere where they should be.
However, there was a time prior to that where the focus was completely off the police force - no one knows why - to a point where you could not take leave if you were a police officer because you were putting too much stress on your mates, so that, for two and three years there was no leave for officers. Then they came back and said: ‘You have to take all this leave, so use it or lose it’. People tried to take leave, but again, management would have been in deep trouble if those officers had taken leave, so they come back with another strategy to say: ‘Okay, we will buy you out. Please do not take your leave, we will pay for it all now’. Some of that may even pre-date not just the current Opposition Leader’s time in politics, so part of that history would even pre-date his time in the Northern Territory, because he has a view of the Territory that really only commenced about 1993, I think. But, certainly, through 1994 -95, the police force was in a dreadful state. He comes in here and pretends that this is the first time in history that a particular station does not have all of its officers on deck on a given day.
The police locations are required to manage staffing levels on any given time and, in doing that, they need to take account of promotions, transfers, training courses, recreation leave, sick leave, long service leave, maternity leave and any other variation of condition of service that police officers have.
He seeks to make mileage, again in relation to the budget, of this carry over funding, as though this is the first time that this has every occurred. The member for Katherine would well know that is not the case. The inclusion of carry over funding as part of the new financial year’s budget is consistent with every previous budget presentation. The budget increases by the previous government of course always included carry over funding. Again, the Opposition Leader seeks to make mileage out of the fact that superannuation is included in there. Well, it is a part of the total cost of employing staff, including police officers, and all costs need to be included to arrive at the final budget figure - again consistent with previous budget presentations.
These things did not start with this budget coming in, nor with the mini-budget in November, and nor with the budget that the previous CLP government put in, in the last financial year. They have been there and they have always been there. So, the Leader of the Opposition asserts falsely that the police budget has been cut by more than $2m since the mini-budget. No basis at all. I think what has happened there is that he has deducted the figures for depreciation in state taxes from the final budget of 2002-03. If that is the case, of course, to be consistent you would need to deduct the state taxes totalling $5.7m from the 2001-02 figure that he made comparison with. Now, if you do not take from both sides of the equation, you are going to finish up with a lesser figure than you otherwise would. He needs reminding that he should refer to 2002-03 Budget Paper No 3 for the comparison between financial years 2001-02 and 2002-03. That is the data that has been presented there in a comparable basis. The budget has in fact increased by around $8m.
Now, his misinformation is either done deliberately or through lack of understanding. And I will accept that it was the latter. I am thinking that there may be a case for a workshopping exercise. I would not include the member for Katherine because as a former Treasurer he would well know probably what every line item in the budget stands for, represents and means. But there are newer members who are not going to necessarily know how a budget is put together and it may be a useful exercise that all members are taken through that.
Despite what he says, the Opposition Leader does criticise the accrual accounting system. The new financial management framework places emphasis on accrual accounting and the delivery of outputs, so it is important to identify the total cost of providing such outputs to the public. All of those items such as consumption of capital, the depreciation figure and state taxes, and payroll tax are legitimate components of the total output cost in delivering that particular service. It is incumbent on the opposition to stop criticising the accounting method used around the world, and the Treasurer has been more than patient I think in explaining it, and it is time that the opposition comes to terms with it.
I do stand in here reluctantly on these matters because I think it is becoming a little too common. The police play an absolute vital role out there in our community providing and working towards a safer Territory for all Territorians, and we see that in the number of people speeding on the major roads, the fewer accidents, the efforts they are making there and yet they are just dismissed. They seem to be dismissed with contempt by the Leader of the Opposition when he says, ‘Well, there is no one out there doing the jobs that matter’. Well, I think that safer roads and a safer Territory, safer communities are things that matter, and the work they are doing in relation to the drugs, again cleaning some of these far less than desirable elements in the community and those sorts of things, are things that matter. They matter to Territorians and the police are out there doing a great job.
Mr REED (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, there is little point the police minister telling us that he is in here reluctantly in terms of this debate. The fact is that this debate is directed at him. He is the one who has the blow torch on him in these matters. The criticism is not directed at police or indeed the Police Commissioner, notwithstanding that the minister would like to deflect the criticism from himself to the Police Commissioner and the police, which he has tried to do unsuccessfully during the contribution that he just made to this debate. But he is the one who is deficient in carrying out his responsibilities as a police minister. If he cannot understand what the community concerns are in relation to policing, if he cannot understand what the concerns are from police themselves in relation to policing, and he is so dismissive of the information that is brought him, then he is going to have a very uncomfortable future. Not only from the point of view of the matters that this opposition will continue to raise, but also the awareness that will grow in the community about the services that they are finding diminishing, and will become increasingly angry about.
You do not have lecturers in political science at the Northern Territory University - and the particular lecturer, Mr Bill Wilson, is in fact a former senior police officer - going on radio today saying the sorts of things he said if there is not a problem. That particular lecturer in political science was on radio today and was asked about matters of police statistics and crime statistics, such as, ‘Do you think there are a lot of crimes that are unreported?’, and he said, ‘Yes, there are’. I think he was speaking to Julia Christiansen on ABC Radio. ‘I think Julia, that there are’, said the lecturer. Indeed, he gave the example that he had knowledge of one person who made a complaint to police and it took eight days for police to respond to that complaint. Now, if the Police Commissioner is going to get the blame for this as it is shoved off by the minister, that is very sad because the responsibility really does lie with the minister. The people of the Northern Territory will quickly be alerted to the fact that that has been the case, that the minister is not capable of doing his job.
We had the other spectacle on television tonight, and it follows the selective amnesia that the minister had in his contribution to this debate, where he said that the opposition had promised an additional 60 police if it were re-elected at the last election, but he could not recall any mention of a review. In fact, had he a real interest and done his homework in preparing for this debate, he would be aware of the fact that the additional 60 police that the CLP promised in the last election campaign was tied to a review on the basis that it was some eight or nine years since the McAulay Bowe Review which was instrumental in bringing the police up to a higher establishment level. And that whilst we recognised that there was a need for additional police, the quantum of that need was not really known and we decided that 60 would be appropriate until such time as a new and complete review of the police force and their contemporary needs was undertaken, reported and the government could respond to that.
The minister dismisses the need for an external review. He is going to await the review of the commissioner, and that might be appropriate. But I know that the Police Association is very supportive of an external review and they see great benefit in it because they know the benefits that flowed from the McCauley Bowe Review and how that assisted them in gaining additional police numbers, resources in the form of improved radio networks and other equipment requirements and acquisitions that have seen the police force improve markedly over the last eight or nine years since that review.
It is one thing for the minister to try to fob the responsibility off to the commissioner, but it is quite another thing for him to come in here and have selective amnesia in relation to what he thinks was said, bearing in mind particularly and underlining that problem the minister has, he cannot even remember what he told members of this House in the budget Estimates Committee of but a month ago. That was very clearly demonstrated on the Channel 8 news tonight where, as a result of questions that the opposition asked the minister this morning, the Channel 8 folk very much remembered what the minister said in the budget Estimates Committee. But when he had a camera and a microphone stuck in front of his face out the front of Parliament House today and was asked: ‘But minister, it was you who said in the budget Estimates Committee that police staffing levels were at a critical level’, the minister said: ‘Oh, no, no, I never said critical’. The reporter said: ‘Well, yes you did’. Immediately, coming over the minister’s face is a very strange and shocked look: ‘Did I?’ ‘Yes, you did, minister’. ‘Oh,’ says the minister, ‘that was an improper use of the word “critical”.’
That is the sort of minister we are dealing with here. A minister who is not across the job, cannot even remember what he said and what he put on the Parliamentary Record but a month ago and is tonight trying to fob off to the Police Commissioner his poor performance and the lack of responsibility that he is taking for the appalling position that we are debating here today.
It is an appropriate debate; it is a matter of concern to the people of the Northern Territory, and if the minister had a talk to the people who have to repair buildings after they are trashed, after the shop windows and the windows of business houses are shattered, then he would get a fair idea of what the level of crime is. Another startling revelation on ABC Radio today was a senior police officer making the point that the crime statistics that are now released weekly - and members might recall that it was only over the last month or so that we had the police minister and the justice minister very upfront praising the fact that police crime statistics are now released weekly so the people can see what the level of crime is, and that it is an open and honest government. Well, we had a retraction from senior police today that, in fact, they are not full police statistics, they are not full crime statistics. They are a measure of some things that are happening in the community; they are not a full report of crime statistics, and you can take it …
Mr Stirling: They are an educative tool.
Mr REED: Right, an educative tool.
Mr Stirling: That is the way they were explained when they were put out. Who has the short term memory loss now?
Mr REED: I have to tell the minister that the people who are getting their houses broken into, who are having their private property trashed, do not have to be educated by the minister in relation to the fact that they are getting their house broken into. As a member who lives in the northern suburbs I would expect, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that you would be very much aware of what the circumstances are in relation to the public perception and their dissatisfaction with this government and the performance of both the police minister and also of the flow-on that that has across the community as regards the lack of resources that police have and the reduction in police numbers that we have seen in just 12 months of a Labor government.
It is startling. The community is concerned about it. When the CLP left government there was a full establishment of police – in fact they were two or three over establishment, and we have seen now a reduction in police establishment to the extent that, only a month ago, using his words, police staffing levels, the minister said, were at a critical level. Yet today, when confronted with that, and it was interesting to see that Channel 8 went to the trouble of digging out that file footage with the minister in Parliament House at the Public Accounts Budget Estimates Committee saying ‘police staffing levels are at a critical level’, and then asking him if he in fact said that and having him refute it.
That is the sort of minister we are dealing with here. That is the sort of government we have in terms of what they perceive to be, what they think the people of the Northern Territory should know and what they actually tell people of the Northern Territory. Well, it is fading away in terms of acceptance by the general public. They are fast becoming aware of what the facts really are and the difficulties that we have. We have, of course, the other very embarrassing set of circumstances for the police minister where, on two occasions over the last week, he has been directly contradicted by the police commissioner. Now, I think the police commissioner is telling the truth. I think that the police commissioner is committed to his task and he is trying to do a very difficult job with a very difficult government in charge and an incompetent police minister.
From the point of view of the understaffing, we were told but a month ago, and we were given it in writing and, in fact, we were given it in tabular form, whereby the tabular information that was tabled by the minister clearly demonstrated that over 30% of police stations across the Northern Territory were understaffed. In response to questioning on that particular matter it was then, and at other times, that the minister indicated and clearly advised, quite correctly advised, that staffing levels were at that time at a critical stage. Yet, we now have the police commissioner refuting that statement, and we have the police minister who cannot even remember that he said it. Well, what is going on here? The public want to know; they have a right to know, and they should know, and we will pursue these matters until they do know.
We also have the embarrassment of the police minister saying, as recently as this morning, that he told the Police Commissioner that there was going to be a Public Accounts Committee hearing. Of course, at the same time as telling him, he also approved him going on leave overseas. Then it was revealed in the budget Estimates Committee’s meetings that the Police Commissioner would, in fact, liked to have been here. I can understand that, because he would have been involved in that process, directly or indirectly in the past, with the positions that he has held in South Australia. As a Police Commissioner, responsible as he is, he would have wanted to have participated in that process. I dare say he would have wanted to take the opportunity to inform the whole of parliament as to the circumstances that he faces in the management of his police force. I can take on face value that fact that the Police Commissioner would have desired to have been there. However, because of the negligence of this police minister, he did not even tell the Police Commissioner when the Public Accounts Estimates Committee process was to take place.
That is an astounding revelation. It is astounding to the effect that the police minister was so poorly conducting his duties, but it is even more astounding that a Police Commissioner should be compromised to the extent where he has to state publicly that he was not advised by the government or his minister of something as important in the parliamentary and democratic process as a budget Estimates Committee - and that was elevated to a high level of importance by the government itself. He was not advised about it.
I cannot think of any circumstance where that should happen, and why it should happen, apart from the negligence and the incompetence of the minister; it is quite extraordinary. You have to bear that in mind, and place that in the same context, that this minister cannot say that he did not know the budgetary Public Accounts Committee process, the Estimates Committee, was going to take place. It was this minister, as Leader of Government Business, who organised both the timing and the process by which the Public Accounts Committee Budget Estimates Committee would be undertaken. So, not only did he have carriage of the police force and should have advised the Police Commissioner, but he knew what the dates were, he knew what the process was for the budget Estimates Committee, because he organised that as well, yet he did not advise the Police Commissioner. That is a dreadful derogation of duty. It is an embarrassing circumstance for the minister and I can see that it has also been embarrassing to the commissioner, to the extent that he took the quite startling action of publicly stating the fact that the minister failed to advise him that there was going to be a budget Estimates Committee. What an appalling set of circumstances.
So, in the matter of a week, we have had a Police Commissioner trying to run a police force, trying to ensure that the people of the Northern Territory and their property is adequately protected, at the same time that he has publicly defend his own position because of the appalling and inefficient means by which the minister conducts his business. The relationship that exists between the Police Commissioner, the minister and the minister’s office is obviously clearly not a very good one, not an effective one, and not one where a proper liaison is taking place between the minister’s office and the Police Commissioner’s office and the Police Commissioner. I have to say, having been in that position, that I feel very sorry for the Police Commissioner because I know that, had the former Police Commissioner come to me - and I have no reason to doubt that the current Police Commissioner would be the same - and sought to travel overseas, that he would then have been advised - as I would have advised him - that there was a budget Estimates Committee that was going to be undertaken at the same time that he proposed to be overseas. Then he would not have had to have been asked to rearrange his travel program, because I know this commissioner and the former commissioner would have understood the importance of being here and, as the minister said, his desire to be here so that he could answer for himself and he could answer for the Northern Territory Police Force to the Public Accounts Committee and in the budget Estimates Committee process.
We have a very sad state of affairs where this breakdown of communications has embarrassed the Police Commissioner publicly. It has forced him to make public comments, two within a week, contradicting his police minister and making the job of the Police Commissioner just that much more difficult. It ill behoves the minister to try to fob off the matters that we raise today in this motion to the police commissioner. The buck stops with the minister. He is the responsible officer and he can make all the excuses he can dream up, he can try to fob it off to the police force, he can try to fob it off as he did to the opposition: ‘It is not my fault, it is yours. It is dreadful that the opposition should be trying to denigrate the police force’. Well, we are not. I emphasise that: we are not.
From my point of view, I know how hard the men and women of the Northern Territory Police Force work. I know the demands that are placed upon them on an hourly basis and the difficult circumstances under which they work. I also know that they need the full and unqualified support of a competent police minister and that is where the big void is at the moment with this government. They do not have one. He does not understand the needs of the police force, and he has not been able to pick up how to conduct a proper liaison between himself and the police commissioner to the extent that he does not even advise the commissioner on important matters and approves the absence of the Police Commissioner notwithstanding the need for him to be here and indeed the Police Commissioner’s desire to here.
That is the unfortunate circumstance in which the Northern Territory Police Force finds itself with an incompetent police minister; one who does not understand their operations needs and the high level of support that they require from the government and, in particular, the minister. Not only that, that is underpinned by the fact that this minister is prepared at any moment that he is criticised to fob that criticism off to the police force. Well, it won’t wash. The people of the Northern Territory are unhappy. Even esteemed folks like members of the political science faculty of the Northern Territory University are now speaking out about the appalling set of circumstances. Minister, it is up to you to fix it. It is up to the government to fix it. Do not blame the commissioner. Do not blame the hard working men and women of the Northern Territory Police Force. Undertake your full responsibilities as a government and as a police minister.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was not going to speak in this debate tonight but I could not resist following the drivel from the member for Katherine and the former minister for police. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself for coming in here and again trying to politicise a body of men and women in the Northern Territory who provide such a magnificent service, and one which, like in the debate that we had yesterday in this House, when we had the debate on the contribution that the Defence Forces play in the social and economic fabric of the Northern Territory. There was unqualified and bipartisan support for those people and that organisation and the relationship between the Defence Forces and government.
The police play a similar role in the Northern Territory in our society. If you look at their mission statement it is ‘to protect and serve Territorians’; that is a debate that should be held without the political invective. Unfortunately, the opposition has taken the tactic, certainly in the last 10 months or so, that they are going to play politics with our police service in the Northern Territory and it is no credit to them that they decide to do so. We can see that that strategy evolved from day one when they have consistently attempted to undermine the position of the new Police Commissioner in the Northern Territory, where they publicly vilified the selection process for the new commissioner in the Northern Territory. They went as far as dragging their distorted version of that process into this parliament in very frank and lucid detail in an attempted censure motion of the police minister.
So, we continue on with constant criticism. The Leader of the Opposition in an extraordinary outburst on the radio this morning when - and I will quote again what my colleague, the police minister, quoted from the radio interview this morning:
There are plenty of police manning speed guns but there is no one out there doing the job that really matters.
The fact is that the police budget has increased by $8m between the 2001-02 and 2002-03 budget. We are on track, and we will deliver the 50 additional police officers that we committed to over this term of government. If circumstances change within that term of government, as all governments do, there may be a need to respond accordingly, but it is certainly our intention to meet that commitment.
The other ways where they have attacked the new commissioner is through the release of crime statistics. Again, the unedifying example of the member for Katherine twisting issues to his own warped view of the world, stating that the new weekly police crime statistics that are released in the Northern Territory News were somehow not what we promised them to be. The whole idea of those examples that are in the paper on a weekly basis, and they were explained at the time when they were released – it is a strategy that emanated from the police themselves - was that we have to get more of this detail out into the public arena, of getting the message out that much of the property crime that does occur is opportunistic. Anybody who has bothered to talk to a police officer, or who has even had a rudimentary study of crime, but certainly property crime, much of that property crime is opportunistic.
If you create the opportunity by lax home security, by leaving doors open, windows open on vehicles, front gates open and the dog is down the street, that creates an easier opportunity than the mark next door. The idea of those statistics and examples in the paper are just to remind people that when they do leave their homes, to lock up, and to continue to reinforce the fact that people, unfortunately, and it is certainly not something that has started since 18 August 2001, people do have to be vigilant of home and property security, and if you do secure your home, you make yourself less of a target. But, again, we had the member for Katherine somehow trying to twist this around as being some kind of example of backing away on crime statistics. I thought it was actually a very good initiative. It certainly was a courageous one. It generated a fair amount of discussion around the party room as to whether this was wise or not. But we took the advice from the police force, the professionals in this, that we should be putting that information out there. As the minister for justice said in the House this morning, that a full and comprehensive set of crime statistics, the first that we promised that we would do in our six point plan on property crime, will be published in November this year.
What this government is all about is outcomes. It is not about the politics. It is about the outcomes of reducing crime over the term of this government. We have put an enormous amount of legislation through this House to try to achieve that outcome of reducing crime, particularly drug-related property crime. I am not sure how many pieces of legislation have been put through, but it was an appalling sight to see members opposite opposing a vast amount of the drug-related legislation that went through, speaking through both sides of their mouths on that particular issue. When we came to government we found that there was no money laundering provisions or legislation on the statute book in the Northern Territory and that was certainly something that astounded me. Way behind all of the other states. You have to ask why there was no such provisions on the statute book, because it was certainly brought to our attention very quickly, and we responded to that.
There was no witness protection legislation on the books. Again, one would have thought that that would have been an absolutely fundamental piece of legislation to encourage people to come forward, to spill the beans and make statements to the police. However, that legislation was not on the books and it was something that we had to introduce, as well as a vast array of legislation to try to support the police in their job to get out there and get some of these people who create so much mayhem in our community behind bars. Much of that legislation, if we go back through those second reading debates, were certainly not fulsomely supported by members opposite.
I suppose at the end of the term we will be judged as to the effectiveness of that legislation. But we are certainly not tying one arm of the members of the police force behind their backs when they are trying to deal with the issues of property crime and drug-related crime. We again look at the issue of manning, and pick up on the fact that under the Marshall Perron’s stewardship - and I certainly remember that time; I was campaigning in Nightcliff at the time trying to get the Nightcliff Police Station open as a 24-hour police station and talking to police officers in the electorate. Most of them had not had leave for a very considerable period of time and were being forced to actually have leave bought out. They did not want that; they wanted to take the leave but there was no way that leave could be taken. We certainly went through a time when we did have a totally decimated police force under the CLP, and we are nowhere near where they were under that Perron administration.
Interestingly, the member for Katherine talked about Mr Bill Wilson - I did not hear his comments on the radio this afternoon – I think the member for Katherine said it was reporting about crimes being under-reported. Again, did that just occur as of 18 August 2001? Of course, there are a lot of crimes in any community that go unreported. I cannot recall the number of Neighbourhood Watch meetings that I have attended where the officers from Neighbourhood Watch, as they read out the crime statistics, implore residents to report each and every single offence that occurs. When discussion starts and the lady down the road says that some clothes were knocked off the washing line and she did not report them, or something was stolen out of the car and an individual did not see fit to report it, the police were imploring people that they needed that detail to build crime profiles to give them the information needed to build the pictures as to where they needed to put the resources.
That is something that has been going on for many, many years. It is not something that has just emerged. I remember there was an extraordinary debate that we had in here when the member for Katherine was the police minister. He was trying to explain in debate in this House the rise in property crime rates that appeared in the annual report one year. His amazing explanation was that the property crime rates as reported in the annual report were rising due to the fact that new IT systems and recording systems meant that each and every call that came through to Berrimah had to be logged, therefore every single offence was automatically logged in the system and that many offences, reported thefts and what have you, were just due to people being forgetful of where they had left something.
I think he gave the example one day of little Johnny at home who had mislaid his pushbike. Mum rings in and reports it stolen and Johnny goes down the backyard and finds it around the back of the shed. Mum does not report to the police that she has found it and that remains as an unresolved crime on the books, and that was the reason that the crime rate was going up. The member for Katherine cannot have it both ways and say that there is under-reporting of crime when he was explaining, not that long ago in this House, that due to new reporting and recording systems that was the increase for the crime rate going up.
The cute calls, now so easy from opposition, for a promised review: again, the CLP promised a lot just before the election. They had many years, if things were so bad and so desperate, to have commissioned their own review during their last 12 months of government, but it was a promise. I do not recall it actually; I recall the extra 60 police officers, but I do not recall it being tied to a review. It could well have been, I will take him on his word. It certainly was not trumpeted like the 60 extra police officers, but it was a similar promise in the light of the promise that was made to the Arafura Bowls club just before the election, that look, you’ll be right, we’ll look after you after the election. Well, that did not happen. We have a new police commissioner. He is conducting his own review, and we should allow him to do that as the new commissioner on the block and see what he comes up with.
The member for Katherine made the extraordinary comment that the police force was at over-establishment levels when the CLP left office. Yet again, this double twist with pike that we see coming from members opposite now that they are on the opposition benches: we were over-establishment just some 14 months ago, but all of a sudden, we now need an urgent review to vastly bolster police resources. Well, I do not know what has happened in the last twelve months. You cannot have it both ways and be over establishment just some 14 months ago, and all of a sudden the sky has fallen in and we need to have a vast number of new police officers.
We can hear the hollow words of members opposite. It is sad that we have to debate our police service in this type of debate in the House, because we are not going to lie down and cop this motion that is before us today without putting up a defence. We certainly respect and totally support, fully and unequivocally, our police service here in the Northern Territory. They do a magnificent job. We will work with them, and we will take advice from them. We are absolutely committed to working with the police and working with the community to drive down crime in the Northern Territory in all of its forms, particularly property crime.
We can see what little real policy rigour went into the commitment to drive down property crime when the CLP were in office, when they introduced the mandatory sentencing legislation. Because I know and many members of this House know that when that Cabinet submission on that legislation went to the Northern Territory Police Service, they strongly argued against the introduction of mandatory sentencing here in the Northern Territory, and gave good reasons as to why, as a policy initiative for crime reduction, that that would not work. It was totally ignored by the CLP at the time, by the Cabinet at the time, because the politics of mandatory sentencing was just so irresistible at that particular point in time. It was all about politics, it was not about outcomes.
We are a government about outcomes. We are a government that is striving to reduce crime in our community with the assistance of our police force and the community. We are a government about outcomes which will deliver the resources that our police service need. There is no way that this side of the House can support this motion.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to place on the record my support for the motion from the member for Brennan. Before I do that, it would be remiss of me not to pick up on a couple of comments made by the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development. He talked about politicising the police force, and he used the word ‘hypocritical’. If we are talking about hypocritical, I recall when the current Chief Minister was the Leader of the Opposition and it was revealed that a staff member at the urging of the then Leader of the Opposition, made a call to Fred McCue. It turns out the basis of the call was something along the lines of there had been a complaint made to the police that an offence had been committed and there was some delay or some lack of response. And that was false. It was designed solely to enable the then Leader of the Opposition to really politicise the issue, to politically grandstand and bring the police force and the service it provides to the community into disrepute.
Now, when the current opposition and the Leader of that Opposition, the member for Brennan, legitimately calls for an increase in the resources for our police force, and the legitimate call is treated with nothing less than contempt by the government.
Finally, in relation to the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development’s comments, he talked about being proud of the new legislation which have a fallen to be considered by this parliament and have become good law in the Northern Territory. There is really no point passing legislation if you are not going to provide sufficient resources to the police force and to the relevant agencies and authorities which are required to enforce those provisions. You come back to this cycle of legislation for legislation’s sake. To suggest for a moment that the introduction of money laundering legislation and witness protection legislation is an enormous step forward is quite misleading. You are no doubt aware that under, as they then were, both the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act there were provisions which enabled a tainted property to be seized and forfeited by the Crown. There was a witness protection scheme, albeit not enshrined in legislation, but one which certainly was used and utilised effectively by the Northern Territory police.
If the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development really thinks that those initiatives are going to make an enormous difference and are part of this clumsy six point plan, then he is very sadly mistaken.
My father was a member of the police force for nearly three decades and my uncle was a member of the police force for nearly as long. Growing up in a police culture in Darwin I have many vivid memories of police Christmas functions. I recall a sticker which was on the back of my dad’s four wheel drive, and it used to say something to the effect of ‘Protect your police or protect yourself’. It is really the role of this parliament to ensure that our serving members of the police force are properly resourced so they can protect us, they can protect the community, and ensure that we live in a safe place. The role of the police permeates every corner, every aspect of the Territory community, and keeping them properly resourced also has a substantial effect on ensuring that morale is also kept at a proper level.
The government, prior to the election on 18 August 2001, raised the expectations of police. They made promises about increasing the number of police and providing them with better resources. That was certainly the implication: when we get in, we are going to support you; we are going to do the right thing; we are going to enable you to carry out your duties and obligations with even more efficiency and even more resources.
During the course of the Estimates Committee, the member for Brennan asked many well drafted questions and some excellent supplementary questions, and that information, coupled with what was contained in the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment’s Annual Report, it became apparent - and it is a simple statistic – that the government is committed to having 799 police by June next year when there were 811 in June 2001. That statistic really says it all. You can try to couch the excuses like, ‘Oh, there will be more police auxiliaries’, which is of course welcome, and they talk about ACPOs, Aboriginal Community Police Officers, and that is, of course, welcome. But in terms of police officers who have all the power vested in them under the Police Administration Act, there is no escaping the raw fact that the number will be reduced.
Despite all the rhetoric, the Martin Labor government is simply not supporting, from a resources and personnel perspective, serving members of the Northern Territory police service. Our police officers deserve better, they deserve a straight answer and, coupled with their cut in resources which it seems is occurring, they deserve better from the minister. From a police officer’s perspective, think how they feel when they heard the lavish promises that were made prior to the 18 August 2001 poll, and let’s look what has occurred. The socialist Labor government has come to power. They have repealed mandatory sentencing. They have talked about establishing drug courts, the ‘send them home, Sally, courts’ as they describe them interstate. There is now a very back door type method. It looks like the reinstatement of a methadone programme in the Northern Territory: let’s invite the drug addicts back, let’s have them here and let’s make sure that they get their methadone program.
We already have the foreshadowed cut in police numbers. There is talk of abolishing the Marine and Fisheries Unit, or reducing their numbers, and we are talking about regional fisheries officers. There is still no significant, certified seagoing police vessel, nothing that they can use to conduct their duties. They are forced to borrow boats or hire boats. They have had to utilise boats and services of the authorities at Kakadu National Park to conduct their surveillance operations on a number of inland waterways.
And, on top of that, we have the appalling conduct of the police minister who is, I understand, the first person in parliament to use the F-word. An abusive police minister who does not have the capacity to respond rationally to a debate, and the first time you could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps it is a genuine response, but it is the same response, the same words, the same pathetic gestures. It is no wonder that members of the Northern Territory Police Force do not have any faith in their police minister. In fact, I think it is fair to say that the minister for police is probably one of the two worst behaved members I have seen in my short time in this Chamber. It is any wonder that police officers roll their eyes when they hear and see the appalling antics and the way that he conducts himself.
The call by the member for Brennan for an independent review, and similar to the review by Peter McAulay, a former police commissioner, is very reasonable. The review would, as it did in the days when Peter McAulay conducted his review, give police an opportunity to talk to somebody who knows about the police culture, who knows the dangers that they face day in and day out, who knows about the strains and stresses it puts on a police family, and who knows about the rigours of doing shift work. Much of the work that police do is – while not particularly dangerous, there are certainly dangerous aspects to it - but there is a fair amount of work which is fairly routine. We are talking about dealing with the same drunks, the same itinerants and unfortunately going to the same domestic disputes in the same houses.
The Labor government needs to understand, first of all, that there is a need for a review, there is a need for something to occur. It is disappointing, to say the least, that even that message is not getting through. There is not even a concession that something needs to be done. There is only the confused rhetoric from a very poorly behaved police minister who maintains it is under control and that staffing numbers are appropriate.
My plea to honourable members is to support this motion to give the police the review that they want, the review which would give them the resources they need, and protect our police. Otherwise, we might find ourselves in the position where we are defending ourselves like that sticker used to say. With that, I totally and unconditionally support the motion as articulated by the member for Brennan and contained in the notice paper, calling for, amongst other things, a review of their resourcing.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as most members, if not all members, would be aware I intend to be fairly - I will not say obsessed, but rather I am taken by debates which involve the police force because I was a police officer for nearly 15 years prior to entering parliament. I entered the police force at the tender age of 17, as you could still manage it in those days, as a police cadet. That was a very tender age to join the police force and, from that very first day, I entered what was, essentially, a family. Indeed, after I left the job back in 1997 to enter parliament, I have to confess that for about six months I felt a sense of listlessness as a result of leaving the job, because I had been severed from something. It took me a while to put a finger on it. I had been severed from, essentially, my family of many years. Like every family we bitched, we bickered, we clawed each others eyes out amongst ourselves, but if there was some threat from the outside you closed ranks, formed the thin blue line - or the thin khaki line as the case is here in the Northern Territory - and you got on with the business of doing your job.
The police force is different to other jobs because the people you work with are the people that you face danger with on a fairly regular basis. If you are partnered with somebody for some time, then you develop a relationship with that partner that is every bit as intimate as your relationship that you have with your own spouse. It is a very intimate relationship indeed. You spend more time with that person than you do your own partner. At 3 am you are driving around in the patrol car, there is not much happening from time to time, and you are talking about all sorts of things - really personal things - and you cannot help but develop bonds with people, and then those friendships last a lifetime. Every so often, you lose a mate. Blokes like Glen Huitson, who was my partner for five or six months in Alice Springs. We had exactly that sort of relationship, and it is very sad to lose a friend like that. Anyway, that is what a police force is from an emotional level, at least.
The thing is though that the police force affects you in different ways as well. You can certainly talk about becoming cynical. This was another problem I had when I left the police force that I could not understand why some of my very glib comments which I made around my colleagues all the time, a product of graveyard humour in the job, it was a self-defence mechanism, offended people. It took me a while to understand that the police officer’s view of the world does change, no matter how hard you try to maintain a sense of equilibrium, emotional balance, spiritual balance. The fact is that over time you become cynical about things, and you become hardened to people’s suffering. So when I started making comments amongst people outside of the police force, to my astonishment things that were observations inside the job were actually offensive to people outside the job. It took me a while to understand why that occurred. It was not until I was watching a news report about two years ago when I saw a crime reported which on the greater scale of some of the crimes I have even seen over the years was not particularly high on the scale, but for some reason sickened me. It occurred to me that I had joined the ranks of civilisation again. I was out of that totally cynical environment, and I think it is for that reason that often you get crusty, old police officers because over time you build a wall around yourself to protect you from emotional pain and in the process of course, that wall that you build to protect yourself from the outside world is also the wall that ends up locking you in.
I do not make these comments purely as a trip down memory lane. One of the other things I noticed about being a rank and file copper is that one got messages about the processes of management that surrounded you from the minister’s office all the way down through the rank structure. As a police officer you are dealing with people’s lives on a daily basis, and issues of management are almost in a sense an irritating peripheral to the job that you are focussed on. Naturally, they are necessary. Naturally, they have to occur. But in my experience one of the best ways to annoy a copper was to engage in a management process which was less then entirely comforting in terms of sending a message saying, ‘We want you to know that you are respected’.
I remember the McAuley Review because after the review a few things changed – not in a major way. I am sure the government spent quite a large amount of money on some of the things that changed. There were a couple of smaller things that changed as well: we had police chaplains; and police welfare officers had subsequently been established, and the emotional message that sends is worth millions in terms of your happiness and those sorts of things. The police force improved remarkably after the McAuley Review. I also remember improvements in equipment – simple things like handguns which we used to leave in a leather wallet stashed in the glovebox of a Toyota Hilux – well, they went over to the blocks and we were trained in handgun use. My entire handgun training for all the years that I was a copper was that I got to put a few rounds through a 38 and a shotgun when I was in recruit training. Otherwise we had to go to a back track somewhere in the bush with a packet of 50 rounds of 38 ammunition, set up a can, and train yourself. Those are the sorts of messages that came through and a lot of that stuff was a product of the McAuley Review.
We find ourselves now where we take recruits out of the recruit training process and drop them in police stations like Alice Springs. There was a time back in the early 1990s when I was working in the Alice Springs area and if it was not a rape and it was not a murder, it was not in CIB. So if you were investigating an assault occasioning grievous harm, then it was left to the constables on the road. In any other jurisdiction, these are major investigations. When you have major investigations and young police officers trying to learn on the job how to do them, it causes a great deal of pressure because the court system makes no allowances for the experience or otherwise of the investigators, nor should it.
The reason that was occurring was that from time to time in the past, police numbers were pressed. This is a point that the minister has tried to make here today. When that happens, CIB is pressed for numbers, and when CIB is pressed for numbers, many of the jobs that they would normally do would be flicked downstairs, or would not even make it upstairs, from the coppers on the street. Consequently, people would be telephoning left right and centre. We heard the member for Katherine relate a story about people refusing to answer the telephone. I can well understand that because when I was on call and in CIB in Alice Springs, every time that phone rang I felt sick. The reason you feel sick is that it happened every third night - 3.00 am the phone would ring and you would be so tempted to just say: ‘Bugger it, it’s too hard. I am not going to do it’.
As a police officer in those circumstances what I looked to management for was a sense that I am being trusted in the job that I am doing, and that I am being properly supplied in the job that I am doing. The Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development made the point perfectly when he said when the CLP left power the police force was actually over establishment and now it is under establishment and run down. The minister said that he found that hard to believe. Well, I don’t because with an attrition rate of around 8% it is easy to run down a police force very quickly. 8% represents a substantial number of people when you look at a group of nearly 1000 employees.
The police force is thin on the ground. I have been hearing these complaints in Alice Springs endlessly for months now. When I asked the minister during the Estimates Committee about the numbers in Alice Springs, the answer, eventually, from the minister was that 73 out of 89 constables at establishment were available in Alice Springs for patrol duties. But when I quizzed a bit more, that did not account for members who may have been relieving in other bush stations and those sorts of things. So that number may very well have been lower.
Mr Stirling: Built into it.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection from the minister. That may be the case, but does that make a difference to the person who has to wait for that extra bit longer to get assistance in a town camp in Alice Springs, or in a house in Alice Springs, or in some other instance where they need the police? ‘Oh, sorry we are late getting to you, Mr or Mrs Victim of Crime, but you have to understand, of course, that we have this built in structure so we have members away, and if you would stop bleeding as quickly as you are, I will be able to explain this to you properly’. There is very little succour in that interjection. There is very little reassurance in that interjection. If the system is working the way it is supposed to, but it is still not doing the job on the street, then there is something wrong with the system.
The other part of this is that of the 73 police officers who may have been relieving in bush stations, they were going out to bush stations that were being run down in terms of funding. I appreciate the minister’s announcement - and I think it is a very good announcement, long overdue - that a police station is being built out at Kintore. Allelujah! At last.
Mr Stirling: Well, your blokes would never do it.
Mr ELFERINK: Good. But what has happened to every other police station in my electorate with the exception of Yulara which had some minor new works? Tens of thousands of dollars have been ripped out of those budgets. When I asked the minister about this, he acknowledged it. He said: ‘Yes, that’s true. We have tens of thousands of dollars being allocated elsewhere’, I think was the expression - I cannot recall exactly - but tens of thousands of dollars less for each of these police stations’ budgets. As a result of that I asked for a list of last year’s budget and this year’s budget for every bush station in the Northern Territory. At that time, the minister said, absolutely, we will provide it, not a problem. Well, I have yet to see that list, and I ask the minister on this occasion, if he could table that list? I am sure that the department has it. If he could table that list we can compare how well bush stations are faring throughout the Northern Territory.
Now, when you lose $10 000, $20 000 or more, out of a budget out of some $200 000 or $300 000 which is what it costs to run a bush station, that is a serious slug in terms of the service you deliver. How does a police station, with a budget of about $300 000, deal with a $20 000 hole which is currently left in the police officer’s budget? They look around and say, ‘Well, what is costing us money? If I spent less on fuel, then that would save me a little bit of money’. But that means that that patrol does not happen, that the police officer sits in the police station. ‘I have a Commander telephone system. How much does it cost for each line in the system? Perhaps I can remove a line from the Commander system?’ Which means somebody in urgent need of assistance may be trying to ring a police station with what? One line, two lines?
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, $20 000 out of a $300 000 budget, which is already tight, is an awfully difficult thing to find. And with the responsibilities of police officers in the bush much higher than they used to be, in terms of people in custody having to be managed, there is much greater pressure on the overtime bill than there ever has been. The message that the police officers are receiving from the current government in terms of the way that they are cutting bush station budgets is, (1), they cannot do their job properly and (2), much more importantly, referring to the issue of ‘I have the support of my bosses, I have the support of the government in doing my job’, it is not there. ‘I am no longer reassured as the officer in charge of a bush station, often considered by anybody else to be in the middle of nowhere. All of a sudden I have the sense that the government has forgotten me, is putting the screws on me, is no longer supporting me in a way that I need to be supported to do my job properly’.
Now I ask you, what do you think that would do for a person’s morale in terms of the job? They are a long way from anywhere; the communication they have with their bosses is constantly cut; save, do not go on duty, do not incur overtime. They get pressure from the community to do stuff, and they have to spend more of their own time, their down time, and their own money, trying to maintain the level of service in these communities. Being a copper in a small community is a very important role. It is a lynchpin role in the community.
The minister admitted a few months ago that the police force levels were critical, which immediately puts paid to the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development’s criticism that it is impossible to be over strength 14 months ago, and under strength now. Well, the fact is that the minister himself described the level as critical. That is something he tried to back away from tonight. I can imagine why he tried to back away from it, but it was an honest admission at the time. I do not particularly want to dwell on it, suffice to say that, let us believe that that is the truth.
What I have heard in the debate tonight is interesting, but also what I have not heard in the debate tonight is interesting. This is the question that the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development raised. He said outcomes are the yard sticks by which we measure performance. If I was in the position of the police minister trying to prove that things were working, how would I go about that? Well, the technique that I would use would be to get the crime statistics of the Northern Territory, wherever I could find them, and say, ‘Look, it is working, crime rates are going down. Look, it is working, assault rates are dropping, criminal damage is dropping, theft is dropping, all of these things are dropping. But, conspicuous by their absence, are the crime statistics. If this is the case, that the crime statistics of the Northern Territory are not trending in the way that the minister for police or the government wants them to trend, that they have decided not to use them in debate, then so be it.
I would be curious to see the crime statistics of the Northern Territory. I urge the minister for police to table them - a whole bunch of them - at the end of this debate so that we might look at the success or otherwise of the outcomes that the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development anticipates, that the fine management of the current minister would have for the people of the Northern Territory. Of course, I am sure that the minister for police will put a comprehensive list of statistics on the table.
One last issue that I raised while I was speaking during the Estimates Committee was the issue of sick leave. That is a great indicator as to the amount of pressure on police officers on the road, and it would do the minister justice to come in here and put the sick leave statistics for the police force, for operational police officers, on the table, station by station or division by division, so that we can get an impression from operational police of how they are feeling. Sick leave statistics are a good measure of the morale of the police force and the health of the officers on duty. I will be curious to know what the operational sick leave statistics are.
Of course, I support a review. A review like the McAulay Review will bring positive outcomes and I would expect the minister would be enthusiastic about returning the morale to the Northern Territory Police Force. I certainly hope that the minister would anticipate such a review with open arms. However, sadly, no. The message again to the troops on the road is not one of support, but rather one of placing distance between the minister and those coppers.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the motion and I would like to clarify where I come from in that support. In tonight’s debate, one can see one of the difficulties when you start discussing issues of law and order and police. There can certainly be a lot of politics in it and anyone knows that, during an election campaign, issues of law and order certainly raise the temperature of the debate. One way to try to remove that from a debate is by getting an independent review of police resources.
The opposition has put here up to paragraph (8) a series of opinions on where it sees the numbers of police in the Northern Territory. I presume that the minister for police will respond to those. I suppose we will hear counter arguments later on in other days in this parliament. One way for the public to get an idea of what really is the truth with all these figures - because we all know statistics and figures can be moved and manipulated to suit one’s argument - would be have a independent review. There have been questions raised after the Estimates Committee and I do not think it would do any harm at all.
One of the difficulties with having someone do a review, of course, is if you just did a one-week review the situation could be quite distorted depending on how many people were away on leave or sick. Therefore, I would think that a review over perhaps three months, where there were three samples taken of what the actual situation was on the ground - it may not be three, that might be up to the person who is appointed - would give you at least a fair indication of what the situation really was. I do not see that as a threat to the government. I know the government might see this as coming from the opposition and that anything that comes from this side of the House is looked on suspiciously if you are of the government’s point of view. I understand that too, but it does not mean that good ideas that come from one side of the House should not be backed up by the other. The idea the review is something that the government should take on.
There are a couple of other issues there which relate to the budget; perhaps they are not necessarily the issue that the person reviewing would look at. I would have thought the person reviewing it would definitely look at the numbers which are probably the most important. Those other issues are important but maybe they are matters that could be looked at by the Auditor-General or referred to him and ask him basically what his opinion on those matters were.
I am not going to talk about, I suppose, the contentious issues. I certainly support our police force. They are most important and in fact in the rural area we have now Litchfield-Safe, a small group of business people from Humpty Doo who have got together and it is due to their good work that we have had extra patrols in the Humpty Doo area. In fact, the patrols have not just been driving around. They have actually been getting out of their cars and saying hello to a lot of the business people. Many people have appreciated that. But that does not mean to say that we have a lot of policemen or policewomen. It just means that the police have probably moved these patrols from one point to another. I know that most people would like to have a few more police patrolling in the rural area.
I would just like to finish on that note and say that the idea of an independent review is a good idea. Once again, I say to the government, if we cut out all the arguments to and from, cut out the political rhetoric, an independent review would be good for both sides and will enable the public to at least judge what is the true figure and what is the true situation.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank those who have contributed to the debate in a positive way. It is unfortunate that the debate has denigrated from the government’s side in terms of deriding the opposition for bringing this motion into the House by suggesting that somehow if you make comments about the capacity of police to deal with crime and law and order problems in the Northern Territory that somehow you are not supporting your police force.
The simple facts are this: that when it comes to calling for a review of our police force, that was something that was agreed to by the CLP government prior to the election in association with the Police Association and agreed to with the current police commissioner at that time. It was something we intended to pursue. Soon after the election, whenever the issue of policing or law and order issues arose, the first thing I said was that we should undertake an independent review of our police force. And on every occasion I took the opportunity to say that would take the politics out of the issue. An independent review is required from time to time. It gives you a snapshot of what the additional needs of our police are across a whole range of areas. It can be compartmentalised in some areas that may not be necessary to review, and may be something that the police force itself, or the Police Association, does not wish to review.
But certainly, when it comes to the operational needs of our police force which is what really impacts on Territorians out there – they want to know what the areas of crime are that are most important not only to police, government but primarily to them; what capacity our police force has to deal with them in terms of resourcing, recruiting, conditions of service and all of those other issues.
I said at the outset that this was a way to take the politics out of law and order. It was a way to gain the opposition’s support for any independent review so that when the government then went forward in terms of how it then resourced its police force in budgets in the future, the only thing the opposition would really be doing was checking that that resourcing was consistent with the recommendations of the review. And that would be an area where I thought it took a lot of the politics out of law and order. When the government lampoons that suggestion from the outset, it is no wonder then that the opposition will continue to raise issues that are important from time to time.
It is certainly a responsible act on our part to come out of an Estimates Committee with the answers to questions that have been provided by the government and raise questions as to how the government can answer questions that arise from the simple answers that they have given. Every point of that motion is not something that has been conjured up by the opposition. Every point in that motion comes from answers that have been provided to the opposition through the Estimates Committee or the police annual report.
It is not good enough for the police minister to stand up and say: ‘You claim that 50 police have left the police force in the last 12 months’. We don’t claim that at all. What we do is simply state that in answer to registration number 290 in the Estimates Committee when asked how many police members resigned in 2001-02 and how many were recruited, what was the overall attrition rate in 2001-02? The answer is there. It is self-evident. Constables and above - 50; police auxiliaries - 15; Aboriginal Community Police Officers - 13. How many were recruited? Constables - 27; police auxiliaries - 24; Aboriginal Community Police Officers - 1. One recruit course of 30, followed by another seven recruit courses of 26 each by June 2005 giving a total intake of 219.
This is where we raise the questions and this is where the government has provided the answers. It is offensive to suggest that somehow the opposition is now not supporting police, and the government is all supportive of police. I come from an Army background and, more than many people in this Chamber, I believe unlike my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, that sort of background gives you a close affinity with the concerns of police, the day to day operational matters that they face and how they expect those who are in a position to make decisions on their behalf, how they expect those who represent them, either to politicians on their behalf or otherwise, and how others, such as myself and the members of the opposition, have a responsibility to speak up on their behalf. They are well and truly aware of that; they are not stupid.
Rather than being denigrating of police, the reality is that we have a responsibility on their behalf to put forward areas of concern so that they can be fixed. The government has a responsibility to ensure that those concerns are either met, or those questions are answered. It is not good enough to just come in here and say that the Leader of the Opposition wants to undermine the Police Commissioner - when that is simply not the case - and it is only the government that has this great love of the police.
The classic example of hypocrisy is the member for Wanguri’s statement that somehow we were not supportive of police. The Labor Party, in opposition, demonstrated that support on many occasions. The classic was in order to attack mandatory sentencing, you raise the notion that when police came to a person’s door they first asked the question: ‘Do you support mandatory sentencing’, and if the person said: ‘No’, they said: ‘Well, we won’t follow up that particular crime’. That was just simply disgraceful. It not only went to a statement on air, it went to concerted effort whereby the Chief of Staff of the Leader of the Opposition’s office rang the ABC using a false name and conjured up a story that was not only reported in the media, but caused the Police Commissioner to spend a large amount of time trying to investigate that fabrication and resulted, at the end of the day, in the ABC reporter, who was the producer of the program, getting sacked by the ABC.
This is the same Labor Party, this is the same member for Wanguri, who can stand here and have the gall to talk about somehow not supporting your police force. I mean, come on! Let’s cut to the chase. The reality is that the now Labor government needs to do more than just say: ‘We love you, police’. What you need to do is resource them properly, defend them when you need to, and also attend to their needs. That is what this motion proposed.
The member for Macdonnell raised a very interesting point, that it is one thing to talk about what you are doing about crime and how great a job you are doing - you have been in government 14 months. I have never seen the minister for Justice or the minister for police come in here with anything more than a couple of media reports and give us any statistical information as to how you are faring. If you are so proud of your record, if you are doing so well, if crime is on the decrease, where are the statistics? If they are going to come in three months time, well it is three months too late. If that is the way we are going to get statistics in the Northern Territory in the future, it is a long way short of what we had in the past, and it is a long way short of honesty in terms of what Territorians expect. And if you do not do better than that, you are going to get more and more of these motions, and you are going to get more and more of an increasing perception out there that our police force is undermanned, our police force is under-resourced and, frankly, more and more a perception of a police force that is not being prioritised on the areas that they need to be focussed on.
That was the purpose of the motion. The motion has not been answered adequately by the government. I am disappointed by that. I ask the police minister, notwithstanding the comments that were made in this House tonight, to reflect on the fact that he did support, in principle, in the Estimates Committee that a review might be a good idea. I accept the fact that he may not believe that this is the most appropriate time, but from his comments in the Estimates Committee it does give me some hope that perhaps a review will be conducted. I can only say that at that time he will have the opposition’s support.
In the meantime though, these are serious questions that need answering. In my electorate, in the police station at Palmerston, it is seriously under-resourced. It is not good enough to say that those resources can be provided from other areas around Darwin when an incident occurs, because they themselves are heavily stretched in terms of the work they have to do. We need to look at the actual resourcing capacity of our police force now. The Police Association does not live in a vacuum. As the member for Katherine said, it was our notion before the election that maybe 60 police were needed. That was not something that we were absolutely sure upon, but it was somewhere between 50 and 150, as the Police Association suggested, and we need an independent review to find out what is the real story.
More police on the street do matter. It seems to me that too often nowadays, and unfortunately too often said, not only by community leaders, but too often said by senior police themselves, that this is a whole-of-community problem. Well, we all know it is a whole-of-community problem. The people out there know it is a whole-of-community problem. The reality is that they know that the primary agency that is responsible for their safety is the police, and the success of any police force is the absence of crime, the absence of disorder. A police force is not necessarily doing well if it can point to statistics that say we are doing better this year than we did last year. If that is not impacting visibly on the community, the people are not satisfied, and we need to do more and more to make sure, as you so often say in government, there is a balance.
When I said that too many police are in radar vans and no one is out there doing the real thing, okay, I accept, too often I use colloquialisms. But it is not good enough just to quote that as the definitive statement of Burke, because the average Territorian out there says the same thing. They are not so precise in their language as well. No one suggests that police are not doing a good job. No one suggests that police are not working hard, but I can tell you, in the pub, the colloquial answer would be, they are all in radar vans and no one is out there catching crims. It is a generalised colloquial comment, but it points to the fact that balance is not there in the people’s minds. They want to see the police focussed and visible.
I dispute and will continue to dispute the strategy of the government. I do not disagree entirely that you need to put a focus on drugs, but I tell you what, you need to put a focus on juvenile crime. You need to put a focus on juvenile crime that is not there at the moment. You want to put a focus on break and enter that is not there at the moment either, and what we are seeing is a hell of a focus on cannabis use. Many Territorians would see cannabis use as okay; a problem for some, but certainly not a problem that they are facing in their homes on a day to day basis. What they do see are gangs of 20 or more kids, many of them ranging in ages from about eight up to about 18, roaming the streets, walking the suburbs at will, treating the police with total disregard. The people know that they are the perpetrators of crime on almost a daily basis, and the police are seemingly unable to deal with it.
When they look to see where is some of the most effective areas of crime reduction, they look to their school-based constables. They say: why are the school-based constables seemingly under threat. They do not just get this out of thin air; it is because the school-based constables feel it and know it. They feel that some of their duties are going to be reduced, some of the relationships that they build up are going to be reduced, and more and more of the effect of reducing juvenile crime is not going to be able to be conducted.
It is well and truly out there. We can all talk about individual cases, but I was talking to one business person in my electorate the other day, a seemingly successful business person, who said to me if he cannot sell his business by Christmas he will simply close the doors. His patronage was pretty good. He had high staff and wages problems, but his patronage was pretty good. I said to him: ‘What are you closing the doors for?’ He said: ‘See over there? That is why I am closing the doors’, and he pointed to a bunch of 20 to 25 kids as they were making their way into another suburb. He said: ‘That is what I get every night. I am sick of reporting it. I just get the windows fixed, and they come straight in, they break the glass’. They come straight in and they pinch produce out of his business, and they are gone. That is his problem, and that is why he intends to close his doors. He does not see any relief. He does not see any improvement at all since this new Labor government has come to power.
If they say around the place that this is caused by the now absence of mandatory sentencing, you prove them wrong. Roll out your statistics and prove them wrong. Show where your strategies, your improvements, are actually working because until you can do that it is all just talk.
It surprised me. I live in Marlow Lagoon and it is annoying to me that my own little area of Palmerston is in the NT News. It is disappointing to me that the person herself chooses to speak to the NT News because, in her frustration, she actually lowers the atmosphere of the whole suburb. All of a sudden, Marlow Lagoon is perceived to have a major crime problem. However, in that person’s mind, it has. When kids jump the fence and cut the throats of 20 or so of her chooks - and these are the same kids who have been harassing her for ages - when I walk my dog down the street and every second or third person pulls me up and talks to me about juvenile crime, you cannot ignore it, and it has to be addressed.
This government has demonstrated one thing clearly: you are not dealing with juvenile crime. You have a soft approach to juvenile crime. You talk about it until the cows come home, but you do nothing. Those kids are running wild out there, and I do not believe the police have either been given the powers or feel that they are going to get the political support.
At the end of the day, the whole-of-community problem starts with the strength of the political support. You reckon you have it with drugs. You stand up here in the Chamber; you are going to close these places down, put placards on them and all that. Good on you. Now start moving on a few other areas that really matter. Move on the areas of juvenile crime and tell us what you are going to do there - and do it. Do something about the people who are breaking and entering on almost a daily basis. Do something for those businesses out there. Walk around and talk to some of those businesses and see what they are putting up with. I tell you what, many of them will say to you: ‘Things have sure changed since the government changed’. You have to prove that you did a better job than us, and you have not done it yet. You certainly have not done it in this motion; you have not addressed the statistics that you gave in answers at the Estimates Committee.
Thank you, those who contributed to the debate. I know the government will not support it. I believe it was an important motion to be put and debated in this Chamber this evening. I thank those who contributed.
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
Standing Orders Committee – Reference - Establishment of Review Panel to Review the Estimates Committee Process
Standing Orders Committee – Reference - Establishment of Review Panel to Review the Estimates Committee Process
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, and with the indulgence of the Leader of Government Business, we might be able to dispense with this quite quickly. I will read the motion as it stands for the purpose of debate: I move – that:
1. the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory establishes a review panel comprising the
Speaker, Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson to review the
Estimates Committee process;
2. the review panel takes into account, the following matters:
(a) retention of one Estimates Committee;
sitting days;
minister be called on if the preceding minister finishes before his/her allocated time;
written questions prior to the hearings of the Estimates Committee;
prior to the hearings of the Estimates Committee with the relevant minister;
for the Estimates Committee; and
In putting that motion, the aim of the opposition - and in our discussions because the member for Nelson participated in the framing of this motion - was to achieve two things. One, that we establish the new procedures for the Estimates Committee for the budget session next year as soon as possible. It was considerably delayed this year in terms of the nature and structure of that committee and the date and time in which it would sit. That is understandable in hindsight. What we want to do is ensure that the procedures for that committee are well and truly known to all members prior to the budget being bought down.
The motion secondly proposes to the government the concerns of the opposition in terms of the operations of the previous Estimates Committee and intends that the government in any consideration of the structure of the new Estimates Committee takes into consideration the points that are raised in that motion. In doing that, may I say that this motion does not suggest in any shape or form that these issues are the only ones that the government would consider. We accept the fact that the government can do whatever it likes with the Estimates Committee. We are simply reflecting to the government in this motion the areas where we believe the committee was weak on the last occasion and can be significantly improved.
I understand that the member for Katherine and Leader of Government Business have discussed a way though this motion. I am hopeful that we can arrive at that procedure fairly quickly. I will finish there and give the Leader of Government Business the opportunity to put forward the government’s point of view.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have spoken with both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as a way forward on this, and I think I have their support. It is not being, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, indulgence on my part. I think that any time that we can work cooperatively through an issue, I will always endeavour to do that. I believe the amendment has been circulated. I would move the following amendment to the motion to omit all words after ‘that’ an insert in their stead:
a) the Estimates Committee model utilised in September 2002 be referred to the Standing Orders
Committee for review and identification of options for enhancement for Estimates Committee;
b) the committee in its deliberations investigate all viable processes to enhance the carriage of the
deliberations of the Estimates Committee including but no restricted to those issues raised in
paragraph (2) of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion of 9 October 2002; and
c) the Standing Orders Committee report to parliament during February 2003 sittings.
I did consider a later report back to about May to perhaps give the committee more time to work through the issues before it. In terms of everybody being ready for the process, May is too close to June so if we get a February report back here, I think the Assembly would be well placed to have a process in train.
We do not have any difficulty at all with the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition, but certainly that would not be restrictive or exclusive. In relation to the original motion, one of the issues that the review panel takes into account the following matters: the retention of one Estimates Committee and seemingly ruling out the question of two. I understood in the first debate that we had in here after the committee had travelled to Tasmania, there was some interest from some members as to the prospect of having two committees. I would not rule that in or out.
What I would see the Standing Orders Committee’s role now is to take this list and a few issues that I have put on the table, and anything else that any other member, of course, wants to bring to the committee, and the committee work together to identify what they saw as deficiencies, weaknesses, in the Estimates Committee process as it went through, and put up a number of options that they would see as being remediation against the deficiencies so identified, and then report back to the House for a full debate on those deficiencies as so identified against those options.
Some of these the Leader of the Opposition may already have covered, but certainly the one or two committees is the question. There are resource implications for the Assembly and staff if you go to two, and I do not know how the Assembly would handle that. There is the time, which was an issue, of course, last time. There is the time for the committee process overall. The question about whether questions should be in writing at all, and if they remain in writing, and the answers are provided prior to the Estimates Committee actually sitting, should they be provided in advance. If they were to be provided in advance, how far in advance? This caused an uproar when I sought to move this in the Estimates Committee last time. Should shadow ministers have precedence in asking questions, should committee members have precedence in asking their questions? The question of the venue was raised certainly in debate back here, in parliament as a whole, following the committee process. Is there another venue suitable? The Chamber? The Chan Building? I don’t know, I think there are a number of options around there. But certainly those issues deserve consideration as well.
If the opposition is happy to go with the referral to the Standing Orders Committee with an open terms of reference if you like, in terms of the membership being able to look at any issue, any question that anyone has issue with, in terms of improving and enhancing the process, that is what the role of the committee is about. I would be putting before the committee that that is their job, work out what the problems were, put two, three, four, as many options as can be found, that may work against those deficiencies. Let’s get it back in here and debate it and see if we can get a sound process for June next year.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I think it appropriate that we do proceed to put in place some arrangements to pursue this matter promptly, given that we have just been a month ago through the budget estimates process. While those issues are firm in our minds, and before the passing of time sees them fade, it is appropriate that a process be established to consider future estimates committees, given that the government is going to continue with that process. That is evident. I thank the deputy leader of government for the opportunity today to discuss this motion with him, and for taking on board the suggestions that I made. I took the opportunity also to talk to the member for Nelson in relation to this motion, in that I believe that he should be informed and be part of this process too.
We do accept the amendment. We look forward to participating in the process with the consideration in the Standing Orders Committee of these matters. We are pleased that included in the amendment are the matters that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition in this motion. They are appropriate and worthy of consideration, just as the other matters that can be brought up in that process, as referred to by the member for Nhulunbuy. We look forward to participating. It is important that a firm time be put in place for reporting back to the House. Time does pass quickly, and we should be mindful of the process that we went through in relation to putting the last budget Estimates Committee in place, and the fact that time did pass quickly and that there is a need for change. That is not being derogatory in terms of what has happened, but practical in recognition of the fact that we should be mindful that time does pass quickly. We should enact some process smartly, and that is what is being done tonight.
I thank the Leader of Government Business for his support and cooperation in this regard. The opposition will participate fully. We hope that the process that we pursue next year in the budget Estimates Committee works a bit more smoothly, and that we can go through it in an effective way, in a parliamentary process that will benefit the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory, and not have to have a post mortem as we did on this occasion. Of course, it was necessary in that it was the first occasion that it took place. I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for his cooperation, and we will support the amendment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I wanted to say a couple of things as I was involved in helping to put together the first motion. I would like to say to the government that one thing that we have to keep in mind with this whole process is that it is there for two purposes. One is for the public to understand and hear what the government is doing; and the other is for ourselves as parliamentarians to be able to also hear and judge what the government is doing so we can tell our constituents.
One area that I believe we must maintain is that all questions and answers must be read into Hansard. The reason for that is this is a public Estimates Committee. Once you get to the stage where you just hand in written questions and answers, the public then does not know what is going on. One could see that when we moved to that stage in the recent Estimates Committee. There were members of the public there, and I imagine that press was there - I think ABC was there every night. Unless they had a copy of that question and answer, in many cases, there is no way they could follow what was being discussed. They would hear the supplementary to a question they had never heard.
It is very important that this process continues to have as its basis that this is part of an open and transparent government, and it does not deviate from that. Once you deviate from that, the danger is we will get into the easy path, which is: ‘We will write it down, and here is the answer, and good night’. We need to maintain that open transparency right through the system. I hope that the Standing Orders Committee makes sure that occurs when it gives its recommendations to the House.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I support this motion and this amendment. I am glad that both sides have been able to come to an agreement about this. As the member for Katherine said, the estimates process is an incredibly important one for the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory. It is appropriate that it should go to the Standing Orders Committee because, at one stage, it was being canvassed that the review should be undertaken by the PAC which is, of course, the core membership of the Estimates Committee. The review should have been one step removed from the people who actually went through the estimates process, although obviously, the member for Greatorex is on that committee with me, so we will be able to provide valuable insight. I know that Clerk is there, and that the whole Estimates Committee process is a burden for the staff and the resources of parliament. That is something we have to look at.
I am quite happy. The lists that the Opposition Leader has submitted contain things well worth contemplating. There are a few things on the list that I would like us to think about. One is the venue. I do not think that was very suitable. The number of people sitting at the table at the last committee, not that I want to exclude anyone from asking questions, but if we could just fine down the membership where people could substitute if they did have a question it might expedite the whole process. So having said that, I would have to say I do not agree entirely with the member for Nelson. In fact, I probably have a fundamental disparateness about this business of people being able to hear every question that is asked and every written question. It is up to us as the parliamentarians to focus on the major issues and to pick those things out.
There is probably over $2bn of expenditure in the budget so there could be $2bn worth of questions for each dollar if you multiply that by 100 for each cent, so there is a lot of expenditure, there are a lot of items. Let’s just focus on the major issues and I would be very pleased to participate in this. I think there will be a positive outcome.
Just lastly, we probably would even have to review it and tweak it a bit more even after the next time. This is a good step forward and I fully support it.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE BILL
(Serial 45)
(Serial 45)
Continued from 27 February 2002.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
VOLUNTEERS PROTECTION BILL
(Serial 76)
(Serial 76)
Continued from 19 June 2002. Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the introduction of the Volunteers Protection Bill by the Leader of the Opposition came in June as the government was considering a whole package of measures to tackle the issues surrounding public liability. That package has been put together. One of them, as we flagged at the time, is protection for volunteers. It is a very substantial package and I believe that it is a much more effective one than simply dealing with volunteers by themselves. We will not be supporting this bill.
I put the context on that it is part of a legislative package that will be introduced into the parliament next week, the Personal Injuries and Liabilities and Damages Bill, and it looks at a whole range of issues to do with tort law reform. It also protects volunteers from being sued for acts done in good faith, providing an indemnity from the community organisations for which they work. The bill also protects good Samaritans who go to the aid of a person in need of emergency assistance and does a many other things.
So with that in mind, not saying that this bill was not one that could have made a contribution, I think it is much more appropriate to have a package of measures. I am sure when we do introduce them next week that they will be supported, when we get to the second reading debate, by the opposition.
I could talk further about the volunteers’ protection and talk a bit more about what is involved in it but no, the Leader of the Opposition is not encouraging me. So, with those few words, it is a good idea. I do hope you will support our package of measures when they come in to the parliament next week. They are important. The whole range of measures dealing with caps and thresholds and other issues to do with pain and suffering really are very much in line with what is happening in the rest of Australia. As I said today in Question Time, we are just 1% of the national insurance market and we have to make sure that what we are doing is really in line so that national insurance market, the premiums can be kept under control on the national level and hopefully the benefits will come to the Territory.
I certainly thank the opposition for putting forward this bill. Ours mirrors it very closely and it will be part of the package introduced next week. But for this bill particularly, we will not be supporting it.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I gather clearly from the Chief Minister’s comments that notwithstanding the fact that they will not be supporting this particular bill, the intent of the legislation will be picked up in their tort reform legislation that they will be introducing in the parliament. It is not appropriate for me to criticise that legislation prior to its coming into the Chamber. I take it as said by the Chief Minister that the aspects that are contained within this bill are either in fact or intended to be included in her legislation.
In that respect, the objective has been achieved from the opposition’s point of view. I do not intend to belabour the point. It was really to alert the government that this is a very important area of protection for volunteers and that at the time we could have moved on that area alone, separately. That opportunity and objective has essentially been overtaken by events. I accept the fact that the government has a right to present its legislation, and I look forward to seeing it.
Motion negatived.
STAMP DUTY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 75)
(Serial 75)
Continued from 19 June 2002.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, unlike the previous bill, this bill is significantly different and we will not be supporting it, not because we are having one that mirrors it within our tort law reform, but we certainly do not believe it is warranted.
The bill was introduced in June and it provides two concessions for stamp duty payable on public liability insurance premiums. The first concession freezes premium levels on insurance policies renewed after 1 July 2002 at 1 July 2001 levels, and that is for the purpose of calculating stamp duty where the insured risk has not substantially altered. The second concession is a stamp duty exemption for public liability insurance premiums paid by a public benevolent institution on or after 1 July 2002.
There are significant difficulties with this bill. To start with, the insurance industry has indicated that there are compliance and systems difficulties with proposed changes, and that any additional costs incurred would have to be recouped by higher insurance premiums. As such, it is possible that any benefit from the reduced stamp duty is absorbed by an increase in premiums, at least in the short to medium term, which is why you have to be very careful, if you want to look at having selective stamp duty exemptions, that some of the administration costs do not mean that you actually have a rise in premium. There would be similar excessive administration costs for Territory revenue management.
As it is drafted, the first concession is not likely to apply where there is a change in the level of insurance cover. Similarly, the concession would not be available where the person has changed insurers. If you were insured, say, with HIH and HIH had collapsed, or if you changed insurers to get a more competitive premium or a better terms, we do not think it would actually apply then. There is no clear policy reasoning for excluding from the concession persons who have altered their insurance arrangements to reduce their insurance premiums. In effect, this would appear to penalise good commercial practice and could act as a disincentive to people actively seeking to reduce their premium levels.
The bill also discriminates between a person insured under a pre-existing policy and a person who obtains insurance for the first time after 1 July 2002 to the detriment of newly insured persons. This leads to an unfair advantage being given to existing businesses over new businesses seeking to compete in the same industry or location. Furthermore, businesses and organisations, where they are eligible, are only likely to significantly benefit from the scheme in circumstances where stamp duty on their public liability insurance premiums makes up a significant portion of their total expenses.
A final point: the bill provides an exemption for public benevolent institutions from stamp duty on policies of public liability insurance issued or renewed after 1 July 2001. However, the second reading speech would appear to be at odds with the bill as it clearly states that the aim of this concession is to exempt every charity, every sporting body and every community group in the Northern Territory from stamp duty on policies on public liability insurance. The common law definition of ‘public benevolent institution’ is far narrower, and would exclude some charities and many community groups and all sporting bodies from exemption.
So, even whilst I can appreciate why the Opposition Leader thought to look at stamp duty on public liability insurance premiums for certain community organisations, for the PBIs, it has not been a well drafted bill. In terms of what we want to do in tackling public liability, that level of change would impact on insurance companies, and would impact on Territory administration. And really, when you look at what the difference would be to a public liability premium, it is absolutely marginal. Cabinet did look at some kind of stamp duty exemptions such as this and decided that, because it does not tackle what the real issue is, which is the rising premium, and the stamp duty exemption was absolutely marginal, that it was much more worthwhile pursuing the premiums and doing the whole range of things that are wrapped up in the public liability package that we are introducing in torte law reform into the parliament next week.
But some of those other things that we have already done are the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act amendments which are here before the parliament waiting on changes to the federal Trade Practices Act; and some of the other things that we are going to introduce are court processes, legal costs, and legal advertising will be looked at. Currently we have a party, including lawyers, taking a look at how we can successfully put those in place. Some of our other initiatives are facilitating the entry of Territory not-for-profit community organisations into Queensland’s group insurance scheme through the operation of information line and web registration service. Approximately 80 Territory organisations have registered for the scheme. We are hoping, because again, we are small, that being able to do group insurance with like organisations in Queensland we will see some advantage for those Territory organisations. The advantages will be there for the 80 who have already joined the scheme or are interested, and hopefully if successful with that, we will have other organisations joining.
We have also the telephone hotline to provide public liability insurance and advice both to businesses and community organisations. We have held a series of risk management seminars for business and community organisations right around the Territory, and we have had very positive feedback from those risk management seminars. Certainly, when you talk to insurers, they really do assess many small businesses and community organisations and not-for-profits on just what their risks are. Many of those organisations had never looked at their risks, and so those risk management seminars, and we are continuing with risk management information, will certainly make a difference to the premiums paid for public liability.
We have a public liability insurance home page on the government Internet site. In relation to government contracts, looking at changes to the standard insurance clauses to reduce the cost of the required insurance while ensuring government interests are reasonably protected, and at this stage reviewing the level of cover required relative to the risk involved if you have a government contract. We are looking at that mainly in relation to supply rather than construction and service contracts.
We are looking at many issues, a range of issues. Many of those are already in place; some are being finalised. We are confident from the advice received from other states, from the experts being used by both the federal government and us in the Territory, Trowbridge Consulting, that the measures being put in place will actually reduce premiums. So, we are not going to support stamp duty exemptions as proposed by the opposition because, really, for the effort that would have to go in, the benefit is very marginal. So, government does not support the bill.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am disappointed the government has not taken the opportunity to give a little something back to those organisations. It is amazing that, when government wants to raise revenue, it does not seem to ever have the administrative burden attached to it. If you think of a principle, you will find a way, but all of sudden when it comes to giving back money, there are all sorts of problems as to why you cannot give that particular money back.
I heard the reasons that are being put forward essentially by the insurance organisation to the Chief Minister in her reply. I have been apprised of those reasons. I do not accept any of them, frankly. I believe that the principle should be established. The principle is that, notwithstanding the fact that all of these tort reforms will be put in place, the Chief Minister said that one thing they could not guarantee is that these tort reforms would lower public liability insurance premiums.
What this bill sought to achieve was that, in an area where government could have direct intervention, where the government has made a windfall profit at the expense of those who are being penalised by higher public liability insurance claims, they should get something back. It is not unlike the argument against caps on the CPI on fuel prices. Similar arguments were put forward as to why it was too hard to cap the CPI on fuel prices but, in terms of rising public concern, eventually a way was found and the federal government forwent that revenue.
This is a similar situation. The Northern Territory government is receiving a windfall and unfair profit at the expense of rising public liability insurance premiums. You are entitled to 10% stamp duty, rightly so. But that 10% stamp duty is now after GST and rising as public liability insurance premiums rise. What it says is that certain organisations should be exempt from that stamp duty and for businesses, government could make a gesture and say that from 1 July 2001 when this crisis first arose you would pay a stamp duty on your premium similar to the stamp duty that existed at that point in time.
If that is administratively impossible, I just do not accept it. Clearly, the government has decided that more revenue is the better way to go - what is it? - revenue is good, greed is good, money is good? I believe it is an opportunity lost. It is an opportunity to demonstrate that, in the same way that organisations are suffering, government can make a similar gesture and say that, notwithstanding whatever type fiscal environment you believe you are in, there are some things where a leadership role is appropriate. The leadership role in this particular case is simply to say: ‘We believe that the amount of revenue that the government should take from public liability should be capped, and it is capped at that point in time. That is the amount well take, and that is only the amount we will take’. Government has chosen not to do that and frankly, I find that disappointing.
Motion negatived.
JURIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 74)
(Serial 74)
Continued from 19 June 2002.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the opposition wanted to further debate on this bill, so I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Illicit Drugs and the Report of the Task Force
Illicit Drugs and the Report of the Task Force
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, my purpose today is to make a commitment to this Assembly and to the people of the Northern Territory. That commitment is about our young people and our families, and the values that motivate me in the work that I am privileged and proud to do for them.
The portfolio of Health and Community Services is diverse. It deals with the most intimate aspects of people’s lives on a daily basis, and with the full range of their most extreme emotions; with preventing disease, disability and misery; assisting people to live independently and wisely; and caring for them in times of crisis. Reducing disadvantage and counteracting marginalisation; growing up our children well; making sure they are well-equipped for the present and for the future; and celebrating the energy and the new ideas that young people bring to our society - all fall within the province of the policies and services of this portfolio.
Today, I am going to address the very specific issue of illicit drugs which relates to all and every one of these themes. I am providing this Assembly with a more detailed brief on the report of the task force on illicit drugs and its 51 recommendations, which I released publicly on Thursday, 19 September. The task force membership brought together broad local knowledge and national experts in the field. Between March and May, their investigation took them to each of our five population and regional service centres to hear people’s stories first hand. They have analysed 79 submissions, and have rigorously assessed the national and international evidence.
All this has been synthesized into a report that recognises the complexity and interrelatedness of the issues. The report identifies immediate action in areas that require more thorough scrutiny. It also confirms existing directions and sets priorities for the wide ranging social development and public health agenda for the government. Government has made the report publicly available together with the details of the first, most urgent phase of our response including immediate resources to make it happen.
As I stand here today, maintenance pharmacotherapies are at last available to people who need them. They have been available since 25 September, the last Wednesday of last month. Finally it has been possible to redress an aspect of disadvantage and marginalisation enshrined in Northern Territory law that has been applied to those who have developed a dependency on opiate drugs; to rectify a source of frustration and distress that has been needlessly suffered by their families. It brought to an end an area that has been immensely difficult and deeply disturbing for health professionals who have been confronted on a daily basis with people in need of proven therapeutic intervention but one which they were prohibited from using. An era that made the Northern Territory the only place in this country that denied access to treatment that has been repeatedly and rigorously demonstrated to benefit the lives of opiate-dependent individuals and their families, and to deliver social benefits for the wider community. This is what the task force found.
Of course, we would all prefer to have a remedy to hand that could free people from opiate addiction. The people who suffer from it would welcome it most, but there isn’t one that works for everyone, and in the absence of a single approach we have exactly the same straightforward, unarguable ethical duty of care that we have to anyone to whom we are unable to offer a straightforward cure. A duty of care to make available what has been proven to assist a substantial proportion of people to live as normally as is reasonably possible and treatment that is known to assist them to heal their lives and to progress towards the time when they are able to live without the drugs on which they have unfortunately become dependent.
The most immediate steps have been taken. I have rescinded the ministerial guidelines that prohibited doctors from using proven therapies and replaced them. The new guidelines are based on evidence, not on unsubstantiated personal opinions or postures. Doctors in the rest of Australia have been able to prescribe Buprenorphine for maintenance since August of last year. Here in the Northern Territory however, it was limited to six or 12 months for withdrawal only. While that has been helpful, some patients will need it for longer and there is no sensible rationale for the restriction. The task force documents the evidence that Buprenorphine is a safer and better option than methadone for most clients. It has a lower risk of overdose, is easier to withdraw from and because of its longer action, the vast majority of patients can take a dose every two days instead of every day. Buprenorphine is therefore the preferred option and will be the frontline pharmacotherapy. However, there are a small number of clinical indications including allergy to Buprenorphine with methadone as an alternative. Doctors will therefore be able to prescribe it on the basis of accepted clinical guidelines.
A comprehensive set of clinical guidelines for doctors who become registered as pharmacotherapy prescribers in the Northern Territory has been developed. It is based on the related national policies and clinical guidelines, again as recommended by the task force. They have been distributed to doctors who are already registered as prescribers. Also in line with task force recommendations, I make the commitment that early in 2003, I will be introducing a legislative framework that corrects both the injustices and the deficiencies that have existed up to this time. The Northern Territory will then join the rest of Australia in having legislation and mechanisms for proper control of S8 medications or indeed any other medication that may become a concern in the future.
As part of the control system, a clinical advisory panel will be established to provide the chief health officer with expert advice on a range of issues related to treatment with Schedule 8 medications including pharmacotherapies. It will be chaired by the Territory’s chief poisons inspector. Clinical expertise will be invited from the divisions of general practice and the College of GPs. There will also be a doctor with specialised experience in alcohol and other drugs, and a doctor with expertise in pain management. There will be a non-medical practitioner and alcohol and other drug treatment. The chief health officer will be able to appoint other members if and as needed. Membership will be reviewed every two years.
The task force recommends that the delivery system for pharmacotherapies be both private and public. In the private sector, general medical practitioners have advocated strongly for the professional freedom to make a clinical decision on the issue of patient need for maintenance pharmacotherapies in the same way that every other GP in Australia has been able to do. The President of the Northern Territory AMA made the statement on several occasions that doctors in the Northern Territory were effectively trying to do their jobs with one hand tied behind their back. No longer. GPs are now able to prescribe on the basis of clinical judgement. Like their colleagues across Australia, they need to have undergone some specified training to be qualified to do so. So far, of the nine doctors qualified in the Northern Territory, six are GPs. Many GPs have not previously taken up training because their capacity to use the skills they acquired would have been constrained. This is now changing. GPs vary in their particular areas of interest, and no one expects that all or even a majority will suddenly decide to make this a particular area of sudden interest, but the department is already receiving increased calls seeking training.
At the same time, our GPs need assistance and support in this work. That was recognised by the task force, and in line with their recommendations, the specialised public Alcohol and Drug Service resource has been boosted in Darwin and Alice Springs to provide specialist bureau support to both GPs and community pharmacists. An additional up-front allocation of $412 000 has been provided in this financial year, with a full recurrent effect in out years of $431 000. A full-time doctor was recruited to the Alcohol and Drug Service in Darwin from May this year, and this has been boosted by funding for an additional doctor half-time dedicated to pharmacotherapies. The service is also getting an additional psychologist and a nurse. There is also an additional nurse for the Alice Springs service. An extra position is also being provided to assist the Chief Poisons Officer with the new control and monitoring system for pharmacotherapies and S8 drugs. Stage work is in progress to establish a computerised data base to better monitor S8 drug approvals and contracts.
It is recognised that the private sector network of GPs and community pharmacies cannot be expected to meet the need for prescribing and dispensing at once or alone. Some GPs prefer to handle patients from the initial consultation through to stabilisation and ongoing care. Others, having ascertained that there is a possible need for pharmacotherapy, will refer a client to department’s services for the initial stabilisation period which is quite intensive. They can then return to the GP for ongoing care. The stabilisation period is also resource intensive for pharmacists. Pharmacists supervise dosing, observe the client, and provide clinical input to the treatment regime. Funds have therefore been provided for a small, on-site dispensing function to be attached to the Darwin service. It will relieve pressure on community pharmacies during stabilisation, and from any clients with particularly complex needs on a longer term basis.
There is much to do to establish streamlined data collection systems and to work through the issues that always arise when new services are brought on stream. We have therefore funded a professional liaison worker to assist over the first year of operation of the new system to take pressure off the GP and pharmacy network.
Most of the $0.5m of new funding that we have provided up-front from this year has been directed to the immediate action recommended by the task force to make pharmacotherapies available as a priority, but not all of it. An estimated $47 000 annually will provide new information services for the community and for the health and welfare of professionals.
The task force found a need for better public access to general information about drugs, and on what kinds of help and support is available both for people with a drug or alcohol related problem and for families. It also found that service providers across the system need a great deal more help and recognition including immediate access to more expert advice. These kinds of services are provided in larger jurisdictions by telephone, quite literally 24 hours a day and seven days a week. My department has investigated the potential for accessing such a service and will soon advertise a tender. We anticipate that the service will be available 24 hours a day and seven days a week in November 2002. It will be widely promulgated to the community and to service providers.
The report makes a number of other observations and recommendations related to treatment services. While the task force consulted widely, its members were not able to establish a comprehensive understanding of either the adequacy or the effectiveness of the treatment services presently available across the Territory. But it does make some very clear observations and recommendations in the area. First, as an overarching issue, most drug users access a range of services such as general medical practitioners, mental health, housing and family services long before they seek, or would consider seeking, specialist drug treatment. Further, many people with a drug problem have other co-occurring health and social problems which also need to be addressed. It is therefore critical to ensure that these first points of access have the capacity and support to identify the full range of client issues and to offer them effective, drug specific interventions.
Secondly, in relation to specific drug and alcohol services, a spectrum of services is needed in all major urban centres including assessment, withdrawal and counselling. These would not necessarily or ordinarily be residential. In addition, access to some long term rehabilitation is important. Specifically in relation to residential services, the task force noted that residential services are not the treatment of first choice in most instances. The costs are significant and it is not practical to have one in every location. While there have been representations to both government and the task force in relation to additional residential services, the task force concluded that there is already an appropriate range of residential services in all major urban centres in the Northern Territory, and in this context no completely new service appears to be required. Instead, existing services will be assessed to identify whether enhancements are required.
In relation to families - families and family relationships are significant in every area of drug and alcohol abuse, from prevention through to recovery. The families of young people who use drugs can play an important role in supporting change for the user. Service providers recognise the importance of including families when working with young people, and have requested further training and support to work in this way. However, family members often need support themselves, and family members attending the community consultations emphasised the difficulty of finding services to meet their needs. The new community information service will contribute to meeting this need.
In relation to young people, the task force made its most substantial comments: that young people, particularly those under 18, experience problems with drug use; need support from services that are designed specifically for young people; and that it is rarely necessary for these to be specialist drug agencies. Young people have particular needs, and placement in a specialist drug treatment service targeted at adults can have a detrimental effect. It can also ultimately deter them from seeking help, with the added danger of exposure to more entrenched drug use.
Youth services are confirmed as the first point of contact to access information and support for many young people. Youth workers are particularly well placed to reach young people who use drugs. Disturbingly, it appears to be primarily crisis accommodation youth services that are attempting to provide services. Some young people are in danger of being excluded from services altogether and are slipping through the system due to limited resources. Also, throughout the Territory there is a general lack of capacity among youth specific and generic services to deal with alcohol and drug issues. The task force observes that Outreach is a way of breaking down barriers to accessing services and allows for continuity of care. In essence, Outreach works with young people in their own environment rather than expecting them to come to a particular building and/or service.
These conclusions accord with findings of my own department and representations from the non-government sector. The complexity of the issues handled by agencies working with young people and with families has increased dramatically across the entire service network, and has stretched our services beyond their capacity.
In response, the task force recommends that resources should be committed to an intensive assessment of a whole spectrum of treatment interventions, and what is available to the different groups of clients. The exact kinds of interventions and intervention models being offered, and to whom, the extent to which they are based in best practice evidence, and able to be delivered to best practice standards, additional training required and where redirection of funding and major redevelopment may be required. There should be a priority focus on strengthening the capacity and quality of existing service networks to meet contemporary drug problem needs, with an emphasis on training, assistance with accreditation, accountability, and service development where required.
These observations confirm work that had already commenced in my department, and an additional staff resource is being provided for 18 months to advance this substantial work more speedily. In line with task force recommendations, the investigation will include ways of improving access to treatment for drug using parents of young children, building on extending the capacity of existing services.
Finally, in this area, the task force recommends that the resources of youth agencies should be supplemented to allow them to respond adequately to young people’s use of drugs and harmful substances. Services identified as providing assistance and treatment to young people under 18, should be resourced to be able to provide adequate care planning, assessment, treatment, and after care for young people with drug related problems. This area will therefore be a priority for the project.
This government’s position on illicit drugs is crystal clear. It has no time for those who profit from the misery of others. It has introduced laws that make that quite unambiguous. At the same time, it shows compassion for the distress suffered by people and families, and the need for measures to alleviate it. It also recognises the need for a comprehensive approach to prevention, and is explicitly linked to the government’s policy statement on supporting families.
This leads me to other issues of substance addressed by the task force, and the synergies with this government’s social policy program. The policy directions and specific initiatives of the government recognise that Australia has been facing a steadily growing problem of compounding social harms that affect the lives of young people, their families, and the community in the Northern Territory. Risk taking behaviour such as intoxication with mind altering drugs or substances that are injected, ingested, or inhaled, is one part of this complex issue which encompasses: unprotected sexual activity; increasing depression and other mental health problems; attempted and completed suicide; bullying and even violent behaviour in our schools; poor educational attainment and compromised potential for useful employment; alienation, antisocial and criminal behaviour; family violence; and the neglect and abuse of young children and teenagers.
These all have interconnected pathways of cause and result that have now been well documented in recent national plans and reviews such as the Anti-Crime Strategy, strategies addressing mental health promotion, suicide prevention, youth homelessness, partnerships against domestic violence, and a monograph on Structural Determinants of Youth Drug Use published last year by the Australian National Council On Drugs. These pathways are clearly well recognised by the community. Common themes in these documents and the task force consultations are the importance of the family environment and the significance of early childhood, with frequent demands for more services to identify and support families who need help, well before a child reaches school age.
The evidence is clear that the years of early childhood, up to the age of seven years, and most particularly, up to three years, are crucial for brain development. During this period, basic templates are laid down for the emotional responses of the baby, child, teenager and adult, to life stresses, as well as for basic language, conceptual and mathematical capacity. This ‘biological embedding’ of life experiences offers key opportunities to favourably influence a range of life outcomes. This early childhood period has been shown to return the best results on investments in what we can describe as ‘core’ interventions, because they deliver such an array of social benefits.
The evidence also indicates that periods of life transition are particularly important to target. Adolescence is widely acknowledged as the period of greatest transition and turbulence; again, therefore, a time of great opportunity. It is critical that we provide services that can engage with the specific needs of teenagers, rather than treating them as either older children, or as younger adults.
A child’s experience of school is likewise known to be a powerful influencer, and the task force acknowledges school as a key setting for both social learning, and for a range of evidence-based intervention opportunities. Schools are an excellent example of a key setting that is recognised by everyone as important, and people attending the community consultations were particularly vocal about the importance of school-based drug education. However, views varied about how this should be achieved. The task force observed that research has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of some popularly supported school-based drug education programs, and indicates others that are more effective. Also, that the literature also emphasises the inadequacy of relying on the school curricula to promote prevention of harm. Evidence indicates the crucial need to pay attention to the broader school environment and its potential connections with family and community.
This comprehensive systemic approach is frequently referred to as the Health Promoting Schools model, which is recommended by the task force for implementation and monitoring in all Northern Territory schools. These recommendations essentially parallel the conclusions of a recently completed review of health and drug education in Territory schools, Strategic Directions for Health and Drug Education, recently completed by the Northern Territory Department of Employment, Education and Training. A number of joint approaches are being developed between DEET and my department to progress these shared conclusions.
Madam Speaker, our responses to the report are strategic and cohesive, and integrated with existing commitments and directions. Let me provide further examples. The Office of Children and Families will be established in my department next year. A ‘Desk’ is being set up this year, to establish the linked Family Services Advisory Council with extensive non—government stakeholder representation. The work of the Office will be based on two themes: ensuring that children get the best possible start in life; and tackling the more serious problems of family life. Associated initiatives include a family support Helpline and Internet site in 2003-04. As well as being information points themselves, they will be linked to ensure a gateway to the new community alcohol and drug information service.
My department is also finalising a parenting support plan to deliver on the government’s mandate to develop and coordinate access to a range of appropriate parenting skills enhancement programs across the Northern Territory. It will maximise the role of community health, and care and education services. That plan is based on parenting programs such as Triple P, that has been designed and well evaluated in Australia.
The task force makes two explicit and critical recommendations in relation to the many issues raised for young people and families, and, as I indicated earlier, identifies significant gaps in the service network for these groups. It recommends that Youth Outreach Workers are placed with existing youth services in each of six urban centres, that is Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Palmerston, Darwin, and Nhulunbuy, together with Family Support Workers similarly attached to youth services, and to schools. The task force envisages a broad role for the youth workers. They should work with young people in their own environment, across early intervention, prevention, advocacy, support, and, where appropriate, referral. It stresses the importance of an integrated approach, and linkages with the range of government and non-government services, schools and community patrols. Other key issues are that workers need a supportive team environment, and the capacity to work flexible hours to access young people. The family support workers are seen as a major step in involving families in the treatment, education and support process, developing better support networks for parents and families, and to supplement more systematic parenting support approaches advocated elsewhere in the report.
Government has asked my department to investigate these recommendations as a priority, with clear directions and parameters for accountability. The particular mix of problem issues identified by stakeholders in the different regional areas needs to be matched with the evidence base for interventions that work, also in accord with the different existing service networks and supports for young people and families.
I have referred previously to a key theme for the task force around its finding of a substantial gap in the capacity of the existing service network in relation to drug and alcohol issues generally, and problems facing young people and families in particular. It recommends a comprehensive workforce development strategy to encompass all frontline workers, particularly alcohol and drug, youth and school support workers. This kind of approach has been a priority for the Alcohol and Other Drugs Program since 1999. Its training section has been steadily developing training and education across the span from pre-service to in-service, and the groups identified by the task force are already recognised as a priority: workers with young people and families; in remote communities; and with indigenous people.
Cost and accessibility barriers are addressed through flexible assessment and training delivery at no cost to frontline workers or agencies as it is provided by the program. Options are provided to meet short and long term needs, to ensure that it is accessible to all frontline workers, across prevention, early intervention, treatment and after care, and to those living and working in rural and remote settings. In line with requests from workers, training is nationally accredited and can contribute to attaining formal qualifications. The task force considers this kind of approach to be a key vehicle for extending the responses that young people and families need, and suggests as main areas: risk and protective factors; engaging young people; cross-cultural training; and brief intervention techniques.
The Northern Territory Alcohol and Other Drugs Program is a member of a consortium with TAFE New South Wales, and Next Step Specialist Drugs and Alcohol Services in Western Australia. The consortium won a national tender by Commonwealth Health and Ageing in 2000, to develop training for frontline professionals responding to the needs of youth experiencing drug problems.
Pilots in June and July 2002 included Darwin and Alice Springs as well as Tamworth and Sydney. The resources should be available in early 2003. Extensive research and consultation with a broad range of agencies and young people in the Northern Territory as part of the development process has ensured that the 13 modules and resources will be suitable for the Northern Territory. The issues identified by the task force are integral to the training. The outcomes of the more intensive work that has been funded around service mapping and needs, and youth outreach and family support workers will inform the future directions of the Training and Development Strategy.
I have outlined the action in progress, and the approaches being taken in the main areas related to the task force report. Before closing, I would like to deal with the one recommendation of the task force that I have been asked about which we have decided not to action at this time. That is to establish a coordination unit to develop a comprehensive drug and alcohol strategy with an associated high level coordinating committee. The task force makes the statement that issues associated with illicit drug use cannot be dealt with in isolation. Rather, a coordinated whole-of-government and community response is required. The complex issues underlying drug use and associated harms require a comprehensive approach to the promotion of protective factors, reduction of risk factors, and prevention of harms.
This is agreed and has been recognised. The government has established the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community to provide a comprehensive report on drug and alcohol issues, on future directions and priorities, and the related expertise, processes and structures to progress them. The task force was explicit that it had not been able to adequately address indigenous issues, and recognised that the work of the select committee will be critical in this area. Given this situation, it would clearly be pre-emptive to create a structure to develop a comprehensive drug and alcohol strategy at this time. The task force report has been presented to the select committee and a briefing provided to assist in their ongoing deliberations.
I would now like to end this statement with the task force conclusions about illicit drug use in the Northern Territory. In relation to this, I note the Leader of the Opposition and member for Brennan has recently attempted to promulgate the nonsense that the government has somehow invented a drug crisis in the Northern Territory. I hope that he now understands that this government has always recognised that illicit drug problems are an element of a complex of social issues impacting on families, young people, and community life that need to be tackled together if we are to be effective.
The terms of reference for the task force were correspondingly broad in their intent and in their expression. The report is similarly comprehensive and far reaching. The conclusions of the task force are that:
illicit drug issues and associated harms continue to be major issues for governments at all
levels in Australia and throughout the world with the Territory being no exception;
an estimated 1000 to 4000 people in the Territory use illicit drugs other than cannabis, and
usually do so for a relatively short period of their lives. However, there can be substantial
burdens of associated or long-term harm: involvement in crime; community and family
disruption and distress; transmission of blood borne diseases; and overdose related deaths;
drug use is primarily poly-drug use, with people using more than one drug at the one time; and
increasing numbers of young people are reported to be injecting throughout Australia and in the
Northern Territory, particularly amphetamines. And yes, the continuing major drug problems in
the Territory remain alcohol, tobacco and cannabis.
This government has never sought to dispute that the primary concern for the community is alcohol. We have supported regulatory measures requested by the community in Alice Springs, and provided the complementary measures identified by the Liquor Commissioner as necessary for the success of the regulatory measures. My department prepared a successful submission to the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation on further supportive initiatives identified by local stakeholders. Many of these are based in the broader approaches that deliver a range of social benefits such as meaningful activity for young people.
This government is introducing legislation that finally provides the people of the Northern Territory with the same level of protection from environmental tobacco smoke as the rest of Australia. At the same time, the task force is clear that we have an increasing number of people in the Territory using and experiencing problems related to their illicit drug use.
The Northern Territory is in a unique situation in being able to intervene to stop major illicit drug problems escalating to the scale experienced in other states. This is being pro-active about a recognisable problem. The government does not believe we should wait until there are large numbers of heroin overdoses, unfettered public drug dealing and injecting, and the extreme levels of drug-related crime to become overwhelming before we take action.
Certainly, the report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on the 2001 National Drug Household survey, which has just been released, provides no grounds to be complacent. The Northern Territory figure for illicit drug use is 12.3% above the national rate, and 7% above the next highest in Western Australia. The strong message from the task force is that we do have illicit drug issues here in the Territory, and they are on the increase. It concludes that we are in a unique situation in being able to prevent illicit drug problems from reaching the scale that it has in other jurisdictions.
I extend my thanks to the members of the task force for their commitment, to all those who gave their time to make submissions and attend forums, and to all the people who work tirelessly every day in this very important area.
The government has recognised the opportunity that exists, and we are taking the action that is needed, action that is progressing the government’s policy commitment to a cohesive, meaningful and lasting approach to the complex issues of linked social harms that incorporate illicit drug misuse, and that have been of mounting concern to our community. And, to return to my opening pledge, that is the commitment that I make here today on behalf of our young people and our families.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I understand that given the lateness of the hour this statement will be held over to be debated at a later time. I think that is a good idea. Although I have some preparatory notes here, I think it is probably good that the time is taken to digest this report, the Task Force on Illicit Drugs Report, and for other members to participate in this most important debate. This is an insidious problem that will affect probably all of us. Madam Speaker, I would seek to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, last night in the Chamber I made some comments about the judicial system and how the laws of the Northern Territory are being applied, with an eye on customary law. I do not wish to revisit my comments last night because I have only just been made aware of Paul Toohey’s article on the front page of today’s Australian. I have to say that what I was talking about yesterday seems to almost pale into insignificance in terms of the staggering - which is the only word which I can use to describe how I felt when I read this, staggered - this staggering decision that was handed down in relation to the issues that were raised during Question Time today.
We are, from time to time, reminded of some of the pronouncements that come down from the courts in this country. Over the last few years or so, we would all remember pronouncements from various Supreme Courts, quotes like ‘no sometimes means yes’, and in another particular case ‘the rougher than usual handling seemed to be an appropriate behaviour’, or from another case, ‘a woman who was unconscious at the time she was sexually assaulted would not be unduly traumatised’. We are once again visited by such an occasion, and I am just astonished. I can still barely believe what I read in Mr Toohey’s article. It needs to be read to members present so they understand what has been handed down from the bench in the Northern Territory. I will read a large section of the article because I think it bears reading:
- A Northern Territory Supreme Court Judge has reluctantly sentenced a 50 year old tribal Aboriginal man
to 24 hours in prison for having unlawful intercourse with his promised 15 year old wife, saying that the
matter should never have come to court.
Well, that much we are aware of as a result of today. However, this gets stranger. Justice John Gallop said that Jackie Pascoe Jamilmira was exercising his conjugal rights in traditional society and the girl ‘knew what was expected of her’.
Since the girl’s birth in 1986, Pascoe had been paying off her parents with gifts, spears, food and, more recently, cash so that she would be handed to him upon her coming of age. As the girl’s family was concerned that she was playing up at night with the local boys in the home town of Maningrida in western Arnhem Land, they decided it was time for the promise to be fulfilled and for her to learn her duties and responsibilities as a wife. The article then goes on to describe how a dispute broke out between the two families.
I then turn to the appeal process, and this was appealed from the lower courts where this fellow was placed in gaol and received a 13 month sentence. I quote again from the article:
- Gerard Bryant yesterday argued that Mr Luppino had treated the trial as a rape case and failed to give weight
to the fact that such marriages were common and morally correct under Aboriginal law. Gallop J agreed, saying
that Mr Luppino, ‘went outside the agreed facts’ when sentencing Pascoe. The judge read a submission by
anthropologist Geoffrey Bagshaw, who said that age was not a factor in determining when a family sent a girl
to a promised husband, and what mattered was that they had their first period. Mr Bagshaw said that sexual
relationships between a promised wife under the age of 16 was not considered aberrant in Arnhem Land society.
Mr Bryant said there was a clear clash of cultures and that Pascoe was humiliated in having to explain his tribal
rights to white law. Gallop J said the case would never have come to the attention of police if Pascoe had not lost
his cool and fired a shotgun.
- ‘She didn’t need protection from white law’, said the judge, ‘she knew what was expected of her. It’s very surprising
to me that Pascoe was charged at all’. Gallop J allowed the appeal and radically slashed Pascoe’s sentences but,
because the Northern Territory still has a mandatory sentencing for sexual assault, the judge had to gaol Pascoe
and sent him in for a term of 24 hours. For discharging the shotgun which the judge considered more serious,
Pascoe received 14 days.
However, we have an instance here where the victim in this matter has turned to the laws of the Northern Territory for succour and has been resoundingly rejected by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The argument goes that we have multiple cultures, or several cultures operating in the Northern Territory. I do not deny that, and I accept that there is traditional law operating inside the Northern Territory. It is immediately apparent we have many cultures – scores, literally scores of different cultures - all of which operate under traditional indigenous law within the borders of the Northern Territory.
The system of Westminster democracy that we have has been built up and fought for with blood so that people might be represented in this system and that they can turn to this system for succour, and that every Aboriginal person of age in the Northern Territory can be a participant in the parliamentary democracy and, if cultural law needs to be brought to the attention of this parliament - and I heard from the Attorney-General this morning that cultural law was an issue that the government is going to turn its attention to. Indeed, I said last night that a comprehensive review is needed to examine these sorts of issues. I do not deny any of that. What I do have a problem with, however, is that the laws that are made by this parliament need to be enforced by the courts in a way which reflects the intention of this parliament. This decision and the comments that are quoted in today’s article do not reflect, in my opinion, the intentions of this parliament.
Multiple cultures beyond traditional cultures are also represented in the Northern Territory. Yet each and every one of those cultures can become participants in the collective, political system which exists in the Northern Territory, and that is called parliamentary democracy. There are some very basic human rights issues at the most fundamental level which are called into question in this particular instance. I can only start to say that this parliament has decided that a person under the age of 16 years is not capable of having consensual sex. For the judge to say that she was consenting, or even to intimate she was consenting, this parliament has said in the Territory that is an impossible thing to occur. And if you want to argue the toss that it is a clash between cultures, then bring it into this parliament by all means and we will find a mechanism by which cultural law and traditional law can be adhered to. But there are points when the legal system of the Northern Territory, the laws of this parliament, and certain cultural laws, will come into conflict. The question we have to ask then as a community, as a whole community, is what aspects of law we want, and that is what this Chamber is for.
This decision by the Supreme Court is essentially a rejection of those principles. It is a rejection of the systems of governance which have been developed in the Westminster system for many hundreds of years. Those systems of governance are littered with battles, literal and otherwise, where people have sought to be able to get their own rights protected. I am not entirely certain that the rights - in fact, I am certain that the rights of the young lady involved in this have not been protected by the courts. And, until such time as this parliament directs that the other systems of law are going to be acknowledged and are going to be accommodated, then the laws that this parliament decides are paramount.
We heard the expression yesterday from the magistrate in Alice Springs that Aboriginal custodial laws are of the utmost importance. I would argue again, that unfortunately, and as difficult as this may be for some people to understand, the fact is that as far as the courts are concerned, the laws which are of the utmost importance are the laws which are formed in this Chamber. I can only say that I am staggered that the Supreme Court has chosen to depart so radically from some of the most fundamental principles that we have talked about in this Chamber, and some of the most fundamental holy grails that we hold sacred, in an attempt to appease a system which does not give proper recognition to the rights of all people involved.
I would urge the courts in the Northern Territory to think about their policies. If the courts have decided that there is a policy where traditional law is going to be recognised, what other penalties and what other processes are brought into question, and what long standing traditions and principles are brought into question; because the results of these sorts of decisions to me, are derelict.
I hope that the courts listen to these warnings. I know that the relationship between the parliament and the courts can be torrid at times. However, I think the comments from the court on this occasion need to be visited and need to examined because if this is the sort of protection that we are going to offer to the children of the Northern Territory, then we have to seriously, seriously, seriously reconsider our position.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have a couple of points that I would like to make tonight. One is about an organisation in Alice Springs, DASA, but before I get to that I would like to address a matter about the Alice Springs hospital, and I am glad that the Minister for Health and Community Serivces is here to listen to this. I have mentioned this on previous occasions, and it is about John Hawkins lecture theatre.
The John Hawkins lecture theatre space, which was in the central section of the Alice Springs Hospital, was taken over and converted into part of the main entrance to the new redesigned, refurbished hospital. I believe some $500 000 was put aside to enable another space at the hospital, within the central section of the hospital to be converted into the new John Hawkins lecture hall. Unfortunately, that has not occurred. When the John Hawkins lecture theatre was initially taken away, a temporary premises was provided in the old dining room at the northern section of the hospital to house the makeshift room where the staff can have their Friday lunchtime clinical meetings.
I believe the room that is currently being used as makeshift premises is now in the Liebig Building which is even further away from the main part of the hospital in the very old, wooden part of the original Alice Springs Hospital. You have to remember that the Alice Springs Hospital is a teaching hospital. It has medical students, nursing students who have now started their training at the Alice Springs Hospital for their full degree in nursing. We have young doctors coming in for their internships, and medical students from around the country also coming to do their short-term attachments.
If you have a teaching hospital, you are going to be classified as part of a university campus, then you have to provide proper facilities. Minister, how are you going to tell the staff of the Alice Springs Hospital that yes, you are committed to providing the best quality of care and the best quality of training, and you do not even have proper facilities that the staff can use for training in a location close enough to the main part of the hospital so that they can come from their wards, attend the clinical meetings and get back to work fairly quickly? When they are called on an emergency, they can rush from the lecture theatre to the wards. That is very important and something that you must seriously reconsider.
By ignoring this aspect of it you are going to make recruitment a lot harder, and you are going to make retention of your staff a lot more difficult. Young doctors choose their jobs because of training, because of exposure to clinical material, because they can improve their clinical skills. When you do not have those sort of facilities, those doctors will ultimately not stay in Alice Springs, and you will be forever behind the eight-ball in terms of retaining staff and it will be costing a lot of money to recruit staff every year. I have been in medicine long enough to understand the issue about medical training. The Alice Springs Hospital has one of the best pools of clinical material available, and you just need to provide the right sort of environment for the training to occur, and I am sure you would be able to retain both your medical and nursing staff.
The other matter, that I want to speak about is about the Drug and Alcohol Services Association in Alice Springs, or DASA as it is commonly known. I attended a Special General Meeting held on 26 September at 5 pm at the DASA facilities. This was a special meeting to amend the DASA constitution. I am glad to say that letters were written to past members of DASA, and to other interested parties to attend the meeting, and notice was given of the meeting some four weeks prior. So people received adequate notice of the meeting and had plenty of time to read through the constitutional changes that were proposed at the meeting.
I do not exactly know the numbers that turned up at the meeting, but the DASA meeting room was full. It was attended by many people who had particular interest in the alcohol industry, the alcohol service industry, the alcohol support industry, to discuss the proposed motions. I would like to go through in detail the various motions that were put to the meeting. But before the motions were formally put to the body of the meeting, a proposal was made initially to say that they were limiting the debate on the changes of constitution to two speakers for and two speakers against, and there was the opportunity to debate. It was suggested that the person who proposed the motion and the seconder would be the two who would be speaking for the motion, and then those who planned to speak against the motion would quickly go into a huddle, decide who the two persons might be to then be nominated to speak against the motion.
I thought that process was not very desirable. I thought it was restricting open, full and frank debate over any of the motions there. I felt that when you go to a special general meeting to consider the constitution there should be full and open debate. I am glad to say that Mike Gordon from the government’s Central Australian office was there, and he thought likewise - that it would be only be fair if there is open debate on any of the motions that were suggested.
After a lot of toing and froing, and in recognition of the limited time that the meeting had to consider 11 motions altogether, we agreed that there would be an open debate, with speakers for and against each motion for a maximum of 20 minutes per motion. That was a suitable compromise, and helped somewhat to move the meeting on. I felt it was most unfortunate that the initial proposal that there be only two speakers for and against was raised without prior warning to the people attending.
The first three motions, essentially, were housekeeping, using gender-neutral language throughout the constitution, and that was passed readily, not with an absolute majority but almost 95% majority. The fourth motion was, and I will read this out in full:
- That full voting membership of the association be restricted to those individuals who do not derive any or part
of their income directly from the sale or promotion of alcoholic beverages or tobacco products.
That motion, as it stood, meant that anybody who worked for an alcohol outlet, or a club, or a pub, or any licensed premises, or anybody who owns one or who is a proprietor or a licensee could not be a full voting member of DASA. I questioned the validity of that motion. I thought that in a small community like Alice Springs, a community organisation needs the help and assistance, support and membership of everybody in the community as full members with full and equal rights, as any other member in that organisation.
There was a lot of debate on this matter. Some were very scathing saying that if you are a licensee or you are in the alcohol industry, you could never be objective about the aims and interests of DASA. I believe that to be untrue. I believe that it was important that, as I said, in a community the size of Alice Springs, every member of the community should have equal and full rights with every other person. However, it went to the vote and it was a reasonably close vote. Remember that to change a constitution you need to have a two-thirds majority before the change can be made. It turned out that the voting was 38 for the motion versus 17 against. Once that was passed, the wind was taken out of many of the people there who were members of the alcohol or liquor industry. Many of them at the meeting were actually just employees, but they were interested in the welfare, or the good performance, of DASA also. When it came to the 5th motion, and I will read it in full:
- That persons who do derive their income in part or whole from the sale or promotion of alcohol, beverages
or tobacco products, may join the association as associate members, who may attend and speak at general
meetings but are not eligible to vote at general meetings nor to stand for committee positions.
That again, means that all those people who were allowed to come and talk about it but when it came to making decisions, they were not going to be part of that.
I strongly support what organisations such as DASA are trying to do in providing services for people who are alcohol and other drugs dependent, who want to use the sobering-up shelter, to seek counselling services from DASA. I think DASA provides a very good service. But again, it is unfortunate that some of the members of DASA were out to social engineer. To use a small organisation like DASA, which requires the strong support of the community, to try to bring about an outcome, not through its services but through social engineering, is most inappropriate.
I seek leave to incorporate the next five motions in Hansard, if I may, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, and then just address two other motions that are in here. I seek leave to do that.
Leave granted.
- Motion 7:
That eligible individuals may become members or associate members of the association at any time simply
by filling in a membership form and declaration.
Motion 8:
That members of the association shall retain their membership if they have attended a general meeting of
the association at any time within the past three years.
Motion 9:
That at least half of the elected committee members shall be persons of Aboriginal descent.
Motion 10:
That only the President shall be directly elected by the membership at the Annual General Meeting , and
that other office bearer positions shall be appointed from amongst the elected committee members at their
first meeting.
Motion 11: [withdrawn]
Motion 12:
That clause 8(iii)(g), which provides for a general meeting to be held at the discretion of the President directly
after an AGM, be deleted.
Dr LIM: With the three motions that were also contentious was motion No 9, which was that at least half the elected committee members should be persons of Aboriginal descent. What this said was, if the committee had 10 people, then at least five must be Aboriginal people, irrespective of whether there were five nominations of Aboriginal descent or not. In the event where there were only two or three people of Aboriginal descent nominated for positions on the executive, then the two other vacancies, for instance, would be left unfilled. That effectively emasculates the committee. Instead of having a full core of 10 members on the committee, you are going to have eight, or seven, or six, or even five, because half the membership of the committee must be Aboriginal people. Fortunately, in this instance, the vote was lost. It went to 33 votes for and 14 against, with three informal, which were counted as against the motion. So it did not get a two-thirds majority and that lapsed.
The next motion, No 10, was that only the President shall be directly elected by the membership at the Annual General Meeting and that other office bearer positions shall be appointed from amongst the elected committee members at their first meeting. That is most unusual, where the executive is not fully elected by the AGM but only the President and the rest is done behind closed doors. That was also defeated and that was defeated quite resoundingly. I thought it was the best thing they could have done, because that would really be something done behind closed doors, without open and accountable actions by DASA.
It was a difficult meeting that night, and I hope that DASA does well out of this. But I am concerned that there might be repercussions because of the unjust way they dealt with it.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to share with the Assembly tonight a long overdue report on the study trip that I took to southern and northern Queensland from 12 December 2001 to 7 January 2002. I considered I could benefit in my professional development, and improve my skills as a local member and as a member of several parliamentary committees by meeting with my Queensland colleagues who had a greater experience than me in the various fields of endeavour. I also arranged to meet with some newly elected members so that I could compare my experiences with them and look at the strategies they were employing to service their electorates. To this end, I met with the following Queensland MLAs while in their fine state.
I met with Veronica Barry, the member for Aspley, who was elected on 17 February 2001. Her parliamentary service is as a member of the Estimates Committee, and as a new local member, I spoke to her about how she gets around the different office systems that she uses, and the different way she communicates with her electorate.
I also met with Margaret Keech. She too was a new member elected on 17 February 2001. Margaret Keech’s seat is at Beenleigh, down around there, the seat of Albert. Margaret also is on the Estimates Committee and on the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. As a new member, I thought I would take the opportunity to find out how these new members were settling in, to see if they were sharing the same experiences, to strike up a common bond, and also to see if we had some sort of, not so much mentoring, but mutual support. Her electorate also has a large marine facility and aquaculture presence. It also has all the theme parks that are in that area. As a matter of fact, she calls herself the ‘member for Dreamworld’. While I was there they had a ride opening up called the Cyclone. It was opening on Christmas Day. I heard about this, and I said to her that I thought that was a bit of an unfortunate timing given the effects of cyclones on Darwin. With that, she had arranged for me to meet with the manager of Dreamworld. I went there prior to the ride opening up to the public, and Dreamworld told me all about the ride, what it meant, and where it came from. It is actually the old Big Dipper from Luna Park. They told me of the anxiety they went through thinking of a name. They were going to give it names of people and get their names on T-shirts but they did realise that Cyclone Tracy was a bit traumatic for people, so they moved away from that.
I met with Peter Lawlor from the Gold Coast who was also elected in 2001, in that great Labor victory. Peter is a member of the Turf Club there, so the amenities are pretty good. He communicates with his electorate through a newsletter type, newsprint electorate magazine. I found the content to be excellent. The messages that he imparts to his people, and actually, I am not on my own; my own electorate newsletter, on his style and content.
I met with David Watson, a Liberal Party member. He is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and has been around since December 1989. He is a man with a great wealth of experience, both in and out of government. I found him quite personable, and quite knowledgeable. I met with him and Ken Hayward, who is the chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Ken has been a member since 1992. Both of these men have great experience of Public Accounts Committees. They sat down and spent the best part of a day with me going through what the parliamentary accounts committee does in Queensland. They were very helpful and I still have relationships with these men, and I know that I can contact them any time I need mentoring on any Public Accounts Committee issues. I think that that is great.
I also arranged a meeting with Dr Lesley Clark, the member for Barron River in Cairns. I saw many synergies between Darwin and Cairns because of issues such as air travel and tourism, the siting and the size of the town and I thought it would be good to talk to her as a local member working environment very similar to our own, and a person who has been around since 1989 when she was first elected. Unfortunately, due to family illness, I was unable to meet with Dr Clark.
Apart from meeting with her parliamentary colleagues, I took the opportunity to inspect the amenities provided by the Queensland government and the Townsville City Council along that city’s famous Strand. The amenities available to citizens of this city in this particular place are impressive. So impressive that the water feature there was one that was part of our pre-election commitment to the improvement of the Leanyer recreation area. So I went over to Townsville and I had a look at that feature and I am pleased to say that that is the one in the advertisements. That is the one that we will be putting in Lake Leanyer. It is a great facility not only for the immediate people living around the Leanyer recreation area, but it is going to be a great facility for the people of Palmerston. That facility will be put in on Vanderlin Drive, a direct road to Palmerston. I look forward to providing amenity which is for all of the greater Darwin area. It is not just for the people of Darwin or the people of the northern suburbs. I look forward to members from the Palmerston region coming and have a look at this, and I invite them along to any of the displays to have a look and I will happily walk them through the whole of the concept plan. I would like to say, by the way, it is a concept plan and there is room for improvement and if any of the local members from Palmerston way see anything that they want put on to that plan, please, be my guest. Get into it.
The information and knowledge that the members in the Queensland parliament were prepared to share with me has assisted me greatly over these last few months to fulfil my role on parliamentary committees and to be an effective and efficient local member to my constituents.
As you recall, the tourism sector in Australia suffered a double blow in September 2001 due to the collapse of Ansett and the terrorist attacks in America. The impact of these two events was considered at the time to presage a severe downturn in tourism to the Northern Territory. Not only was incoming air traffic affected, outgoing flight availability and seat cost also suffered as a result of the events of September 2001. As a result of conversations with some of my constituents, I considered these events would have an effect on families within in my constituency who might not be able to afford or book an airfare out of Darwin over the Christmas holiday period, and they would have to take up the option to drive out. I therefore felt than rather take up the option to travel business class on the study trip, I would self-drive in order to understand the difficulties that others in my electorate might well face on such a trip. It was primarily for these reasons I decided to travel by road to Queensland.
I also saw other opportunities of undertaking this trip by road. Some of these were the opportunity to personally assess the volume of road traffic both entering and exiting the Territory on the Camooweal-Darwin route at that time of year; personally assessing the road conditions including road surface, road fringes and animal hazards along the route; inspecting and considering the driver fatigue program sponsored by the government in the form of the Driver Reviver Program; and gathering first hand experience of the frequency of cane toad incursions into the Territory along the route.
In relation to the first objective I set myself, I must say that it is very difficult to actually gauge traffic volume when travelling on the road. This is quite plainly due to the fact that if you are travelling at roughly the same speed as all other traffic going in the same direction, then the count is likely to be limited to either the traffic being overtaken or traffic overtaking you. I did manage an approximate account of traffic coming toward my vehicle and over an hour’s period at two different times, passenger vehicles were approximately 25 between Pine Creek and Adelaide River and about seven between the Stuart Highway and the Barkly Homestead. I must admit that while I did carry out these observations, I do not believe much can be made of them. I do not think there is a study in that.
I do, however, feel quite comfortable in my assertion that the road conditions, including the fringes on the roadway, were in good condition. This is a credit to the employees of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. The condition of roads also had a positive effect and I did not overtire or fatigue while driving. I did utilise the driver reviver stations at Dunmarra and Barkly Homestead, and I had a brief chat to the staff at these places. They advised me the cup of tea and coffee and a chance to rest by motorists was quite welcomed. This appears to be an effective program from the feedback I got and I believe we should look to extend it this holiday period.
Indeed, in Queensland these rest points are quite numerous and roadside signage warning of fatigue are quite common. There are a lot of lessons to be learnt from Queensland, and perhaps Health and Community Services should consider a partnership with their Queensland counterparts if they have not indeed already embarked upon this path. The quality on the Territory side of the border of this length of the east coast is something we can be proud of and was certainly something that tourists I spoke to in my travels commented positively on.
I can also recall that I saw very few road kills on the side of the road. Indeed, the only place I saw large carcasses was on the Camooweal/Sturt Highway leg of the route. There were numerous small animals along the stretch of the road between Three Ways and Darwin, the majority of these were, unfortunately, cane toads. From around Dunmarra to Adelaide River, I observed cane toads on the road. As a person who has lived in north Queensland, I am aware of the effects of a motor vehicle body on the cane toad. I am pleased to say that I got a few of these pests; however, a lot more got away. I do believe we are facing a real problem in the Top End in the very short future, and I look forward to any initiative our government is prepared to make to find a way of ending this scourge on our local fauna, as well as the threat they pose to pet owners in the streets and suburbs and community centres in the Top End.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to commend the member for Araluen today for raising the topic in Question Time about the issue of the 15 year old girl and the case that has hit the headlines about that. I don’t think anyone in this House really condones what the sentencing judge did in overturning the previous decision by the magistrate in sentencing the Aboriginal man to 13 months’ gaol. The judge, in overturning that decision, has said that the man had been exercising his traditional rights because the girl was his promised wife, but I think this case raises serious questions of which law has precedence in this country, and whether people can really argue that the accepted law of the country does not have priority over customary law.
It concerns me that we have had a couple of instances where laws of this parliament and the federal parliament have been almost ridiculed by the courts. I realise the courts do not like parliamentarians to stand up and criticise them, and I agree with many of the comments that the member for Macdonnell has made about the previous case of the gentleman who was released for payback. In our society, what happened to him was plainly assault, and the man is now in hospital. I think there has to be some clear distinction between what is right and what is wrong in Australia in 2002. Some of the customary laws now are plainly outdated, and we have seen that happen in other cultures.
For instance, this Territory parliament a few years ago passed a law banning female circumcision. It is something that we would not tolerate in our society, and people who migrate to Australia have to understand that, under Australian law, that practice is unacceptable. Likewise, sexually assaulting young girls under consent age is not something we would condone. I am quite sure that all of us who have children or grandchildren, or have been teachers, have preciously safeguarded our children from that sort of attack. If it ever happened, we expect the law to uphold the law and bring the perpetrator to justice accordingly.
I really think what happened in this case does raise serious questions. We have had another incident recently where Michael Mansell has suggested there should be a separate court for Aboriginal people. It is almost as though he is saying that this Aboriginal court may not treat Aboriginal people as offenders as they would if they were in a normal court, and I don’t think we should be getting into this divisive game of having Aboriginal people outside of the law – it is as simple as that. It is time we started questioning what is acceptable customary law, and what is not.
Some of the women who are traditional owners of Alice Springs have said to me on occasion: ‘Why do you defend people in court when they have done something wrong? If it was our law and they had done something wrong, then they would be punished. Surely your law can see that too? You do not stand up and pretend they did not do it, or find an excuse for it and let them off’. Somehow or other we are getting all these laws confused.
I am really concerned that this young girl’s rights have been devalued. I am concerned that there is no one there standing up for what is her right also. Surely she has the choice of husband in this day and age. She did not want this husband; she did not want this act to happen. If we, as politicians and people who pass laws, cannot say to the courts: ‘These laws should be implemented’, then who will? I would like women to make their voices heard, to make sure the courts hear the message that they must protect our young children the same way as we expect them to protect any victim against an offender.
Getting that off my chest, I want to move onto another matter which was the protestors at Pine Gap this week. Interestingly, we have had protestors here in the parliament. My rule has been: everyone has the right of protest, but you should do it in a legal manner. Once you step over those boundaries and do something illegal, then you pay the consequences. There were things that the protestors at Pine Gap were protesting about that I could agree with. For instance, I do not agree that America should be the aggressor and start a war with Iraq, and that our Prime Minister should then assume that we will send our children, our sons and daughters, into war. I do not agree with that. I do not see why we should be the aggressor on a country, because we do not really know yet what this war is all about. We have seen instances in the past where America has become the aggressor, such as Vietnam, and have left the country in a mess and have not really completed the job or patched up what they did. So, some of the things the protestors were protesting about I could agree with but, when they overstep that mark of doing something illegal, obviously you cannot agree with them totally.
I support the base and I want to make comment about the base tonight because it is there for a purpose. Although I would not know the technical ways they do their job, it is obviously an intelligence facility that has a fairly major role to play in America’s and Australia’s defence. However, from an Alice Springs point of view, remembering that Pine Gap has been there for some time - and I know people say you should not argue it on economic grounds but there are economic and social benefits for the people of Alice Springs with this base. It is built amongst the ranges. Pine Gap is actually the entrance to the facility. There are 4000 acres of land, and the land borders on Owen Springs Station, Old Kramer’s property, as we call it, and land belonging to the Parks and Wildlife including the Kyumbah Park reserve. Hatt Road is the public access and that is where the protestors were camped along the road into the base. The base has actually raised their fence considerably so that there was a new nine foot fence erected along most of the front perimeter.
The base employs approximately 816 employees of which over 50% are Australians. There are 400 Americans, many with families, estimated at about 1200 people. Might I add, expenditure by these employees is estimated at $32m. Boeing and the Defence are the employers. Boeing employs approximately 200 Australians. The Australian Defence Force own approximately 46 houses in Alice Springs and the Americans own 550 houses or units. That is a considerable investment in real estate. I know the minister gave his statement yesterday on Defence, but he failed to recognise the component of Defence in Alice Springs.
There were 30 houses built just four years ago by the base and they used local contractors. You can imagine that a lot of work has been generated by them. They also have accommodation for about 180 people out on the base. All their mess requirements, for instance, are purchased locally. They have a large warehouse in Wesson’s precinct in town, and they also have a medical clinic in Wilkinson Street with one American and one Australian doctor. It is estimated that over $6m is spent on purchasing in the town each year, and over $6m is spent on airfares.
It is interesting that back in 1998, Bob Hawke stated, ‘The base is an intelligence facility and its primary role is to protect the nation’s security and that of the United States by treaty monitoring, and use of satellite technology. The Defence support program using infra-red technology is centred on early warning missiles’. I have a speech that Bob Hawke made at the time as Prime Minister, and interestingly, John Howard, as Leader of the Opposition, also spoke in support of what Bob Hawke said. So it certainly has had bipartisan support. If you read as far back as 1988, you will say these two gentlemen are talking strongly in supporting the base.
We have been lucky to have a very involved American population in the town. It is very heavily involved in a number of sporting and art activities, and there are sports that have flourished under their care such as baseball, so much so that we have Alice Springs players now playing in the States. The Art Society also has benefited from their involvement and recently they were given a bequest left to them by the father of Tammy Kingsley, an American who was tragically killed in Alice Springs. Involvement in other clubs, such as soccer, astronomy, quilting, swimming, school councils, Red Cross and so on, all benefit from the participation of the American people. They are considered to be active, good citizens of the town who have really made a commitment to our town.
It is a little bit sad that they were also targeted and picketed by these demonstrators and had to undergo some of the nasty part of any demonstration. People do have the right to demonstrate, but they do not have the right to break the law. It is as simple as that. I just believe that we can show our support for Pine Gap by stating publicly that they are good neighbours, they are good citizens and they are good residents, and we welcome them to the centre of Australia.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I just rise briefly to speak about a couple of matters tonight. It would be remiss of me sitting here at this late hour not to comment on some of the things that the member for Macdonnell said. I am not going to comment on two particular cases that have come before the court in the last few days, that have obviously caused controversy around Australia. I will just briefly talk in general, that obviously the issue of customary law and its relationship with mainstream European law, or Australian law, has been a difficult one over many years. It is reflective of the relationship in many cases of Aboriginal Australian relations. It has not at all times been a close relationship, and definitely, it has had its bumps and bruises.
But what I will say is that at this present time in the Northern Territory, and you could argue, in Australia, not just because of the clash between customary law and mainstream law, but certainly a lot of the social issues that are affecting indigenous people in this country, including alcohol abuse and drug abuse, domestic violence, and the marginalisation of a group of people within this country, that is it is reflected in the outcomes. Many of the outcomes unfortunately for indigenous Australians are very negative, let’s just say that. Health wise, men and women are dying at earlier ages than non-indigenous people, large numbers of people incarcerated, high amount of substance abuse problems, sexual assaults, domestic violence, etc. These are the negative things that are affecting indigenous people and anyone who knows me knows that I am a very positive thinking Australian. I am also very positive that if properly addressed, these things hopefully can be fixed.
I am also a great believer that it is going to take many, many years unfortunately, because this problem has been developing over 200 years. Definitely, relationships and experiences from around the world will show that not only in regards to indigenous relations between mainstream cultures and indigenous people, but certainly different ethnicities between groups of people inside countries causes conflict. But, there are many examples around the world of where different laws do co-exist and work together. and I would just like to mention to the member for Macdonnell in this House and to put on record that in no way has my mind been made up. I am still open to suggestions about what is the way forward. In discussions with other members of the government and people in the general public, my feeling is that any change that we bring about has to be for one purpose and that is to benefit society.
So, whether it is an understanding or a recognition of a role for customary law, or whether it is a total denial, or whether it is a total acceptance of it, whatever that extreme might be, the end question must be: is it going to benefit the community? At the moment, all the evidence suggests that the status quo definitely is negative and the status quo shows that people will more than likely run into domestic violence, substance abuse, and incarceration in high numbers. I don’t pretend to know all the answers, and I don’t think anyone in this House does. But I would just like to flag that - and I am definitely not commenting on the two decisions that have been raised in this House by the member for Macdonnell - it is well recognised that the courts have, over many years considered many different things when they sentence people, whether it is their age, their background, their sex, their good record, the community work that they have done, all these things come into play when a person is sentenced.
Over the next few years, the challenge for any government in Australia is how we are going to implement things that are going to improve people’s outcomes, improve people’s community standing. Definitely, the status quo cannot remain. There has to be some change to it because obviously what is happening right now is not satisfactory. I believe that over the next few years, it is a challenge to all members of parliament and certainly all Territorians that this issue has to be looked at.
I put on record that I am very open minded about which direction we are going to be taking. I have not made up my mind. I will hopefully be working with the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee as a parliamentary committee on addressing many issues. Hopefully we can develop items there. I know that there are many advocacy groups representing indigenous Territorians that might be interested in having input into this. Definitely, of course, there are the non-indigenous people of the Northern Territory who make up the majority of population. They have to be consulted as well.
If we were to propose to people the argument that at the end of the day, what is the status quo is not working, then they would say – and I truly believe this – ‘Well, what can we look at to make it work, to make people’s lives better, to protect people who are young and innocent, to protect people who are at a disadvantage either physically, mentally, sexually, who are in circumstances where they fear for their lives, who are looking at incarceration rates?’
The general population would agree with me that whatever it took in a positive step to improves these people’s outcomes would be a benefit to everyone. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that is all I have to say about this matter. It would be remiss of me not to put my view on the record, and I am definitely hoping to work with every member in this parliament to improve people’s outcome and lifestyles.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016